Monday, 17 September 2018

Why doesn't conventional medicine work? The failure to understand the most fundamental principle of cure

  • If something needs fixing we need to have someone look at it who knows how it works.
  • Moreover, whatever is wrong, we have to willing to recognise and accept what is wrong.
Is this too trite?

  • Surely we would never ask someone to service our central heating, or a car or washing machine, who did not understand how they worked? 
  • Would we be confident if someone who did a repair that made the situation worse than it was before, and then denied that the repair could possibly be the problem.
Yet this is exactly what we do with our health.

  • When we are ill we go to a doctor, an expert, and we ask him/her to diagnose what is wrong, and make us better.
  • If we don't get better, or if we get worse, we go back to the same doctor for yet more treatment.
We do this as individuals; and we do it as a nation too. And we do it, time after time.

  • we rarely ask questions about the quality or safety of the repair.
  • We never question whether the repair has made the original situation worse.
The first assumption we make is to assume that the doctor is the right person, and indeed the only person to ask. We have been led to believe that conventional medicine is scientific medicine, that doctors know what they are doing, and that all their treatments have been scientifically tested, and are both safe and effective. 

None of these assumptions are correct, but we believe them to be correct. And in any case, our national health system, our politicians, and our mainstream media all tell us that this is true - and that there are no alternatives.

This leads to a second assumption. The monopoly of conventional medicine within our health services must mean something. Surely the dominant consensus about health cannot be wrong. It is just that there is not enough money for more of the same treatment. The problem with health services is that there are insufficiently resources. It is not a medical matter.

A third assumption soon follows. If our health was poor, and then got worse after medical treatment, it must be the body that is breaking down. Things were worse than we thought. It is not the treatment, we just need more help, more treatment of the same kind. And if, after more treatment, our health again fails to improve, and gets worse, it just confirms that our ailing body is to blame!

So let's examine these assumptions

1. There are many alternatives to conventional medical treatment, I call them natural therapies. These treatments all seek to work alongside the body. They are widely dismissed (if not condemned) by conventional medicine, by national health services, by politicians, and by the mainstream media.

2. The monopoly of conventional medicine (within most national health services around the world) reflects powerful and influential business interests, principally the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Its dominance within health services around the world is more about commercial power and political interests than health.

3. No central heating boiler, no car or washing machine, is unfixable. As they get older they may not function quite as well but an expert will be able to diagnose the fault, and can usually repair it so that it works reasonably well.

So what is so different about health? Why are so many chronic diseases (arthritis, autism, dementia, diabetes, et al) running at epidemic levels? Why are young and middle-aged people getting ill with conditions once believed to be an illnesses of old age? Why can't conventional medicine fix these trends? There are two main problems.

Conventional medicine knows, in the very minutest detail, about the functioning of the human body, both in its normal or healthy state, and in its sick or diseased state. Conventional doctors will always be able to tell you, often in great detail, what is going wrong when you are sick. Diagnosis is their forte, and they have a plethora or instruments and tests that can determine what is wrong with us. Doctors know when things are right, and when they are wrong.

Yet putting matters right is quite another matter. This is where the problem of conventional medicine, dominated by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, starts. What they try to do is to stop something happening in the body that, in their view, should not be happening. So they kill pain. They bring down a fever. They stop inflammation. This is their view of healing. The body is not functioning 'normally', so it must be stopped. It must be forced to function properly.

Natural medicine does not do this. Homeopathy, for instance, uses remedies based on substances which, in their normal state, produce pain, or fever, or inflammation. Why? Because homeopaths know that this is the way to return the body back to its normal functioning. Counter-intuitive? No. It is a recognition that only the body can heal, and pain, fever, inflammation are the body's natural response to illness. To undermine them is counter-productive. So the remedy supports what the body wants to do, it triggers and augments natural healing processes. 

In contrast to this conventional medicine seeks to stop, to block, to inhibit the body's healing mechanism. It is this battle between the body and pharmaceutical drugs that causes so-called 'side effects', or 'adverse drug reactions'. I prefer to call them, 'disease-inducing effects'. This link takes you to my website that outlines how disease is caused by pharmaceutical drugs, and which of these drugs cause which diseases.

So for the patient there is a choice to be made. Conventional medicine and natural therapies have distinctly different ideas about the treatment of illness. These ideas of diametrically opposed. They cannot both be right. If one is right, the other is wrong. 

The important point here is that knowing about how the body functions in illness is not the same as being able to return it to good health. To do this another skill is necessary, a proper understanding of the healing process.

This is a major problem for conventional medicine, one that is rarely talked about. Conventional medicine has a problem with the side affects (the disease-inducing-effects) of their drugs and vaccines. They cannot entirely deny them as they are written up formally in medical texts such as the British National Formulary, and MIMS.
  • But they can discount them. For instance, doctors will acknowledge that many pharmaceutical drugs can cause 'confusion' and 'memory loss' but they cannot admit that these same drugs can cause dementia, or Alzheimer's disease.
  • And they can deny them entirely, for instance, when doctors insist that vaccines are "entirely safe", or that diseases like autism are not caused by childhood vaccines.
Although occasionally this discounting and denial can be heard - by anyone prepared to listen hard enough, but conventional medicine does not want to discuss them. Nor do politicians, or our docile mainstream media.

But denial about the side effects of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines has another vitally important consequence. It means that conventional medicine is unable, quite unwilling in fact, to look at one of the real causes of the increased levels of illness and disease we are experiencing.

It is as if the car mechanic has analysed the problem with the car, but decides that as it was he who changed the carburettor it cannot be a carburettor problem. After all, that would open up questions about his past work. So his response is to claim that problem "has no known cause". 

Conventional medicine often makes this claim, even when doctors who read MIMS and the BNF must be fully aware that pharmaceutical drugs do cause the illness that has been diagnosed. What this means is that conventional medical, in denying a important cause of illness, is unable to cure chronic disease, or to stop it growing to unprecedented levels. Doctors are too busy looking for excuses for illness in the wrong area, instead looking at an ageing population, environmental pollution, bad diet - all important factors, but rarely the whole story.

