STATINS. They may not work, they may cause serious harm, but still the battle to control our minds continues

Statin drugs have become ubiquitous, one of the most prescribed and profitable pharmaceutical drugs used in conventional medicine. I have written about them many times before, usually about their safety, and the growing number of dreadful side effects they are know to cause to patients who take them.

Now there is evidence that they do not work!

MIMS, the website for conventional health practitioners, has recently published (April 2019) evidence of a large British study that showed that "Half of Patients on Statins do not reach cholesterol goals".

Perhaps it is one thing to take pharmaceutical drugs now known to cause liver and kidney failure, diabetes, muscle weakness, cataracts, dementia and even death because there are positive benefits. But when there are NO benefits to at least 50% of patients taking them?

Yet doctors continue to struggle to get more of us to take these drugs. Dr Joseph Mercole wrote an article, in the very same month (April 2019), about 'cholesterol managers' (doctors?) who wanted to double statin prescriptions". This is, of course, what doctors have been trying to do for 20 years, and more. We have been told, routinely, that Statins are 'entirely safe', that they reduce cholesterol, which in turn reduces heart disease and stroke, and therefore save lives - and that we should all be taking them!

I am not going to repeat here the damage to our health that Statin drugs have been causing, and continue to cause to our health, but I refer you to some of my previous blogs

• Statins. From wonder drug to killer drug
• The dangers of statin drugs
• The Failure Conventional Medicine. Statins: those nice, safe drugs we should all be taking!
• FDA Warning. Statins now linked to Memory Loss
• Cholesterol, Medical Science, RCT's, and Statin Drugs

So doctors are continue to ask us to risk all this damage to our health - for a drug that does not work!

And to then continue believing in the veracity of a medical system that tells us a drug is entirely safe when it isn't, that tells us a drug is effective when it isn't, and even then to want more of us to start taking an ineffective and safe drug? It is beyond all credibility!

THE HPV VACCINES. Doctors insist they are safe, that our daughters should be vaccinated. So what does the Patient Information Leaflet say?

The HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, have been described as "the world's most dangerous vaccine". Yet our doctors, and conventional medicine generally, continues to insist that HPV vaccines are very safe. So who is right? And in particular, does the conventional medical establishment actually know that this vaccine is causing harm to patients - as it is actually in their medical literature - and they are not telling us the whole truth?

Since 2006 conventional medicine has offered the HPV vaccine to all girls, from age 12 to 18. The human papillomavirus (HPV) is a common group of viruses that have been linked to several types of cancer, and the vaccine is supposed to protect young girls from cervical cancer, but also from rarer HPV-related cancers like anal and genital cancers, and cancers of the head and neck.

First, why has the HPV vaccine been described as "the world's most dangerous vaccine"? I was able to write this about the vaccine in September 2013, that is, a mere seven years after its introduction, and five years after its introduction in the UK. This is what I wrote.

     "It  has been calculated that 1,700 young girls have been killed or suffered permanent disability after being given the HPV vaccine, and a further 19,500 young girls have suffered 'non-serious' reactions. 

http://www.wddty.com/safe-hpv-vaccine-kills-up-to-1-700-young-girls.html

     Further, this article provides VAERS (US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) statistics showing that the HPV vaccine has caused the following adverse reactions in the USA:

• Deaths: 140
• Disabled: 952
• Did not recover: 6,032
• Abnormal pap smear: 531
• Cervical dysplasia: 214
• Cervical cancer: 64
• Life-threatening: 562
• ER visit: 10,557
• Hospitalized: 3,065
• Extended hospital stay: 234
• Serious: 4,091
• Adverse events: 30,352

In this 2013 blog "HPV Vaccine. We need to protect our daughters from this" I go into further detail of the dangers of the vaccine, including links to several actual cases of healthy young girls suffering serious, life threatening, and life transforming side effects including severe seizures, disability and death.

Despite this, when we look at what the conventional medical establishment says about the safety of this vaccine, it remains very coy, and so far at least, it has been less inclined to be as honest about the dangers of HPV vaccine as they are now with the DPT vaccine, and the MMR vaccine (see both links to previous blogs).

So what does NHS says about the safety of HPV vaccines?
The NHS website, on its main pages on the HPV vaccines, demonstrates this coyness about the known side affects of the HPV vaccines. So, for instance, it begins by saying that

               "..... it's natural to be concerned that you or your child will have a side effect after having a vaccination. While all vaccines have the potential to cause side effects in some people, the reality is that most tend to be mild and do not last longer than a few days. Some people do not get any side effects at all." (my emphasis).

So the NHS website outlines a number of the more common, less serious side effects of the vaccine, which includes pain at the injection site, swelling and redness, high temperature, shivering, extreme tiredness (fatigue), headache, muscle and joint pain.

It then continues to list more serious side effects, each time describing them as 'rare', and discounting their seriousness in a number of ways. It says, for example, that to have a 'balanced' view, "the potential side effects have to be weighed against the expected benefits of vaccination in preventing the serious complications of disease" (my emphasis). 

The NHS also argues that not all illnesses that occur after vaccination will be a side effect, that as millions of people are vaccinated "it's inevitable that some will go on to develop a coincidental infection or illness shortly afterwards". So what are these 'coincidental infections or illness'?

• An immediate allergic reaction, or anaphylactic shock. It describes these as "dramatic and potentially life threatening" but then says that they are "very rare, occurring in less than 1 in a million cases, and are completely reversible if treated promptly by healthcare staff."

The Under-Reporting of Side Effects (thus making them 'Rare')

It is important to comment on the alleged frequency of these reported side effects. Several studies have calculated that only 10% of drug (and vaccine) side effects are ever reported. I wrote about this in this blog. What this means that 90% of side effects are not reported, so these 'rare' or 'uncommon' side effects are not 1 in 1,000 but 1 in 100, and 1 in 10,000 means 1 in 1,000!

Some studies indicate that 10% is actually an under-estimate, that a more accurate figure for under-reporting might be 1% - in other words that 99% of these 'rare' or 'uncommon' side effects remain unrecorded. This would mean that they happen in 1 in 100, or 1 in 10 vaccinated children.

On another NHS page there is more detail about the side effects of HPV vaccines, although it continues to discount their seriousness.

Very common side effects of the HPV vaccine

More than 1 in 10 people who have the Gardasil HPV vaccine experience:

• redness, swelling or pain at the site of the injection - the most common side effect, but it should wear off within a couple of days
• headaches - but these don't usually last very long. ( my emphasis)

Common side effects
More than 1 in 100 people, but less than 1 in 10, who have the Gardasil HPV vaccine experience:

• bruising or itching at the site of the injection
• a high temperature or feeling hot and shivery
• feeling sick (nausea)
• pain in the arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet or toes

Rare side effects
Around 1 in 10,000 people who have the Gardasil HPV vaccine experience:

• an itchy red rash (hives)

Very rare side effects
Less than 1 in 10,000 people who have the Gardasil HPV vaccine experience:

• difficulty breathing and restriction of the airways

Then more NHS coyness when they use what, to me, seems to be an entirely new defence of vaccine harm that discounts the importance of patient-reported side affects, favouring instead the evidence provided by 'medical science' in clinical trials.

