Friday, 22 May 2015

Conventional drug-based medicine. The death throes.

  • Our doctor's can no longer cope with the demands being made on them by patients.
  • Our Accident and Emergency Services can no longer cope with the demands being made on them.
  • The NHS demands more and more money
Together, what does this mean? Are we witnessing the death throes of conventional, 'science' based medicine?

This is a heartfelt plea by a doctor, a GP, recently published on Facebook, and worth of note. It has attracted much support and sympathy from the professional medical fraternity.
  • Unhappy with your GP?
  • Write to your MP. 
  • There is absolutely nothing we can do about this at a practice level. 
  • We cannot recruit any more GPs. 
  • We cannot fund any additional staff.
  • We cannot work any longer hours and be safe (bet you didn't know that I often leave work around 11pm and have left at 2am before). My 'part time' 5 session (ie 20h) is approaching three times that in reality. 
  • Why do you think we're running late? (Genuine question - I'm interested to know what people think we're doing.) It's because people come with lists. It's because 10 minutes isn't enough. 
  • It's because people use appointments that they don't need when actually self-care and time and patience will do the job perfectly well. The human body is designed to cure a lot of things itself, especially infections. 
  • It's because we're interrupted, quite legitimately, by phone calls from palliative care nurses wanting to discuss medication urgently for the dying patient; by ambulance crews called inappropriately who are asking us to take responsibility for patients not being taken to hospital; by the coroner asking us for information to try to prevent a bereaved family having to wait for a postmortem before they can arrange a funeral; by nurses who need us to give a second opinion on something that they're already gallantly managing beyond their duty; by urgent prescriptions that need signing because the patient didn't plan properly (we all make mistakes). I could go on. 
  • We get brought tea because otherwise we wouldn't drink anything for 5h at a time - morning surgery typically is 4.5-5h, with patients every 10 minutes. 
  • Each patient is not just a symptom. They are people with problems, with lives and responsibilities, and we try to treat them holistically. In 10 minutes. 
  • It takes the frail old lady 2 minutes to undress so we can examine her, another minute to get up onto the couch, another couple to put herself back together again. That's half the appointment gone. 
  • We could do longer appointments, but would have fewer.
  • I really do understand the frustrations of the general public - remember I have a family too, who occasionally need to see a doctor.
  • But. We are working flat out. There is a reason that there is a shortage of GPs. There is a reason that no one wants to train as a GP.
  • If we were genuinely working 9-5 on >£100k then why would there be a recruitment problem?
  • No one wants to do it because it's a draining job, very heavy on workload, and we are demoralised and constantly berated by the press and portrayed as lazy and money grabbing.
  • If you have ideas on how it could be done better then please share. Genuinely. We are all out.
So what is happening here? Why are our doctors struggling? Why does the NHS need more and more £billions, and each time more resources are found and spent another crisis emerges?

During the General Election in May 2015, the political parties were fighting over how they were going to fund a further £billion for the NHS. Within two weeks of that election parts of the conventional medical establishment were already saying that this massive increase in spending was not enough! And so it goes on!

No-one has yet diagnosed the real problem. Rising levels of expenditure on health. Rising levels of illness and disease. And doctors unable to cope.

This crisis situation in health care provision arises from devoting all our resources in a medical system that relies on drugs and vaccines that are 
  1. ineffective (so ailments, illnesses and diseases remain, ongoing and unimproved, so patients come back, time and time again)
  2. dangerous (which means patients get 'side effects' from the drugs, which are really new diseases, and so return to their doctors with more serious conditions). 
The result is patients do not get better, they get sicker. Chronic diseases, like arthitis, asthma, allergies, dementia, depression, et al, are at epidemic levels, and rising. And even new diseases, like autism, unknown, or virtually unknown since our love affair with toxic drugs and vaccines began over a century ago, are now affect an increasing number of people. 

So they go to their GP's who cannot cope. So the go to their A&E departments, who cannot cope. And when key medical staff cannot cope, the NHS keeps asking for more and more money. 