Only when a problem is properly and fully analysed can a solution be found. If doctors deny an important cause of illness because it is their own work that will be criticised, there will never be a cure. Either you look openly and honestly at what is causing a disease, or you defend the drugs and vaccines that have been used to treat illness, and deny their role in creating disease.
  • So, for example, what is the cause of Autism? Doctors say that it cannot be the MMR vaccine. This means that the route to a solution of this particular epidemic is barred to conventional medicine. For them, the cause remains 'unknown'!
  • So what is the cause of Dementia? Doctors do not recognise that pharmaceutical drugs, which can cause confusion, and memory loss, can cause dementia. So the route to a cure is blocked to them. The cause remains 'unknown'!
And so, for conventional medicine, there is no route through to treatment, to healing, to cure. Conventional medicine is running blind, as it always has done. It is thrashing around in a desperate search for self justification, and effective treatment for conditions it has itself, in part, caused. But it is quite unwilling to consider the dangers of its own methodology. Medical science is running, quickly, up a blind alleyway leading nowhere. 

And all because it does not understand the basic principle of cure
- that they body must be allowed to heal itself.

Friday, 14 September 2018

2018. A new flu vaccine season starts

Every year I repeat the same message! The flu vaccine is neither safe or effective. It is not something you should ever allow your doctor to persuade you to have.

The reasons for this never change, so when I began to write this blog I made the decision not to continue repeating the same message, year after year. Instead, I will provide you with references to my past blogs which include what is already known about the flu vaccine - but which your doctor will refuse to tell you. The information in them is just as relevant now as it was at the time. Nothing changes!

All I ask is that you do two things. (i) listen to what your doctor tells you, and (ii) read the information below that (s)he will not tell you. (S)he either won't, or (s)he can't, or it is not in his/her financial interest to tell you.

Patients only take pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines because they are kept ignorant of the harm they can do to our health. So it is important that you make an informed choice, one based on ALL the evidence, not just the evidence that conventional medicine wants you to know. So click on these links.

The Flu Vaccine. Is it worth the serious risks involved? Should you have the flu vaccine this Autumn?

The Flu Vaccine. It is the time of year when doctors will be pressing us, and our children, to have the annual flu vaccination. It is an offer everyone should refuse!

The Flu Vaccine - it just does not work!
(This is an important reason for saying 'No, thanks'. Why risk the dangers of vaccination when conventional medicine itself, year after year, has admitted that the vaccine does not work?)

Flu Vaccine. Consternation within the NHS
The consternation referred to concerned increasing patient reluctance to have the vaccine. People are getting to know - and YOU need to get to know the truth. Plus the fact that doctors are now paid for every vaccination they can persuade us to accept, meaning that they have a financial interest persuade  us to get vaccinated.

The dangers posed by the flu vaccination are many and varied. I have written many times about the dangers of the flu vaccine. For instance, it is the only known cause of Narcolepsy

The Flu Vaccine that causes Narcolepsy? Pandemrix.
Narcolepsy and flu vaccine: drugs may harm us: but Big Pharma takes no responsibility

And perhaps most alarming of all is the association between the flu vaccine and dementia.

Alzheimer's Disease and the Flu Vaccine
I wrote this in 2014, following the tragic death of a close friend who regularly had the flu vaccines, and paid the price by contracting Alzheimer's disease.

It is not surprising that the flu vaccine can have such drastic effects on our health. Doctors are injecting Thimerosal, a derivative of mercury, one of the most poisonous substances known to mankind, straight into our bloodstream. 

Moreover, don't be comforted by the belief that the pharmaceutical industry accepts any responsibility for the harm done by its vaccines. They don't. In the USA $millions are paid out every year for the damage done to patients by all vaccines, but it is the government that pays out this compensation, not the drug companies. Elsewhere, if you are damaged by a vaccine, you are likely to be met with nothing other than denials. Vaccines are safe, you will be told, they did not cause your health problems.

And you will have a hell of a job to prove that they did!
It is safer just to refuse the flu vaccine and stay safe.

So what to do instead? There is an effective way of preventing flu that is entirely safe. I have been doing it for over 20 years, and so have most of my family. It is simply done by taking a homeopathic remedy - and it is all explained on this 'Why Homeopathy? webpage.

Check it out. Stay safe, and flu-free this winter.

Tuesday, 4 September 2018

The NHS abandons Patient Choice. We pay for treatment. But we can only have what THEY want to give us. What does this mean for patients like Anne?

The NHS no longer wants to spend money on Homeopathy. This is not a surprise. The NHS has long been a bastion of conventional medicine, a creature of the pharmaceutical companies. If patients want treatment the NHS is set up to give it to us, and to adopt the old motor car adage, you can have any treatment you want - as long as it involves pharmaceutical drugs!

The NHS is now almost totally a pharmaceutical monopoly. Want to buy a Ford car? No, sorry, you can't do that. We don't sell them. WE (a public body funded by people like yourself) have decided that you no longer have that choice. This is the only car we sell now. Take it. Or leave it.

And that is the situation that patients who want homeopathic treatment are now faced with. We may be entitled to treatment because we are UK citizens, but the this public body, the NHS, will no longer fund the treatment of their choice.
  • It's a political matter - it is about Health Freedom.
  • It's a health matter - it is about Patient Choice.
But it is also a personal matter. Some people have been having homeopathic treatment for their illnesses, and if and when this treatment is stopped they will be in serious difficulty. I have been talking to several people in this situation in recent weeks, usually patients who have tried every conventional treatment available to them without any of them working. Then they discover homeopathy. It works. And a few people were fortunate enough to persuade a reluctant NHS to pay for their treatment. But now those patients are worried their treatment, the only treatment that has worked for them, will now be stopped.