               "People have reported other side effects, but because these come from people reporting side effects themselves rather than from controlled clinical tests, it's not possible to say how often they happen or to how many people." (My emphasis).

So after discounting them, the side effects of HPV vaccines that patients have reported are then listed as:

• bruising or bleeding more easily 
• chills, weakness, tiredness or general feeling unwell
• swollen glands
• pain or tenderness in the joints or muscles
• being sick (vomiting)
• fits (seizures)

This is followed by yet more discounting when the NHS states that most of these symptoms are reported "after any kind of vaccination". This is a bit like saying that being knocked over by a Ford is acceptable, because other cars will do the same amount of damage! This highly defensive approach is at best suspicious, and at worst alarming. These are NOT minor side effects, they are serious, and should not be discounted in this way.

Patient Information Leaflets (PILS)
So what do the vaccine PILs, documents produced by the drug companies, say about the safety of these vaccines.

Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline)
The Cervarix PIL first outlines a long list of precautions and warnings about when the vaccine should not be taken - presumably because it would be unsafe to do so, and only the most healthy should have the vaccination.
          • if you are allergic to any of the active substances or any of the other ingredients of this vaccine (listed in section 6). Signs of an allergic reaction may include itchy skin rash, shortness of breath and swelling of the face or tongue.
          • if you have a bleeding problem or bruise easily.
          • if you have any disease which reduces your resistance to infection such as HIV infection.
          • if you have a severe infection with a high temperature. It might be necessary to postpone the vaccination until recovery. A minor infection such as a cold should not be a problem, but talk to the doctor first.

There then follows warnings about having the vaccine alongside other pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, in pregnancy, when breastfeeding, or when driving or using machinery.

As far as side effects are concerned, there is the usual discounting of their seriousness - "all medicines can cause side effects, although not everybody gets them". These mirror the side effects already listed in the NHS webpage, but also include the following:
               • upper respiratory tract infection (infection of the nose, throat or trachea)
               • dizziness
               • other injection site reactions such as hard lump, tingling or numbness.
               • allergic reactions, including itchy rash on hands and feet, swelling of the eyes and face,
difficulty in breathing or swallowing, sudden drop in blood pressure and loss of consciousness.
               • swollen glands in the neck, armpit or groin
               • fainting sometimes accompanied by shaking or stiffness

Gardasil (Merck)
The Gardasil PIL provides very similar information to the Cervarix PIL, including several warnings and precautions about who should not have the vaccine. They should not be taken if:

               * you or your child is allergic (hypersensitive) to any of the active substances or any of the other ingredients of Gardasil (listed under “other ingredients”– see section 6).
               * you or your child developed an allergic reaction after receiving a dose of Gardasil.
               * you or your child suffer from an illness with high fever. However, a mild fever or upper
respiratory infection (for example cold) itself is not a reason to delay vaccination.
               * if you or your child has a bleeding disorder (a disease that makes you bleed more than normal), for example haemophilia
               * has a weakened immune system, for example due to a genetic defect, HIV infection or
medicines that affect the immune system.
               * Fainting, sometimes accompanied by falling, can occur (mostly in adolescents) following any needle injection.

The PIL, as usual, discounts the importance of the side effects of Gardasil, and then lists the following:

Very commonly (more than 1 in 10 patients), side effects found at the injection site include: pain,
swelling and redness. Headache was also seen.

Commonly (more than 1 in 100 patients), side effects found at the injection site include: bruising,
itching, pain in extremity. Fever and nausea have also been reported.

Rarely (less than 1 in 1000 patients): hives (urticaria).

Very rarely (less than 1 in 10,000 patients), difficulty breathing (bronchospasm) has been reported.

These side effects, apparently, were all noted in the clinical trials of Gardasil, and yet again the PIL discounts patient reports, despite the fact that patients are reporting actual side effects, actual patient harms, but this seems to be considered less important, less reliable, and less a matter of concern.

Side effects that have been reported during marketed use include:
Fainting, sometimes accompanied by shaking or stiffening, has been reported. Although fainting
episodes are uncommon, patients should be observed for 15 minutes after they receive HPV vaccine.

Allergic reactions that may include difficulty breathing, wheezing (bronchospasm), hives and rash
have been reported. Some of these reactions have been severe.

As with other vaccines, side effects that have been reported during general use include: 

• swollen glands (neck, armpit, or groin); 
• muscle weakness, 
• abnormal sensations, 
• tingling in the arms, 
• legs and upper body, or confusion (Guillain-Barré Syndrome, Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis); 
• dizziness, 
• vomiting, 
• joint pain, 
• aching muscles, 
• unusual tiredness or weakness, 
• chills, 
• generally feeling unwell, 
• bleeding or bruising more easily than normal, and 
• skin infection at the injection site.

What this demonstrates is that Conventional Medicine DOES know that HPV vaccines are harmful, but are reluctant to admit it until more evidence of harm is found.

So what are the side effects waiting to be found? The Drugs.com website provides details of all known Gardasil side effects, but in addition highlights several very serious side effects not mentioned by the NHS, or on the PIL. Anyone who is considering having this vaccine should visit and read this website, which is owned by a company controlled that are controlled by the pharmaceutical industry.

•     Anxiety
•     back, leg, or stomach pains
•     chest pain
•     difficulty with breathing
•     difficulty with swallowing
•     dizziness or lightheadedness
•     fast heartbeat
•     general body swelling
•     swollen, painful, or tender lymph glands in the neck, armpit, or groin
•     tenderness, pain, swelling, warmth, skin discoloration, and prominent superficial veins over the affected area
•     tightness in the chest
•     unusual tiredness or weakness
•     Diarrhoea
•     difficulty with moving
•     joint pain or swelling
•     muscle ache, cramps, pain, or stiffness
•     upper abdominal or stomach pain
•     Bloating
•     Constipation
•     Indigestion
•     pain, swelling, or redness at the injection site
•     pains in the stomach, side, or abdomen, possibly radiating to the back

The Drugs.com website also gives this information to healthcare professionals (which they will almost certainly not pass on to patients) - but it is quite horrendous.

• Injection site pruritus, injection site haematoma, injection site induration, injection site haemorrhage, injection site cellulitis
• Fatigue (54.6%), headache (53.4%), pyrexia (13%), fever of 99.5F or higher (12.9%)
• Chlamydia infection, malaise
• Asthenia, chills
• Myalgia (48.8%)
• Arthralgia (20.7%)
• Back pain
• Appendicitis, gastroenteritis
• Pancreatitis
• Respiratory
• Nasopharyngitis, oropharyngeal pain, influenza, cough, nasal congestion, upper respiratory tract infection, pharyngitis
• Pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, asthma
•  Bronchospasm
• Asthmatic crisis
• Pulmonary embolus
• Migraine
• Autoimmune disease

Drugs.com then go on to describe some 'postmarketing' reports of the following serious medical conditions.

• Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis
• Guillain-Barre syndrome
• Motor neuron disease
• Paralysis
• Seizures
• Syncope (including syncope associated with tonic-clonic movements and other seizure-like activity) sometimes resulting in falling with injury
• Transverse myelitis

And then Drugs.com moves on to some "new medical conditions potentially indicative of systemic autoimmune disorders included:

• arthralgia/arthritis/arthropathy, 
• autoimmune thyroiditis, 
• celiac disease, 
• diabetes mellitus insulin dependent, 
• erythema nodosum, 
• hyperthyroidism, 
• hypothyroidism, 
• inflammatory bowel disease, 
• multiple sclerosis, 
• nephritis, 
• optic neuritis, 
• pigmentation disorder, 
• psoriasis, 
• Raynaud's phenomenon, 
• rheumatoid arthritis, 
• scleroderma/morphea, 
• Stevens-Johnson syndrome, 
• systemic lupus erythematosus, 
• uveitis, 
• alopecia areata, 
• ankylosing spondylitis, 
• autoimmune thrombocytopenia, 
• myocarditis, 
• proteinuria, 
• skin depigmentation, 
• dermatomyositis, 
• vasculitis, 
• vitiligo

And so it goes on listing the side effects of Gardasil that are really serious medical conditions, until we come to the most horrendous admission of all

DEATH

Drug.com also mentions death as a side effect, but it is said to be "uncommon" - just 0.1% to 1% - including deaths during clinical trials "which were generally assessed as not vaccine related".

In conclusion, I have called the reluctance of conventional medicine to highlight the known and serious side effects of HPV vaccines 'discounting' and 'coyness'. This is being generous. Doctors, after all, regularly tell us that these vaccines are safe. 

Do these known side effects appear 'safe' to you?

Remember, the most serious of these known side effects are not mentioned on the main NHS page at all, and most doctors certainly do not mention them when talking to the mainstream media, and presumably to their patients too.

And it must also be noted that neither the NHS, or the PILS, mention the side effects for which the USA's Vaccine Court is paying out massive compensation, including cervical dysplasia and cancer, hospitalisation, disability and death. These 'side effects' have been reported to VAERS (the USA's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System), and if $millions have been paid out in compensation by the USA government, they would have been reported to conventional medicine, and in particular to the drug regulators around the world.

So clearly, all these conditions, including the possibility of death, should be mentioned as a possible side effect by the NHS and in the PILS. But they is not. Is the conventional medical establishment 'discounting'? Are doctors being 'coy' with the information they are prepared to give patients? Can the information we are being given about HPV vaccines be considered to be accurate, or the whole truth?

Or is the information we are getting from the conventional medical establishment both deceptive, dishonest, and detrimental to human health and wellbeing?

MMR VACCINE. Doctors insist they are safe, that our children should be vaccinated. So what does the Patient Information Leaflet say?

Doctors insist that MMR vaccines are "entirely safe", indeed, so safe that many doctors throughout the world want the vaccination of babies and young children to become compulsory. We are told that questioning the safety of vaccines is 'false news', it's misinformation, and its dangerous.

I disagree with all this, as do many other people, so conventional medicine dismisses us as 'anti-vaxxers'. So where is the evidence that this vaccine is unsafe, and if so, where can parents find it?

The amazing fact is that the serious harm that can be caused by vaccines, including MMR vaccines, can be found in conventional medical literature. Indeed, it can be found in the patient information leaflets (PILs) that come with the vaccine itself.

Yet doctors rarely show these PILs to parents prior to vaccinating their children, preferring to hide them behind vague and platitudinous statements about vaccine safety.

WHAT CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE TELLS US
First, let us look at what doctors are telling us, what they want us to know. The UK's NHS provides us with the conventionally accepted message about its safety.

               "MMR is a safe and effective combined vaccine that protects against 3 separate illnesses - measles, mumps and rubella (German measles)"

So does this "safe and effective" MMR vaccine have any side effects? This is what we are told.

               "The side effects of the MMR vaccine are usually mild. It's important to remember that they're milder than the potential complications of measles, mumps and rubella. Side effects include:

• developing a mild form of measles that lasts for 2 to 3 days (this is not infectious)
• developing a mild form of mumps that lasts for a day or two (this is not infectious)

In rare cases, a small rash of bruise-like spots may appear a few weeks after the injection."

That's all, except that the NHS denies absolutely and pointedly that there is any link between the MMR vaccine, autism and bowel disease. The same NHS link provides another link to download an NHS leaflet which outlines just how safe the vaccine is (and how dangerous Measles, Mumps and Rubella are, and that it has been the vaccine that has reduced their incidence).

               "The combined MMR vaccine has been safely protecting children for many years in many  countries worldwide. In the UK, millions of doses have been given since it was introduced in 1988. Before vaccines can be used, they have to be thoroughly tested for safety. Although there may be some side effects from vaccination, they are usually mild and much less severe than the disease itself. Serious reactions following vaccination are rare. Many studies have taken place to look at the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine. The evidence is clear that there is no link between MMR vaccine and autism."

So does this NHS leaflet say any more about the side effects of the MMR vaccine? Yes, but it provides only more reassurance, more platitudes about its safety.

               "Not everyone gets side effects from the vaccine. To provide protection, the vaccine mimics the three infections that it protects against. Some people may get a rash that looks like a mild form of measles, the face may swell to look like mumps or they may have pains in the joints like rubella. These side effects occur in a small percentage of people after the first dose.

               "The side effects from the measles part of the vaccine are usually seen when the vaccine starts to work - around 6-10 days after vaccination. Swelling of the face or joint pains tend to come on around two to three weeks after vaccination when the mumps and rubella vaccines start to work.

               "Side effects such as a rash or neck swelling only last for around 2–3 days and are not infectious. This means that if you do develop these side effects, you cannot pass on the infection to others. On rare occasions, a reddish purple rash that looks like tiny bruises can occur up to six weeks following vaccination.

So the message to parents from the NHS, from conventional medicine, is clear - the side effects of MMR vaccines are not very serious at all.

Yet conventional medicine, the NHS, and our doctors know full well that this is untrue - and they know because their medical literature tells them that it is not true.

WHAT CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE KNOWS BUT PREFERS NOT TO TELL US
The NHS uses two MMR vaccines, Priorix, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and M-M-RvaxPro, manufactured by Merck. The NHS provides links to the Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) for both these vaccines.

1. Priorix
There are lots of contra-indications, warnings and precautions provided in the PIL, all suggesting that the vaccine is not as safe as we are being told. I would add that there is little evidence that doctors or nurses giving the vaccine ever check all these prior to vaccination.

