Tuesday, 6 November 2018

NHS prevention plan aims to boost life expectancy

The NHS has announced a new strategy for health care in the UK. It is to move away from its current 'treatment' based approach to a more 'preventative' approach. The new Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, is developing his long-term plans for the NHS and it will focus on the prevention rather than the treatment of illness (5th November 2018).

Well, something certainly has to happen. The NHS is not coping with the demands being made on it by growing number of sick patients who seem to get progressively sick the more treatment they receive, and so requiring more a more treatment. Hancock says that 10 times more money is now being spent on treatment than prevention, and this, he says, "does not stack up". He says that there needs to be a shift in culture of the NHS, and in the way resources are balanced.

Hancock wants people to have 5 more years of healthy, independent life by 2035. To achieve this he is encouraging people to take more responsibility for their own health - to look after themselves better, staying acting longer, quitting smoking, making better life choices by limiting their consumption of alcohol, sugar, salt and fat."

               "For too long the NHS has seen itself as essentially the National Hospital Service, with primary care and GPs round the side."

So has the Health Secretary discovered the root cause of NHS failure, or more importantly, the failure of conventional medicine to make us better? My major doubt about his plan is that before illness can be PREVENTED, the CAUSE of illness has first to be correctly identified.

What Hancock seems to be proposing is that patients begin to do the things the NHS has been asking us to do for a very long time! There is nothing new about asking people to change their life style habits for healthier ones. Doctors have been doing it for decades - usually either just before or after handing out a prescription for pharmaceutical drugs. Clearly, there is nothing wrong with a better diet, more exercise, less smoking, et al. But just how exactly is this going to be achieved when it has never been achieved before?

So what about more primary medical care, using GP's rather than hospitals? Certainly it is important to know exactly what Hancock believes to be 'preventative' medicine. For instance, many of the drugs currently prescribed by doctors in massive quantities are already prescribed on the basis that they can prevent illness and disease.

Statin drugs, are perhaps a case in point. They have been, and continue to be prescribed to prevent heart attacks and strokes. So is this the kind of 'preventative medicine' Hancock is talking about? Two things if it is...
  1. Since Statins have been given to patients there has been no decrease, but rather a massive increase in the number of heart attacks and strokes. Indeed, all chronic disease is now running at epidemic levels.
  2. And Statins are now known to cause serious health side effects - muscle weakness, cataracts, liver dysfunction, kidney disease, diabetes, dementia et al. So this is one 'preventative' drug that is almost certainly adding to number of cases having to be treated by the NHS.
Vaccines are also widely used by the NHS with the express purpose of 'preventing' disease. Children are subject to a plethora of vaccines for a wide number of (quite minor) illnesses, and although this will be vehemently denied, there is little doubt that they cause (more serious) illness. Swopping measles for autism, or diphtheria for seizures, is not a good deal for patients, or the NHS. Similarly, older people are asked every year to swop influenza for dementia

So as far as prevention is concerned, vaccines are not a good deal for the NHS either. And before anyone accuses me of being 'anti-vaccine' let me suggest another description for my vaccine stance. I am pro-Hippocrates. FIRST, DO NO HARM!

Yet herein lies the problem at the very heart of the NHS, which is now completely dominated by the conventional medical establishment, and by the pharmaceutical industry.

It means that the NHS is unable to identify one of the main problems that underlays rising health demand, and rising NHS costs. It refuses to identify one important cause for increased levels of demand that is threatening to bankrupt the NHS. Let me explain why this is.
  • Doctors prescribe pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines (often to prevent disease).
  • These all cause side effects, often very serious side effects, which are, in effect, new and serious illnesses in their own right.
  • And because it is conventional medicine that has caused the problem it is unable to admit it. This is one major consequence conventional medicine - it is, itself, creating disease.
So I suspect it is not possible for conventional medicine to do anything about it. I have been writing my DIE's website now for several years, describing how specific pharmaceutical drugs are known to cause specific diseases. One discovery I have made it that when the NHS describes the causes of each illness, the role played by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are rarely mentioned as a possible cause. Yet medical literature demonstrates that the NHS DOES know that their drugs cause disease. The NHS Choices website, for example, frequently states that the cause of a disease is 'unknown' rather than admit that it can be caused by pharmaceuticals!

The point is that it is difficult to prevent illness if one of the major causes is routinely denied. Put in another way, preventative medicine is only possible if we can identify, openly and honestly, all the factors that cause illness. And conventional medicine refuses to do this.

Preventative medicine is a good idea. Homeopathy does it all the time, as do other natural therapies, all of which treat patients without causing harm. Conventional medicine causes a large amount of additional sickness, and by doing so (as I blogged recently), this produces enormous secondary costs for society.

These secondary costs are certainly preventable. But first there has to be an honest admission - that conventional medicine, even when it is claiming to be preventing illness, is actually creating more illness and disease. Then the prevention of large amounts of illness and disease becomes eminently possible - through one simple process.


Friday, 2 November 2018

The MMR Vaccine. Less parents are getting their children vaccinated. And this is a problem both for conventional medicine, and our national media!

Professor Dame Sally Davis is an expert on health, Britain's 'top doctor', and the government appointed Chief Medical Officer. Or more accurately, perhaps, she is an expert in conventional medicine.

  • There is an important distinction!

On 1st November 2018 her statement about the MMR vaccine made all the mainstream media. Her comments came, apparently, on the 30th anniversary of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine being introduced in the UK. The vaccine is given, free of charge, on the NHS, as a single injection to babies, within a month of their first birthday. They then have a second injection before starting school, aged three years.

The expert professor was bemoaning the fact that less people are now taking up the vaccine - only 87% in England when the target is 95%.

So let's see what she had to say, and how the media (and particularly BBC News) reported it.

               "The MMR vaccine has dramatically reduced cases of measles, mumps and rubella and saved about 4,000 deaths from measles, resulting in the UK being declared "measles free" by the World Health Organization last year."

Measles was a killer disease in this country during the 18th and 19th century, alongside the upheaval and poverty of the agrarian and industrial revolutions. The incidence of measles declined progressively and rapidly from the second half of the 19th century right up to the introduction of the MMR vaccine. Graphs that track the incidence of measles show that the introduction of the vaccine made no impact whatsoever on the continuing decline of the disease.

Did Sally Davis mention this? Was she challenged by the BBC? No, this was allowed to pass - as a factual statement.

The Professor went on to say that the MMR vaccine was safe, and had been given to millions of children worldwide. Yet the patient information leaflet that comes with the MMR vaccine contradicts this statement. I have listed the long list of serious known 'side effects' in this blog, written in 2013. The side effects include seizures, encephalitis, and death (yes, death!)

