The BBC, the reporting of Medical Science, MMR and Autism

     "We, who are not scientists, are entitled to have opinions, so we are entitled to express them. So the BBC, and any other news organisations, are OBLIGED, not just entitled, to present them."

This is a quote from John Humphrys on the Today Programme, BBC radio, on 12th September 2017. He was interviewing Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Human Genetics at University College, who had reviewed the way the BBC reported science. Scientists, he said, were once 'God-like figures' who were not questioned by journalists. Now, so the argument went, they are questioned, and doubted, often in a hostile manner. Several examples were given about how, why and when science should be questioned.

• Nuclear power, in the 1950's. We were told that the first nuclear plants were producing electricity, but we were not told that the main reason for their existence was to produce nuclear bombs.
• John Gummer, a Tory minister, who tried to persuade us that beef was safe to eat, and gave his daughter a beef-burger to prove it.
• Andrew Wakefield and the MMR controversy. The Smith/Humphrys verdict was that this was "not scientific" and led the many parents refusing to vaccinate their children, "a complete disaster", a "car crash" of science reporting!
• The Tobacco industry, which denied for many years the connection between smoking, lung cancer and health.
• The current debate on climate change with climate change deniers.

It was at this point that Humphrys asked the (very legitimate) question about whether we can always trust science, and he made the point that has been quoted above. Read it again, and take it in, completely!

We can all have opinions - and news organisations like the BBC are OBLIGED (not just entitled) to report it. Otherwise, Humphrys stated, "there is no debate".

The Health Debate

Well, there is undoubtedly no debate about health issues, nor has there been for at least the last 20 years! Indeed, the BBC have refused to engage in a debate about health since the time of the Wakefield controversy! I wrote seven blogs on the non-existed health debate back in 2012, and since then the situation has not changed. The mainstream media refuses to discuss important health issues that are constantly being ranged, but are not heard.

So, as usual, Wakefield was dismissed out of hand by both Smith an Humphrys. As a result of the controversy people refused to vaccinate their children, and the implication (as always) was that vaccinations are good! Autism was mentioned, Smith commenting that 'autism was just being talked about at that time'. 

Yes, indeed it was. And during the intervening years, autism has grown to epidemic proportions. 

So if Wakefield was wrong (and Humphys is quite entitled to his opinion) what has caused this epidemic of autism. Conventional (sometimes called scientific) medicine still does not know apparently. This is what NHS Choices says.

               "The exact cause of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is currently unknown. It's a complex condition and may occur as a result of genetic predisposition (a natural tendency), environmental or unknown factors."

So the science of Smith and Humphrys has condemned one explanation for autism, but is still quite unable to supply another. Genetic predisposition? Autism was unknown before the 1940's, so where did these genes suddenly appear from? A natural tendency? Is this really the best that medical science can come up with?

So, Mr Humphrys, I disagree. And, as you say, I have a right to my opinion. Actually, I am far from  alone in having this opinion. Nor do I think that vaccinations are a good thing, as I do not believe in injecting myself (or anyone else) with poisons like mercury, aluminium, and other noxious subjects. So are the BBC is obliged to know about these opinions? If so, why are our opinions never aired on the BBC, or any other mainstream media source?

• I can understand that conventional medicine might not want to admit the link between vaccines are autism (and ADHD, Allergies, and Alzheimers, and much else). But I cannot understand why the mainstream media, including the BBC, refuse to put forward and question the views of anti-vaxers.

• I can understand that the commercial media does not want to 'bite the hand that feeds them', the pharmaceutical companies are massive advertisers on which media companies have become almost completely dependent. But the BBC?

So, Mr Humphys, just as you said, when someone's opinions are ignored there is no debate. One side, medical science, is reported, ad nauseam - new miracle drugs, wonder cures, life changing breakthroughs in treatment. But anyone concerned about the impact of toxic pharmaceutical drugs are vaccines are never heard, and conventional medical spokesmen are never asked why, despite these regular breakthroughs, autism, and most other chronic diseases (cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and many, many more) are now running at epidemic levels. 

• When will journalists have the courage to ask what I want them to ask - when, with all the money are resources being poured into conventional medicine, can we expect a decline in the incidence of disease? 
• And more important, are the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines we are regularly told are so good for us causing these disease epidemics through their so-called 'side effects' and 'adverse reactions?

More specifically, when will the mainstream media inform us about medical events that demonstrate that we are dealing with a deeply fraudulent medical system? For instance, when will it be reported that the scientist who led the medical research that 'proved' there was no link between MMR and Autism has actually admitted that he destroyed important data that would have proven the link? 

I have asked the BBC about this, and blogged about it in 2016. They told me that it was not newsworthy! Fraudulent medical science, not newsworthy? A medical system in denial about a serious link between disease and vaccines, not newsworthy? It would appear that it is okay for the BBC to report favourably on medical science, but any unfavourable news is to be censored! 