"Priorix should not be given if
     • you are allergic against any of the components of this vaccine (listed in section 6). Signs of an allergic reaction may include itchy skin rash, shortness of breath and swelling of the face or tongue;
     • you are known to be allergic to neomycin (an antibiotic agent). A known contact dermatitis (skin rash when the skin is in direct contact with allergens such as neomycin) should not be a problem but talk to your doctor first;
     • you have a severe infection with a high temperature. In these cases, the vaccination will be postponed until recovery. A minor infection such as a cold should not be a problem, but talk to your doctor first;
     • you have any illness (such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS)) or take any medicine that weakens the immune system. Whether you receive the vaccine will depend upon the level of your immune defences;
     • you are pregnant. In addition, pregnancy should be avoided for 1 month following vaccination.

Warnings and precautions
Talk to your doctor or pharmacist before you receive Priorix if:
     • you have disorders of the central nervous system, a history of convulsion accompanying high fever or family history of convulsions. In case of high fever following vaccination please consult your doctor promptly;
     • you have ever had a severe allergic reaction to egg protein;
     • you have had a side effect after vaccination against measles, mumps or rubella that involved easy bruising or bleeding for longer than usual (see section 4);
     • you have weakened immune system (e.g. such as HIV infection). You should be closely monitored as the responses to the vaccines may not be sufficient to ensure a protection against the illness (see section 2 “Priorix should not be given if”).

In addition, it should be noted that the PIL provides other warnings about interactions with other pharmaceutical drugs, and regarding pregnancy, breast feeding and fertility.

Side Effects
"Like all medicines, this vaccine can cause side effects, although not everybody gets them. Side effects that occurred during clinical trials with Priorix were as follows:

Very common (these may occur with more than 1 in 10 doses of the vaccine)
     • redness at the injection site
     • fever of 38°C or higher

Common (these may occur with up to 1 in 10 doses of the vaccine)
     • pain and swelling at the injection site
     • fever higher than 39.5°C
     • rash (spots)
     • upper respiratory tract infection

Uncommon (these may occur with up to 1 in 100 doses of the vaccine)
     • infection of the middle ear
     • swollen lymph glands (glands in the neck, armpit or groin)
     • loss of appetite
     • nervousness
     • abnormal crying
     • inability to sleep (insomnia)
     • redness, irritation and watering of the eyes (conjunctivitis)
     • bronchitis
     • cough
     • swollen parotid glands (glands in the cheek)
     • diarrhoea
     • vomiting
Rare (these may occur with up to 1 in 1,000 doses of the vaccine)
     • convulsions accompanying high fever
     • allergic reactions

After the marketing of Priorix, the following side effects have been reported on a few occasions:
     • joint and muscle pain
     • punctual or small spotted bleeding or bruising more easily than normal due to a drop in platelets
     • sudden life-threatening allergic reaction
     • infection or inflammation of the brain, spinal cord and peripheral nerves resulting in temporary difficulty when walking (unsteadiness) and/or temporary loss of control of bodily movements, inflammation of some nerves, possibly with pins and needles or loss of feeling or normal movement (Guillain-Barré syndrome)
     • narrowing or blockage of blood vessels
     • erythema multiforme (symptoms are red, often itchy spots, similar to the rash of measles, which starts on the limbs and sometimes on the face and the rest of the body)
     • measles and mumps like symptoms (including transient, painful swelling of the testicles and swollen glands in the neck).

It would appear that autism and bowel cancer has never been reported as a side effect of this vaccines, regardless of the number of parents who have claimed that their child developed autism following the vaccination.

M-M-RvaxPro
The PIL for this vaccine provides very similar information, reproduced here for clarity, particularly as doctors will usually not volunteer it behind obfuscations and protestations of 'safety'.

Do not use M-M-RVAXPRO:
     - If you or your child are allergic to any of the components of this vaccine (including neomycin or
any of the other ingredients listed in section 6)
     - If you or your child are pregnant (in addition, pregnancy should be avoided for 1 month after
vaccination, see Pregnancy)
     - If you or your child have any illness with fever higher than 38.5°C; however, low-grade fever
itself is not a reason to delay vaccination
     - If you or your child have active untreated tuberculosis
     - If you or your child have a blood disorder or any type of cancer that affects the immune system
     - If you or your child are receiving treatment or taking medicines that may weaken the immune
system (except low-dose corticosteroid therapy for asthma or replacement therapy)
     - If you or your child have a weakened immune system because of a disease (including AIDS)
     - If you or your child have a family history of congenital or hereditary immunodeficiency, unless
the immune competence of your or your child is demonstrated.

Warnings and precautions
Talk to the doctor or pharmacist before you or your child receive M-M-RVAXPRO if you have
experienced any of the following:
     - If you or your child have an allergic reaction to eggs or anything that contained egg
     - If you or your child have a history or family history of allergies or of convulsions (fits)
     - If you or your child have a side effect after vaccination with measles, mumps, or rubella vaccine
(in a single component vaccine or a combined vaccine, such as the measles, mumps, and rubella
vaccine manufactured by Merck & Co., Inc., or M-M-RVAXPRO) that involved easy bruising
or bleeding for longer than usual
     - If you or your child have infection with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) but do not show
symptoms of HIV disease. You or your child should be monitored closely for measles, mumps,
and rubella because vaccination may be less effective than for uninfected persons

There are also warnings about using this vaccine if the individual is using other pharmaceutical drugs, blood transfusions, in pregnancy and breastfeeding, and in certain other conditions.

Side Effects
Very common (may affect more than 1 in 10 vaccinees)
     * Fever (38.5°C or higher).
     * Injection-site redness; injection-site pain; injection-site swelling.

Common (may affect 1 to 10 in 100 vaccinees)
     * Rash (including measles-like rash).
     * Injection-site bruising.

Uncommon (may affect 1 to 10 in 1,000 vaccinees)
     * Nasal congestion and sore throat; upper respiratory tract infection or viral infection; runny nose.
     * Diarrhoea, vomiting.
     *  Hives.
     * Injection-site rash.

Not known (Frequency cannot be estimated from the available data)
     * Aseptic meningitis (fever, feeling sick, vomiting, headache, stiff neck, and sensitivity to light); swollen testicles; infection of the middle ear; inflamed salivary glands; atypical measles (described
in patients who received a killed measles virus vaccine, usually given before 1975).
     * Swollen lymph nodes.
     * Bruising or bleeding more easily than normal.
     * Severe allergic reaction that may include difficulty in breathing, facial swelling, localised swelling, and swelling of the limbs.
     * Irritability.
     * Seizures (fits) without fever; seizures (fits) with fever in children; walking unsteadily; dizziness; illnesses involving inflammation of the nervous system (brain and/or spinal cord).

THE UNDER-REPORTING OF SIDE EFFECTS
It is important to comment on the frequency of these reported side effects. There have been many studies that have calculated only 10% of drug (and vaccine) side effects are ever reported. I wrote about this in this blog. What this means that 90% are not reported, so these 'rare' or 'uncommon' side effects are not 1 in 1,000, or 1 in 10,000 but as little as 1 in 100, or 1 in 1,000.

Some studies indicate that 10% is an under-estimate, that a more accurate figure might be 1%, in other words that 99% of these 'rare' or 'uncommon' side effects remain unrecorded. This would mean that they happen in 1 in 100, or 1 in 10 vaccinated children.

