Friday, 13 July 2018

Antibiotics are failing. Our Government and Conventional Medicine does not know what to do. This is the advice provided for government by the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths

Written evidence from the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH)

1. Declaration of interests
The Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH) is the second largest voluntary registering and regulatory body for the homeopathy profession in the UK, and currently represents just under one thousand qualified homeopaths. ARH is set up as a Company Limited by Guarantee, and is a not for profit organisation. ARH has based its regulatory criteria on the UK National Occupational Standards for Homeopathy (NOS), which were developed and agreed across the profession. We are committed to supporting and promoting a high standard of safe, effective homeopathic practice, and to ensure that quality homeopathy is available to all who wish to use it.

2. An overview of antimicrobial resistance
In 2001 the World Health Organisation (WHO) published its global strategy for containment of antimicrobial resistance. (1) Acknowledging the urgent need for all countries to take effective action to reduce AMR, the WHO strategy included several important recommendations such as:

     * Encouraging more appropriate use of antimicrobials
     * Reducing antimicrobial use in food production animals
     * Reducing antimicrobial use by improving both public health and domestic hygiene routines
     * Developing knowledge and understanding of AMR
     * Developing new drugs to combat AMR

3. In 2012, the WHO published ‘The evolving threat of antimicrobial resistance; Options for action (2) is a book which re-emphasised the urgency of the situation, redefined the actions necessary to effectively manage AMR, and encouraged policy makers and the global community to commit to increasing their actions to combat AMR. A detailed account of the threat posed to public health by AMR is outlined in Volume II of the Chief Medical Officer’s Annual Report (2011), which was published in March 2013. (3) This report also makes a number of recommendations which broadly concur with the findings of the earlier WHO publication. The situation is clear; AMR has become a major threat to world health. Infectious diseases already place a social and economic burden on society, so an increase in AMR is likely to have a significant impact in three main areas:

     I. Loss of productivity due to absence from work as a result of minor illnesses (this cited as the cause for over one fifth of all lost work days in the UK during 20113).
     II. Increased need for hospitalisation as a result of unresolved infectious diseases (in the UK, it is estimated that the costs to the health service, labour market, and to individuals, amounts to £30 billion/year (3).
     III. Increased mortality resulting from infectious diseases, or routine interventions/surgical procedures, which respond to currently available antimicrobial drugs.

4. Research into other treatments
Although the development of new drugs is one of the recommendations listed to combat AMR, experience suggests that this may prove to be a self limiting approach. Microorganisms have the ability to modify over a relatively short period of time, leading to the development of new strains, which are resistant to antimicrobial drugs. An approach to AMR which focuses on improving general health and reducing the use of antimicrobial drugs, is more likely to produce long term benefits.

5. This observation is supported by the results from a recent retrospective cross-sectional analysis of national primary care prescribing data, undertaken by researchers from the University of Bristol in England during 2016 (4). In this study, a group of UK, German and Dutch researchers led by Bristol University, set out to examine if there was any difference between antibiotic prescription rates in conventional GP practices, and GP practices where doctors had an additional training in integrative approaches (ie, they had also been trained in a complementary/alternative (CAM) system of medicine). This study used NHS digital monthly prescribing data for 2016 and covered 7,274 surgeries. The data was then compared with results taken from nine surgeries where GPs had been trained in integrative medicine (IM). As well as looking at overall anti-biotic prescribing, the study also considered anti-biotic prescriptions made specifically for respiratory infections and urinary tract infections (UTI).

6. Analysis showed no significant difference between the two types of practice when it came to anti-biotic prescriptions for the treatment of UTIs. However, practices that employed GPs trained in IM has significantly lower anti-biotic prescribing rates overall, than those with GPs with a conventional training only. The treatment of respiratory infections also required less anti-biotic prescriptions in surgeries using an integrated approach.

7. It is acknowledged that the results of this study are limited by the lack of data in several areas, such as the number of consultations, individual GP characteristics, individual deprivation scores and continuum of care. Also, the number of practices which have GPs trained in IM is small because accessibility of IM/CAM within the NHS in general practice in England is very limited. Currently, IM/CAM provision is currently almost exclusively private in the UK.

8. Nevertheless, the authors of this study have concluded that the difference seen in antibiotic prescribing rates at practices with GPs trained in IM warranted further study. Significantly, the lower antibiotic prescription rates of practices with GPs trained in IM are in line with current national guidance aimed at reducing antibiotic usage and antimicrobial resistance.

9. The fight against antimicrobial resistance should include utilizing additional treatment strategies to manage infections commonly encountered in primary care. One such intervention is homeopathy, which has been successfully used to treat a wide range of medical conditions, since the early 1800’s. Some historical, and more recent, examples follow below:

10. Homeopathy and epidemics
Extensive medical records exist, recording the effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of epidemics. For example, in the pre antibiotic era, homeopathy was successfully used to treat the Spanish flu outbreak of 1918, a fact which has been well documented, especially in the US. The medical records of hospitals across the country consistently show a mortality rate of above 28% in sufferers treated allopathically, as opposed to a mortality rate of just over 1% of those treated with homeopathy. A more detailed account of homeopathy's efficacy in treating the Spanish flu outbreak in the US, is documented in a report to the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, entitled 'Homeopathy in Influenza – A Chorus of Fifty in Harmony. (5)

11. In 2008, a groundbreaking research study was conducted in Cuba, where homeopathy was used to prevent an outbreak of leptospirosis in 2.4 million people during the hurricane season. The results of this remarkable experiment were first presented at a conference in Havana in December 2008. The Cuban based Finlay Institute, responsible for the production of allopathic vaccines, is also involved in the research and development of homeopathic products. They were responsible for the manufacture of a homeopathic Leptospira nosode, which was rapidly made available to populations in the three areas most affected by the hurricanes. The result was that following the intervention, a dramatic decrease in mortality was observed, with confirmed cases of Leptospirosis at lower levels than normally expected. (6) Furthermore, there were no fatalities in hospitalized cases. This compared to several thousand confirmed cases of Leptospirosis in previous years, including some fatalities, even in populations where the allopathic vaccine had been used. Another feature of this study was its cost efficiency. The Leptospirosis nosode programme had been delivered at a total cost of around US$200,000, whereas a 'normal' vaccination programme, which would only be delivered to the most 'at risk' population, would be expected to cost in the region of US$3,000,000. The implications of these findings to third world countries, struggling to provide effective health interventions at a price they can afford, are massive.

12. The Finlay Institute has continued to use a homeopathic prophylaxis against Leptospirosis since 2008, and the results have shown a significant reduction in the occurrence of this disease. The subsequent studies demonstrate the potential effectiveness of homeopathic prophylaxis in reducing the spread of an infectious disease which would normally be widespread, and would probably require antimicrobial drugs to be used as part of a treatment routine.

13. Homeopathy and infections
Respiratory disorders, such as pneumonia, have been identified as a leading cause of infectious disease related mortality, especially in our increasingly ageing population. Upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) occur frequently in children, and in one study assessing morbidity in pre school children due to URTI (7), the authors observed that over 58% of the study cohort developed a common cold, and over a twelve month period, over 47% had more than two colds. There appears to be a link between a compromised immune system leading to recurrent infections, and the over prescription of antimicrobial drugs. For several decades, antibiotics have been used to treat common conditions such as upper respiratory tract disorders, even before they develop symptoms associated with bacteriological involvement, and now it is recognized that this intervention may lead to complications in addition to recurrent infections, such as disruption of pro bacteria in the colon, which can result in abdominal pain and diarrhoea. One outcomes based trial, originally intended as a cost evaluation of the effectiveness of homeopathy, demonstrates that homeopathy can provide a valuable treatment option for some respiratory disorders.