So, Mr Humphrys, there is, indeed, no debate. My opinions, and the opinions of an ever-growing proportion of the public, are not being heard. You might says that we are 'entitled' to know about opinions contrary to science. But it would appear that the BBC does not feel 'obliged' to tell us about them. And in the meantime, the rates of Autism continue to rise.

Dental Amalgam. What can we learn from the EU ban?

Anyone going to a dentist who is found to have a cavity, caused by tooth decay, has the tooth drilled, and the resulting hole filled with dental amalgam, a liquid mercury and metal alloy mixture. Mercury, which makes up about 50% of dental amalgam, is one of the most poisonous substances known. In addition, amalgam consists of silver, tin, copper and other trace metals. And our dentists have been putting this in our mouths now for over 150 years.

The European Union (EU) is now proposing to ban dental amalgam for children, and pregnant and breastfeeding mothers on 1st July 2018.

The Dental Tribune says this about the ban. "A new study, conducted on behalf of the European Commission, recommends phasing out dental amalgam use over the next few years owing to mercury’s negative impact on the environment. According to the recently published study results, the ban should be combined with improved enforcement of the EU waste legislation regarding dental amalgam."

The ban itself raises important questions. Do the restrictions mean that dental amalgam is safe for adults? Are we less susceptible to harm than children and pregnant mothers? Is amalgam really being banned because of its 'negative impact on the environment' rather than its negative impact on our health? And does the delay in implementing the ban mean that dental amalgam is safe to use up to the date it becomes effective?

The answer to all three questions has to be "NO". And important lessons should be learnt about how conventional medicine operates from the hopeless tardiness of this ban, namely:

• the pretence that the disposal of amalgam damages the environment, but does not damage us!
• the absence of the 'precautionary principle' when conventional medicine damages our health.
• the time that dangerous conventional medical practices are allowed to harm patients without action being taken.
• the ongoing denial that conventional medical treatments are dangerous to our health.
• the failure of the mainstream media to inform the public about these harmful and dangerous practices.

The pretence that the disposal of amalgam damages the environment, but does not damage us!
It is quite likely that the disposal of the metals is a problem for the environment. But if this is so, for conventional medicine to then pretend that the same metals do not damage patients is quite absurd! Remember where dental amalgam is put - in our mouths - in a moist environment - what what do metals do in moist environment? They leach, and the metals, including the mercury, leaches into our bodies.

The absence of the 'precautionary principle' when conventional medicine damages our health.
As I have written before, the precautionary principle is not applied to conventional medicine. In any other walk of life, when a product or a procedure is thought to be potentially harmful (even if it has not been proven beyond doubt) that product or procedure is suspended until such time that the evidence is clear, one way or the other. However, as far as health is concerned, conventional medical products and procedures are never suspended until evidence of harm is overwhelming.

The time that dangerous conventional medical practices are allowed to harm patients without action being taken.
There has been evidence that dental amalgam is dangerous for decades. I did some research and found the BBC were reporting on these over 20 years ago. In 1999 the published an article on the fears about mercury poisoning. Five years earlier, in 1994, 23 years ago, a BBC Panorama programme was broadcast on 'The Hazards of Mercury Fillings'. This shortened version of the programme can be found here, and I urge you to watch it. Observe the evidence about mercury that was available to us then, and the denials that were being made by the representatives of the conventional medical establishment at the time. Note, in particular, that at one point, evidence of the link between mercury and Alzheimer's disease was mentioned, and (of course) routinely denied!

Conventional medicine has always had a love affair with mercury, for reason quite unknown to me! Drugs like Calomel and Protiodide were both widely used in the 19th century, and gradually (tardily) withdrawn because of their toxicity. Did they learn the lesson - that mercury is toxic? No, new mercury based drugs were marketed, which harmed patients, and were eventually (tardily) withdrawn. Go to this link to read more about conventional medicine's ongoing dalliance with dangerous drugs that were eventually banned.

Today, many of the vaccines doctors inject into our bloodstreams, and into our children, contain mercury - in the form of thimerosal. For instance, the flu vaccine still contains thimerosal, and perhaps unsurprisingly it has been linked to Alzheimer's disease - although always routinely denied by the conventional medical establishment!

The ongoing denial that conventional medical treatments are dangerous to our health.
If, in the past, the conventional medical establishment has routinely denied the dangers of products and procedures they use with their patients, how can patients be sure that the treatment they receive today are any safer. In short, they cannot know this! The best predictor of future performance in past performance! This is one of the main reasons for this blog - to warn people not only about harmful and dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines - but to make it clear that doctors throughout the ages have been in denial about their dangers. They still are! Nothing has changed, and the banning of amalgam fillings in just one more proof of this.