Moreover, it should also be remembered that these PILs are produce by the drug companies, and only give information that has been proven, beyond doubt. Anything else, indeed anything that is denied (like links between the MMR vaccine, autism and bowel cancer) is not, and will never be mentioned in these documents.

What this means is that any parent who now suspects that the MMR vaccine (or any other vaccine) has caused autism is contradicted by their doctor, and the report of a link between a vaccine and a disease will never be recorded.

Yet the evidence of vaccine harm is there for anyone to see - swollen glands, insomnia, bronchitis, severe allergic reactions, seizures and fits, inflammation of the brain and spinal cord, et al - all known to be caused by a vaccine described by doctors as 'safe', with just a few, minor side effects.

Do you agree with this description? Given the information provided by the PILs, is this an accurate or honest description? Or is it deceptive? And dishonest?

Safety, perhaps, is in the eyes of the beholder! Perhaps it is an acceptable risk in the all-too-dangerous world of conventional medicine. But would most parents, who were given this information, and in a position to make an informed choice, take these risks with their young children?

DPT VACCINES. Doctors insist they are safe, that our children should be vaccinated. So what does the Patient Information Leaflet say?

Doctors insist that DPT vaccines, including the 6-in-1 used in the UK, are "entirely safe". Many doctors throughout the world want vaccination to become compulsory, and questioning the safety of vaccines is said to be false news, misinformation, and dangerous. So is there any evidence that this vaccine is unsafe, and if so, where can parents find it?

The 6-in-1 vaccine is given to very young babies 3 times, at 8 weeks, 12 weeks and 16 weeks old. It is supposed to protect them from diphtheria, hepatitis B, Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type b), polio,
tetanus and whooping cough (pertussis).

The amazing fact is that the serious harm that can be caused by vaccines, including DPT vaccines, can be found in conventional medical literature. Indeed, it can be found in the patient information leaflets that come with the vaccine itself - but which doctors rarely show to parents.

So check it out for yourself! First go to the NHS website. This page tells us about the 6-in-1 vaccine, Infanrix Hexa, and confirms that it is safe.

               "The 6-in-1 vaccine is very safe. It's killed (inactivated), which means it doesn't contain any live organisms, so there's no risk of your baby getting the diseases it protects against from the vaccination. The vaccine also has few side effects, although it's common for babies to be a little irritable afterwards. They may also have short-lived redness, swelling and a small bump at the injection site."

This is the message that conventional medical doctors usually give us, and left at this it might appear that 'anti-vaxxers' such as myself are trying to mislead you. But read on. It provides a link to this page, headed 6-in-1 side effects. This gives the 'common' reactions to the vaccine as follows:

• pain, redness and swelling at the injection site
• fever
• vomiting
• abnormal crying
• irritability
• loss of appetite

They say that these reported side effects happen in 1 in 10 babies.

Then they talk of the 'Rare' side effects' of the 6-in-1 vaccine (reported, they say, in fewer than 1 in 10,000 babies) which include:

• high fever
• fit
• seizures.

The reporting of side effects
Many studies have calculated that only 10% of drug (and vaccine) side effects are ever reported. I wrote about this in this blog. This means that 90% are not reported, so these 'rare' side effects are not 1 in 10,000 but 1 in 1,000. Some studies indicate that 10% is an under-estimate, that a more accurate figure might be 1%, that 99% of these 'rare' side effects remain unrecorded. This would mean that they happen in 1 in 100 vaccinated children.

Allergy
The NHS then report that "very rarely" a baby may have a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) after the 6 in 1 vaccine, but this happens in fewer than 1 in 100,000 cases (or is this 1 in 10,000, or 1 in 1,000 cases. And if the vaccine causes anaphylaxis, what about allergy?

But parents are reassured by the NHS who states that this "can happen with any vaccine" (is this really reassuring?), and that although anaphylaxis "is a serious medical condition", all vaccination staff are "trained to deal with anaphylactic reactions on the spot, and babies recover completely with prompt treatment".

Now, go back to the first NHS page, referred to above. There was no mention here of high fever, fits, seizures, allergy, anaphylaxis! The vaccine is described as 'very safe'. Of course, 'safety' depends on the amount of risk that we, as parents, are prepared to take with our babies health!

But we need to go on. There is a link from the first NHS page to the 'Patient Information Leaflet' (PIL) that comes with the 6-in-1 vaccine. Most parents don't get to the second page, leave alone reading this PIL. And doctors rarely show parents the PIL before vaccinating their babies!

Now remember that these PILs only give information that has been proven, beyond doubt. Anything else, anything that is denied, is not mentioned in these documents, produced by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. But the 6-in-1 PIL takes our knowledge of the dangers of the vaccines to a new level. First, there is a list of 'warnings' and 'precautions', and what follows is taken directly from the PIL.

Infanrix hexa should not be given:
     • if your child is allergic to:
               - Infanrix hexa or any of the ingredients of this vaccine (listed in section 6).
               - formaldehyde.
               - neomycin or polymyxin (antibiotics).

Signs of an allergic reaction may include itchy skin, rash, shortness of breath and swelling of the face or tongue.
     • if your child has had an allergic reaction to any vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B, polio or Haemophilus influenzae type b.
     • if your child has had problems of the nervous system within 7 days after previous vaccination with a vaccine against whooping cough
     • if your child has a severe infection with a high temperature (over 38°C).

A minor infection such as a cold should not be a problem, but talk to your doctor first.

Infanrix hexa should not be given if any of the above apply to your child. If you are not sure, talk to your doctor or pharmacist before your child is given Infanrix hexa.

Warnings and precautions
Talk to your doctor or pharmacist before your child is given Infanrix hexa:
     • if after previously having Infanrix hexa or another vaccine against whooping cough, your child had any problems, especially:
               - a high temperature (over 40°C) within 48 hours of vaccination
               - a collapse or “shock-like” state within 48 hours of vaccination
               - persistent crying lasting 3 hours or more within 48 hours of vaccination
               - fits with or without a high temperature within 3 days of vaccination
     • if your child has an undiagnosed or progressive disease of the brain or epilepsy which is not controlled. After control of the disease the vaccine can be given.
     • if your child has a bleeding problem or bruises easily
     • if your child tends to have fits when they have a fever, or if there is a history of this in the family.
     • if your child should become unresponsive or experience seizures (fits) after the vaccination, please contact your doctor immediately. See also section 4 Possible side effects.
     • if your baby was born very prematurely (at or before 28 weeks of gestation) longer gaps than normal between breaths may occur for 2-3 days after vaccination. These babies may require respiratory monitoring for 48-72h following the administration of the first two or three doses of Infanrix hexa.

If any of the above apply to your child (or you are not sure), talk to your doctor or pharmacist before your child is given Infanrix hexa.

Other medicines and Infanrix hexa
Your doctor may ask you to give your child a medicine that lowers fever (such as paracetamol) before or immediately after Infanrix hexa is given. This can help to lower some of the side effects (febrile reactions) of Infanrix hexa.

Tell your doctor or pharmacist if your child is taking, has recently taken, might take any other medicines or has recently received any other vaccine.