14. A cost evaluation of the treatment of respiratory disorders, was undertaken in the Campo di Marte Hospital, Tuscany, Italy, from 1998 – 2003. (8) The cost of conventional drug treatment given to a group of patients suffering from asthma and recurring respiratory disorders, was monitored for one year prior the introduction of homeopathic treatment, then compared to the conventional drug costs incurred over a two year period, following the introduction of homeopathic treatment. The analysis shows a reduction in drug costs specific to respiratory disorders of over 46%, and a reduction of general drug costs of over 42% in the patient group given homeopathy. Overall patient wellbeing also improved significantly, a fact which undoubtedly contributed to the reduction in drug requirements. For the patient group suffering from asthma specifically, conventional drug costs were reduced by 71% during the first year of homeopathic treatment, compared to the group receiving only conventional medication, whose drug requirements resulted in a 12% increase in overall costs. According to a news release from Asthma UK, dated 21 October 2009, the treatment of asthma in the UK costs an estimated £1 billion per year. The Italian study shows a cost saving on conventional drugs ranging from between 42% to 71% over a two year period. This makes the long term implications for delivering effective, cost efficient treatment of asthma with homeopathy, highly significant.

15. Evidence which shows the effectiveness of homeopathy
A number of scientists consider the randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial (RCT) to represent a gold standard for determining the efficacy of a therapeutic intervention. However, RCT's have several inherent fundamental flaws: They are designed to support/enhance a particular outcome. The results they produce can, either intentionally or unintentionally, be interpreted to reflect the required outcomes. RCT protocols are founded on a number of broad generalisations and assumptions, making it difficult to take into account the reactions of each individual participant. RCT's were originally developed as an appraisal tool, and were intended to support and augment evidence acquired through other, more observation based means. Because homeopathy is a system of medicine in which individualisation is key to a successful prescription, gathering evidence via RCT's presents a significant challenge. However, a number of RCT's looking for quantitative evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathy, have been undertaken. For example, in 1997, a meta analysis of data extracted from 89 clinical trials was published in The Lancet, (9) and concluded that the results showed the beneficial action of homeopathy could not be attributed to the placebo affect alone. Two subsequent reviews, analysing trials from the same data set, corroborated this conclusion, (10, 11) though less strikingly than the original systematic review. This highlights a problem associated with meta analyses in general, which is that the quality of the reviews under consideration determines the usefulness of the information extracted via systematic analysis. Another problem may arise when the researcher selects the reviews to be analysed, via criteria likely to influence the outcome. Undoubtedly there is a valuable place for the RCT within scientific research, providing its limitations are fully acknowledged when interpreting the resulting data.

16. Most RCTs in homeopathy are small scale when compared to RCTs in conventional medicine, however they consistently indicate a positive outcome. For example, a study undertaken between 2002-2004 in Trondheim, Norway, (12) investigated whether individualized homeopathic treatment could be effective in preventing URTIs in children. One hundred and sixty nine children under the age of ten, who all had a history of URTIs, were selected, and randomly assigned to either receive individualized homeopathic treatment, or conventional care, over a twelve week period. This was a pragmatic trial, designed to measure the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment under everyday ‘real life’ circumstances. The children who received homeopathic treatment experienced fewer days suffering from URTIs (an average of eight days, compared to thirteen in the control group), and had significantly fewer symptoms, suggesting that homeopathy can be effective in both the prevention and treatment of URTIs in children.

17. Other RCTs have shown homeopathy to be effective in treating childhood infections such as glue ear, where antibiotics would normally otherwise be used. In 1999, a small scale study (13) concluded that the group of children treated with homeopathy required less antibiotics and less visits to the specialist, than the group receiving standard care. A different trial, which was comparative and non-randomized, showed that children suffering from acute otitis media14 experienced more rapid pain relief, and a reduction in recurrence of infection, following homeopathic treatment, when compared to the group of children treated conventionally. Undoubtedly, there is a need to undertake more RCTs in homeopathy in order to further develop our knowledge of the potential of homeopathy in reducing AMR. Further research is also required in the fields of outcomes-based evidence, (which can either be clinically sourced, or patient generated in the form of a 'measure yourself medical outcome profile' (MYMOP)), and empirical evidence, which is data acquired through direct observation, usually under controlled circumstances, where results are reported according to previously agreed protocols. There may be some overlap with outcomes-based evidence.

18. The overuse of antibiotics in production animals
In April 2011, the Director General of the WHO, Dr Margaret Chan, issued a stark warning about the imminent dangers presented by antibiotic resistance. As part of a panel discussion entitled ‘Antibiotic resistance. No action today, no cure tomorrow’, Dr Chan presented some of the facts currently being considered in this investigation. In the European Union, Norway and Iceland, an estimated twenty five thousand people die each year from common resistant bacterial infections. This figure is taken from about half of the fifty three member states within the WHO European Region, and the death toll from all of Europe in unknown, but without question, antibiotic resistance is increasing at an alarming rate. All this carries financial costs as well as human costs, with the EU alone paying out an estimated €1.5 billion on dealing with the consequences of antibiotic resistant organisms.

19. Dr Chan was also critical of the overuse of antibiotics in production animals, warning that resistant bacteria can easily spread via the food chain. It appears that outside of the EU, low doses of antibiotics are routinely used to aid growth promotion, a practice which carries health implications for all of us. Globally, it is estimated that about 80% of antibiotic use, is in production animals, including fish, meat, dairy and egg production. Tetracycline has been added to a paint applied to the hulls of ships, in order to reduce accumulations of barnacles and algae. This is certainly an area where alternatives to antibiotics need to be considered.

20. Homeopathy has been used to treat both domestic and farm animals for many decades, and although most of the literature supporting its effectiveness is empirical, a number of RCTs involving veterinary homeopathy have been conducted. In 2012, the first full study of RCTs in veterinary homeopathy was published (15). Out of one hundred and fifty published trials, just thirty-eight met the researchers rigorous criteria of representing a ‘substantive report of a clinical treatment or prophylaxis trial in veterinary homeopathic medicine randomised and controlled and published in a peer-reviewed journal’, and only three trials focused on individualised homeopathy (the remainder using a non-individualised approach, such as homeopathic prophylaxis). A full and systematic review of all the selected studies is currently being undertaken, and the results will further develop our knowledge and understanding of the effectiveness of homeopathy in enhancing the general health of production animals.

21. In the UK, an increasing number of farmers are becoming aware of the role homeopathy has to play in improving general levels of health and wellbeing in their production animals.
Just over nine years ago, a small group of homeopaths and homeopathic vets, established a course designed to help farmers learn how to use homeopathy safely and effectively. This teaching course developed into Homeopathy at Wellie Level (HAWL), and has since taught over five hundred farmers about the use homeopathy as an additional tool within their normal health management strategy. Farmers who have completed a HAWL course have consistently observed an improvement in the overall health of their animals, and have found themselves better able to take immediate and appropriate action in a range of emergency situations.

22. In conclusion
This submission has been an attempt to demonstrate the breadth and range of homeopathy as an effective treatment option for a number of conditions where antibiotics might otherwise be used. It focuses mainly on section two of this investigation’s terms of reference; ‘What should be the key actions and priorities Government’s next AMR strategy?’ AMR is a problem which will prove challenging to resolve, but it is to be hoped that increased awareness of the health crisis we currently face, will encourage policy makers and healthcare providers, to invest in developing our knowledge and understanding of how homeopathy, and other CAM interventions, can be used instead of anti-biotics, to effectively treat infectious diseases.

23. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Research Consortium (16) was established in 2015 to explore CAM’s potential role in the future treatment of common infectious diseases. The objective of this consortium is to investigate and further develop effective CAM treatments for infectious diseases affecting both humans and animals. Perhaps the time is now right for the UK to consider establishing its own consortium, with similar objectives.

Karin Mont, on behalf of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths
28 June 2018


Bibliography
1/ WHO Global Strategy for Containment of Antimicrobial Resistance – WHO/CDS/CSR/DRS/2001.2

2/ The evolving threat of antimicrobial resistance; Options for action - WHO Patient Safety Programme, 2012

3/ Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer; Volume II, 2011 – Infections and the rise of antimicrobial resistance (DoH, March 2013)

4/ van der Werf ET, Duncan LJ, von Flotow P, Baars EW (BMJ Open, March 2018) - Do NHS GP surgeries employing GPs additionally trained in integrative or complementary medicine have lower antibiotic prescribing rates? Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of national primary care prescribing data in England in 2016

5/ Dewey, WA. Homeopathy in Influenza – A Chorus of Fifty in Harmony. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 1921

6/ Bracho, G, et al - Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control –- Homeopathy (2010) 99, 156e166 (Faculty of Homeopathy)

7/ Kvaerner KJ, Nafstad P, Jaakkola JJ. - Upper respiratory morbidity in preschool children: a cross-sectional study - ArchOtolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 126: 1201–1206.