In the 1970's I regularly visited my dentist. My mum always told me that I should! Regularly I was told that I had a cavity. Regularly dental amalgam was put in my mouth. Then I discovered dentists were paid for doing so! About five years ago I had all my amalgam fillings removed. About two years ago I asked my dentist whether he still used dental amalgam. He said yes. I asked him why, given that it has already been banned in some countries. He said that he knew nothing about this, and he told me that amalgam was perfectly safe. Norway banned it in 2008! For over 5 years Sweden, Denmark and Germany have either banned or restricted the use of mercury fillings. But my dentist 'was not aware'!

The failure of the mainstream media to inform the public about these harmful and dangerous practices.
The BBC Panorama film, referred to above, comes from a time when our public broadcaster pursued health issues openly and honestly, in recognition of the principle that people needed to know about such important issues. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. The news has  not been covered in the mainstream media, including the BBC, even though the proposed EU ban on dental amalgam has been known since the end of July 2017.

So, one month later, there has been no mention of this by the BBC, either on television, radio, or on their health news website! How things have change in the last 15 years. But let's be absolutely clear what this means to us, as patients.

• The mainstream news media will certainly know about the proposed ban, and have omitted to publish anything about it. I presume they do not think it is newsworthy!
• Amalgam has been put into our mouths for over 150 years, harming us, and our media does not think this is newsworthy!
• The conventional medical establishment has been covering up the dangers of mercury-based treatment again, and our media does not think this is newsworthy!
• Between the announcement of the ban, a month ago, and the implementation of the ban over the next two or three years, many dentists will presumably continue putting amalgam fillings into the mouths of their patients. And our media does not think that warning us about this is sufficient newsworthy!

The mainstream media is always quiet about the harm conventional medicine is doing to us with their drugs and vaccines - and the amalgam fillings they put in our mouths. They are little more than an echo chamber for the pharmaceutical companies! They are slavishly compliant to the needs and agendas of the conventional medical establishment. They no longer investigate beyond what they are told. They believe what they are told. They do not believe anything that suggests conventional medicine is not a bonus to our health. So all we know is the ‘good’ (which is not always good)! We know nothing the bad!

So when we become ill, as a direct result of conventional medical treatment, we are not aware of the cause. We continue to take the 'wonder' drugs and vaccinations in the belief that they are beneficial. We are ignorant of the harm they cause. We must begin to ask if a large part of the responsibility for this iatrogenic lllness rests with the mainstream media.

Canakinumab. A New Wonder Drug! Promoted by the mainstream media

The mainstream media, urged on by their pharmaceutical sponsors, have announced that the drug Canakinumab 

is a new wonder drug. This Telegraph headline gives a flavour of what the pharmaceutical industry wants us to know. 

"New wonder drug hailed as biggest breakthrough in fight against heart attacks and cancer".

Wonderful news, except that regular readers of this blog will probably know that I am not over-impressed with such claims. During the last 60 years we have been deluged with similar claims for a wide variety of new drugs that have never materialised. Even their most success drugs are now failing - painkillers are too dangerous for doctors to prescribe - antibiotics are becoming increasingly unable to kill bugs which are now largely resistant to them, and so on. And we now face epidemics of chronic disease, largely as a result of the side effects and adverse reactions to these same drugs.

The drug costs £40,000 per patient per year! Yet, as usual, there is no mention that the new wonder drug might cause serious side effects. But of course, it does, and these are outlined on the Drugs.com website. It starts with a warning. 

               "Even though it may be rare, some people may have very bad and sometimes deadly side effects when taking a drug." (My emphasis).

So patients are advised to contact their doctor, and get medical help immediately if any of the following side effects are experienced.

• Signs of an allergic reaction, like rash; hives; itching; red, swollen, blistered, or peeling skin with or without fever
• Wheezing; tightness in the chest or throat; trouble breathing or talking; unusual hoarseness; or swelling of the mouth, face, lips, tongue, or throat.
• Signs of infection like fever, chills, very bad sore throat, ear or sinus pain, cough, more sputum or change in color of sputum, pain with passing urine, mouth sores, or wound that will not heal.
• Cough that does not go away.
• Weight loss.
• Dizziness or passing out.
• Very bad irritation where the shot was given.
• Trouble swallowing.
• Very upset stomach or throwing up.
• A heartbeat that does not feel normal.
• A very bad and sometimes deadly problem called Macrophage Activation Syndrome (MAS) may rarely happen in people with juvenile arthritis.

Canakinum is also known to cause headache, stomach pain, upset stomach or throwing up, diarrhoea, muscle pain. weight gain, sore throat, runny nose, and flu-like signs.

If the mainstream media was motivated, in any way, to protect patients from iatrogenic harm as they clearly are to promote pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, they may have wanted to take time to read, and mention these problems associated with this new wonder drug to their readers!

Regular readers will also know that I don't always report on them (it would become somewhat boring and monotonous), but there are reasons for doing so in this case. I went on to read some of the comments made on the Telegraph article. They are interesting, and you should read them too! They are almost entirely cynical about the article, to say the very least. It shows that people are beginning to realise that the tactic of announcing a new 'wonder drug' is a marketing ploy, one which never materialises! 