Infanrix hexa contains neomycin and polymyxin
This vaccine contains neomycin and polymyxin (antibiotics). Tell your doctor if your child has had an allergic reaction to these ingredients.

NOTE
* THESE ARE JUST THE PRECAUTIONARY WARNINGS!
* HOW OFTEN DO DOCTORS, OR NURSES DOING THE VACCINATION, CHECK ON ANY OF THIS BEFORE VACCINATING CHILDREN?
* BUT NOW FOR THE SIDE EFFECTS......


Possible side effects
Like all medicines, this vaccine can cause side effects, although not everybody gets them. The following side effects may happen with this vaccine:

Allergic reactions
If your child has an allergic reaction, see your doctor straight away. The signs may include:
     • rashes that may be itchy or blistering
     • swelling of the eyes and face
     • difficulty in breathing or swallowing
     • a sudden drop in blood pressure and loss of consciousness.

These signs usually start very soon after the injection has been given. Talk to a doctor straight away if they happen after leaving the doctor’s surgery.

See your doctor straight away if your child has any of the following serious side effects:
     • collapse
     • times when they lose consciousness or have a lack of awareness
     • fits – this may be when they have a fever

These side effects have happened very rarely with Infanrix hexa as with other vaccines against whooping cough. They usually happen within 2 to 3 days after vaccination.

Other side effects include:
Very common (these may occur with more than 1 in 10 doses of the vaccine): feeling tired, loss of appetite, high temperature of 38°C or higher, swelling, pain, redness where the injection site was given, unusual crying, feeling irritable or restless.

Common (these may occur with up to 1 in 10 doses of the vaccine): diarrhoea, being sick (vomiting), high temperature of more than 39.5°C, swelling larger than 5 cm or hard lump where the injection was given, feeling nervous.

Uncommon (these may occur with up to 1 in 100 doses of the vaccine): upper respiratory tract infection, feeling sleepy, cough, large swelling at the injected limb.

Rare (these may occur with up to 1 in 1,000 doses of the vaccine): bronchitis, rash, swollen glands in the neck, armpit or groin (lymphadenopathy), bleeding or bruising more easily than normal (thrombocytopenia), in babies born very prematurely (at or before 28 weeks of gestation) longer gaps than normal between breaths may occur for 2-3 days after vaccination, temporarily stopping breathing (apnoea), swelling of the face, lips, mouth, tongue or throat which may cause difficulty in swallowing or breathing (angioedema), swelling of the whole injected limb, blisters.

Very rare (these may happen with up to 1 in 10,000 doses of the vaccine): itching (dermatitis).

Experience with hepatitis B vaccine
In extremely rare cases the following side effects have been reported with hepatitis B vaccine: paralysis, numbness or weakness of the arms and legs (neuropathy), inflammation of some nerves, possibly with pins and needles or loss of feeling or normal movement (Guillain-Barré syndrome), swelling or infection of the brain (encephalopathy, encephalitis), infection around the brain (meningitis).

The causal relationship to the vaccine has not been established.

Bleeding or bruising more easily than normal (thrombocytopenia) has been reported with hepatitis B vaccines.


SO, TO QUOTE THE NHS WEBPAGE AGAIN (which is the information most doctors routinely give us), the 6-in-1 vaccines "is very safe". Do you agree? Given the information provided by the PIL, is this an accurate or honest description? Or is it deceptive? Dishonest?

Safety, perhaps, is in the eyes of the beholder! Perhaps it is an acceptable risk in the all-too-dangerous world of conventional medicine. But would most parents, who were given this information, and in a position to make an informed choice, take these risks with their young babies?

REMEMBER, THIS INFORMATION IS NOT MINE. IT COMES FROM THE UK'S NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE.

Health, Safety & Pharmaceutical Drugs. Pregabalin/Lyrica causes death each and every year - but doctors can continue prescribing it!

What sphere of human activity can human lives be lost on a regular basis but NOTHING is done to prevent it happening in the future?

• Perhaps a factory where workers die regularly every year?
• Or a domestic product that kills people regularly every year?
• Is there anywhere else?

In fact there is only one area of life where this is being allowed to happen

CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE & PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS

The drug Pregabalin can be used to amply demonstrates this!

Pregabalin, or Lyrica, or Gabapentin (the multiplicity of names is just to confuse patients) are drugs used to treat epilepsy, neuropathic pain associated with the brain, fibromyalgia and generalised anxiety disorder. It was first approved for medical used in 2004 in the USA, and they have been used in the UK for over twenty years. Initially it was presented to us as a new 'wonder drug', often described as 'the new valium' (a much older 'wonder' drug). Both are now known killers. Yesterday, as we will see, it became a 'class C drug' in Britain.

The side effects of pregabalin have been known for as long as the drug has been prescribed to patients. Unfortunately, patients have not been told about them. I went to the NHS website today (the day after the announcement about pregabalin becoming a class C drug) to see what the conventional medical establishment were telling patients about this drug.

               "The side effects of pregabalin are usually mild and go away by themselves. The most common ones are feeling sleepy, dizziness and headaches."

In 2016 there were 111 recorded deaths in the UK caused by Pregabalin. Even Pfizer, the drug company that manufactures Lyrica, the original brand name, said at that time

               "Caution should be exercised in patients with a history of substance abuse and the patient should be monitored for symptoms of pregabalin misuse, abuse or dependence."

This need for 'caution' has arisen, apparently, as the drug produces feelings of euphoria, relaxation and calmness, and over the years there has been a growing 'illicit' market in the drug. So doctors have been told that they can continue to prescribe these killer drugs, but they are expected to be careful that patients are not selling them on for recreational use!

So delay and prevarication is rife. This precautionary advice to doctors has been around at least since 2014 - but clearly the advice has done little good as doctors have continued to prescribe them in increasing amounts. Data provided by NHS Digital shows that prescriptions for pregabalin have risen more than 11-fold in the last decade, from 476,102 prescriptions in 2006 to 5,547,560 in 2016!

So patients are not told about the killer side effects, and doctors do not appear to mind prescribing drugs that are known to kill their patients. Presumably conventional medicine has nothing safer to offer to its patients!

Talk about making pregabalin a 'class C drug' has been mooted since at least 2017. See my blog on this subject published in 2017. This would make it illegal to possess the drug without a doctor's prescription. So yet more delay and prevarication - it was only in April 2019 that Pregabalin was actually 'reclassified' - apparently because in 2017, in Northern Ireland (alone), it caused 33 deaths, compared to only (sic) 8 deaths the previous year! 

So the drug has become a growing threat not just to human health, but to human life. And it is allowed to continue doing so by the conventional medical establishment.

And the threat is not just that pregabalin kills patients. The Drugs.com website tells us that "commonly reported" side effects of pregabalin include infection, ataxia, blurred vision, constipation, diplopia, dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, headache, peripheral oedema, tremor, weight gain, visual field loss, accidental injury, and xerostomia, plus abnormal gait, abnormality in thinking, amnesia, arthralgia, asthenia, cognitive dysfunction, confusion, oedema, neuropathy, sinusitis, speech disturbance, vertigo, visual disturbance, myasthenia, amblyopia, increased appetite, and twitching. But this is only a summary. For a more comprehensive list of adverse effects known to be caused by pregabalin go to the Drugs.com website.