But they ask for money and resources for the same failed, and failing medical system. The NHS invests in yet more ineffective and dangerous 'scientific' drugs. More and more harmful vaccines. Even the most successful conventional drugs are failing now, antibiotics and painkillers, to name just two. So, the major tools that conventional doctors have relied on either don't work any more, or they are now known to be too dangerous to prescribe.

So what we get is more patient sickness, and more doctor fatigue.

We are witnessing the death throes of 'conventional' medicine, based as it is on failed drug and vaccine based medicine. Medical science has failed.

But the conventional medical establishment is just too big, and the pharmaceutical drug industry is just too powerful and influential, to allow us to realise it yet.

The penny will have to drop very soon, but until it does, we should have sympathy for those doctors who are trying their best to help us. They are just unable to do so.

Tuesday, 19 May 2015

Our Health Freedom is being denied by our 'Free' Press

Most of us believe that the right to free speech is one of our most fundamental freedoms. When there are attempts to limit our freedom to say what we believe we become rightly indignant. Freedom of speech was hard won, and we are keen to fight for it.

The European Conventional on Human Rights has sought to protect our right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion since 1953.

Our 'free press' was certainly hard won, one of the triumphs of the struggle for democracy and personal liberty. We wanted our journalist to be free to investigate, to question, to bring to task those who ruled us. We refused to accept that our governments should restrict our right to know the facts, both sides of every story. So thousands of people suffered and died to ensure that the press was free of government control.

Yet it is no longer the government, but the big, powerful industrial and commercial corporations that now control the news media, and restricts its freedom to report. And the biggest of these conglomerates is the Pharmaceutical drugs industry.

The result is that today, there is one area of our freedom that is under severe threat. Health Freedom, the right to decide what we do, and what is done with our bodies, the right to information about medical therapies, and in particular, the right to know about the dangers and effectiveness of conventional medical drugs and vaccines.

Our mainstream media is doing all it can to ensure that its readers, listeners and viewers are not given  full information about matters concerning health and medicine.
  • It will publish very little information that is even vaguely critical about conventional medical practice, even if the information points to patients being seriously harmed. 
  • It will, however, readily publish any, and all information fed to them by the conventional medical establishment, particularly by the Big Pharma companies, about potential 'medical breakthroughs', prospective medical advances, and new 'miracles' drugs and vaccines.
  • It will not publish any evidence or information about pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines and treatments that have been found to be ineffective, or dangerous, or both. Although this evidence is being produced on a regular basis, it is rarely covered by the media. 
  • It refuses to publish information about alternative medical therapies, and if it does, coverage arises from the attacks on it made by people and organisations closely connected to the conventional medical establishment.
  • Any medical issue that is discussed, the call on 'experts' to give their opinion, and these experts  are invariably from the conventional medical establishment.
  • Even when alternative medical therapies, are discussed the 'experts' the experts consulted are invariably conventional medics whose opinion is invariably condemnatory of alternative medicine.
What happens, for instance, if a CDC scientist who undertook research in 2004 to ascertain whether there was a link between Autism and the MMR vaccine admitted that important evidence that supported such a link was intentionally omitted? Would that admission be a matter of public concern? Would we be entitled to be told this, especially when during the following 10 years the conventional medical establishment insisted, on the basis of that research, that there is no such link?

The magazine, 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' (WDDTY), in its editorial in March 2015, gave this evidence.

           "In all its literature to parents, the Department of Health does not publish one word of information about potential side effects, or lack of efficacy of any vaccine, even though this material is freely available in other countries".

          "In the US, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),  the major government agency charged with studying vaccines, has consistently buried unfavourable data about the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and its link to autism by massaging the data".

          "When a CDC whistleblower scientist recently blew the story about the CDC burying these data - a scandal of Watergate proportions - not one major paper in the US or UK was willing to carry the story".