Perhaps the mainstream media might also read the comments, and learn from them. Their promotion of pharmaceutical drugs is meeting reasoned and thoughtful resistance. Continuing to promote pharmaceutical drugs is damaging the credibility of the press and media with the public.

• Here are just a few of the comments. First, a quotation from The New England Journal of Medicine:

     "Canakinumab was associated with a higher incidence of fatal infection than was placebo. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio for all canakinumab doses vs. placebo, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.06; P=0.31)."

So no real benefit in terms of improved longevity compared to a sugar pill; dead is still dead, regardless of cause. Certainly not worth £40,000 per year.

• Hmm. Stains do not have a sound record but I do hope this new product will really help those that need it. Each year, it is suggested by my GP that I take up Statins. I always refuse because I am not vulnerable to heart attacks and my parent never suffered from them . Furthermore, my Cholesterol and Triglycerides readings when taken, are below alert  levels. So why am I so encouraged? Because they will help me. I cannot resist the thought that NICE who promote the prescription of this drug, are paid a commission on sales. I believe the Global annual sales of Statins now exceed $50 Billions per year and that is one big incentive to push the product.

• BTW did you kniow that cancer is now a  $125 Billions per year Industry? In the USA alone? With that sort of income, why would anyone want to create a cure?

• Oh dear, a monoclonal antibody therapy. 1 vial of 150 mg costs 9927.80 quid. I cannot see NICE paying for it. Not four times per year per patient. We shall see.

• Another week - another wonder drug you'll never hear about again. The establishment don't really want you to have 'wonder drugs' that work. Although they are quite happy for you to have 'wonder drugs' with bad side effects - like statins. What on earth benefit does it have to them to help OAP's to continue to live longer by giving them expensive life prolonging drugs? 

• Not again!

• Hold on I am sure I read about the wonder drug interleukin decades ago.

• The non mainstream healthcare sector has believed for years that inflammation can cause major health issue. There is evidence linking inflammation to insulin resistance and obesity yet this is often ignore by the protectionist medical industry. Look at Linus Paulings Vic C, and Lysene protocol for reducing cholesterol and heart failure. Totally ignored by mainstream medicine because there is simply no profit in it. The possibility that inexpressive, uncontrolled substances may eliminate the need for complex 8 hour operations and months of expensive drugs doesn't sit well with those who provide the drugs and carry out the operations.

• The Wikipedia article on canakinumab says, 'On Aug 27, 2017 the results of the CANTOS trial were announced ... CANTOS saw a 15% reduction in deaths from heart attacks, stroke and cardiovascular disease combined. CANTOS also observed serious side-effects, and no overall survival benefit.'. Presumably then you're less likely to die of the things they're trying to treat, but more likely to die of the side-effects, and the two approximately cancel each other out.

• Everyone has to die of something eventually. I am 78, and just about the only one of my large group of friends not on medication. Many of them take statins, among other things. My doctor has tried, numerous times, to get me on them in spite of my cholesterol, blood pressure and heart all being perfectly fine. I have had a chest x-ray and blood tests recently, due to a chest infection. All the results were ok. I would rather die quickly of a heart attack, or fairly quickly of cancer than linger into old age and end up sitting in a nursing home with dementia and wasting my childrens' rather small inheritance on fees. I have always had a healthy suspicion of taking medication, and of the drug companies who make a fortune from pushing it. I lead a fairly active life, and will only take something if my GP can convince me that it is really needed. MY plan is to go out with a bang, not a whimper! Fingers crossed that I manage it!

• Actually what many Doctors won't tell you is that HIGH Cholesterol in the elderly is associated with ''longevity''! I'm reminded of a woman in America who had a cholesterol reading of 15 points (uk) which is approximately 3 times the guideline of about 5. Almost forgot. She was active, sharp, and ''105 years old''.

• It's an anti-inflammatory which works by knocking out the immune system. Use very carefully!

• Biggest breakthrough since STATINS eh! Shoot yourself in the foot why don't cha! Red rag to a bull time, so here we go ... Let's be clear. In spite of all the HYPE concerning STATINS they have NEVER been shown to prevent Heart-Disease or Heart Attacks, or even prevent a single Death ... And yet with the help of a corrupt culture of medical disinformation and a superb advertising campaign they are a 30 billion dollar a year industry. But perhaps far more worrying, Statins are increasingly linked to all manner of health problems, from Cancer to Alzheimer's and ironically to the one most common to all ... PREMATURE AGING. And somewhat strange that a suspect band of ?Experts? are at now odds with so many GP's and for that matter, even the literature of Lipitor the no1 best selling Statin drug in the world, which states .... ''Lipitor does not prevent heart disease or heart attacks''! ...... So why is it being prescribed on such vast scales, by so many medical practitioners .... ? Corruption?