However, there is another health warning to be made here! This website is owned by pharmaceutical interests, and it should be noted that 'death' is not one of the 'side effects' mentioned! So more delay, more prevarication, more hiding of evidence that conventional medicine causes serious harm to patients, and can even kill them without patients being told!

And through all this doctors can continue to prescribe this drug to their patients - just so long as they are certain we are not going to use them for 'recreational purposes', or sell them on for recreational use!

• Where else in society would this be allowed to happen?
• What has happened to the principle - "First, do no harm"?
• Where is the 'precautionary principle' in conventional medicine?
• Does Health and Safety play any role in the practice of conventional medicine?
• Is the concept of 'informed consent' completely unknown to our doctors?

And this is just one of the drugs they regularly prescribe for their patients!

AUTISM & HOMEOPATHY. Does conventional medicine cause autism?

The BBC’s gratuitous attack on the homeopathic treatment of autism, inaccurate, partial, and unfair as it was, is a diversion, a refusal to admit that their allies in the conventional medical establishment have been instrumental in causing the problem of autism, and having no treatment for it. 

It is often said that attack is the best form of defence. And it is known that a cornered animal, especially when its life is threatened, can be ferocious when it has to defend itself. Perhaps this is what is happening in this situation.

We live within a society that has a strong health and safety ethos. This is not a bad thing. Throughout human history people have lost their lives working on projects, in industries, and in many other settings, because of the inherent dangers of their working and living circumstances, and the carelessness of their masters. Whether it was Pharaohs building their pyramids, or 19th century industrialists profiting from unsafe working practises, millions of people have been killed for the greater glory of their superiors.

Health and safety practises now dominate all spheres of life. Sometimes safety is taken to ridiculous lengths. Playing conkers, for instance, has been deemed to be unsafe! And as I write, trees are being felled in the wood opposite my house because they have been deemed 'unsafe', alleged to be diseased, a risk as they might fall on me as I pass under them. It is a nature reserve, and wildlife habitat is being destroyed in the name of health and safety.

So in most walks of life health and safety now rules - except for one important area - conventional medicine and health.

"First do no harm" is a principle developed by Hippocrates, who lived in the 5th century bce Greece. Conventional medicine has adopted it, but has always ignored it. They accept that their drugs cause 'side effects' and 'adverse reactions' but however serious these are found to be doctors continue to prescribe the drugs to their patients. We are told that the 'benefits' outweigh the 'risks', although patients are never told about the detail of these risk assessments.

Samuel Hahnemann was a 18th century doctor who decided that he could no longer involve himself in the patient harm caused by the drugs of his time, mostly based on mercury and opium, and practises such as bloodletting, blistering, and the use of leaches. He set himself the task of developing a safer form of medicine, and over 220 years ago he came up with homeopathy. The conventional doctors of the day derided and attacked him, and conventional doctors continue to do so today - fully supported by the mainstream media.

Provision for health care is now dominated by conventional medicine, and this is itself dominated by the prescription of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. It is a system of medicine that remains inherently unsafe, just as it was in Hahnemann's time.

How do we know this? Do we have evidence of the harm it causes? For instance, does conventional medicine cause autism, is it the reason for the current epidemic levels of autism, a disease entirely unknown 70 years ago? One this is certain, the conventional medical establishment says that it does not know the cause of autism.

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

But it does know that it does not cause autism, the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, the MMR vaccines is entirely safe. Anyone who says otherwise is an 'antivaxxer', a danger to our health according to the World Health Organisation. Yet look at this patient information leaflet, taken from the MMR vaccine given to children in Britain, which can be accessed through this website.

               "After the marketing of Priorix, the following side effects have been reported:

     • infection or inflammation of the brain, spinal cord and peripheral nerves resulting in temporary difficulty when walking (unsteadiness) and/or temporary loss of control of bodily movements, inflammation of some nerves, possibly with pins and needles or loss of feeling or normal movement (Guillain-Barré syndrome)"

Not autism perhaps, but evidence that the MMR vaccine can cause serious 'side effects' to the brain. So is this vaccines 'entirely safe'? The information leaflets also list other serious side effects, including high fever, rash, upper respiratory tract infection, infection of the middle ear, swollen lymph glands, abnormal crying, insomnia, bronchitis, swollen parotid glands, diarrhoea, vomiting, convulsions, joint and muscle pain, sudden life-threatening allergic reactions, narrowing or blockage of blood vessels, and measles and mumps like symptoms.

This is not my information. It is information that comes in the package with the MMR vaccine. Doctors know about this, yet they are still prepared to call this vaccine "safe".

When I wrote my DIE’s website (the disease inducing effects of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines) I was surprised how often conventional medicine claimed that it did not know the cause of so many serious illnesses. Everyone is aware that pharmaceutical drugs cause side effects, often so serious the drug (or vaccine) has to be banned. So I started to look for evidence that these so-called 'side effects' were (at least in part) the cause of these mystery, unexplained diseases. What I discovered was not only evidence that they do, but that much of that evidence is contained within the books and journals of conventional medicine itself.

Conventional doctors may insist that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are safe, even 'entirely' safe, but within their own literature there is clear evidence that they are not!

Autism is a disease unknown before the 1940’s, prior to mass vaccination campaigns. Since then it has risen, exponentially. And it has done so in exact parallel to the increased use of vaccines. The CDC website (a pillar of the conventional medical establishment) gives the following statistics about the rise and rise of autism in the USA.

          2000          1 in 150 children
          2002          1 in 150 children
          2004          1 in 125 children
          2006          1 in 110 children
          2008          1 in 88 children
          2010          1 in 68 children
          2012          1 in 68 children

A more recent 'Age of Autism' estimate suggests that the figure could now be 1 in 45 children!

The autism epidemic is not confined to America. It is now raging throughout the world, especially in countries with the health system is dominated by conventional medicine based on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. The National Autistic Society in Britain says that whilst there is no register, or direct count kept, autism is much more common than many people think.

               "There are around 700,000 people in the UK living with autism - that's more than 1 in 1001. If you include their families, autism touches the lives of 2.8 million people every day."


The NHS Choices website, in 2016, agreed with this estimate, stating that 1 in every 100 people in Britain now has autism.

Even so, as far as conventional medicine is concerned, the cause of autism remains 'unknown'! How can this be so? Is this a cover-up? Is the cause known but denied? 

My DIE's website looked into the evidence that pharmaceutical vaccines and drugs has caused the epidemic of autism. It implicates not only the MMR and other vaccines, but also the vaccination of pregnant mothers, paracetamol (the main ingredient of Calpol), and mums taking antidepressant drugs. And all of them are implicated in causing autism.

And equally, all of these links are routinely ignored, and/or denied by the conventional medical establishment!