Did Sally Davis qualify this statement that the MMR vaccine was safe? Did the BBC challenge her about the claim? No, it was allowed to pass - as a factual statement.

So why are 13% of parents refusing to take up the offer of this free vaccine? A vaccine that protects against a disease that no longer exists (!) A vaccine that causes death? 

Well, Dame Sally had the answer. I was to blame, alongside the many other anti-vaccine campaigners, all of us presenting our 'misinformation', and 'fake news'.
  • People who believe the myths spread by anti-vaccine campaigners "are absolutely wrong" she said.
  • She urged parents to get their children vaccinated and ignore "social media fake news".
  • She said myths peddled about the dangers of vaccines on social media was one reason parents weren't taking their children to get the MMR vaccine.
  • "Over these 30 years, we have vaccinated millions of children.
  • "It is a safe vaccination - we know that - and we've saved millions of lives across the world.
  • "People who spread these myths, when children die they will not be there to pick up the pieces or the blame."
This was her message, her unchallenged message, the one that everybody heard. The voice of a medical expert, an authority on the subject, someone who is not to be challenged, by anyone!

So what has my mistake been? Why have I erred? Why have I been attacked on the media? I suggest my mistake, and the mistake of all anti-vaxxers, has been twofold.

  1. We have read the evidence on the patient information leaflets and made the judgement that this level of child damage was unacceptable.
  2. We have listened to parents who once had healthy children, but whose development was normal up until they were vaccinate (either with DPT or MMR), and who subsequently became seriously ill.
Clearly, according to Britain's Chief Medical Officer, we should not have done so either of these things. We should accept her word, her statements, just as the media has done - after all she is a medical expert!

So was Sally Davis's challenged at all by the BBC? And did they, in line with the BBC's editorial guidelines, give time to anti-vaccine campaigners to put their position? No, she was not challenged. And no, no one was allowed to put the contrary case - that the MMR vaccine was,  in fact, dangerous, and parent were right to refuse to subject their children to its known side effects.

Instead, Dame Sally was allowed to bemoan the fact that there had been too many cases of measles in England this year - a grand total of 903 so far (!) - and that young people had missed out on the MMR vaccine "who had been particularly affected".

Any statistics on that, Sally? So perhaps the BBC asked her how many of the 903 children had been vaccinated? Unfortunately, they did not bother to ask.

And then, of course, the usual nonsense, routinely trotted out by the media whenever vaccines are brought into question.

               "In 1998, a study by former doctor Andrew Wakefield incorrectly linked the MMR vaccine to autism. The research is now completely discredited."

Actually, Andrew Wakefield's research has been replicated many times now. But we cannot expect the mainstream media to mention this. So did they challenge the statement? No, of course not. The job of the media, as seen by the media, is to support the conventional medical establishment, to act as an Echo Chamber for anything they want to say, without challenge or question, whilst at the same time bashing anyone who holds a contrary view, backed by contrary evidence.

So the result of Professor Dame Sally Davis's interview, and the vacillation of the mainstream media, will be that more parents are absolutely certain about the importance of vaccination, and the safety of vaccines, who have no knowledge of the warnings on the patient information leaflet, or the experience of parents whose young children have been seriously damaged.

So much for informed patient choice!

Tuesday, 30 October 2018

MEDICAL SCIENCE. It provides the 'evidence base' for conventional medicine. But is drug testing honest?

On the same day that the UK government announced in its budget an increase of £20 billion for the NHS, it was reported that "Unpublished medical research is "a threat to public health". Apparently this is the conclusion of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, which says that important information about the efficacy of new drugs and treatments are going unpublished, posing a risk to health. It goes on to say that

               "... despite repeated warnings, not enough is being done to make sure the results of all clinical trials are reported".

Medical science is supposed to provide the "evidence base' for conventional medicine, dominated as it is by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Yet it is accused, here, of failing to make public all the available evidence from all clinical trials - and that this has been going to for a long time - despite repeated warnings.

Repeated warnings?

The modern system of drug regulation, and drug testing regimes, began soon after the pharmaceutical industry was forced to recognise that one of its drugs, Thalidomide, had caused devastating harm to hundreds of babies in the 1950's and 1960's. In future, drug regulation would safeguard patients from dangerous drugs that were harmful to our health.


Withholding information means that evidence indicating that a new drug is harmful is not published. Even our doctors do not know. They prescribe drugs to patients - ignorant of the evidence of harm that may be caused. Only the pharmaceutical companies, and the medical 'scientists' know about this, and it is in the business interests, and their profits. that they decide that we are not to be told.

Yet the situation is far worse than just the withholding of information. Information about the harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs is hidden from view in lots of other ways. I have written about this in more detail in "Drug Regulation and Medical Science", emphasising the reasons why conventional medicine is not scientific, why drug regulation is ineffective, and why it does not provide an 'evidence base' that safeguards patients. In summary, this is what is known:

  • The financial rewards of a 'successful' drug mean that drug companies are reluctant to admit any 'negative' information.
  • Drug Regulation agencies, throughout the world, are now dominated by people who have a vested interest in the pharmaceutical industry. In effect, they have been 'captured' by drug company place-men.
  • The funding of drug trials is predominantly done by the pharmaceutical industry, with all the problems 'cheque-book science' brings with it.
    • they select the scientists
    • they make it known that if scientists want further work drug companies require the 'correct' result.
  • The manipulation of drug test results is also a problem. The way this is done was outlined in Ben Goldacre's book "Bad Pharma", and summarised and extended in my ebook. My summary is as follows
               "Goldacre ... is ...setting out what has long been recognised about what constitutes a properly and honestly constructed randomised trial. All medical scientists know this but quite regardless have chosen to conduct the trials in the way (he) describes. Perhaps these 'scientists' will argue that they had to, even though they must have been quite aware that they were 'massaging' the test results in favour of the drug companies."
  • Withholding 'negative' tests results is then covered, and in my book I provide several examples of when this has been done, involving drugs like Vioxx, Zyprexa, Seroquel, Fosamax, Neurontin, Avandia, et al. Some of these cases date back to the early 2000's so it is little wonder that the House of Commons report talks about 'repeated warnings'!
There is more dishonesty though. I go on to deal with drug companies secretly pulling out of studies that are producing the 'wrong' results. And the 'favourable' interpretation of test data. And the lack of any checks on the honesty and integrity of published medical science.

So why is it that nothing happen? Why will this House of Commons report, like similar reports, make any difference? Why has Ben Goldacre's book (published back in 2012) made no difference to the way medical science operates? Why does the dishonesty and corruption, outlined in my 'Failure of Conventional Medicine' ebook, continue to be ignored by politicians and the media?