Take the case of Anne - not her real name. She has talked to me about her situation. She has been using homeopathy -since she became paraplegic - for over 40 years

She initially discovered homeopathy following a bout of pneumonia when she was 31, with 3 small children. She was given antibiotics, galore, and it took her ages to recover. Eventually she consulted a homeopath, and has been having homeopathic treatment ever since. She has also had osteopathic treatment, and used herbal remedies. Despite her many health issues she does not take any pharmaceutical drugs, and she is determined that she does not want to do so.

               "It actually terrifies me to end up at the mercy of the NHS because most general hospitals don’t understand spinal cord injury.... Every day is a battle to keep skin healthy, bladder operating to the best of my ability and bowels moving at their scheduled time. It all pulls a lot out of my system and at 66 I need to focus on keeping mentally robust too."

But Anne is a determined and intelligent lady. She has obviously done a lot of work, researching her condition, and the treatments available to her. She told me that she wants to learn as much as she can about using homeopathy in order to to stay well. She has recently cured an ear infection with homeopathic remedies. As a paraplegic she has regular urinary tract infections (UTI's) but thanks to homeopathy she no longer has to use antibiotics for these. So she is delighted. She despairs when she sees her friends in the SCI (spinal cord injury) community having intravenous antibiotics for sepsis and UTI's, and spending months in bed with pressure sores, et al.

So whilst Anne is usually confident about staying well with homeopathy, alongside other natural therapies, she has some trepidation about what the future holds for her. Like all of us she is not in control of her destiny. And she worries that if she does have to go into hospital she knows she will struggle to get the treatment she wants for herself. She will be routinely denied her patient choice.

When the NHS was inaugurated in 1948 its intention was to offer the best available medicine, free at the point of need. Anne knows that any NHS treatment will be free.
  • But it will not the treatment she wants. 
  • It will not be the treatment she has found, from experience, to be best for her.
The NHS is now a monopoly supplier of one kind of medicine. It is dominated by pharmaceutical drug treatment. Anne does not want this, and has spent her life trying to avoid it. The NHS has now taken a decision that money should not be spent on homeopathy because (it says) there is "no evidence' that homeopathy works.

Anne is the evidence, one piece of evidence in many millions, who knows that it does.

So for Anne it is not a political matter, health freedom. It is not just a medical matter, patient choice. It is a deeply personal matter concerning her health, her future, and the treatment she receives for her condition. Ultimately it will be about how she dies.

Yet Anne is not alone in this. Anyone who goes into hospital, today or tomorrow, because of an accident, or emergency, or an acute illness, is faced with the same dilemma she is grappling with. We talk a lot about our human rights, but surely this right, health freedom, is the most important right of all.

It is Anne's right to choose the treatment she receives. Her treatment should not be dictated to her by conventional doctors who think they know best, and know everything. But unfortunately that appears to be the direction in which the NHS is going.

Monday, 3 September 2018

VACCINES. The harm conventional medicine does admit to, although still telling us they are safe

Doctors tell us that vaccines are entirely safe. They say that anyone who speaks against them is "anti-vaccine" and is routinely dismissed as being 'unscientific'. We are even accused of being Russian agents! We are accused of wanting to overturn the whole apparatus of conventional medicine.

The strange thing is that our doctors know that vaccines are not safe. There are conventional medical texts that actually talk about the damage to patients that is known to be caused by vaccines (indeed, all pharmaceutical drugs). These texts may not talk about patient damage but are described by the euphemism - side effects. Yet the two terms are one and the same thing.

So when doctors talk to us, and tell us that their vaccines (and drugs) are safe, they ARE fully aware that they cause side effects - or damage. Within the world of conventional medicine there are two conversations going on - the one they have with us, their patients - and the one they have internally, amongst themselves, in doctors 'bibles' such as MIMS and the British National Formulary. But there is more - patient information leaflets.


We never get to see these. A doctor or nurse usually removes the vaccine from the package without showing us the leaflet. Patients can ask to see them, and read them, but few ever do. Pharmaceutical companies are obliged to provide these PILs, which are a summary of the evidence for their effectiveness, and to inform patients of any known or reported side side effects. So what do these vaccine patient information leaflets say?

The VacTruth website has now published the package information labels for many vaccines. They can be found here, and they should be read before anyone consents to a vaccine.

So never, ever agree to a vaccination unless you have read these inserts, and you have fully digested them. But before you do this, remember these things
  • The language used is highly technical. The leaflets are supposed to be for patients but they are certainly not written in a way that most patients will understand. It is easier to give up and assume that the complex language must indicate that the drug company knows what it is doing! Don't succumb to this laziness! If necessary ask your doctor to translate anything you do not understand.
  • The positive news is always highlighted. They have to give us information, but they are more eager to tell you about the good news.
  • The negative news is underplayed, and under-estimated. There are various reasons for this. For instance, bad news is given only if there is clear and undeniable link between the vaccine and a particular side effect. Where there is no proof there is no mention.
  • Moreover, only between 1% and 10% of side effects are ever reported, which means that 90% to 99% of side effects are ever known about. So if something is described as rare, multiply that rareness accordingly.
This information has been known about for a long time. See my blog, written in 2013 - Vaccines, the research evidence - which deals in more general terms with the dangers of vaccines, and the harm they can do to patients.

Everyone should be particularly weary of the DPT vaccine given to very young babies. I have written about the contents of the patient information for this vaccine. The DPT Vaccine. Do doctor's really know it is dangerous? And if so, why are they not telling us?
  • If everyone knew about this information, and knew that the doctor knew too, no-one would consent to any treatment based on pharmaceutical drugs.
  • This is why they cannot afford to let us into their trade secrets.
  • Our doctors do know about it - but they are not going to tell us.
  • We have to find out for ourselves.

Wednesday, 29 August 2018

If you hear anything negative about Vaccines it is Russian propaganda! And if you believe it you might get measles!