8/ Rossi E, Crudeli L, Endrizzi C, Garibaldi D - Cost-benefit evaluation of homeopathic versus conventional therapy in respiratory diseases. 2009

9/ Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al. - Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta- analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet, 1997; 350: 834–843

10/ Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, et al. - Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo controlled trials of homeopathy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1999; 52: 631–636.

11/ Ernst E. - A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2002; 54: 577–582

12/ Steinsbekk, A. Fønnebø, V. Lewith, G. Bentzen, N. - Homeopathic care for the prevention of upper respiratory tract infections in children: A pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial comparing
individualised homeopathic care and waiting-list controls – Elsevier Publications - Complementary Therapies in Medicine (2005) 13, 231—238

13/ Harrison H, Fixsen A, Vickers A. - A randomized comparison of homoeopathic and standard care for the treatment of glue ear in children. Complement Ther Med 1999;7(3):132—5

14/ Friese KH, Kruse S, Ludtke R, Moeller H. The homoeopathic treatment of otitis media in children—– comparisons with conventional therapy. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther1997;35(7):296—301

15/ Mathie RT, Hacke D, Clausen J. Randomised controlled trials of veterinary homeopathy: Characterising the peer-reviewed research literature for systematic review. Homeopathy 2012; 101: 196–203. [doi: 10.1016/j.homp.2012.05.009]

16/ Kok, E.T et al (2015) - Resistance to Antibiotics and Antifungal Medicinal Products: Can Complementary and Alternative Medicine Help Solve the Problem in Common Infection Diseases? The Introduction of a Dutch Research Consortium. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2015, Article ID 521584

Wednesday, 11 July 2018

NHS. Happy 70th Birthday? But for many there is nothing to celebrate

The British National Health Service is 70 years old this year, and the mainstream media is making much of this anniversary. Perhaps quite rightly so. Yet does the NHS measure up to the eulogies being offered to it by the press, radio and television coverage? What should not be denied are two salient facts about the NHS today, rarely mentioned in these celebratory programmes.
  • Firstly, the NHS is now in constant crisis, with NHS staff working under the most serious pressures which are not easing, regardless of the season, and throwing more £billions at it.
I have written about these crises in a series of articles, the first in May 2011 "The NHS Debate (NHS in Crisis 2011)", and the latest in April 2018, "NHS in Crisis. Summer 2018". As I have long argued, the reason for this ongoing crisis concerns the failure of conventional medicine, to which the NHS is now totally committed.
  • Secondly, chronic disease has risen to epidemic levels, and has continued doing so ever since the inauguration of free health care (with all its free drugs and vaccines) available through the NHS.
I have written about the rise of chronic disease extensively in my e-book "The Failure of Conventional Medicine", and in particular the chapter entitled "Epidemics of Chronic Disease". Here I have provided some basic statistics about how disease has risen since the NHS began to provide patients with an unrestricted access to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Diseases such as Allergy, Dementia, Arthritis, Asthma, ADHD, Autism, Cancer, Cardiovascular disease, ME (Chronic Fatigue), COPD, Diabetes, Irritable Bowel, Mental Health, MS, Osteoporosis, and many more have risen dramatically, and continue to do so.

At the same time, many 'new' diseases have surfaced, a plethora of autoimmune diseases, and a multiplicity of 'strange' and unexplained conditions that appear to strike down fit and healthy babies and infants with serious neurological conditions, leading to severe, often lethal damage.

I have regularly argued in this blog that the usual excuses made by conventional medicine for both these situation are just not viable.
  • The NHS is not under-resourced. But it does spend all it's money on one type of medicine, dominated entirely by pharmaceutical drugs. It is, without question, the most ineffective, the most dangerous, and the most expensive form of medicine available.
  • Nor does an 'ageing population' explain the overwhelming NHS workload. People of every age group are sicker now than before. Children and adults are now suffering from diseases once associated almost exclusively with old age, including cancer, dementia, and many others.
So perhaps it is right to celebrate the implementation of one of the two main principles of the NHS - a health service free to all at the point of need. The British NHS is widely admired because it (almost) meets this fundamental principle. No-one has to go without treatment because they cannot afford to pay for it.

Except that this is no longer so!

Unfortunately, what seems to have been forgotten is that there was originally a second principle, rarely mentioned in these celebratory programme. In 1948 the NHS was established to offer patients 'the best medicine available'. Now the NHS offers one kind of medicine, a medicine based on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that are known to cause 'side effects', which is a euphemism for causing patient harm, often serious harm, often serious disease, and often even death to patients in receipt of them.

Other medical therapies are barred, including Homeopathy, the preferred medicine of Anauren Bevan, the founder of the NHS. What little has been spent on this therapy has recently been banned by the NHS, a gratuitous strike against patient choice, and health freedom.

What this means is that the NHS is no longer of value to me, and to the tens of thousands of other people who wish to be treated with this effective, safe and inexpensive therapy. 

I am now in contact with several people who find themselves in this position, people who rely on homeopathy to treat their condition, but who can no longer obtain it because they do not have the money to pay for it, privately.

The NHS now denies people the treatment of their choice, homeopathy, and other forms of alternative therapy. It has become a monopoly. If a patient needs treatment they can have it, free - as long as it is conventional treatment based on pharmaceutical drugs.

So for many people, an increasing number of people, who do not want to subject themselves to the 'side effects' of NHS treatment, their choice has been removed. They can no longer have the treatment of choice, what they consider to be 'the best available treatment'.

So sadly, for many of us, the British NHS is no longer something to celebrate

Monday, 9 July 2018

SID's, Cot Death - Call in what you will. There is only one cause. It is not rogue parents. It is the pharmaceutical industry

It used to be called a cot death, but is now known in conventional medical circles as 'sudden infant death syndrome', or SID's. Thousands of health young children die of this 'syndrome' every year throughout the world, or at least those areas of the world dominated by conventional medicine. In many of these countries it has become of leading cause of death for babies between 1 month and 1 year. These deaths are not only devastating for families, but can often lead to parents being prosecuted and imprisoned for killing them.

So what causes these awful tragedies? This is the conventional medical explanation, as provided by the same NHS Choices website.

          "No-one knows exactly what causes SIDS, but it is thought to be the result of a combination of factors. Experts believe SIDS occurs at a particular stage in a baby’s development, and that it affects babies who are vulnerable to certain environmental stresses. This vulnerability may be due to being born prematurely or to low birthweight, or other reasons not yet identified. Environmental stresses could include tobacco smoke, getting tangled in bedding, a minor illness or having a breathing obstruction. Babies who die of SIDS are thought to have problems in the way they respond to these stresses and how they regulate their heart rate, breathing and temperature".

So, one healthy young babies, whose death cannot be explained by any illness, defect, accident or injury, just die. Conventional medicine is baffled, and so places the blame on suffocation with blankets, padding, pillow, cot bumpers, and similar. Yet cot death is not the same as suffocation. This can be identified, and if the child has suffocated it is NOT recorded as SID's,

So people are scared about losing their children, and scared of being blamed for their loss. It must be child abuse! Conventional doctors, who have no 'medical' explanation, have resorted to giving 'expert' advice that the parents are to blame because there is not other explanation.

So the tragedy of SID's is not just the absence of an explanation. It is that the cause is one that the conventional medical establishment is refusing to admit. As one of the prosecuted and imprisoned parents, Sally Clark, says on her website.

          "The only common factor, which may or may not be relevant, is that both deaths followed shortly after vaccination. (There is research into the possibility that these vaccinations can cause death within a few days if infants have certain genetic defects.)"

Indeed, a disproportionate number of infants die of SID's within days or a few weeks of receiving routine vaccines, particularly the DPT and MMR vaccinations. As Jeff Hays says, in one of his films, 

               “Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, ‘Crib death’ was so infrequent that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics,” a 2011 study published in Human and Experimental Toxicology states. In the 1960s, mandatory vaccination schedules were introduced and “Shortly thereafter, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term - sudden infant death syndrome. In 1973, the National Center for Health Statistics added a new cause-of-death category—for SIDS—to the ICD.”

Hays states that another study found that babies die at a rate 8 times higher than usual in the 3 days after being immunized with the DPT vaccine.