And why do we continue to insist on spending more money on an NHS dominated by pharmaceutical 
drug and vaccine treatment? An extra £20 billion for the NHS? To spend on the same medical treatment that has consistently failed to cope with the health demands being made on the NHS for over 70 years? Does it make sense?

It is all quite simply the result of the conventional medicine's amazing success in keeping the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, from us!

We must now wake up to the reality - that pharmaceutical drugs do not work. They harm us. The more drugs and vaccines we take, the sicker we become. Conventional medicine is not winning the battle with illness and disease, as it so often claims. It is creating epidemics of chronic disease.

So the solution is not to spend another £20 billion of the same, failed and failing medicine. It is to begin to look for something different, something safer and more effective, something that actually works for patients, something that keeps them healthy, and make them better when they are sick.

Friday, 26 October 2018

The Secondary Costs of Conventional Medicine

Hitherto, this blog has focused on how much conventional medicine costs to deliver. Every time a patient visits a doctor, undergoes a medical test, is given pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, goes into hospital, is operated on, etc., it costs money.

The cost of conventional medical treatment is staggeringly high. It is bankrupting many health services around the world. Medicine based on pharmaceutical drugs is the most expensive medical system available, by far. And in Britain, and elsewhere, demands for more and more money are constant being made.

This blog has also argued that conventional medical treatment is not very effective. It is failing to make patients well, it does not cure illness, indeed, it often admits that it has no treatment for major diseases.

The blog has also argued that it is not a safe system of medicine, that through adverse drug reactions patients can often be seen getting sicker, not better. One illness leads to drug prescription, and through drug side effects, the patient contracts another illness, for which more drugs are required, which also cause illness - and so on.

So once patients step over the threshold of conventional medicine they keep having to return, they don't get better, they need more and more treatment, which makes them sicker and sicker. And so it has gone on for the last 70 years and more.

The Secondary Costs of Conventional Medicine
But what happens then? What happens to people who are made sick, or made sicker, by conventional medicine? This is where the secondary costs begin.

  • At the start of life, healthy babies and children who have been vaccinated, and the vaccines cause health damage. So, for example, we now have ADHD, an Autism epidemic, and many other diseases, that increase the number of people who require a lifetime of care - special education - ongoing health treatment- special day care provisionet al. Plus parents who can no longer work as they have to become full-time carers.
  • Older people who become ill, not because of their age, but because the harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs. For example, the rising numbers of older people (and indeed, much younger people) who suffer from dementia, who can no longer look after themselves, whose children have to give up their careers to look after them. And the home care services, and the residential care they need as their dementia progresses.
Then there is the explosion of diseases, all now running at epidemic levels. and all known to be caused (at least in part) by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines (click on the links to see which drugs cause these conditions).

  • People with allergy, often allergies that require intricate special diets, and the fear that to eat a simple food that become a killer
    • The Arthritis epidemic that stunts people's life, makes them immobile, and prevents them from earning their own living.
    • The Asthma epidemic that now curtails the ability of so many people to lead a full, sometimes an independent life.
    • The epidemic of cancer that cuts short the lives of so many people, requiring both medical, social, and end-of-life care.
    • The explosion of diabetes, and its related conditions, that is now incapacitating so many more people than ever before, and increasing their need for life-long medical and social care.
    There are many more illnesses for which conventional medicine admits it has no cure. And worse, there are a multitude of illnesses that are known to be caused, directly, by conventional medical treatment. Many of these are covered in my ebook, DIEs - the Disease Inducing Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs.

    So the cost of conventional medicine does not stop with the direct provision of health services, it goes far, far beyond this, to the services sick people require to live permanently with illness, the number of people who are no longer economically active, or have to care for relatives who cannot care for themselves, or who need state support to live their lives.

    So how much are we talking about? The British NHS alone costs £120 billion (and rising). 
    • Is it half this amount, again?
    • Double? 
    • More? 
    It is difficult to calculate the 'secondary' costs of conventional medicine, not least because the conventional medical establishment steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the damage it is doing to our health, to our lives, and to the society in which we live.

    Thursday, 25 October 2018

    Female Ailments. "It's part of being a woman! You just have to put up with it!"

    How many women have heard this from their doctor? Menstrual problems? Cystitis? PMT, PMS? Mastitis? Vaginal Thrush? These can all be painful, annoying - but just get on with it. It's life! Not only have many women told me about this response, some have commented that if men had periods there would have been a cure for Amenorrhoea, Dysmenorrhoea, Menorrhagia, Metrorrhagia, et al, long, long ago.

    Conventional medicine has been dominated by men ever since its origins, in the universities of 12th and 13th century universities. It continuers to be dominated by men. And it is usually male doctors who make these dismissive comments.

    Homeopathy has always been different. From the beginning it has always had effective treatments for 'women's complaints', but throughout the 20th century, and today, it is female homeopaths have played a leading role in its progress and development. Unlike me, a mere man, they know from personal experience what these conditions are like, and much of their work has been directed towards these neglected ailments.

    I was aware of this during my training as a homeopath. I was under no illusion, women have particular medical needs, and they should not be underestimated. And why should they be underestimated. Homeopaths have at their disposal some remarkable remedies to deal with all these conditions. If, similarly, conventional doctors had drugs equally able to deal with them they probably would not be dismissive either - often their attitude is the result of having little to offer.

    In my 'Why Homeopath?' website I have compared and contrasted what conventional medicine and homeopathy has to offer women for all these ailments. Have a look at the links below, the one's  relevant to you, to see the difference in treatment options.

    Menstrual problems (in all its many forms).


    PMT, PMS.


    Vaginal Thrush.

    You will then be more able to make up your own mind what kind of treatment is best for you.

    Monday, 22 October 2018

    NHS in Crisis (2018-2019)

    It's only October but a new winter NHS crisis is on its way. Actually this annual crisis should not be called a 'winter' crisis. It's becoming an Autumn, Winter, Spring crisis - and I suspect soon it will become a Summer crisis too!

    Nor should we be talking of an 'NHS" crisis. It is really the crisis of conventional medicine, the medicine that has a virtual monopoly with the NHS, which is itself dominated by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. (For my previous posts on this subject, some dating back to 2011, go to the top right of this page and enter a search on 'NHS Crisis').

    Notice of the crisis has been given by the NHS Providers organisers, widely reported in the national press this morning (22 October 2018). Its report, 'Steeling Ourselves for Winter 2018/19' says that there are “clear warning signs” that the situation is likely to be worse than last year (itself the worst on record), and describes pressures across all hospital activity, and primary care - staff vacancies, a tired and pressured workforce.