All anti-vaxxers are Russian propagandists now!
We must learn! 
We are NOT to say anything bad about Big Pharma's profitable vaccines!

Conventional medicine has been trying to stop criticism of vaccines since the start of the new millennium, but with only mixed success. They have been successful with the mainstream media, who depend heavily on drug advertising for their survival. They have been successful with politicians and governments who are anxious to secure pharmaceutical jobs and investment. From Andrew Wakefield onwards, they have developed strategies to stifle conventional doctors from expressing their concerns about patient damage.

They have been less successful in preventing negative evidence being presented on social media, and on health websites, like this, which are independent of pharmaceutical control. And as the evidence grows about vaccine damage, and the increasing patient 'resistance' that is being built up against vaccination, the conventional medical establishment has initiated a new strategy for undermining all anti-vaxxers, whose only vested interests is to try to get an important message over to the public.


So first, read accounts from sources independent of the conventional medical mafia. These two links equate the link between anti-vaxxers and vaccinations with USA presidential election in 2015.

Russia Accused Of ‘Weaponized’ Anti-Vaccine Disinformation Attacks

               "The Russians seem to be an easy source of blame whenever the powers that be have no other explanation for people defying the system. The “Russia is making anti-vaccine happen” narrative is truly no different from the election blame-game in its dynamic."

Pro-vaccine media goes full conspiracy theory; claims “the Russians” are running anti-vaccine campaigns to try to kill off America with measles

               “Russian accounts may use vaccine arguments to ‘destabilize’ the US and Europe,” screams the UK Daily Mail, without any sense of skepticism or intelligent questioning whatsoever. These mysterious Russians — presumably the same Russians that “stole the election for Donald Trump” - are trying to get people to stop taking vaccine shots so that measles takes over and decimates America, we’re told."

Well we might expect this sort of hysteria and junk journalism to emanate from the Daily Mail. But  papers who usually take a more measured stance, like the Guardian, also gives the story credence.

Russian trolls 'spreading discord' over vaccine safety online

They give full voice to the study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, without any attempt at balance. They relate the timing of the campaign to a time when

               "Europe faces one of the largest measles outbreaks in decades, one which has been partly attributed to falling vaccination rates. In the first six months of 2018, there were 41,000 cases of measles across the continent, more than in the entirety of 2017. Meanwhile, the rate of children not receiving vaccines for non-medical reasons is climbing in the US."

So everyone needs to be scared by a disease that has apparently killed just 38 people in Europe during these 'measles outbreaks'. This is too many of course but a mere handful compared to the numbers known to die directly from pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

Okay, so I am an anti-vaxxer! I admit it. But please, please, anti-vaxxers like me do NOT get their evidence from Russia. We do not NEED to get our evidence from Russia.

We can get any amount of information about the damage caused by vaccines from conventional medicine itself!

Blaming Russia for the evidence of vaccine damage is a ploy by the conventional medical establishment to stifle debate and discussion OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES OWN EVIDENCE.

  • The evidence against vaccines in contained in the package inserts of the vaccines themselves, the PILs, or patient information leaflets.
  • The evidence against vaccines is contained in the 'bible's' used by all conventional doctors, MIMS, and the British National Formulary.
Conventional medicine is fully aware of the damage caused to patients by vaccines. They just don't want 'US' to be aware of it. And if the evidence won't go away, as it won't, why not blame the Russians!

What I firmly recommend before you decide to get vaccinated yourself, or allow your child to be be vaccines, is to ask your doctor to give you the patient information leaflet that is contained in the box that the vaccine comes in. And make up your own mind

Friday, 10 August 2018

The importance of our Microbiome. It keeps us healthy.

Our human bodies live alongside bacteria and microbes. They can be found living in every part of the human body. It's been estimated that there are over 1 trillion living with us, especially in our gastrointestinal track. Here these micro-organisms are known as the microbiome, and their importance in the regulation of our digestive system is now increasingly realised. We now know that they protect us from illness and disease-causing, and they help us to develop a strong immune system.

Yet in conventional medical circles, whenever bacteria and viruses are mentioned, they are associated with disease. They cause disease. They are not considered to be our friends and allies. Conventional medicine has long believed this to be so, since the days of Pasteur, and over the years powerful pharmaceutical drugs (antibiotic and antiviral drugs) have been developed to wage war on them. The intention is kill them.

Until fairly recently medical science had a limited sense of the importance of the microbiome. It is only now beginning to appreciate its role in human health. The billions of bacteria not only share the human body, but play a crucial part in the way it functions.

Moreover, the human microbiome is now thought to be closely linked to an individual's genetic footprint, to play a role in the determination of our DNA, our predisposition to pathogens, our hereditary traits, our body type, and much more. And it is thought that up to 90% of all human illnesses are intimately linked to the content of the microbiome.

So medical science is at last looking at how the health of the microbiome is best maintained, and what factors promote and compromise its health. Unfortunately it is hindered in how close it can investigate this. It can look at the importance of lifestyle factors, especially our diet, what we eat and don't eat because this plays an important role in maintaining our gut bacteria. It can look at exercise, on smoking and other lifestyle factors

Yet medical science will not be able to focus on the impact that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have on the microbiome.

Conventional medicine have hitherto assumed that germs are unhealthy! During the last 70 years, in particular, it has developed and prescribed pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have literally declared open warfare on germs. Antibiotic drugs kill bacteria. Antiviral drugs kill viruses. And this warfare goes beyond medicine. We use antibacterial soaps and shampoos. Our kitchens are full of chemicals whose task is to kill germs. Pesticides and herbicides wage war on almost everything, finding its way into the air we breath, and the food we eat.

Yet the fact is that we have to live in co-opeation with bacteria and viruses. After decades trying to destroy them, indiscriminately, because conventional medicine believed they caused disease medical science is beginning to understand their importance.