• Hmm...... biggest breakthrough since statins. There is still alot of controversy regarding statins and even the medical profession can't agree with each other. I know plenty of people who have stopped taking these meds due to serious side affects, including memory loss. The pharmaceutical companies obviously want to push these drugs because of increased profits. I stopped taking statins due to serious side affects and feel alot better off them. Regarding this new drug, l hope it lives up to expectations.

• Why do I greet such headlines with a degree of cynicism? I suppose it's a bit like the reverse crying wolf.

• 200 000 people  x 40000 Pounds equals eight billion pounds per annum. Can't see this happening soon.

• Did someone buy some Novartis shares on Friday?

• OR, you could just include turmeric in your daily diet ritual which has proven anti-inflammatory properties without an injection or side effects.

• I would also advise the DT to read more widely on whether this is truly a wonder drug.  The NEJM's editorial concludes with the following sentence, "the modest absolute clinical benefit of canakinumab cannot justify its routine use in patients with previous myocardial infarction until we understand more about the efficacy and safety trade-offs and unless a price restructuring and formal cost-effectiveness evaluation supports it."

• Probably why they're interested in the further cancer research - I believe that if you find a new treatment for an existing drug, the patent clock is either restarted, or at least elongated.

Health. Why anecdotes should take preference to medical science

Most conventional medical treatments start with medical science.

• They are developed and tested in a laboratory.
• Testing shows that they have some beneficial affect on the human body, for some reason.
• Each treatment is further tested for its effectiveness and safety.
• Only after this is the treatment made available to the public.

The history of most pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and most conventional medical treatments, is one in which medical science is paramount. It is what conventional medicine calls their 'evidence base'. Anecdotal evidence, usually comes from patients, is not treated seriously, certainly not seriously enough, with conventional medicine wearing this denial almost as a badge of honour.

Okay, medical science is deeply, fundamentally flawed. It does not do what it is supposed to do, largely because rich and powerful pharmaceutical companies have lost touch with anything resembling ethical standards, and can make sure that the medical science it buys produces results that favours company profitability rather than patient safety.

Yet there is another reason to begin to look more favourably on ANECDOTES, why they should take over from MEDICAL SCIENCE.

It is when patients start medical treatment that anecdotal evidence comes into the picture. Patients begin to notice that all is not right, that something is wrong, or is going wrong, and that the treatment might be the cause.

• Many patients do not mention it, they lack confidence to challenge doctors, who they believe know best. 
• Some patients mention it but are assured by their doctor that it is not the treatment - it is something else, that there are so many other factors that could be causing the problem. What have you been eating recently? Have you been feeling stressed? 
• Perhaps you ought to take this treatment too, to deal with the new symptoms you are experiencing!

None of this is recorded, of course. It is just anecdotal. Results from the laboratory, in controlled conditions, have informed us that this does not happen with this treatment. Medical science has said that the treatment is both effective and safe. And this is what the conventional medical establishment stands by! They know best! After all, the patient is just a patient, they are not scientists, or doctors - what does he/she know anyway?

So these patient report are discounted, they are just anecdotes, unscientific, unproven connections. So they are not recorded on the 'yellow card' reporting system, the drug regulator is not bothered with such stuff. This, of course, leads to further denials (what the patients is experiencing is not recognised as a side effect because no-one has reported it)! They don’t count. Indeed, they should not count when set against the rigours of medical science.

In recent months, they have even been dismissed as ‘nocebo', that is, patients have heard about side effects, so they just think they are getting this reaction. But they aren’t. Patients are just imagining it.

So years pass by. But during this time there are more and more such anecdotes. Indeed, they become more serious, in fact too serious to be dismissed, even by the conventional medical establishment! So patient anecdotes begin to be recorded. Denial will usually continue - they are ‘rare’; and after all, we are told, all treatment has to have some side effects! But now they are noted; and when they continue to come in, warnings to doctors are issued - be careful. Don't use the treatment with these patients, or in these circumstances. But don't stop the treatment, it is so important for the patient!

But then it all becomes too serious. The anecdotes reach a level, and a seriousness, that can no longer be discounted or ignored, the evidence can no longer be denied or dismissed. There are just too many, and they are too serious. So the conventional medical establishment has to develop a different strategy - finding some quiet way to ditch the treatment. Not too much publicity, please! We may have been causing these problems for decades, we might not have taken them seriously, and we might have caused millions of patients serious harm... But we don't want anyone to know about this. Here, we have this new treatment, get rid of the old, bring in the new, after all, there has not been time, yet, for these new treatments to be fully experienced and assessed. So we can assume they are safe!

So why should anecdotes take over from medical science?

Well, anecdotes come from patients, real people, who are suffering real experiences, in real life. They may not be medical scientists. They may not be feeling these adverse affects in a controlled, laboratory settings. But they do know how they feel. And they do know when they started to feel that way. And they can assess what part the new treatment has played.