    And this is despite £millions of additional money being pumped into the NHS, with £billions more promised over the next few years. All that this proves is that it is pointless pouring more and more money into a failing and crumbling health system. Yet this is what the warning is about - more money - the NHS does not have enough money:

    • GP's, and primary care generally, need more money
    • Ambulance services needs more money
    • A&E services need more money
    • Every hospital speciality needs more money
    • Mental Health services need more money
    • Children and Adult disability services need more money
    • Social care needs more money
    Political parties are clambering over each other, trying to out-bidding each other, to provide more money for the NHS. But they have never been able to provide enough. Not even the Labour government of 1997 to 2010 could do that. They increased NHS spending by nearly 300% over this time - but this did not stop what the report describes as "the recurring cycle of winter crises".

    Nor will more money, however much can be found. The problem is that conventional medicine does not make patients better. Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines makes them sicker, through the pernicious effect of side effects, adverse drug reactions. Pharmaceuticals cause disease - and the more money the NHS is given the more drugs patients are given - and the sicker they become.

    So the NHS provides us with a vicious circle. This is why demand constantly outstrips the ability of the NHS to cope. It invests its money into a failing and moribund medical system. Unfortunately, politicians, governments and the mainstream media are unable, even unwilling to recognise this. And the conventional medical establishment has a vested interest in the system remaining as it is - so they are unlikely to tell us either.

    So more money for the NHS, to avert another crisis?
    • Or should we go out and buy a car that cannot move (except, perhaps in reverse)?
    • Or a washing machine that is unable to wash our clothes?
    • Or a vacuum cleaner that does not pick up dirt from our carpets?
    Anyone who is concerned about the prospect of another health crisis in the next few weeks does have an alternative, to do what many other people are doing - finding a medical system that works - a natural medicine that promotes a healthy lifestyle to stay healthy - that does not require the patient to take drugs that make them sick - that offers the prospect of curing illness and disease.

    Look up a local homeopathy, or herbalist, or naturopath, or osteopath. Visit your local natural health centre to see what they have to offer. It will invariably offer something better than is available in our monopolistic National Health Service!

    Friday, 19 October 2018

    Patients pressurising doctors to give them more drugs. Why? And is honesty with patients the best solution?

    Public Health England (PHE) is concerned that patients are pressurising doctors to give them more antibiotic drugs (Pulse 18 October 2018). This is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, it has become a feature of the National Health Service in the UK. Patients, it seems, can never get quite enough of the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that are on offer to them - even when doctors do not think they need them.

    Another recent post in Pulse may be relevant here, it suggested that if patients were aware of the cost of the treatments they received they would appreciate them more. So perhaps if patients were aware of the cost of antibiotic drugs they would appreciate them more? Unfortunately, antibiotics are not particularly expensive. And they are already too popular, in too much demand it seems, and PHE feels it needs to take action.

    So PHE is going to reintroduce its 'Keep Antibiotics Working' campaign. In doing so it has the approval of doctors because "93% of those surveyed said that it supported them in refusing patient requests for antibiotics" - by informing the public about the risks of antibiotic resistance, and to urge them to take their clinicians advice on antibiotics.

    As this blog has regularly reported, there are two major problems with antibiotic drugs. One of these is, indeed, resistance - the creation of superbugs - their inability to treat the conditions, illnesses and disease that once they were able to treat - an increasing number of patients no longer responding to them.

    The other problem is the serious side effects they are known to cause. For my previous blogs on the dangers of antibiotic drugs, go to the top left-hand side of this page and search 'antibiotic drugs'. Alternatively, go to my webpage on the dangers of antibiotics drugs.

    So why do patients continue to demand antibiotic drugs, given that they are now known to cause such serious side effects? The answer is, of course, patients are not told. To a large extent the conventional medical establishment does not accept that they cause harm, even though the evidence is there, published and available within their own information base. Certainly doctors do not admit, publically, the harm they cause. And the mainstream media does not ask questions about the dangers of antibiotic drugs. So how do we ever get to know?

    Since the 1940's we have all been told that antibiotics are wonder drugs. Once we were told they were wonder drugs with no side effects! This is the information most people still understand and believe. They have never been told otherwise - so why should they know that they are dangerous?

    So whether the '‘Keep Antibiotics Working' campaign works remains to be seen. Pulse states that in 2016 antibiotic prescribing decreased by 6% over three years, but that research continued to show that between 8% and 23% of antibiotic prescriptions are still inappropriate. They want to reduce this by half.

    I believe that this is unlikely to happen. It will not happen until we are all told the real reason we should not pester doctors for drugs - that they are dangerous to our health.

    As long as doctors tell us that the problem with antibiotics is a 'technical' one, concerning 'resistance', whilst we continue to believe they are effective and safe, patients will continue to demand them, and doctors will feel pressured into prescribe them. Patients need to be told that antibiotics are UNSAFE, and HARMFUL to our health.

    So the solution to this particular problem is an easy one - HONESTY! 

    But actually honesty is a problem for conventional medicine. Most of their drugs are largely ineffective. All of them are dangerous. And perhaps even more important, antibiotics are the very drugs upon which the reputation of conventional medicine has been built for the last 70 years. This base is becoming increasingly flimsy, at best, and it crumbles a bit more every time a doctor prescribes another drug to another patient.

    Thursday, 11 October 2018

    Encephalitis. A man lives when conventional medics had given up on him - thanks to homeopathy. A miracle cure?

    Homeopathy is a very powerful medical therapy. Occasionally I hear about cases that are really stunning. This one comes from Dr Nader Moradi, who is a a friend of a colleague of mine. He described him to me as follows.

                   "an incredible Iranian homeopath... a gifted homeopath with great observational powers. He sees about 50 patients a day, and patients fight to get an appointment! In between patients he reads books on Materia Medica! Amazing."

    Amazing indeed, as the summary of this case indicates. First, Dr Moradi's diagnosis, and these are his own words.

                   "About one month ago an acquaintance - 51 years old - suddenly had convulsions, headache, agitation, altered consciousness and left sided paralysis. An MRI showed there were two huge opacities in both hemispheres with oedema. Here is the MRI report:

                   “Two hypersignal areas were noted at left temporal and right frontoparietal lobes with extension to right temporal lobe. The lesions are extended to subcortical, peri and paraventricular white matter and shows vasogenic type edema. Cortex is not involved and white matter involvement id dominant. There is no significant mass effect. Very mild restriction on diffusion is noted at some areas of lesions particularly at medial side of right parietal lobe lesion. Apparent effusion is measured 0.86 mm/s. 

    Dr Moradi thought from this that "Encephalitis was the most probable diagnosis. Acquired metabolic disease and side effects of drugs should also be considered in differential list.”

    Note. There are now so many conditions, especially sudden and unusual conditions like this, in which the side effects of pharmaceutical drugs are implicated as a cause.