Nor is it just antibiotics and antivirals that have been the culprits. Most drugs are taken by mouth and so pass directly to the stomach. Painkillers, mouthwashes, antacids, and laxatives and many other drugs, all of them toxic, have the ability to kill and disrupt our micro biome.

Pharmaceutical drugs can overwhelm our immune system, our natural defence against illness and disease. Now it is being recognised that a variety of diseases, including many diseases whose incidence is rapidly expanding, are being associated with an unhealthy gut.

     * Autism. It has been known since Andrew Wakefield first discovered in the 1990's that the microbiome in autistic children differs from normal, health children.
     * Alzheimers Disease. the magazine, What Doctors Don't Tell Use (WDDTY August 2018) outlines how problems with the gut may contribute to dementia
     * Auto-Immune Disease, in all its many forms, is now thought to arise from intestinal bacteria which can influence inflammatory immune reactions that start in the gut.
     * Diabetes is now thought to be brought about by a "notable change" in gut bacteria.
     * Obesity can be caused by an unhealthy micro biome as it is unable to reduce the accumulation of fat and inflammation.
     * Mental Health. Questions are even being raised that some mental health conditions are caused, or worsened, by an unhealthy gut. WDDTY August 2018 also outlines how an unhealthy microbiome can contribute to depression and anxiety.

My website, the "Disease Inducing Effects" of Drugs and Vaccines (DIE's), lists the pharmaceutical drugs that are known to cause specific illnesses and diseases. The new recognition of the importance of the microbiome probably supplies us with one of the 'working mechanisms' for the damage they do to patients - that they alter and damage the micro biome leading to ill-health.

Medical science will have a problem with this. It has been intimately involved in the testing and approval of pharmaceutical drugs that is doing damage to our microbiome.  So whilst they may tell us to stop smoking, to get more exercise, and to eat more sensibly, they will struggle to acknowledge the damage being done by the drugs and vaccines they have approved.

Criticising pharmaceutical drugs is to criticise themselves!

My DIE's website demonstrates that conventional medicine consistently fails to recognise the importance of pharmaceutical drugs in causing disease. The fact that they cause disease is admitted, not least in the doctor's 'bibles', the British National Formulary and MIMS. But it is rarely admitted when speaking to patients about what has caused their illness.

So if pharmaceutical companies are ruining our microbiome, if they are making us sick, what is their response likely to be?
               * Will they warn us about the dangers of taking their drugs?
               * Will they develop drugs that do less damage to gut health?

The answer is that they will do neither. Reduced drug sales is contrary to their business plan! The pharmaceutical industry causes illness and disease with the drugs and vaccines (they call them side effects), then they produce more drugs for the patients they have made sick in the first place. It is a time-honoured strategy routinely adopted, and the conventional medical establishment will plan to do so again in this situation.

Medical science is already responding. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society's journal published in March 2015 an article entitled "Drug metabolism: manipulating the microbiome; understanding how symbiotic bacteria that help maintain health interact with medicines is an emerging field of research". So patients can look out for yet more drug developments. For instance, have a look at this website, which proudly states that medical scientists now recognise that a compromised gut leads to a variety of conditions "ranging from allergies to anxiety to cancer", although it does not recognise the responsibility of pharmaceutical drugs in compromising it in the first place! What they are interested in doing is developing new drugs.

               "They are increasingly interested in drugging (the microbiomes) constituents. Two teams of US scientists have already tested those drugs in mice, and pharmaceutical companies are paying close attention. The hope is that by delivering drugs to the microbiome, researchers will be able to treat or prevent some of our most intractable diseases."

Medical science is clever! They know how to out-think and out-perform the body's own defence system!

               "Today there are crude ways to medicate the microbiome. Antibiotics kill bacteria broadly; probiotics add additional bacteria in. The gut drugs under development, on the other hand, are precisely targeted and nonlethal. They don’t aim to change the number of microbes, but rather their behavior."

The article goes on to describe their cleverness, how Dr. Stanley Hazen, a physician and researcher at the Cleveland Clinic, has decided to try to disrupt our microbiome, how they have searched for molecules that "would block choline receptors of microbes".

So our body does not know what it is doing, but not to worry, medical science does, and it will correct it for us! The article goes on to explain how another scientist is targeting gut microbes for a different purpose - to prevent the nausea caused by chemotherapy drugs. Again, one drug causes a problem, and another drug is designed to deal with the problem. His logic is similar.

               “You’re not killing the bacteria. You’re just telling the bacteria, ‘You can’t eat this.”

The latter scientist is apparently researching ways to minimise the side effects of other drugs, like Ibuprofen, which is known to cause intestinal ulcers. The article describes the interest and excitement of many pharmaceutical companies with the prospect of developing promising new drugs for treating gut diseases such as irritable bowel syndrome, diabetes and central nervous system disorders.

Conventional medicine has not plans to stop meddling with our bodies, 
regardless of the effects it might have on our health

Shambo the bull is dead. What kind of medicine is it that has to kill its patients? Will the incompetence of conventional medicine lead ultimately to euthanasia?

Do you remember Shambo the bull? He belonged to the Hindu monks of the Skanda Vale temple in Carmarthenshire, West Wales. They considered the 6 year old Friesian bullock to be sacred but in 2007 it tested 'positive' for TB. For Shambo that was a death sentence, but the monks fought the decision, saying that they would guard against Shambo infecting other animals by keeping him in a separate pen.

This was not good enough for conventional veterinary practice, for Welch politicians, for local farmers who saw Shambo as a disease risk to their livestock, and ultimately for the legal system, which after initially reprieving him eventually ruled that he had to be killed.

I remember the whole affair well because it brought home to me the utter uselessness and incompetence of conventional veterinary practice, which had no effective treatment for many diseases, ultimately leading to the 'need' to kill the patient.

I recalled the British Foot and Mouth epidemic of 2001, during which over 6 million cows and sheep were killed. This had to be done, we were told, to stop the spread of the disease. It brought havoc to many parts of the country, closing public rights of way, and causing long-term harm to the tourist industry throughout England, but especially the Lake District.