And so we have a dominant medical profession who refuses to acknowledge that SID's is caused by the dominant medical profession, the experts, those who know best, who tells us that all vaccinations are safe, and want to make them compulsory in many parts of the world.

So, the 'advanced' world continues to have high infant mortality rates whilst at the same time insists on parents vaccinating their children more than they have ever been vaccinated before.

We face thousands of deaths every year of perfectly healthy young children, and this will continue because the only known cause of SID's cannot be recognised by the conventional medical establishment. Their myopia will ensure that the cause of cot death will not be discovered, but will never, can never be discovered - until such time as we stop look at conventional medicine as safe and effective medicine.

Some countries, less dependent, less dominated by conventional medicine, have taken action. Japan raised the age for children having the DPT vaccination from a few months to two years, and saw an immediate 80-90% decrease in injury and death. Yet even Japan hasn't take the ultimate step - to ban these vaccinations altogether. If we know that this particular vaccination causes SID's, will parents assume that it become 'safe' just because their child is somewhat older?

There are consistent features about all vaccine damage. These include an increased incidence of autoimmune disease, serious neurological problems, seizures and death. The type of vaccine is almost irrelevant, and the age of the receiver too - one of the worse vaccines is seen not with children but in young (fit and health) teenage girls, and the HPV (Gardasil) vaccine.

Conventional medicine is dangerous. It harms, it causes disease, and it kills. No-one tells us this, the pharmaceutical industry is just too powerful for governments to challenge, their are too many medical 'experts' who accept their largesse, they control the drug regulators, and the mainstream press. Unless we realise this, and take action to refuse pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, we can all expect to be damaged in the interests of drug company profits.


Wednesday, 27 June 2018

HOMEOPATHY IN AUSTRALIA. A petition for transparency and honesty in health reports

Please sign this petition, and join this campaign for honesty in health. I am using this material, taken from the launch of this movement.


The public has a right to know that the NHMRC in Australia carried out their review of Homeopathy TWICE, completely BURYING any evidence of the first Report. 

‘Release the First Report’ builds on its sister campaign, ‘Your Health Your Choice’, launched last summer which achieved huge success, generating over 87,000 signatures in Australia. 

Now it’s time to go global!
The stakes could not be higher.

The recent UK High Court ruling to uphold a ban on homeopathic prescriptions is based primarily on the NHMRC report, sets a dangerous precedent. (Conventional medicine will use it in other countries if they feel they can get away with it)

As the formal investigation into NHMRC’s conduct has been going on for almost two years, it is time to show the Australian Government that the world is watching and demands that NHMRC explain themselves.

We need as many people as possible, from as many countries as possible, to sign up to the campaign on releasethefirstreport.com. 

· Sign up at www.releasethefirstreport.com/join-the-campaign
· Connect with the campaign on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. 

There is the option to opt-in to the Your Health Your Choice campaign at the same time.

It will be of major political significance if we can simultaneously push the original YHYC campaign to reach 100,000 signatures.

Numbers are crucial, so please sign up and share widely.


This situation further underlines the fraud and dishonesty that the conventional medical establishment is prepared to use to undermine homeopathy, and to p;obtect their medical monopoly

Wednesday, 20 June 2018

Opioid Drugs. At least 456 patients have been killed by them after 'inappropriate' prescribing

There is an Opioid drug scandal currently hitting the headlines in the USA. Not even the mainstream media can ignore the number of people who have died, are dying, or have become dependent on them. The scandal, many have said, is bound to come to Britain, sooner or later, as these dangerous pharmaceutical drugs are used with equal lack of care here as there.

What was not expected was that the scandal in Britain was neither sooner or later, it is with us, now, and it has been with us for over 20 years!

At least 456 patients died after being prescribed opioids "without justification" at a Gosport hospital in what a review has described as a "dangerous" and "institutionalised regime" of prescribing. The enquiry, conducted by former Bishop of Liverpool James Jones, also found that an additional 200 patients with "missing medical records" may have also died due to "overprescribed opioids".

This conventional medical disaster dates back over 20 years, to the 1990's, when these pharmaceutical drugs were being routinely overprescribed. As usual, no one has been held to account for this human carnage. One doctor, who was responsible for prescribing the painkillers for over 12 years did face disciplinary action from the GMC, but she was found fit to continue to practise.

It would appear that the patients who have been harmed and killed by conventional medicine, and pharmaceutical drugs, can expect little redress. Relatives of the dead patients have had to toil for over 20 years for the situation to become known. Yet still no-one has been found to be responsible, not even been a doctor-scapegoat has yet been identified.

So be it! The problem is much deeper than a single doctor, much more serious than something that can be dismissed as a 'medical error'.

Even the report suggests a wider responsibility than one doctor, criticising "the exclusive focus on one individual when there were significant systemic problem at the hospital". Bishop Jones is reported as saying:
               "The documents seen by the Panel show that for a 12 year period a clinical assistant, Dr Barton was responsible for the practice of prescribing which prevailed on the wards. Although the consultants were not involved directly in treating patients on the wards, the medical records show that they were aware of how drugs were prescribed and administered but did not intervene to stop the practice."

This is almost certainly true. But this problem is worse, it is wider than just a single hospital. It is the problem of a medical system that relies on dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that routinely causes harm to patients.

The report says that medical staff, doctors and nurses, had "a responsibility to challenge prescribing where it was not in the interests of the patient". The records, however, showed no-one challenged the prescribing at the time, and everyone continued to administer the unnecessary and harmful drugs.

There is a wider problem here too. When should medical staff intervene in this way? All pharmaceutical drugs and vaccine are known to cause harm, often serious harm. This harm is routinely discounted by the conventional medical establishment. Yet whenever this is exposed, as in this case, the blame is placed on a scapegoat, and individual members of staff.

So how much harm can a pharmaceutical drug or vaccine cause before medical staff have a responsibility to blow the whistle? 

               A serious side effect?
               A disease?
               A death?

Conventional medicine promotes treatments that harm patients. Then they routinely deny the harm caused by these treatments. They report no more that 10% of the adverse drug reactions, and possible no more than 1%. They do not tell patients about these side effects when prescribing them, and when they do they discount their seriousness. Then, when a major problem emerges, there is a search for a scapegoat, either an individual, or an institution.

It is the conventional medical establishment, the entire system of medicine in which we invest, that should be on trial here, not just individual medical staff, or individual institutions.

In 2003 a report written by Prof Richard Baker (who was involved with the Harold Shipman case) found evidence of the routine use of opiates, and that the drugs had shortened the lives of some patients at the hospital. In this review he concluded that there was a "disregard for human life". Nothing changed.

It is well known that opioid drugs, and many other pharmaceutical drug groups, cause disease and death. Yet this knowledge, year by year, crisis by crises, does little to change conventional medical practice. The drugs continue to be prescribed. Patients are routinely harmed. There is an outcry. The outcry dies down. And nothing happens, nothing changes.

Dr Harold Shipman was convicted in 2000. His use of Opioid drugs, and the death of 100's of his patients, caused consternation at the time. Surely, this would change medical practice? As this crisis in Gosport demonstrates it has done no such thing. It goes on. It is allowed to go on. Whilst the conventional medical establishment is totally dominant, an almost monopolistic presence within the NHS, it will continue to go on. So my prediction is a simple one to make.

Opioid drugs will continue to be prescribed, this year, next year, and for many years to come. Conventional medicine will continue to discount the mayhem it causes, and as usual will (quite literally) get away with murder. It has done so, time and time again.


Thursday, 14 June 2018

Cannabis as a Medical Treatment. The case of Billy Caldwell

Charlotte Caldwell is a mum from County Tyrone, Northern Ireland. Her 12 year old son, Billy, has very severe epilepsy, some days experiencing over 100 seizures. I will return to his condition at the end of the blog.

In a BBC Radio 5 Live interview Ms Caldwell said that conventional medicine had given Billy every imaginable drug, but none of them did anything for Billy's epilepsy. In 2017, she found cannabis oil. According to the Independent newspaper it was issued through a clinical trial in Toronto, Canada. It was prescribed by her family doctor, and cannabis oil reduced both the duration and intensity of Billy's fits, and has been doing so ever since.

A success story perhaps?