    Conventional doctors then examined the case in some detail, and their conclusion was that there was no hope of recovery. Again, in Doctor Moradi's own words:

                   "Neurologists believed that it is due to ADEM (Acute diffuse encephalomyelopathy) or SOL (space occupying lesion). The GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale - conscious level) was about 5. Therefore doctors said that there is no hope for recovery and they did not even hospitalise him in an Intensive Care Unit." (My emphasis).

    I have often written about this. Hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions of patients around the world, every year, find themselves in a similar situation.
    • Conventional medicine decide that they have no effective treatment for the patient.
    • They arrogantly assume that no other medical therapy will have effective treatment.
    • So effectively the patient is left to die.
    When there is no effective or useful conventional medical treatment DOES NOT mean that there is no treatment available! Fortunately, for this patient, Doctor Moradi's decided that he would not leave it there.

                   "I decided to treat him with Homeopathy. As there was oedema in the brain, and the progression was sudden, and as he was shrieking and agitated before decreasing conscious level, I decided to give him Apis 1m. After Apis he calmed down."

                   "On the CT scan brain oedema had been stopped but GCS was still 5. After 3 days I gave Apis 10m. The GCS then went up to 7, and doctors agreed to transfer him to the Intensive Care Unit."

                   "I repertorized the case, using Repertrium Virosom, and found that TBE and INF were the top miasms, with Sulphur, Helleborus, and Belladonna the top remedies."

                   "In the Intensive Care Unit I noticed the patient had automatic and rhythmic motion of the right side extremities, but the left side was paralyzed, and he had no motion. I gave him Helleborus  200C. After the Helleborus automatic motions disappeared and respiration became normal. Before Helleborus his respiration had been deep and rapid."

                   "On the 4th day after Helleborus I noticed anger on his face and spasm in the right side, so much so that I could not open his eyelids, his body was hot, and that night he had fever, a seizure and become agitated. Belladonna 10m was prescribed. There was a brief aggravation and then everything became better."

                   "On the CT scan oedema had been decreased, there was no agitation, fever and respiration was normal. Everything was getting better but the GCS was the same on the 7th day after Belladonna, so I decided to give him Sulphur 200C."

                   "2 days after the Sulphur he opened his eyes while calling him. The GCS score had became 9-10. He improved daily, and they removed his endotracheal tube."

                   "On 9th days after Sulphur there was mild anger and anxiety on the face, and he had a gesture like pulling hair or picking something and also pupils were dilated. I decided to give him Belladonna 50m. After that he became better, his paralyzed limb began to recover, and he could move his paralyzed limb, and muscle forces on paralyzed side is 3/5."

                   "I am following the case to see whether he will need another remedy or not?"

    The last report was that the patient had been released from hospital. He could talk and had control over his bowels. With some help he could walk. His cranial nerves were working normally. His hand strength was 3/5. And his left leg strength was 4/5.

    A miraculous cure? Or just another wonderful example of homeopathy curing a patient conventional medicine had given up on? Certainly in this case homeopathy was brilliantly applied to a patient who would otherwise have died.

    As a homeopath I have never ceased to wonder at how illness, even the most serious illnesses, including patients who have been under conventional medical treatment for many years, can cure. As a relatively new homeopath I remember once being very proud and excited after treating a woman who had less than 50% lung function. I presented the case to my supervisor. He cautioned me. Yes, it was wonderful what I had achieved. But, he said, what the case really demonstrated was not just that I had done a good job, a source of personal pride, but to marvel at the power of homeopathy to cure.

    So what happened to this patient was not a miracle. It is what happens when homeopathy is skilfully applied to even the sickest of patients.

    Since writing this I have been waiting for Dr Moradi to approve my draft, which he has now done. So I can now give a further update on the patient's progress.
    • He is now walking, unaided.
    • The strength in his left hand is coming up to 4/5. 
    • He has lost a considerable amount of weight, so they are now focusing on increasing his weight 
    Remember - this is the man that conventional medics thought would die - and would have allowed to die because they had no effective treatment for him.

    Thursday, 4 October 2018

    Are the Pharmaceutical Drugs your doctor is prescribing today any safer than the drugs that have already been banned because they were found to be dangerous to patient health?

    Are the pharmaceutical drugs your doctor is prescribing today any safer than the drugs that have already been banned as they were a threat to patient safety? The second section of my ebook "The Failure of Conventional Medicine" seeks both to demonstrate and justify that title.

    Today I have discovered that the doctors e-magazine, MIMS, publishes a regular list of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have been recently 'deleted', many of them because they have been found to be harmful to patient health.

    MIMS was established in 1963, and describes itself as "a multi-channel provider of drug information, medical education and services connecting healthcare communities". It says that it empowers healthcare professionals to "improve patient outcomes by facilitating knowledge exchange and better decision-making". It claims that it has a presence in 13 countries across the Asian Pacific, and has about two million healthcare professional subscribers to its drug and resource portal.

    It is one of the 'bibles' used by conventional doctor, informing them about pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines - their uses, their contraindications, their side effects, and much else. So each year MIMS routinely chart and publish information about the drugs that have been deleted.

    In 2017 MIMs listed 75 deleted drugs and vaccines! Each one is named, alongside the type of drug it is (or was). There was no indication about whether the drug was banned, withdrawn; they were just 'deleted' perhaps some of them replaced by another drug.

    Already in 2018 (that is, first 9 months of the year) MIMS reports that further 96 drugs and vaccines have been deleted.

    What this indicates is that the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines doctors are prescribing to us today are no safer than the drugs they were giving us in previous years, and that they continue to cause the same kind of patient harm that led to the withdrawal, banning or deleting of so many old drugs.

    Month by month pharmaceutical drugs are being deleted, and let's be clear, the one's that will be deleted next month, and next year, are the same drugs our doctors are prescribing today - to you and me.

    What MIMS has demonstrated is that the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines being prescribed today are all likely to be deleted tomorrow, next week, or next month, and that conventional medicine, and the pharmaceutical drugs that dominates it,  cannot be trusted with our health.

    Placebo. Homeopathy and other natural therapies are often dismissed as being "no better than placebo". So what is wrong with that?

    Homeopathy is often dismissed as being "no better than placebo". So exactly does this mean? Is it important to patients? Why has the concept of a 'placebo' become such a problem in recent years? And why do so many people want to disassociate themselves from it?

    A placebo is usually defined as a substance ‘containing no medication’ or ‘an inactive substance’ that is given to patients to help him/her get well. Or a placebo is a substance that has ‘no intrinsic value’ but manages to trick someone into feeling they are better.

    Most standard definitions explain placebo using the concepts highlighted above, or similar. It is used in the context of medicine, drugs, active substances that make sick people better. It is supposed to help us distinguish between substances that ‘work’ and substances that don’t ‘work’.