I recalled the panic of the 1980's, which culminated in the 1990's, over 'mad cow' disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Again, the veterinary response was to cull the sick animals.

BSE itself was closely associated with Scrapie, a fatal degenerative disease that has been affecting sheep and goats for over 200 years.

Yet, for all these diseases, vets have developed no effective treatments - other than killing the patient. What kind of medicine is this? A medicine whose only course of action is culling thousands of animals?

It is a good job, perhaps, that conventional medicine do not have the same strategy for sick human patients! Yet, I do wonder, if this statement is more wishful thinking that a reality.

Conventional medical spokesperson can often be heard saying that there is 'no treatment' for this illness, or that disease. I started writing my "Why Homeopathy?" website several years ago now, in which I compare conventional and homeopathic treatments for specific diseases. I usually use the NHS Choices website for a description of conventional medical treatment and I have been amazed at how often it is admitted that there is 'no treatment' for a condition.

Part of this amazement is that many of these conditions are regularly treated with homeopathy, with considerable success, many for over 220 years.

When conventional medicine states that 'there is no treatment' for a disease what is meant is that there is no effective CONVENTIONAL medical treatment. For instance, this was the situation when I wrote the 'Why Homeopathy?'page on TB. Simply put, whilst there are many effective homeopathic remedies, used successfully for 200 years and more (Phosphorus, Calc Carb, Silicia, and the use of nosodes like Tuberculinum and Bacillinum) conventional medicine has only antibiotic drugs.
"Treatment for tuberculosis (TB) usually involves taking antibiotics for several months."

Yet, as we know, antibiotic drugs are coming to the end of their useful life, so soon the NHS Choices website will have to make their usual admission - there is no effective treatment for TB!

So what is the conventional medical response to patients who suffer from diseases for which there is no treatment or cure? In essence there are only four options.
  1. Amelioration is offered, such as painkillers for dealing with pain. 
  2. Or there are operations available - to remove or replace organs and limbs. 
  3. Or there is palliative, or end of life care.
  4. And in addition there is an increasing discussion of euthanasia.
Never does conventional medicine suggest that there may be other medical therapies that can offer more effective treatment for a sick, or even a dying patient. It seems that our doctors will do anything other than suggest that there are other, potentially effective treatment to their patients. They prefer that we remain sick, or in pain, or die, rather than admit that although they cannot help, other medical practitioners might be able to do so.

So what does conventional medicine do? What can they offer to their human patients? They can certainly offer more than Shambo got - amelioration, surgery, and palliative care. But the only other choice sick and incurable patients have is euthanasia. This remains controversial, but more people are opting for it (usually based on the understanding that there is no effective treatment for their illness, and there is more discussion about legalising it, and some countries have already done so.

Conventional medicine is dominant. If wants to become a monopoly. It attacks homeopathy and other medical therapies regularly and gratuitously. Yet conventional medicine is inept. What other word is there for a medical therapy that needs to, or allows, their patients to die?

Monday, 30 July 2018


The conventional medical treatment for pain is painkillers, such as Aspirin, Paracetamol, Ibuprofen, Opioids, and their many derivatives. Painkilling drugs take us on a very long journey through pain, introducing greater toxicity into an already stressed body, which in turn leads to greater pain, the need for stronger more toxic drugs, and onwards.

It's a familiar process, is it not? Painkilling drugs do exactly what they say the will do. They kill pain, temporarily, for as long as the drug remains within the body. They do NOT treat the source of the pain, so the pain returns. Perhaps painkillers are sufficient for the temporary relief of pain after a minor accident - but not much use when they are used to treat the pain that accompanies chronic illnesses, like arthritis and related conditions.

In arthritis the pain continues, and the need to take ever more, ever stronger painkilling drugs increases. For any patient who is trapped within conventional medical treatment this becomes a vicious, ongoing circle. First pain, then drugs, then more pain, then more drugs, and so on. The process continues until, eventually, the pain becomes so great, the diseased limb so painful, it has to be surgically removed.

At his point patients usually forget the pain they have experienced, often over many years, and the failure of painkillers to provide any real solution. We praise the remarkable surgery that has replaced the limb. In most cases the operation leaves the patient pain-free - at least for a time. Unfortunately the disease, the cause of the pain, is still there - within the body. So what happens to the dis-ease? It moves on to another part of the body!

It's a familiar process, is it not? How many patients have a hip replacement to replace a painful limb only for tanother limb, previously unaffected, to become painful? Soon the other hip has to be replaced. Brilliant surgery indeed - but surgery necessary because of the failure conventional medicine to treat pain effectively over the long term.

Yet it is not just for arthritis that conventional medicine uses painkilling drugs. I became aware of the many diseases for which conventional medicine routinely prescribes painkillers whilst writing chapters for my 'Why Homeopathy? website. These include Menstrual problems, Chicken Pox, Chronic Fatigue, Earache, Endometriosis, Fibromyalgia, Gout, Haemorrhoids, Headaches and Migraines, Mastitis, ME, Motor Neurone disease, Mumps, PMT, PMS, Pneumonia, Prostatitis, Restless Legs, Sciatica, Shingles, Sinusitis, Sore Throats, Teething, Tonsillitis, and many others.

Painkillers do not treat any of these diseases. They just deal with the pain caused by the condition. Conventional medicine understands this very well, and painkillers are often prescribed because they have no other effective or relevant conventional treatment for the patient. As with arthritis they provide temporary relief, and introduce more toxicity into an already sick and ailing body.

So it is not just limbs that have to be replaced. Pharmaceutical drugs harm organs too, bringing on the need to more miraculous surgery - to replace kidneys, hearts, et al. Why do kidneys and hearts need replacing? Not just because conventional medicine has few effective treatments for kidney or heart failure, but because of the use and over use of painkillers to treat pain have worsened the disease.