This direct evidence that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines cause autism is supported by what might be called 'reverse' proof of causation. Homeopathic CEASE therapy works by detoxifying the body, and homeopaths have found that one of the main toxins that has to be removed are childhood vaccines.

So CEASE therapy is effective, as in the many actual cases outlined in a previous blog, because it antidotes the harm that has been caused by childhood vaccines.

Even so, the BBC programme had the audacity, and the gall to claim that homeopathy harmed children. And in doing so it ignored the real harm caused to children by pharmaceutical vaccines and drugs.

So the debate will continue. Just because the conventional medical establishment, the pharmaceutical industry, drug regulators, politicians and governments, and the mainstream media seek to hide and deny the debate that is going on about autism, its causes and treatment, it does not mean that the worries and concerns of parents will go away.

Medicine does not have to be harmful to patients. Homeopathy is not harmful - but our health system, dominated as it is by conventional medicine, is dangerous to patients. Therefore, homeopathy will continue to oppose drugs and vaccines that cause patient harm, and we will continue to treat children with autism in order that they might once again lead full lives. Even if our children are not allowed to attend nurseries, or schools, and visit pubic spaces in town centres, homeopathy will continue to fight the battle for patient choice, and health freedom.

This is the last of 4 blogs on the subject of Autism and Homeopathy.

• the first blog, which described the hostile attitude of conventional medicine and the BBC towards homeopathy, can be found here.
• the second makes reference to some of the many cases of autistic children who have been treated successfully with homeopathy
• the third blog looked at the scientific evidence that shows that homeopathy can treat autism effectively.

If conventional medicine does not wish to find a cure for Autism, Homeopathy certainly will continue to do so.

CEASE therapists can be found on the internet here.

http://www.cease-therapy.com/make-appointment/all-certified-practitioners/

AUTISM & HOMEOPATHY. The science that support claims of successful treatment.

Medical science is not much use to homeopathy! The practise of homeopathy has no need for it, and does not rely upon it. Unlike conventional medicine it does not give patients potentially dangerous drugs with harmful side effects. If an illness has symptoms they are studied, and matched with a remedy known to cause similar symptoms. Every remedy is highly diluted so it does not cause patient harm. It can be used with patients to see if it works; if it does, fine; if it doesn't, it does not harm, and the search goes on. This means that there is no need to test remedies for safety, and remedies can be given to patients without risk to their health.

This is how homeopathy has progressed for the last 220+ years.

And it is how homeopathy will continue to progress in future.

In last weeks BBC's 'You and Yours' programme that gratuitously attacked homeopathy for claiming to treat and cure homeopathy, it was stated that there was "no evidence for homeopathy". This is the mantra routinely trotted out by the mainstream media, loyally echoing the message that the conventional medical establishment wants us all to hear. Yet this is untrue.

I read an article recently entitled "Homeopathy is about to be regulated out of existence but science just got in the way". It outlines the many moves being made all over the world by conventional medicine (but focusing on the USA) to regulate and discredit homeopathy. The article focuses on one study undertaken at the University of Florence, Italy, in 2017 which reported on studies that show, unequivocally, that some highly diluted homeopathic remedies do evoke a biological response.

               “These studies show that, contrary to previous beliefs, when homeopathic medicines containing metal nanoparticles are progressively diluted and succussed (shaken), highly diluted solutions contains an unexpected amount of the original substance.”

More about this Italian research can be found here. Yet there is much more scientific evidence supporting homeopathy than mentioned in this single study. The fact is that there are now nearly 500 studies that point to the effectiveness of homeopathy as a medical therapy. 

Amongst these studies are three on the homeopathic treatment of autism.

Gupta N, et al. 

Homoeopathic Medicinal Treatment of Autism. 

Indian Journal of Research in Homoeopathy, 2010, 4, 4, 19-28. 

An Indian research team set out to investigate the effects of individualised homeopathic treatment in autism spectrum disorders (ASD). 25 children who had been diagnosed with ASD were enrolled in the study. They received individualised homoeopathic treatment and their progress was followed for 18 months. Significant positive & curative response with homoeopathic medicines in subjects with ASD was found, suggesting that homoeopathic medicines can provide relief from abnormal behavioural problems in children presenting with ASD. 

Fibert P, et al. 

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, 194-201. 

This UK research compared the clinical effects of individualised homeopathic treatment for 1 year in 20 children diagnosed with ADHD, with standard treatment for 10 children diagnosed with the same condition for 4 months. Parents completed Conners’ Parent Rating Scale, Revised Long Version (CPRS-R:L) and Measure Your Own Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) every consultation at baseline and every 4 months, from which DSMIV total scores were extracted. 

The use of homeopathy was associated with statistically significant improvements in criminality and anger and improvements in children with a concomitant diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder in treated children over the year.

Praful M Barvalia1, Piyush M Oza1, Amit H Daftary, Vijaya S Patil, Vinita S Agarwal, Ashish R Mehta

Effectiveness of homoeopathic therapeutics in the management of childhood autism disorder

Indian Journal of Research in Homeopathy

The study demonstrated the usefulness of homeopathic treatment in management of neuropsychological dysfunction in childhood autism disorder, which is reflected in significant reduction of hyperactivity, behavioral dysfunction, sensory impairment as well as communication difficulty. This was demonstrated well in psychosocial adaptation of autistic children.

So why did the BBC ignores these studies? Or at least find out about them? Why were they content meekly to trot out conventional medicine's mantra - that there is no evidence for homeopathy?

• Remember, conventional medicine openly admits that it has no treatment for autism.

               "There's no 'cure' for autism, but there are ways to support autistic people, their families, carers and friends......"

• Remember, the BBC itself admitted in its programme that there are many 'desperate' parents out there who were looking for effective treatment for their autistic children. 

When science confirms the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment, as in the three studies outlined above, the conventional medical establishment will usually dismiss them, saying that such studies are not good enough, that there is something wrong with them. No doubt they would say this about these studies, regardless of their quality.

• Yet should these three studies alone not be sufficient to trigger for further research?
• Moreover, would the case examples outlined in my previous blog not be good enough reason to undertake more research?

If such results had come from a pharmaceutical drug such evidence would have been plastered all over the mainstream media, and we would not be able to escape hearing about it!

What this strongly suggests is that the conventional medical establishment (and their supporters in the BBC) has no interest whatsoever in a cure for autism.......... unless, of course, it is a conventional medical or pharmaceutical cure! And they haven't got one!

This is the third of 4 blogs on the subject of Autism and Homeopathy

• the first blog, which described the hostile attitude of conventional medicine and the BBC towards homeopathy, can be found here.
• the second makes reference to some of the many cases of autistic children who have been treated successfully with homeopathy
• the fourth blog concerns the evidence that conventional medicine not only has no treatment, but is a major cause of autism.

If conventional medicine does not wish to find a cure for Autism, Homeopathy certainly will continue to do so.

CEASE therapists can be found on the internet here.

http://www.cease-therapy.com/make-appointment/all-certified-practitioners/