    So the value of the term ‘placebo’ should become clearer. It has become a weapon used by those who claim to make people well through ‘active substances’ and ‘medication’ - by conventional, or 'scientific' medicine. Everything else is of ‘no intrinsic value’, merely a confidence trick. The term has been hijacked by the pharmaceutical companies and their supporters, to attack natural medical therapies, to dismiss them as worthless, as being ‘no more, no better than placebo’.

    So why is placebo a problem?

    It is a problem because most natural therapies utilise methods that are designed to stimulate the body’s own healing mechanisms, not necessarily through 'active substances'. This may be through essential oils, or homeopathic remedies, or the needles of the acupuncturist, or the hands of the reflexologist. So for this reason such therapists can be routinely dismissed and discounted as users of ‘placebo’. Their patients don't really get well. They just think they get well (and presumably they are too stupid the recognise the difference)!

    So is this a problem for the patient?

    People who are genuinely sick have one main, over-riding priority - to get better. I have never treated a patient, and made them better, who then asked

    * “how did you do that?”
    * “I hope there was an active ingredient in what you gave me!”
    * “I hope what you did had some ‘intrinsic value’!”
    * “If it’s just a placebo I will be unhappy”.

    Patients want to get better, and largely that is all they want. They don’t ask about the number of randomised double blind trials the treatment has been subjected to. If the treatment does not hold, if the illness returns, the patient will not use the therapy again. Therapies that don’t work for patients don’t survive, especially when they do not have government subsidy! Essential oils, homeopathy, acupuncture have all been around a long time. Patients use them to get better, and they do so because they know that it does make them better.

    Conventional medicine may not like this, and no doubt they will continue to rail against us, and dismiss natural therapies for being “no more than placebo”.

    But as far as most patients are concerned, they don’t give a damn! 

    Wednesday, 3 October 2018

    The future of medicine. It does not rest with pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. It will be with medical therapies that can cure sick people, safely

    Since the beginning of the 20th century, conventional medicine and the pharmaceutical industry has constructed itself upon an edifice of ‘crucial discoveries’ - new ‘wonder drugs’ and ‘miracle cures’ and medical treatments that ‘will transform our experience of disease.

    It began just before the discovery of penicillin, with a number of drugs that have now been withdrawn, abandoned, banned - owing to their ineffectiveness, or the harm the caused to patients.

    Penicillin itself appeared to herald a new age of 'scientific' medicine, but as we all know now both penicillin and its antibiotic successors are now reaching the end of their useful life too. As resistance to them grows, we must now realise that they, too, also have seriously harmful side effects.

    Since the mid-20th century hundreds of 'wonder drugs' and 'miracle cures' have either been banned or withdrawn. Even the pharmaceutical drugs prescribed by doctors today, such as Painkillers, Beta Blockers, Benzodiazepines, Antidepressants, Statins, and many others, are proving harmful to patient health.

    Yet for most people the promise of 'scientific' medicine creating "a pill for every ill" has prevailed. The reassuring picture of medical science conquering disease is something we want to believe. After all, we have had over 100 years of this kind of propaganda.

    The truth is more mundane. After a century of consuming an ever-increasing amount of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines we are now experiencing
    • levels of serious chronic disease we have never before been seen
    • a plethora of ‘new’ diseases we have never heard of before
    • and diseases once thought to be about ageing and old age, like cancer and dementia, which are now being contracted by younger people and children.
    So what we can actually see, the evidence before our eyes (if we were to lift our blinkers and observe) is a medical system, dominated by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, in constant crisis because of the apparently insatiable demands of an increasingly sick population.

    This has not yet a picture of conventional health care that many recognise at the moment but it is one that we all need to understand, as soon as possible. For those who do recognise it the search for safer and more effective medical therapies has already begun, therapies that actually cure people of illness, do so safely, without creating new disease through side effects. This is a trend that will continue, in inverse proportion to the ongoing failure of conventional medicine.

    It is becoming a crucial understanding that we all need to make - and soon.

    Monday, 1 October 2018

    ALLERGY. A Tragic Death. It's in the news and is being widely discussed. Yet no-one asks what is causing the allergy epidemic

    The death of Natasha Ednan-Laperouse was undoubtedly a tragedy. Her story can be simply retold. She had a nut allergy, and ate an artichoke, olive and tapenade baguette at Heathrow Airport in July 2016, believing that it did not contain nuts. On the flight she went into cardiac arrest, and despite having two EpiPen injections (adrenaline) she died the same day. The baguette contained sesame seeds, an ingredient apparently not listed on the packaging.

    At the recent inquest into Natasha's death the court focussed on food labelling. Pret A Manger did not label its baguettes as containing sesame seeds even though there had been six allergic reaction cases in the previous year. So the family is now campaigning for a change in food labelling laws.

    An allergy is simply explained. "An allergy occurs when our immune system overreacts to what is normally a harmless substance, and triggers what, for the healthy human body, is an inappropriate and unnecessary response."

    To eat a few sesame seeds, and die as a result, is most certainly "an inappropriate and unnecessary response", so whilst it is appropriate to look at food labelling, it is surely more important to discuss why Natasha's immune system, designed to defend and protect itself from attack from foreign substances, should react to a food it should have been able to eat in complete safety.

    Allergy has become an epidemic in recent years. I have written about this in 'Epidemic of Chronic Disease', and in this blog from October 2012.

                   "According to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's report, published in July 2007, "the prevalence and incidence of allergic disease have markedly increased over the past 50 years", and that evidence presented to the Committee showed that "an increasing prevalence of asthma was first noted in studies of Birmingham school children, starting in the mid 1950s," and that since then "the prevalence of asthma and wheezing appears to have doubled "approximately every 14 years" until the mid 1990s. It added that the trends for other disorders such as hay fever and eczema are similar."

    The 2004 report showed the scale of the "allergy epidemic" - that 39% of children and 30% of adults had been diagnosed with one or more of asthma, eczema and hayfever; and 38% of children and 45% of adults had experienced symptoms of these disorders during the preceding 12 months. Yet since then the allergy epidemic has continued to grow!


    In the current debate about Natasha, no one seems to want to ask why she had this allergy in the first place. The cause of her death was her allergy - it was not a sandwich containing sesame seed, this was just the trigger. After all, we should all be able to eat sesame seeds without such a reaction!

    The answer is agonisingly simple. One of the main causes of the allergy epidemic, if not the main cause, are pharmaceutical drugs. This link lists the drugs known to cause allergy - including painkilling drugs, antibiotic drugs, sleeping pills, and in particular, childhood vaccinations and the plethora of drugs that 'work' by interfering with our immune system.

    Does conventional medicine know about this? Apparently not, although perhaps more pertinent questions might be "does it want to know", and "does it want us to know?" This is what the NHS Choices website tell us about the cause of allergies.