It's a familiar process, is it not? Miraculous surgery once again comes to the rescue. We are in awe of the surgeon's skill (quite rightly) without ever recognising that his/her skill is necessary (in most instances) only because of the failure of conventional medicine.

And the journey does not end there. Replacement and transplantation surgery always requires that our immune system has to be compromised with what conventional medicine calls 'immunotherapy', the use of pharmaceutical drugs that stop our immune system getting rid of the transplanted organs and limbs, and thereby compromising the ability of the body to protect itself from attack from external infections, of all kinds - some of which can be painful.

But never mind, the doctor can always prescribe some more painkillers for these conditions too. They won't deal with the infection, but they will temporarily relieve the pain.

It's a familiar process, is it not?

Don't despair, as I was writing this blog I received this Natural News article, "Try these natural ways to reduce pain and stress". We don't have to be beholden to pharmaceutical drugs. And there is always homeopathy, always an effective therapy with a good matching remedy, always safe. Read this Homeopathy World Community website article, "Managing Pain with Homeopathy".

There is always a better way. 
No-one needs to rely on conventional medicine.
Or on (as-good-as-useless) pharmaceutical drugs. 
Start your personal search for solutions now.

Monday, 23 July 2018

Vaccines. Conventional Medicine has to defend their safety and effectiveness at all costs. Its very credibility rests on it!

Once you tell a lie you have to stick with it, otherwise you will be found to be a liar.

And this is the problem that pharmaceutical companies, and the conventional medical establishment that supports it, face now. Many of their 'best' drugs have been found to be ineffective or useless, or too dangerous to prescribe to patients. Vaccines remain. If and when the public loses confidence in them they will lose confidence in the entire medical system that depends on them. They have built them up. They cannot be allowed to fail. Their safety and effectiveness must be maintained - at almost any cost.

The evidence that vaccines, in all its many forms, and directed at any illness, are failing is all around us, and regularly reported in this blog. Yet in the USA there is another example that conventional medical science, and the profits of the pharmaceutical companies, have been built on foundations of sand is now becoming known. Although not, of course, in the mainstream media.

Jon Rappaport has broken this news on his blogsite. He states that for 30 years the USA Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) broke the law regarding vaccine safety, and no one noticed or cared. In 1986, vaccine manufacturers told the federal government they were going to abandon the vaccine business because juries were awarding too much money in court, to parents of vaccine-injured children. The Federal Government had a answer. They would eliminate the law suits. So a new law was enacted, basically because everyone involved realised that vaccine safety was a major problem.

So in the same year, 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed into law, giving drug companies immunity from prosecution for any legal liability stemming from unsafe vaccines, and the injuries they cause to patients. As all vaccines were said to be safe and effective this would not have been a matter of any great concern, but of course they are neither safe or effective, and the USA government has been paying $billions in compensation to vaccine victims ever since. They continue to do so even though we are told that vaccines are safe!

There was a provision in this law that ordered the USA Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to update Congress, every two years, on its efforts to improve vaccine safety. Yet it has never done so.

Two people discovered this scandal. Robert F Kennedy, Jr., head of the World Mercury Project, and Del Bigtree, the producer of the film Vaxxed. They thought that it would be interesting to read these HHS reports. There should have been 16 of them. So they filed a Freedom of Information Act request and heard nothing. 

Silence in an important tool of the conventional medical establishment. Whenever they have a problem, when they are embarrassed, and if going public will only highlight their inadequacies (not to mention fraud and corruption that is rife) they do not reply.  Publicity will only highlight the issue, and more people will discover the truth. Keep quiet. The problem will go away. No-one will notice.

Kennedy and Bigtree went to court to obtain the information, and after much "wrangling and stonewalling" the HHS finally admitted there were no such reports. As Rappoport says, the HHS has failed to update congress on its efforts to improve vaccine safety, and to take that point further, the HHS has done nothing to improve vaccine safety in all these 32 years. As Rappoport says 

          "The original 1986 law removed all liability from vaccine makers because there was a problem, and that problem was vaccines safety. Congress protected billions of dollars that could never be sought in court from vaccine manufacturers. Those law suits, filed by parents of vaccine-injured children, would henceforth be illegal. That was the substance of the law."

Did anyone notice? If they did no-one said anything. Remember that the pharmaceutical industry has built up a powerful and influential social network with its wealth, and this network includes the government, the entire conventional medical establishment, and the mainstream media. No-one speaks against the drug companies, nobody can afford to do so, it is not in their sectional interest. So there was silence. At the core the pharmaceutical industry did not want to look into vaccine safety, they judged it was not in their interests to do so.

Yet the drug companies have introduced more and more vaccines for more and more illnesses. Each one is profitable. Each one is unsafe and creates new cases for the vaccine court to pay for, and the Federal government to pay for. Well, it's only taxpayer money! As Rappoport says

               "To any person with open eyes, these are the actions of criminals pretending to be scientists."

Rappoport continues his case in another webpage when he asks why these reports were not written. He comes up with 4 reasons

Arrogance. Federal agencies will, when they think they can get away with it, ignore a law entirely. They’ll pretend it doesn’t exist.

Cover-up. To follow the law would have constituted a de facto admission that vaccine safety is a problem. If you update your efforts in that direction every two years, there is a serious problem. The federal government does not, under any circumstances, want to admit vaccines cause widespread harm.

Business and Profit. The CDC buys and sells $4 billion worth of vaccines every year. Engaging in such huge business, while admitting vaccines are a continuing safety problem, doesn’t create a coherent picture. Instead it raises many uncomfortable questions best left unasked.

Whistleblowers. Did the federal government want to open the door to more and more vaccine whistleblowers over the years? He then relates that case of long-time CDC researcher, William Thompson, who did blow the whistle on fraudulent MMR Vaccine-Autism research in 2014. "You start digging a hole in a putrid place, all sorts of rank material is going to emerge."