Not quite. Nothing is that easy with conventional medicine! For several months cannabis oil was prescribed by the family doctor, but then he was told by the Home Office to stop. Ms Caldwell brought cannabis oil from Canada, but this was confiscated at Heathrow airport earlier this week. She accused the Home Office as having "signed my son's death warrant". Later, the Home Office rejected her plea to legalise cannabis oil for her epileptic son, despite having what she described as a friendly meeting with a Home Office minister.

Apparently Billy was the first person in the UK to be prescribed cannabis oil, but in May (2018) his GP was told he could no longer do so by the Home Office. In doing so, Ms Caldwell felt that her son's death warrant had effectively been signed. It is, perhaps, easy to understand why she feels so strongly about the situation. She said that it was an “outrage” that UK parents should have to flee their own country to access life-saving treatment and urged the public not to confuse this issue up with the legalisation of recreational cannabis.

A Home Office spokeswoman came out with the usual bland and meaningless platitudes. They were "sympathetic to the rare situation that Billy and his family are faced with" but the Home Office stood by its position. It is unlawful to possess Schedule 1 drugs. The oil does not have a UK license. So it is illegal. Billy cannot have it.

So what is to be learnt from this situation. The issue of whether Cannabis should be proscribed, and  whether a proscribed drug that has medicinal benefits can be prescribed, will feature in most discussions on the situation. I will contribute little to this particular discussion, except that it would appear that conventional medicine is happy to prescribe dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines to children, regardless of their ineffectiveness, and their harmful side effects.

But Cannabis, which probably has less side effects that the anti-epileptic drugs he took earlier, cannot be prescribed. This certainly protects the pharmaceutical industry (who do not profit from Cannabis production), but it does not protect Billy, and other epileptic children whose epilepsy cannot be control with conventional medical treatment (of which more below).

What will almost certainly not be discussed is that Billy is yet another young child who has an illness for which conventional medicine has no effective treatment, and who parents look outside the UK for an answer. When an answer is found the conventional medical establishment objects, in this case fully supported by the Home Office. It would seem that the law, and professional medical ethics, is applied to such cases, and every time the needs of the patient, his/her health, and his family, is discounted.

This is conventional medical arrogance at it very worst. Charlie Gard, Alfie Dingley and Alfie Evans know all about this arrogance. Doctor's know best. They know about the drugs we can take, and those we cannot take. They know that our children need to be vaccinated, and if parents don''t agree they should be forced. Mandatory medicine is on the horizon. Doctors want us to accept what we are given, regardless of whether their drugs and vaccines are ineffective, or dangerous, or both, to our health.

So conventional medicine has decided. Billy can be given anti-epileptic drugs, despite the fact that they do not work, and despite the fact that they are know to have dangerous side effects. But Cannabis oil is not to be allowed. This also comes with side effect, according to Ms Caldwell. Are they as bad as anti-epileptic drugs? Who knows.

I would advise Ms Caldwell to consult with a homeopath in Northern Ireland, and seek treatment for Billy that is free of side effects, and which can be very effective. 

Yet there is another important question that will certainly never be discussed.

Why does Billy have severe epilepsy in the first place?
Indeed, why do so many young children have severe epilepsy today?

Epilepsy is caused by a large number of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. including Amphetamines, Antidepressants, Antipsychotics, Antibiotics, Painkillers, Asthma drugs, and many more. But when young children are involved it is always important to look at vaccines, and the side effects doctors know they can cause.

               The DPT Vaccine, given to children just a few months old, has spasms, seizure, coma and epilepsy as  'side effects'.

               The MMR Vaccine, given to children after they are over a year old, has febrile convulsions and seizures in their list of 'side effects'.

So I ask my usual question. It is one thing (unfortunately quite a common thing) for the conventional medical establishment to be unable to treat a condition, and even to refuse to offer a treatment they do not wish to use.

But it is quite another for the conventional medical establishment to CAUSE a condition, not to admit it, to have no effective treatment for the condition they created, and then to deny a patient a treatment they have found for themselves, especially when it appears to be working.


This is arrogance bordering on criminality!


Friday, 8 June 2018

BATTEN DISEASE. Why are there so many 'new' and 'rare' diseases? Why are the causes always 'unknown'? Why is treatment for them so expensive?

The parents of Samuel Coles have started a new petition via Change.com. The reason is that he has Batten disease. This is how his mother describes the situation.

               "He’s five years old and obsessed with cars. Two months ago, we were given the devastating news that Samuel had been diagnosed with CLN2 Batten disease. It’s a rare disease that affects children. We’ve been told without treatment in the next few months our baby will lose his ability to walk and to talk as well as to eat. Eventually he’ll lose his vision and will develop childhood dementia before he is six. We’ve been told that Sam’s life expectancy is just six to twelve years old."

This must be a terrible situation for any parent. So I looked up Batten disease to see exactly what it was. What I discovered was not 'rare' or particularly 'new'. It seemed to describe what was happening to a large number of young children in recent decades. This is what the Batten Disease Family Association say.

What are Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinoses (NCLs)?
Commonly referred to as Batten disease, the Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinoses (NCLs) denote several different genetic life-limiting neurodegenerative diseases that share similar features. Although the disease was initially recognised in 1903 by Dr Frederik Batten, it wasn’t until 1995 that the first genes causing NCL were identified. Since then over 400 mutations in 13 different genes have been described that cause the various forms of NCL disease.

Wikipedia describes a long list of these diseases. Infantile neuronal ceroid (INCL); Late infantile NCL (LINCL); Juvenile NCL (JNCL), Adult NCL; Finnish variant of late infantile NCL (fLINCL); Variant of the late infantile NCL; Turkish variant of late infantile NCL: CLN7 or MFSD8; Northern epilepsy: CLN8; Late infantile NCL: CLN10 or CTSD and Infantile osteopetrosis. It says of all of them.

               "Batten disease is a fatal disease of the nervous system that typically begins in childhood. Onset of symptoms is usually between 5 and 10 years of age. Often it is autosomal recessive. It is the most common form of a group of disorders called the neuronal ceroid lipofuscinoses (NCLs)."

The problem I have with this is that we are now hearing it too often, different conditions, with complicated, highly technical explanations. It is time that conventional medicine began to ask some important questions.
  1. Why are there so many of these 'new' and 'rare' diseases, previously unheard of?
  2. Why are they described as 'genetic' when they are 'new' - where have these 'faulty genes' suddenly appeared from, and why have they suddenly become 'faulty'?
  3. Why are all the diseases primarily concerned with the nervous system, and the brain in particular?
  4. Why do they all appear to strike down previously fit and healthy children?
  5. Why is the cause of these diseases usually described as 'unknown'?
  6. Why, when talking about the cause of the disease, do doctors present a description of what is happening, and not a explanation for WHY it is happening, that is, why is it that a normal child does not continue developing normally?
Samuel' parents continue

              "There is a hope for us. A treatment called Cerliponase Alfa has been developed that’s been shown to slow down the progression of this cruel disease. Unfortunately, NICE is currently recommending that the drug is not funded by the NHS. That’s why my partner and I are backing this petition calling on NICE and NHS England to find a way to make this drug available to Samuel and other children like him. Will you join me?"

So another question is about the treatment that is usually available for these 'new' and 'rare' condition, which offer so much hope to distressed parents. Why are they usually unavailable? Why are they invariably so expensive?

Let me try to assist in answering some of these questions!
  • What happens to most normal, healthy, fit babies? They are routinely given the DPT vaccination.
  • What happens to most normal, healthy, fit children? They are routinely given the MMR vaccination.
These vaccinations are injected into the bloodstream, and they invariably contain poisons, usually heavy metals like mercury (thimerosol) and aluminium. Is this too much for some babies? Are some children unable to cope with these poisons?

What are the affects of mercury and aluminium poisoning? The MedicineNet. com website says this about mercury poisoning.

              "For fetuses, infants, and children, the primary health effect of methylmercury is impaired neurological development."

The website talks about the sources of mercury, from rocks, from fish, from the air - but never from mercury that is injected directly into our bloodstream! A curious omission? A careless omission? Please read the rest of the article, it explains some of the effects of mercury poisoning "mercury exposure at high levels can harm the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system of people of all ages" and in particular note the rather close likeness to some of Samuel's symptoms.