                   "Allergies occur when the body's immune system reacts to a particular substance as though it's harmful. It's not clear why this happens.....

                   "The number of people with allergies is increasing every year. The reasons for this are not understood....."

    So conventional medicine claims not to know - even when its medical textbooks, the doctors bibles like the British National Formulary and MIMS, very clearly provides the evidence for the link with pharmaceutical drugs!

    There is a fundamental problem with this. If conventional medicine refuses to acknowledge the serious side effects of pharmaceutical drugs, if doctors won't tell patients about the harm they can cause, if our mainstream media decides not to ask important questions about iatrogenic disease, there will be no solution to this problem, or any other health problem. 

    The campaign being waged by Natasha's parents will be doomed to failure because it does not address the most important question of all. Why was Natasha body allergic to what should be a harmless food?

    Before it is possible to reach a solution for any problem it is first necessary to know what is causing the problem. Identify the wrong cause and a solution is not possible.

    Allergy Treatment
    And there is another problem. Where should parents be looking for safe and effective treatment for allergy? Natasha's father used two EpiPen injections, and they failed. I have written about the conventional treatment of allergy - the antihistamine drugs, the steroids, the decongestants, the 'Leukotriene receptor antagonists', and of course immunotherapy (playing around with our immune system). In the same link I have written about the homeopathic treatment of allergy, which is altogether more effective, free of serious adverse drug reactions, and safer.

    Indeed, conventional medicine has proven that homeopathy is an effective treatment for allergy, and nut allergy in particular. In January 1914 the mainstream media heralded a new and successful treatment for peanut allergy. This from a BBC article.

                   "Doctors say a potential treatment for peanut allergy has transformed the lives of children taking part in a large clinical trial. The 85 children had to eat peanut protein every day - initially in small doses, but ramped up during the study. The finding, published in the Lancet, suggest 84% of allergic children could eat the equivalent of five peanuts a day after six months".

    As I said at the time, this is a treatment based on the principle of 'like (in small quantities) curing like'. It is, in other words, based on the principles of homeopathy! Whilst Homeopathy prefers to use peanuts in potency (in high dilution), these researchers used minute doses of peanut itself. This is probably not as safe as homeopathy, and probably produces results more slowly, but it is nonetheless homeopathy!

    Yet in the years since that research was heralded as a breakthrough treatment conventional medicine  is still not using. So perhaps we should all be asking why!

    But then, in matters of health, the right questions are rarely asked. This is why the allergy epidemic continues to grow, year by year, and why so many more 'Natasha's' are likely to die. Her mother was quoted as saying that "nobody else should ever have to suffer such a needless death". No-one is likely to disagree. Hopefully the food industry will eventually get its labelling right.

    I am less optimistic that conventional medicine will ever admit that pharmaceutical drugs are a significant cause of allergy. And it is this that will be the basis of future tragedies.

    Thursday, 27 September 2018

    Ronald. A patient getting to the end of the long journey through pain and painkilling drugs, ending up in chronic pain and Tramadol

    I wrote in general terms about the "long journey through pain and painkilling drugs" in July 2018. It is, of course, a very personal journey, and in recent days I have come face-to-face with two such journeys. I wrote about Janet's journey a few days ago. Ronald's long journey through pain was somewhat different to hers. Just as pharmaceutical drugs do not have a single side effect, individuals have their own personal side effects, their own personal route to ever more chronic, ever more untreatable pain.

    Ronald was always a fit and active man. When he began to suffer some mild rheumatic pain he did what everyone does. He resorted to taking painkilling drugs.

    The tragedy (yes the tragedy) was that they worked!
    • The pain went. 
    • The wonders of modern medicine. 
    • The triumph of medical science.
    The problem was that the pain came back. But this was really no problem, he could take some more, and whenever the pain returned he took more again. Like with most people suffering with pain it became routine. Pain, pop a pill. It always worked.

    Trouble was that Ronald found himself popping a pill more frequently. Monthly, then weekly, then daily. Then more of them each time. One, became two, then the need for more.

    No matter, the doctor was there to help. If over-the-counter pain killers did not work, there were strong drugs that he could prescribe. And they seemed to work too. Pain, a pill, and relief from pain. Temporary relief, by relief no less. And he trusted his doctor, he would not give him anything that was harmful. He knew best, and as he said, there was no alternative - until the pain was much worse than it was.

    The pain did get worse, his hip became unbearable. It affected him mobility, his life. He had always been an active man, but now he undertook his activities in almost permanent pain. His doctor, though, was not phased. It was wear and tear. His body was wearing out. He needed a hip transplant, and soon he had one.

    It worked! It was brilliant, and he soon recovered from him operation.
    • The pain had gone.
    • The wonders of modern medicine.
    • The triumph of medical science.
    Unfortunately the pain returned, not to the mechanical hip, but his other hip. More painkillers, more often, more of them, and increasing strength. They worked every time, but so did the pain. Don't worry, said the doctor - when it gets bad you can have another hip transplant.

    And so he did. It worked! It was brilliant. He would soon recover from his operation. And he did. What marvellous things surgeons were able to do these days.

    Trouble was that the pain soon returned. I was due to see him but his wife phoned. His doctor had given him more painkillers, and he had a terrible reaction to them. My eyes rolled. Being a homeopath is difficult sometimes, especially when good friends have such faith in conventional medicine. What had he taken? Tramadol came the answer.

    Tramadol is an opiate painkiller, a narcotic. I checked it out. It has the most dreadful side effects, as the website Drugs.com outlines.

    * Abnormal or decreased touch sensation
    * blisters under the skin
    * bloating
    * blood in the urine
    * blood pressure increased
    * blurred vision
    * change in walking and balance
    * chest pain or discomfort
    * chills
    * darkened urine
    * difficult urination
    * dizziness, or lightheadedness, fainting
    * fast heartbeat
    * frequent urge to urinate
    * gaseous abdominal or stomach pain
    * indigestion
    * irregular heartbeat
    * loss of memory
    * numbness and tingling of the face, fingers, or toes
    * pain in the arms, legs, or lower back, especially pain in the calves or heels upon exertion
    * pain or discomfort in the arms, jaw, back, or neck
    * pains in the stomach, side, or abdomen, possibly radiating to the back
    * pale, bluish-colored or cold hands or feet
    * recurrent fever
    * seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not there
    * seizures
    * severe cramping
    * severe nausea
    * severe redness, swelling, and itching of the skin
    * stomach fullness
    * sweating
    * trembling and shaking of the hands or feet
    * trouble performing routine tasks
    * weak or absent pulses in the legs
    * yellow eyes or skin

    When I eventually saw Ronald we went through this dreadful list. He told me he had never felt as bad as he did. He felt 'out of it'. His consciousness had not so changed as disappeared, he was outside looking in, he was unaware of his whereabouts, he was lightheaded, almost unconscious, and was too tired to do anything. The experience had frightened him. His body was swollen up too, and he came out with a massive rash, around his neck and shoulders.