Yet in conventional medicine patients do not really count! What do they know? Doctors have been trained for many years. And conventional treatment are all 'scientifically' tried and tested! Medical science is science! It has to be right.

Science has become arrogant. They are right, they think they know everything, that what they say is unchallengeable, there should be no argument. What they know is scientific, so there should be no argument about it.

And there is no science more arrogant as medical science; nor any science that is so powerfully backed. Forget that it is paid for by pharmaceutical companies, who’s main aim is to make money, lots of money. So medical testing is not done, or it is done inadequately; or test results are misinterpreted; or ‘negative’ results are not reported at all; or safety factors are ignored or discounted; and the benefits of treatments can be routinely exaggerated.

It is important to note that no other industry functions on this basis. If a customer reports that a car, or a dish washer, or a television, or anything else, might be dangerous, it is immediately treated as a 'health and safety issue', and action is quickly taken to protect the consumer. Often the product is suspended, even withdrawn, until its safety is confirmed. The 'fail safe' principle is applied.

But for some reason the precautionary principle is not applied to conventional medicine, or in the regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

Instead, conventional medicine seems to be more about 'patient beware' than health and safety. If patients believe that a drug, or vaccine, or some other form of treatment might be harmful, they are ignored. Even if a side effect is reported, the treatment is not suspended, and is never withdrawn, until it is proven to be safe. Usually, such prevarication (or negligence) can take years, even decades. In the meantime, millions of patients can be harmed, or even killed by a treatment, but the treatment continues to be used until proven, without reasonable doubt, that it is too dangerous.

     This is why medical science has failed patients.

     This is why anecdote is important, and needs to be given more prominence in medicine.

Cholera in Yemen. Why are people dying under conventional medical care?

Cholera was a killer disease in Britain in the 19th century. Then it was discovered that it was caused by contaminated drinking water and contaminated food. So public health measures were taken during the latter part of the Victorian era, and this effectively eradicated the disease.

Yet it continues to exist elsewhere in world, where poor sanitation still exists, in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, south and south-east Asia, central America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East. Epidemics still occur here, where there is chronic over-population, poor living conditions, natural disasters or during local warfare, all of which contribute to reduced of access to clean water.

The latest outbreak is in Yemen, a country next door to one of the wealthiest countries in the world, Saudi Arabia. Here, the cholera outbreak is largely to do with war, and it is the war that is taking the headlines, and getting the blame for the fact that people are dying of a disease that is so easily preventable.

Yet many of the people who are dying of cholera are dying even when they have access to conventional medical care. Why is this so?

The trouble in the 19th century was that conventional medicine had no cure for cholera. It often claims the credit for the eradication of 'killer' diseases in Britain, and most people continue to believe their totally unwarranted claims. But as I have outlined in my 'Short History of Conventional Medicine', part of my e-book 'The Failure of Conventional Medicine', such a claim cannot be justified with respect to Cholera, and to other diseases such as Scarlet Fever, Influenza, Typhus, Typhoid, Smallpox and Tuberculosis.

The problem is that conventional medicine still has no cure! I recently researched this when writing my 'Why Homeopathy?' page on cholera which quite clearly demonstrates that there is little or no direct conventional treatment for the disease. This is why Yemeni citizens are dying of cholera - even when they are being treated in medical facilities by conventional medics.

So could conventional medicine not call upon Homeopathy to treat people dying with cholera in Yemen? After all it has been known for nearly 200 years that homeopathy is able to treat cholera more effectively than conventional medicine. I outlined these cases in my 'Short History of Conventional Medicine'.

• In the Cholera Epidemic of 1831 it was reported that deaths in 10 homeopathic hospital were about 9% of patients, whilst conventional medical treatment showed death rates varying from 40% to 80%.
• In the Cholera Epidemic in Austria in 1831 there was a 33% death rate using homeopathy, and a 66% death rate using conventional medicine.
• In the Cholera Epidemic of 1854 in London, when 10,738 people died, similar figures were demonstrated, although even by that time officials were trying to cover-up the superior performance of homeopathy. 

               "The House of Commons requested a report regarding the various methods of treating the illness. When the report was issued no homeopathic figures were included. The House of Lords requested an explanation and it was admitted that no homeopathic figures were included in the report as it would 'skew the results'! So instead they were suppressed! Upon examination the buried report revealed that under conventional treatment the mortality rate was 59.2% while under homeopathy mortality was only 9%."

So cholera victims in Yemen are not offered homeopathic treatment. Perhaps the conventional medical establishment is still not ready to admit that homeopathy offers more effective treatment, both for cholera and many other illness! They are still unable to admit that homeopathy works. They still cannot allow their monopoly to be challenged, or broken!

The conventional medical establishment, in fact, would rather allow people to die of easily an treatable disease, and complain that it is the war that is causing the problem. In fact, the war is the fundamental problem. But it is not the reason for cholera victims dying under medical care!