What are the effects of aluminium poisoning? Allow homeopathy to help in doing so. Homeopathy works by treating 'like' with 'like', that is, a substance that is know to cause a symptom can cure that symptom. These are a few of symptoms that the remedy alumina (made from aluminium) treats.
  • Vagueness
  • Seems closed, self protective
  • Slowness, slow comprehension, dullness
  • Answers slowly and vague. Seems not involved, speaks monotonously
  • Restricted imagination, irresolution, incomprehension
  • Sensation of being hurried, cannot stand being hurried
  • Cannot do two things at the same time
  • Aversion to conversation, cannot comprehend what everybody is talking about
  • Confusion of identity. "Who am I?"
  • Everything seems unreal
  • Anxiety in the morning on waking
I am not familiar with Batten disease, but these symptoms appear to be similar (or like) those described in Samuel's parents petition. They certainly seem similar to Autism - a relatively 'new' disease, but certainly no longer a 'rare' disease - a disease that strikes at children who, for the first few months of their lives, were normal, healthy and fit. So let's try to answer those questions again. 
  • Why are there so many of these 'new' and 'rare' diseases, previously unheard of? Our children today are routinely vaccinated, and they now receive more vaccinations than ever before, all of which contain one of these poisons.
  • Why are they described as 'genetic' when they are 'new' - where have these 'faulty genes' suddenly appeared from, and why have they suddenly become 'faulty'? Conventional medicine appears to like the 'gene' explanation, 'genetics' has become the most favoured explanation of the cause of a variety of diseases.
  • Why are all the diseases primarily concerned with the nervous system, and the brain in particular? The diseases are the direct result of injecting poison into the bloodstream of young babies and children.
  • Why do they all appear to strike down previously fit and healthy children? Children are not vaccinated until they are several months old. Their development is normal up to the point  they have one too many vaccinations, when they can no longer cope with the poison in their bloodstream.
  • Why is the cause of these diseases usually described as 'unknown'? Conventional medicine is either unable, unwilling, or just too embarrassed to admit that they are causing these 'new' and 'rare' diseases.
  • Why, when talking about the cause of the disease, do doctors present a description of what is happening, and not a explanation for WHY it is happening, that is, why is it that a normal child does not continue developing normally? These are descriptions of the result of poisoning, with mercury, aluminium, or some other poisons, routinely used as an ingredient of vaccines. It is the vaccine poisons that start the abnormal processes that conventional medicine use to describe the disease.
The availability of treatment is typical of the conventional medical establishment, and its reliance on dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. First, they vaccinate, and profit from doing so. Second, the vaccination causes illness, and more treatments are presented to treat these iatrogenic illnesses - and they profit from these treatments too.

Conventional medicine is a merry-go-round,. Following each new treatment one illness leads to another, and each subsequent treatment makes us that much sicker. Soon we have multiple illnesses. But there is a treatment for everything, although a cure for very little.

I have every every sympathy for Samuel and his parents. They face a dreadful situation. Perhaps they should seek homeopathic assistance, it might offer more effective, and certainly safer treatment.

But more than anything I despair of the hold the conventional medicine has on most people, the confidence and trust placed in doctors, on conventional medical treatment, on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. We believe their propaganda. Medical science is winning the war against disease. Vaccines are entirely safe. Pharmaceutical drugs have side effects, but the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

Ploughing more money into the NHS, asking for more of the same medicine, invites further increases in the already epidemic levels of chronic disease, and more 'new' and 'rare' diseases, the causes of which will remain 'unknown', and the treatment of which will be even more expensive, although no more effective.





Friday, 1 June 2018

'The doctor who gave up drugs', and are 'too many pills are making us sick'?

The wall of silence about the harm that is being caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines is gradually being undermined. The BBC has recently broadcast two hour-long programmes entitled 'The Doctor who gave up Drugs' in which Dr Chris van Tulleken explains why there are better alternatives for children than to taking drugs. This was his second series, the first being broadcast in 2016, both series a rather meek and mild attempt to point out the limited effectiveness of the drugs, and (to a more limited extent) the harm they can cause, and evaluating alternative treatments that are both safer and more effective.

NOTE. Read this article about the contribution made to this film by Dr David Healy. Clearly Dr van Tulleken did not use all the information he had available to him. Healy says that van Tulleken "bottled out". But it seems just as likely that the BBC would not allow all the evidence to be broadcast. There is a limit to media honesty, and what the conventional medical establishment wants us to know!

Then there is a new book, James Le Fanu, a doctor and journalist, entitled "Too Many Pills: how too much medicine is endangering our health and what we can do about it", which has been described as an 'eye-opening account of the over-medicalisation of our lives'.

Yet is is quite obvious that the drug-fest continues, regardless. The number of prescriptions issued has increased by 300% over the last fifteen years. The use of painkillers have increased by 25% over the last 5 years, even though they have limited effectiveness, and do not deal with the cause of the pain. Antidepressant drugs, increasingly prescribed for young people, has increased by 50% over the last 7 years, despite van Tulleken pointing out that there is limited evidence of their effectiveness. The over-use of antibiotics will soon mean that they become completely ineffective, and there are concerns about whether conventional medicine will be able to survive without them.

So millions of patients are now taking a cocktail of pharmaceutical drugs for a great variety of illnesses (and non-illnesses like blood pressure, cholesterol, et al). Le Fanu examines how the medicalisation of health now poses a major threat to our health and wellbeing. What he says, according to reviews, is in keeping with what this blog has been saying for the last decade, that the drug fest of the last 70 years is responsible for generating epidemics of drug induced chronic disease. It is, in other words, making us sick.

Yet both of these doctors are out-of-kilter with the wider medical establishment. Pharmaceutical drugs may be harmful, and this may be increasingly recognised, but most patients still find themselves pressured into taking drugs, often when they do not need them, and suffering from their adverse effects, and needing more drugs to deal with them. It is not unusual for patients now to be on 6, 8, 10, 12 and more drugs, and taking these drugs for many years without any noticeable improvement in any of their drug-induced conditions.

Watching the van Tulleken programmes it is clear that this doctor is aware of the problem of drug side effects, but not that these 'side effects' are really serious illnesses and diseases. For instance, he states that too many families are using too much Calpol (a liquid paracetamol drug for children). Yet van Tulleken then admits that he had to give his new baby some Calpol - on the evening that he had received his first vaccination. He said that he had never heard his baby cry like he did that evening, and he had a very high temperature, so he was forced to use it.

As a doctor, either he did not know, or perhaps the BBC did not allow him to say, that these two symptoms are well known, and officially recognised 'side effects' of the DPT vaccination.

I have not read the Le Fanu book, yet, but I do wonder just how much more insightful he will be. He is a doctor, so a member of the conventional medical establishment. He writes for mainstream media, the Telegraph, so he will probably not be allowed to be too critical. 
  • Too many drugs? Yes, saying this is just about permissible. 
  • Drugs are causing serious harm to patients? Probably not.

But Le Fanu does give us this story. In 2007, an Israeli doctor discontinued 320 drugs that were being prescribed for 100 frail nursing-home residents. In the following year, the number of deaths halved and emergency hospital admissions fell by two thirds. The doctor concluded that polypharmacy, the use of multiple drugs, was a disease “with potentially more complications than the illnesses these different drugs are prescribed for”.

I had done something similar in the late 1980's within a residential unit that I was managing at the time. Reducing the drugs round by 50% had no appreciable on the health of the residents, so the inevitable question was - why are they taking these drugs?

The dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are well known, even within the conventional medical establishment. Yet patients continue to be over-medicated, and increasingly so.

  • Why have these two doctors said something controversial when what they both say is really uncontroversial?
  • Why don't the multitude of doctors who are giving out harmful drugs to their patients know what is well known?
Answers on a postcard please! Or is it just that have doctors have allowed themselves to become little more than drug salesmen and women?








Tuesday, 29 May 2018

WARNING. 80% of older hospital patients discharged with the wrong drugs

The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (reference 2018; doi: 10.1111/bcp.13607; and doi: 10.1111/bcp.13613) has published a study by the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary in Scotland that has found that around 4 out of 5 older patients are being discharged from hospital with 'inappropriate' medication, such as the wrong drug. Not unsurprisingly they say that it is causing a life-changing reactions, and even death.

This has been reported in the magazine "What Doctors Don't Tell You", which should become a must-read magazine for anyone who wishes to maintain good health. They say that these prescribing errors are often responsible for the death of an elderly patient, and for those who are not killed suffer serious reactions requiring at least a further three hospital admissions before they recover.