The pharmaceutical industry knew that these HHS reports to Congress would attract a great deal of public attention, and open hearings would be forced into existence. This is how Rappoport imagine the scene, in one of its televised sessions, a CDC scientist of repute, at the end of his tether, saying, with great emphasis:

               “The whole vaccine business is nonsense. For example, when we say large vaccine campaigns have wiped out such-and-so disease, that’s a fairy tale. The vaccine does have an effect on the body. It can impair the body’s immune system response, in which case you won’t see the rashes and red bumps and other signs of a particular disease. But don’t think for a second that means the disease has been wiped out. No. Because of the toxic vaccine, the immune system is made too weak to respond with power, and that’s why you don’t see the rashes develop. Instead, the vaccine causes other kinds of problems in the body. The problem could be neurological. It could be a chronic debilitating infection. No disease has really been wiped out…only the appearance has changed. The overall health of the child has gotten worse…and this is a very bad thing. We have to stop lying about it…”

So it did not happen. No reports were written. For over 30 years no-one has been trying to measure, or improve vaccine safety. Instead the pharmaceutical industry has done all it can to persuade us that vaccinations are effective and safe. They have to. Their business, their future profitability, their credibility depends on it.

Eventually, the truth will out - it always does. 
But powerful forces are maintaining their 'right' to silence.

Tafenoquine. A new pharmaceutical drug for Malaria

The BBC announced proudly this morning (23 July 2018) that there is a new pharmaceutical drug for the treatment of Malaria. 
  • More good news from our public broadcaster and its health unit?
  • Another wonder drug that will change our experience of another disease?
  • Or just another piece of free advertising for the drug company (GSK)?
The BBC article can be seen here but the information has feature on both television and radio news too. Smitha Mundasad, a Senior Health Journalist at BBC News, wrote the article. She informs us that it is a new drug to treat malaria, it has been given the green light by USA drug regulator, the FDA, and it is specifically for treating "the recurring form of malaria caused by the parasite plasmodium vivax". She states that the condition makes 8.5 million people ill each year, and that this type of malaria is a particular challenge to get rid of as it can remain dormant in the liver for years before reawakening many times.

She goes on to say that scientists have described tafenoquine as a "phenomenal achievement" - a statement she does not question or discuss. She says that the drug can flush the parasite out of its hiding place in the liver and stop people getting it again. There is another drug that can do this, primaquine, but this has to be taken for 14 days. With tafenoquine only one dose is necessary.

BBC coverage did mention that "there are important side effects to be aware of" and mentions people with "an enzyme problem, called G6PD deficiency" who should not take the drug as it can cause severe anaemia. They also said that there are concerns that at higher doses "can be a problem for people with psychiatric illnesses".

Not much to worry about then, certainly nothing that the BBC has bothered to look into, or to let us know about. Ms Mudasad said that the drug "will help reduce the amount of vivax malaria in the world". To support this she quoted Professor Ric Price, of Oxford University

               "The ability to get rid of the parasite in the liver with a single dose of tafenoquine is a phenomenal achievement and in my mind it represents one of the most significant advances in malaria treatment in the last 60 years."

Dr Hal Barron, president of research and development at GSK, was then quoted as saying that the drug "was a significant milestone for people living with this type of relapsing malaria" and that "we believe Krintafel will be an important medicine for patients with malaria and contribute to the ongoing effort to eradicate this disease."

All excellent stuff then. Anyone viewing, listening or reading BBC News coverage will be delighted. Another disease eradicated!

Yet this is what the BBC always does. It is keen to announce new 'wonder' drugs that will eradicate disease, and it does so with stunning regularity. And the BBC never looks beyond what they are told by the drug companies, or by academic staff who form part of the conventional medical establishment. 

In October 2013 I blogged that the BBC was promoting a GSK vaccine for malaria. I wonder whatever happened to that? This is journalism of the very worst kind, lazy journalism, inadequate journalism - fake news?

Malaria drugs are a disaster, and they have been a disaster for decades. Even a BBC journalist might be expected to know this! So I did a simple web search, something I must assume Smitha Mundasad, and the BBC, did not do.

This Science Direct website page mentions the research into the drug, and mentions some of its known side effects. The website outlines the dreadful and serious side effects of Mefloquire (Lariam), which is apparently closely related to Tefenoquine. 

Please read these pages, and compare them to the side effects the BBC has decided to let us know about!

Then, search on, look at the Sydney Morning Herald's article (April 2016) entitled "Australian military doctors were warned about the dangers of using an experimental antimalarial drug on soldiers while in the midst of a coordinated trial under investigation by the ADF watchdog." In this article soldiers state that the drug programme "has scarred them" and that defence documents have "revealed long-held concerns about the drug". Tefenoquine, it states, remains banned in Australia and has been linked to blood cell damage and anaemia.

So the BBC is promoting a drug banned in Australia!

Then look at the Facebook page of the Australian Mefloquine and Tafeoquine Veterans, providing evidence for fraudulent medical studies, the individual stories soldiers have to tell, and the sheer anger that exists within the group towards the pharmaceutical companies that have damaged their lives.

And then move on to the Facebook page of the International Mefloquine Veterans Alliance. which talks of the "Scientific Misconduct in the Australian Army Malaria Institute’s Clinical Trials of Tafenoquine".

Then, if you are not already sufficiently horrified, reread today's BBC coverage. Is it accurate? Is it honest? Does it tell you and me what we need to know about these '...oquine' malaria drugs? 

The BBC is a public service broadcaster, but as far as health is concerned it consistently fails to provide the British public with no 'service' whatsoever - just unlimited, unchecked drug company propaganda. There can be only two excuses for the BBC in not providing us with proper, full and accurate information. Either
  • they do not know about the dangerous nature and history of antimalarial drugs.
  • they do know about this, but have again failed to inform us, the public.
If it is the former the BBC are negligent, asleep on duty. 
If it is the latter the BBC is guilty of gross negligence.

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

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