If you want to know more about this situation, go to WH Smiths and buy a copy of the WDDTY magazine. But no! You cannot do that! This 'champion of the small press' will not carry the magazine as a group supported and funded by Big Pharma companies, staged a campaign protesting about it.

The result is that people are not being properly informed about health matters. Our 'Free Press' is failing in its duties to its readers, listeners and viewers. It allows itself to be controlled by the conventional medical establishment.

As a result, patients cannot make an informed choice about what they should do to maintain their health, of what treatment to choose when they become ill. We are not given access to all the information - about conventional medicine, and about the alternatives to it.

Monday, 4 May 2015

The Mustard Gas Experiments 1941-1942. Homeopathy works! So just ignore it!

At the very height of the 2nd World War, when Britain stood almost alone against Nazis Germany, and the prospect of troops suffering and dying from mustard gas attacks, two pieces of research were undertaken to assess whether Homeopathy was helpful.

The research indicated that it would be helpful. So what happened? The information was ignored by the Government! The circumstances are outlined in the Institute of Homeopathic Research website, and is replicated here. What the story demonstrates is that any evidence supporting the effectiveness of Homeopathy is ignored. It was ignored when Britain was at war in the 1940's, and it continues to be ignored by 'skeptics', including members of 'Sense about Science' and the 'Good Thinking Society' (both front organisations for Big Pharma drug companies, today.

Not even the prospect of saving the lives of our armed forces in the event of a Mustard Gas attack could open up the minds of the Establishment!

          "One of the first double-blind and placebo-controlled trials ever conducted for a governmental agency (England’s Ministry of Home Security) tested homeopathic treatments during World War II and was conducted in 1941-42 on volunteers whose skin was burned with mustard gas.  The Glasgow trial included 40 volunteers, and the London trial included 240 volunteers. A more recent analysis of the data further substantiated the statistical significance of this study (Owen and Ives, 1982), and even more recently, it was described in detail in the famed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (Dean, 2014).
           In the Glasgow experiments, only Mustard Gas 30C was used, given moments before getting exposed to mustard gas.  The first experiment found that none of the first 12 patients receiving homeopathic treatment experienced deep lesions after exposure to mustard gas, while all (!) of those volunteers who received a placebo experienced deep lesions.  Of the next 28 volunteers who received the homeopathic medicine, 12 had superficial wounds and two had deep lesions after the homeopathic treatment.  In comparison, those volunteers who were given a placebo, two experienced superficial lesions and 12 had deep lesions.
           In London, two experiments were conducted.  The first experiment included 139 volunteers who were assigned to take one of several homeopathic medicines known to treat burns, including Rhus tox, Kali bich, Opium, Cantharis, and Mustard Gas (all in 30C).  A second experiment was conducted with 101 volunteers, in which they were either given a placebo or a specific protocol of Variolinum 30C and Rhus tox 30C, taken after exposure, as well as Mustard Gas 30C and Rhus tox 30C given 14 days before exposure.
          The results of the London experiments were sent for “independent analysis.  A report determined that “there is certainly an indication of beneficial effects of the drugs in general.”
A recent review of this study acknowledged that despite the remarkable results at two locations, the Ministry of Home Security still rejected the results on the grounds that the experimental technique must have been flawed, despite the fact that the Ministry helped in the design of the trial that included the use of placebo controls, blind outcome assessment, and independent statistical testing. (My emphasis). The Ministry of Home Security never provided any evidence that these studies were flawed, but considering the positive outcome of the studies, they simply assumed that something was wrong with them.
References.
Dean, Michael Emmans. The Mustard Gas Experiments Done by the British Homoeopathic Society for the Ministry of Home Security, 1941-1942. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2014 107(11)453-455.  DOI: 10.1177/0141076814521937.
Paterson, J. Report on Mustard Gas Experiments,  Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 1944, 37:47-50, 88-92.
Owen, RMM, and Ives, G.  The Mustard Gas Experiments of the British Homeopathic Society: 1941-1942,  Proceedings of the 35th International Homeopathic Congress, 1982,