  • Around half of older patients die after they were given a wrong drug or weren't given the drug they needed, say researchers at the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary in Scotland.
  • They analysed the records of 259 patients—with an average age of 77—who had been discharged from hospital. They were given a total of 2,411 medications, which means many had nine or more prescriptions, and 59% were given 'inappropriate medications', such as a wrong drug, and nearly 70 per cent weren't given the drug they were supposed to have.
  • Over the following 40 months, around half had died, and the rest had been readmitted to hospital at least twice.
WDDTY states that this shocking problem is far worse than any other research had suggested, and refers to another study in which researchers found that 1 in 3 older people suffered a serious reaction to a drug after being discharged from hospital.

The new study involved 1,280 people, and the researchers said that the cost to the UK's NHS is £396m a year, with 90% of that figure being related to hospital readmissions.

POSTSCRIPT JUNE 2018
More research is now reporting a similar pattern, with GP's being urged to be 'vigilant' as a new study from the Brighton and Sussex Medical School revealed that between September 2013 and November 2015, one in six older adults "suffers preventable medication-related harm following hospital discharge". It found that within 8 weeks of discharge, 75% of patients who experienced drug-related harm needed more healthcare. The researchers estimated that such harm costs the NHS £396m every year, with more than 90% of this attributed to hospital readmission. This was reported in the doctor's e-magazine Pulse, and published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

The discussion in the Pulse article focused on improving the follow-up and discharge procedures from hospital. The mainstream British media has been silent. No-where has there been discussion that the NHS is operating a dangerous form of medicine which almost inevitably harms patients. The Pulse article does say that the research finding follows a think tank report found that emergency re-admissions within 30 days of leaving hospital had risen by a fifth in the last seven years. Nowhere was there any recognition that conventional medicine, dominated by pharmaceutical drugs, was causing these costs, and that these were contributing to the NHS's funding crisis.

NO WONDER THE NHS IS IN CONTINUAL CRISIS!

Thursday, 10 May 2018

THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF PATIENTS. Is it even an important issue for conventional medicine?

The German car company, BMW, has recalled 312,000 cars because of safety concerns. The cars may be affected by an electrical fault which can cause the engine to cut out completely whilst on the road. Alex Neill, of the magazine Which? has said the recall raised “serious questions about the adequacy of the car recall system in this country” as the issue had been raised a year earlier but only 36,000 were recalled.

               “Drivers will be asking why it took so long for BMW to fully recall these potentially dangerous cars in the UK, several years later than recalls around the same fault in a number of other countries.”

It is good to know that in this sphere, as in most other spheres of life, our concern about health and safety is considered to be sufficiently important to ensure that if there is any suspicion of danger that action is required to be taken.

Yet there is one area of our life, health care and treatment, where 'health and safety' concerns are NOT considered to be so important.

Antibiotic Drugs. These drugs, so long considered a miracle drug, and used routinely with millions of patients, are now implicated in causing all kinds of conditions emanating from the gut, including obesity, diarrhoea, iIrritable bowl disease, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, non-hodgkin's lymphoma, liver damage, diabetes, asthma, eczema, heart disease, breast cancer, mental disorders, and much else.

Statin Drugs. These frequently prescribed drugs have been implicated in causing death, liver dysfunction, kidney failure, diabetes, cataracts, muscle weakness and dementia. Yet they have never been withdrawn or banned, and they are prescribed to, and taken by millions of patients every day.

Painkillers. These commonplace drugs are known to cause the hospitalisation of millions every year, they can cause hearing loss, cardiovascular problems and heart failure, gastrointestinal disease, miscarriage, allergic reactions, and much more. Even doctors are reluctant to prescribe them now, in all the many form painkilling drugs now take, but they continue to be sold openly and cheaply 'over-the-counter' in any pharmacy and supermarket.

Benzodiazepine Drugs. The long-term dangers of these drugs has been known for decades but they still continue to be prescribed by doctors. The side effects include sleep disturbances, rebound insomnia, elevated anxiety, panic attacks, vision problems, tremors, seizures, psychosis and hallucination - yet nothing has ever done about them.

What all these pharmaceutical drugs have in common is that, despite their known dangers to patients, nothing is ever done to protect us from them. There is plentiful evidence of harm, but no action ever follows. The same can be said of antidepressant drugs, beta blocker drugs, steroids, and virtually any other kind of pharmaceutical drug and vaccine that is still sold to the public.

So whilst BMW might be facing justifiable criticism, the pharmaceutical drugs industry does not. Whilst motorists might feel they are being protected by health and safety laws and procedures, patients cannot feel they are being protected by medical science, or the drug regulation agencies. When it concerns our health, apparently, our health and safety does not appear to be important!

The precautionary principle is just not applied to conventional medicine, and to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines in particular. Many pharmaceuticals are eventually withdrawn or banned but not until they have been harming patients, often for many decades.

  • When there are suspicions that a drug is causing harm we are told that there is no proof (usually because no-one has ever bothered to investigate and find the necessary proof).
  • When studies begin to prove that a drug is causing harm the research is either ignored, or it is said that the link is not 'causal', or that anyway "the benefits outweigh the advantages".
  • Only when there is irrefutable proof of a link between a drug and patient harm are prescribing restrictions imposed on doctors.
  • Only when this irrefutable proof continues, when patients become reluctant to take the drug, and so it becomes less profitable for the drug companies, is the drug withdrawn or banned.
So let's apply this to BMW drivers. Your car might be dangerous to drive, but there is no 'definite proof' that there is a fault with the car. When several other BMW drivers have the same fault the risk is considered slight, or restricted just to a handful of cars, and in any case the benefits of driving a BMW outweighs the disadvantages. When a BMW catches fire, and people are killed (one man has apparently died in the USA) there may be some minor restrictions imposed, for instance on when, where and how the car is driven, but it is still considered acceptable the BMW drivers take the known risks involved. Only when there are LOTS of cars affected, only when LOTS of BMW drivers complain, only when LOTS MORE people are harmed and killed, only when there is a danger that BMW drivers might refuse to buy another BMW car, is any action taken.

This is not acceptable, is it? So why should it be acceptable for patients taking pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines?


Wednesday, 9 May 2018

Keeping Healthy Naturally with Safe and Effective Medicine. My 'eureka' moment

Readers of this blog often ask me how I became interested in safe medicine, and why I have dismissed conventional medicine as too dangerous to use. Read about my 'Eureka' moment!

When I developed painful gastric ulcers, now over 40 years ago, I went to my GP. It was the normal, the routine thing to do. We all do it, still. It is what is expected of us. I was in pain, and the first drug I was given did not work at all, beyond some momentary relief. Then I saw a young doctor who gave me a new 'miracle' pharmaceutical drug which he said offered the prospect of a 'wonder' cure. Indeed, the drug did work. In fact it worked 3 times! Each time the ulcers calmed down for a few weeks, but the pain returned again within just a few weeks.

I was offered another course, indeed, it was suggested that I might have to take them on a long-term (life-time) basis. Fortunately, it was then that I discovered that this new 'miracle' drug caused serious 'adverse reactions' - to the heart. So for the first time I began to question what I was doing. All I knew, at the time, was that I did not want to swop a bad stomach for a bad heart!

My choice seemed to be between taking this 'wonder' drug, and risking its side effects, or putting up with pain which, at times, was quite unbearable. My doctor, and the NHS, gave me no advice about any other medical therapies. There was, they said (as they always say), no alternative!

So when I was in a lot of pain someone suggested that I consulted a local homeopath I told her that I did not believe in such things! I was that ignorant! But the pain just got worse, and as I was unwilling to take the drug I eventually went to see him. He questioned me for about an hour, then gave me a remedy. I took it, within a few days I felt better. Within 3 months I was pain-free. And I have remained pain free now for over 30 years, with no need to take a remedy! My stomach was cured, and remains so. And more importantly my heart is good too, I have suffered no side effects from either the remedy, or the drug!

The conventional medical establishment routinely dismiss such an experience as 'anecdotal',  or 'unscientific'. Yet homeopathy has performed these cures for millions of people, safely and effectively, and throughout the world, for the last 220 years, most of whom have found homeopath to be both effective and safe in treating illness. Still, conventional doctors tell us that there is 'no evidence' that homeopathy works! It is nothing more than a placebo effect! Only pharmaceutical drugs have an 'evidence base'.