They harm us with their drugs, we pay compensation, and then raise more money for them!

If vaccines are safe, why has the US government paid out $3 BILLION to vaccine-injured families? This is the question asked by Natural News, an internet portal that focuses on natural health. It is hated by skeptics, medical fundamentalists, who love medical science, no matter how corrupt it proves to be, and hate anything that are alternative to the promotion of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. They will hate this Natural News article on vaccine damage. Indeed, they will have hated it since March 2015, when it was first published.

That was over two-and-a-half years ago! During that time have you heard an answer from the pharmaceutical industry, or from governments around the world? Has the mainstream media picked up the story in order to verify the truth or otherwise of the story?

Of course not! Instead, governments and mainstream media has been reinforcing the message of the pharmaceutical industry - all vaccines are entirely safe - they are effective - we should all be vaccinated against almost any illness - and if anyone refuses to be vaccinated they should be forced into accepting it.

If the story was not true the pharmaceutical industry would have sued Natural News, and anyone else peddling such an anti-pharmaceutical message. They have not done so. So is the story true! What is the story? It can be summarised in four points.

• The conventional medical establishment, supported by government, and passively accepted  by the mainstream media, tells us regularly that vaccinations, in all their forms, are safe and effective.
• The USA government has indemnified the pharmaceutical industry from any responsibility for their vaccines causing injury and damage (which, of course, they don't cause anyway) by setting up the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).
• VAERS, sometimes called the Vaccine Court, has examined the negative effects of vaccination (which of course never happens) and has awarded $3 billion to vaccines damaged families (which of course do not exist) in less than 30 years.
• There has been an ongoing failure, by governments and the pharmaceutical industry, to answer the question about why so much money has been paid to vaccine damaged families when these vaccines are effective and entirely safe. There has been a similar failure by the mainstream media to investigate this rather important paradox.

So what is the purpose of the VAERS system? Simply, it is the USA government indemnifying pharmaceutical companies for the vaccine damage cause to patients. 

What does this mean? It means it is the government, rather than the pharmaceutical industry, that pays out compensation to vaccine damaged families. It means that whilst the drug companies cause the vaccine damage, they do not have to take responsibility for that damage. So they profit from selling vaccines, and then leave it to the government to pay out vast amounts of compensation.

Where does the government get its money? VAERS pays vaccine damaged families with public money, the money they raise in tax, from taxpayers. So it is taxpayers who have to foot the bill for something that the rich and powerful pharmaceutical industry should be responsible.

Who are these taxpayers? You and me! Including those amongst us who have had the misfortune to suffer from vaccine damage. In other words, vaccine damaged families are paying themselves for the harm they have suffered through vaccination!

A brilliant business model - should it be replicated elsewhere?

This is a brilliant business model that other industries may want to replicate for itself. Faulty and dangerous goods, of and and every description, could flood the marketplace, causing absolute mayhem, but with the industry having to bear any of the consequences. Of course, the industry would have to be sufficient powerful, sufficiently rich to ensure that politicians and the mainstream media are kept in line, so that the public does not get to hear about it. But it is surely something worth pursuing!

Just think of the benefits. A manufacturer can produce a product without paying too much attention to its efficiency and safety. When the product causes damage and harm to consumers they can call on the government to indemnify them against legal action, and paying financial compensation. And the additional profits this produces can be skilfully used to ensure that the mainstream media does not tell anyone about it. What is there to lose?

So think about the benefits to your industry. You will be able to tell everyone about your products, about their safety and effectiveness, regardless of whether it is true or not. So, hearing nothing to the contrary, we will all want to buy whatever it is that you produce. Indeed, if your product advertising is sufficiently successful, if people can be convinced of the value of what you are selling, you can provide consumers with yet another incentive. You can set up charitable organisations that will raise more money for you, to enable you to do more research and development into your product.

There will be significant costs involved, but all these can come from the amazing profits that can be made from this model of production and marketing.

• Politicians will have to be kept on-side, with sizeable contributions to their campaign funds, thereby tying them into your business model. No doubt other personal incentives may be necessary from time to time.
• Governments will have to be kept on-side, with promises of investment in the national economy, and even threats of moving investments out of the country, and similar 'positive' incentives too, as and when required.
• The mainstream media will have to be kept on-side, by delivering large advertising budgets that maintain their viability, and exchanging directors to work on each other's boards will also be helpful.
• Supporting charities will have to be kept on side, with large donations to the cause, paid on the basis that they say positive things about your products, and ensuring they are run by people who are sympathetic to your business.

Once you have all this in place, any industry can thrive, even with ineffective and unsafe products, even when they damage families, and ruin the lives of millions. Why on earth have you not thought about such a business opportunity before? Why has the pharmaceutical industry been the only one to adopt this brilliant business plan? It's all beyond me.