So for me, and for many others over the years, this event becomes a 'Eureka' moment - initially for two reasons.

1. Conventional medicine does not tell patients the truth
First, I realised that my doctors was not telling me the truth, or at least, not the whole truth. The NHS, and the conventional doctors who treated me, did not tell me about the side effects of their new 'wonder' drug. They allowed me to take it without informing me about the damage it might do to my heart.

Nor did they tell me the whole truth. They did not offer me alternative treatment. They did not provide me with information about alternative treatments, linked to diet and lifestyle changes. They did not mention that there were therapies, such as homeopathy, that might treat my ulcers. And they certainly did not offer me access to homeopathic treatment, or any other form of traditional therapy. I had an ulcer. They gave me a drug. I took the drug. I discovered the side effects of the drug alone. Conventional medicine had told me nothing!

From that day I could no longer accept what doctors, and the conventional medical establishment, have told me. I have always felt the need to ask questions about the safety and effectiveness of the medicine we are routinely offered.

2. Making sense of ill-health
Second, I began to study homeopathy, informally at first. It was fascinating. Suddenly I began to make sense of the world of health and disease in a way I had never done before. Disease was not something that struck people down, indiscriminately, for no reason. I had gastric ulcers because of my stress-full lifestyle, because of what I was eating, how I was eating it, and because I never took the time to allow my body to relax and recover from the stress I was putting it through.

What my homeopath said made sense. The remedy would help, the ulcers would probably heal, but in the longer-term it was important that I should help myself by changing my lifestyle.

I began to understand the concept of 'susceptibility' and 'pre-disposition' to disease. It explained much, for instance, that whilst medieval plagues killed many thousands of people, not everyone died, many survived. They were not susceptible. Yet sickness and disease was increasing to epidemic proportions all around me. Not everyone was affected, but it was not a question of good or bad luck, people became ill for a reason, just as other people remained well.

It was an amazing moment. The clarity of this new understanding, and the new insights it gave me into health, was empowering. I began to see through the 'battleground' that conventional medicine had created with its toxic drugs and vaccines, their war against the body, and the bacteria and viruses that normally live peacefully alongside us. I began to question the desperate attacks on childhood diseases, the invasive vaccinations, the aggressive drugs that 'fought' this, and 'destroyed' that.

Conventional medicine seemed to believe that it could 'balance' the human body better with its drugs and vaccines than our own internal self-healing mechanisms! What arrogance was this? Did the doctors really know best? Did their drugs and vaccines really provide us with the miraculous answer to disease? So my personal experience helped me recognise the arrogance of the conventional medical establishment.

Through homeopathy I was able to understand the body's relationship with the world in which it lived, microbes and all! I could see how, in contrast to  conventional medicine, homeopathy sought to enhance the body's ability to maintain and regain good health by living peaceably alongside them. It taught me to trust the amazing ability of the human body to protect itself from harm, and to heal itself from whatever dis-ease it suffered.

I began to understand how the medical warfare that conventional medicine engaged in with the human body, to get it to comply with the 'norms' they had of it, was not only doomed to failure - it was both unnecessary and positively harmful to our health. So not only did I reject pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, I began to understand why they were so obviously wrong, harmful, so self-evidently counter-productive to health. I began to examine what was happening to the health of people within my family, amongst my friends and work colleagues, and I did so not through the eyes of conventional medicine, but through my new understanding. Those who were taking drugs, or being vaccinated, seem to be sicker than those who did not take them.

For instance,when I managed a group of residential homes, I saw older people taking a cocktail of pharmaceutical drugs, and not getting better, but progressively more sick. Worse, older residents on some pharmaceutical drugs seemed to lose their interest and involvement in life, in the world around them. So many of them lost not only their physical health, but their mind too. They became forgetful, confused, then demented. And then they died.

Of course, doctors put all this down to old age. Conventional medicine always does when it fails to treat disease successfully. But I was convinced that the pharmaceutical drugs they were taking were playing an important part in their decline and death.

So my world changed. What had seemed normal and acceptable was no longer so. What I had been told was effective was clearly not effective. What I thought was safe was not safe. It was happening all around me. Sick people, given pharmaceutical drugs to make them better, became sicker. And my alternative ideas on health, and ill-health, seemed to fit and explain much better than conventional medicine what was happening to our health. I was beginning to make sense of the world.

So, in a nutshell, this experience is the basis of this blog. We need to ask questions of our doctors (and our homeopaths) and see who seems to be interpreting the world, and what is happening to our health, more accurately. And who had treatments that actually worked!

MEDICAL ERRORS. Are they bankrupting the UK's National Health Service? Or are we wrong to blame the doctors?

                "Victims of NHS blunders should receive smaller compensation payouts or the “staggering” costs of Britain’s negligence bills will bankrupt the health service, the Justice Secretary has been told. Health service leaders have written to the Government, calling for cuts to payments for patients who suffer devastating injuries as a result of medical errors."

Sometimes I read a news bulletin on health and I cannot believe what I am reading! So I have to re-read it in order to decide whether I have got it right first time. The Daily Telegraph recently published a series of articles on 'medical blunders' and the cost to the NHS in Britain. (If you live outside Britain, continue reading - this applies to any health service anywhere in the world which is dominated by conventional medicine).

So why is it being suggested that victims of medical blunders receive less compensation when they suffer 'devastating injuries'? It is, according to this Telegraph article (1st February 2018), because it is bankrupting the NHS.

               "The controversial demand follows years of rising negligence payments, with current liability now at £65bn - a rise from £29 billion in 2014/15."

This is an extraordinary figure. The total cost of the NHS each year is currently in the region of £110 to £120 billion, so these compensation charges now represents 50% of the NHS's annual budget, and this is all money that has to be taken out of the health budget, and so is not available for spending on patient treatment and care. So what is the solution being offered?

  1. The NHS is calling for a change in the way compensation bills are calculated under the existing law.
  2. This will mean that patients who have sustained 'devastating injuries' will receive less money.
On the following day the Telegraph published an article by Peter Walsh, "Cutting compensation for those maimed by the NHS would be 'hideously unfair' " which stated that the previous article "is a stark reminder of how desperate our NHS is for more investment". Stark indeed, perhaps even desperate, with such a prodigious rise over the last 3 years.

               "It is ignorant and uncaring to suggest that people who have been harmed or have lost loved ones as a result of NHS negligence should forfeit the compensation they need."

               "We also need to remember that avoidable harm, in fact negligent harm has been caused to these patients and the sum awarded to them is based on an assessment of their actual needs as approved by the courts. It is not some kind of windfall."

Yet even this misses the real point. Conventional medicine causes harm because it is, it always has been, and it always will be AN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS FORM OF MEDICAL TREATMENT. 
  • Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, on which conventional medicine is totally dependent, are dangerous, even when they are properly prescribed.
  • They are also largely ineffective, and this leads to the need for other inherently dangerous interventions, such as surgery (most surgery would be unnecessary if the drug).
Walsh goes on to outline the reasons for the NHS approaching bankruptcy, and he comes out with the usual culprits - an ageing population - cuts to social care budgets - staff shortages - and lifestyle factors.

Not a single word about the fact that it is the conventional medical system that has produced this level of patient harm and injury.

This is typical of the failure of the mainstream media to do their job -  to investigate and identify where the problems actually exist in health provision. And whilst journalists are content merely to parrot conventional medical mantras (that older people and patient life styles are to blame) there is no chance that the real reason underlying our health problem will ever be identified.

It is also typical of the pharmaceutical industry, the underlying cause of most, if not all the mayhem being caused to patients within the British NHS. They want to be protected from any blame, and the cost of putting right the damage they have cause to patients. 
  • In the USA the pharmaceutical industry is protected from prosecution for vaccine damage by the Federal Government.
  • In Britain, the pharmaceutical industry is protected from paying compensation to its victims by the NHS, via the central government.
It is the failure of conventional medicine that we are witnessing here, but which national governments and the ineffectual mainstream media are refusing to recognise. 

We now need to recognise that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are not only (i) ineffective and (ii) dangerous for patients, they are also (iii) extraordinarily expensive.