Antidepressant Drugs, Mental Health, and Chemical Castration

Was 2016 a watershed year for antidepressant drugs? Or should it have been? Is any defence for them now being available for prescription by the conventional medical establishment?

Or have doctors prescribed dangerous drugs for so long now they have got used to the idea of damaging their patients? After all, as I wrote in March 2016, the doctor's medicine cabinet is getting emptier by the day! Doctors are now working under considerable constraint when they want to prescribe blockbuster drugs like painkillers and antibiotics - as a result of the well known dangers of these drugs.

Yet antidepressants are now facing similar concerns about their safety, especially during the current epidemic of mental health.

The mental health charity, Mind, undertook a piece of research in 2012, surveying more than 1,000 patients who were taking antidepressant drugs. It revealed that over half of these people were not warned by doctors about the possible serious side effects, notably to their relationships, their work, and their social life. The study show that

• Over 60% of antidepressant users felt the medication had a negative effect on at least one aspect of their social life.
• 44% reported an effect on their sex life.
• 27% said it affected their work or study.
• 23% said it impacted on their social life.

Plenty there to get depressed about! Indeed, one of the most notable side effects of antidepressant drugs is depression! Anyway, the doctors magazine, Pulse, has recently covered this story again, and they quoted Dr John Read, professor of psychology at the University of East London.

     "People taking antidepressants need to be warned about these effects, which can be very upsetting, especially in people who are already experiencing depression."

So, five years after their research was published, Mind is calling for better support for people on antidepressant drugs, to help them cope with their potential impact, as well as better training for GPs and prescribing nurses. It is part of the charity's ‘Find the Words’ campaign. They say that mental heath care staff have insufficient training to cope with this important task, and that they have an incredibly difficult job to do, under enormous pressure. Pulse goes on,

               "The evidence that serious and long term ADRs resulting from SSRIs, SNRIs and other psychotropic drugs have been hidden from prescribers by both pharmaceutical companies and regulators continues to accumulate." (My emphasis).

In other words, doctors have been prescribing antidepressant drugs without knowing the full adverse reactions patients might experience! Pulse goes on to talk about the 'slight of hand' in pharmaceutical sponsored, ghost written clinical trials, which have "been categorised and documented".  Indeed, a comment made to Pulse from a hospital consultant makes an incredible admission!

               "... the "apparent lack of prescriber awareness of a damming and expanding ADR evidence base" (perhaps even a widespread denial) seems to contrast with the growing patient insight into such serious adverse experiences as Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction. (PSSD."  (My emphasis).

So doctors are claiming that they have not been made aware of the side effects of antidepressant drugs, even though I was blogging about their dangers over 5 years ago! The evidence about the harm antidepressant drugs cause has been around for a very long time, but as usual the conventional medical establishment,has met this evidence by ignoring and denying it.

Indeed, the situation has been more than just 'ignored' or 'denied'. Prescriptions for antidepressant drugs for children rose 54% between 2005 and 2012 in the UK. The World Health Organisation (WHO) said in early 2016 that it was very concerned by the rise in use of antidepressants in children in particular, both in the UK and other countries which it said was ‘not justified’. Prescriptions had increased 60% in Denmark, 49% in Germany, 26% in the USA, and 17% in The Netherlands.

And the hospital consultant then raises another issue, specifically about SSRI antidepressants, that doctors are are using these drugs "as part of the Ministry of Justice's on-going program to roll out a voluntary chemical castration program for certain categories of convicted sex offenders".

               "Two types of medication are available to treat sex offenders. The first are known as SSRIs -commonly prescribed for depression, anxiety, and obsessive compulsive disorder. They help govern activities such as eating, sleeping and sexual activity".

So this is what we are being asked to believe by the conventional medical establishment.

• The nasty side effects of antidepressant drugs have been known about for many decades, but they have been ignored and denied, and doctors have not been told.
• The prescription of antidepressant drugs, with their nasty side effects, has grown exponentially, especially in the last 20 years, including young, vulnerable children and young people.
• Doctors, one part of the conventional medical establishment, who have prescribed these drugs, now claim in their defence that they were unaware of their nasty side effects.
• Conversely, other doctors, involved in the management of convicted sex offenders, themselves part of the same conventional medical establishment, DID know about the nasty side effects of antidepressant drugs. Indeed, they are knowingly and intentionally using them to produce one of the nasty side effects!

There is a stunning duplicity of the most serious kind, bordering on criminality, here. People with depression have been given antidepressant drugs by doctors who now claim they have not been made aware they can cause chemical castration. So innocent patients have not been told. Even if this was so it points to unacceptable professional incompetence, and gross negligence.

On the other hand, convicted sex offenders are given antidepressant drugs by doctors who are quite aware that they can cause chemical castration. I wonder if these patients are aware of the intention of their doctors? I wonder if the criminal justice system is aware of what they are doing?

Now, let's have a show of hands. 

Who trusts the conventional medical establishment?

Who wants to entrust their health to conventional doctors?