    His doctor had been brilliant. He immediately told him to stop taking the Tramadol, he had only taken a couple, and surmised that the drug just did not suit him. Instead the doctor put him a steroid drug, and he was now much better. No criticism - that he had given him such a drug with such dreadful side effects!

    So I ask the same question as I did in Janet's case. What will happen to Ronald? And lots of people like Ronald? The pharmaceutical cupboard is desperately bare. It has never been very full of helpful drugs for treating pain. Perhaps his doctor will put it down to wear and tear, to his age. After all, this is the main explanation doctors give for all the epidemics of chronic disease we are suffering. Certainly, conventional medicine is unlikely to admit that these epidemics have all been caused, to one degree or another, by the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines they have been prescribing to us for decades.

    And my message is the same message as I gave in Janet's case. I urge everyone not to start on this long journey. See through the charm of doctors, the propaganda of drug companies, the idea that medical science is winning the battle against disease, and the silence of the mainstream media. Start looking at natural therapies, and try them, before it is too late.

    Monday, 24 September 2018

    Janet. A patient getting to the end of the long journey through pain and painkilling drugs, ending up in chronic pain, Amitriptyline - and dementia?

    I wrote in general terms of the "long journey through pain and painkilling drugs" in July. It is, of course, a very personal journey, and in recent days I have come face-to-face with two such journeys. This deals with the first one.

    Janet (not her real name) is now in her early 70's, and she has suffered from arthritis for many years. She said that she is getting increasingly forgetful, often confused, and her once good memory has become poor. This came to a head recently when she was out, driving her car. She was not far from home but she suddenly realised she did not know where she was. She realised that she did not know how to get home. As you can imagine this frightened her. Was this dementia? What else could it be? It would only get worse. And she knew there was no treatment.

    I asked her what drugs she was taking? This is now the first question I ask anyone when they say they are unwell! Amitriptyline came the reply. I groaned. She smiled, knowing what I was going to tell her. She did not believe in homeopathy, and she knew my views on pharmaceutical drugs. She was someone, like so many others, who has always had great confidence in her doctor. Well, it's scientific medicine, isn't it!

    Amitriptyline is an antidepressant. It is usually used to treat depression, but is also used for pain when painkillers no longer work. She took it, in desperation, so that she was able to get some sleep at night. A few days later, I heard, the doctor had discontinued the Amitriptyline.

    Over the years Janet has gone a long way down that long journey through pain and painkilling drugs. They are the only treatment for arthritis that conventional medicine has. They have no treatment that deals with the cause of arthritis, just the pain. Doctors state that there is no cure. So once diagnosed Janet was given painkilling drugs, many years ago now. These drugs dulled the pain, but did nothing for the condition itself. Painkilling drugs, all of them, are highly toxic. They cause side effects, some quite horrible disease-inducing effects. And as time goes on painkillers become less effective. They may take the edge of the pain, temporarily, but in time more drug, in greater potency, have to be taken. So the patient is regularly taking the drugs, and suffering not only from arthritis but from the toxicity of the drugs.

    As the years went by the effectiveness of painkillers for Janet's pain subsided. Pain was constant, and she could not sleep. So her doctor has to look for something else, anything he had left in their medicine chest. Hence Amitriptyline - an antidepressant - for pain. As far as I know the drug has never been tested or approved for the treatment of pain, but doctors don't have much else to use once patients are in so much pain they cannot sleep. It must be depressing! So maybe this is the reason for prescribing it.

    Anyone who wants to see what a dangerous and harmful drug Amitriptyline is should have a look at the known (and accepted) side effects. Go to this Drug.com webpage to read the full horror story! The list is too long to include here, but it includes blood in urine or stools, blurred vision, changes in patterns and rhythms of speech, chest pain, cold sweats, coma, continuing ringing, buzzing, or other unexplained noise in ears, convulsions, difficulty in breathing, passing urine and speaking, irregular heartbeat, general feeling of tiredness or weakness, headache, hearing loss, high fever, high or low blood pressure, inability to speak, lack of coordination, lethargy, loss of balance control, loss of bladder control, loss of consciousness, lower back or side pain, mental depression or anxiety, muscle spasm or jerking of all extremities, nausea and vomiting, nightmares, poor coordination, seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not there, seizures, sleeplessness, stiffness of limbs, swollen glands,
    trouble in speaking, sleeping, breathing, unsteadiness, trembling, or other problems with muscle control or coordination, unusual tiredness or weakness. And much, much more.

    The mental side effects that Janet suffered were all there too, of course. She did not have dementia, she was suffering from the side effects of the drug her doctor had prescribed.
    • change in consciousness
    • confusion
    • confusion about identity, place, and time
    • disturbed concentration
    • stupor
    • sudden loss of consciousness
    She took them because she trusted her doctor, and the 'scientific' medicine he administered! But for Densise, and probably many millions of people suffering from dementia, this is where decades of taking painkillers had led. Her 'long journey' had led to a diagnosis of dementia.

    Pharmaceutical drugs DO cause dementia, and Alzheimer's disease - and it is not just painkillers that are cause this epidemic!

    This is one of the reasons why dementia is now running at unprecedented levels. This is why young and middle age people are now being diagnosed with dementia in increasing numbers.

    What will happen to Janet now? And lots of people like Janet? The pharmaceutical cupboard is desperately bare. It has never been very full of helpful drugs for treating pain. Perhaps her doctor will put it down to her age. After all, this is the main explanation doctors give for all the epidemics of chronic disease we are suffering. Certainly, conventional medicine is unlikely to admit that these epidemics have all been caused, to one degree or another, by the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines they have been prescribing to us for decades.

    Or perhaps she will now see through the mirage of conventional medicine, and look for more effective and safe treatment.

    So I urge everyone, don't start on this long journey. See through the charm of doctors, the propaganda of drug companies, the idea that medical science is winning the battle against disease, and the silence of the mainstream media. Start looking at natural therapies, and try them, before it is too late.

    Wednesday, 19 September 2018

    Two drugs, both with seriously harmful side effects, are 'good news' for people suffering from Melanoma

    The pharmaceutical industry has discovered another 'wonder drug', or in this case, two drugs that in combination produces 'miracle' results. We have heard it before, of course. Indeed, we hear it regularly.

    This time it is Melanoma patients (an aggressive skin cancer) that will 'benefit' According to BBC News (and the rest of the mainstream media all of whom, as usual, have regurgitatied the promotional material of the pharmaceutical industry) if will offer

    • targeted treatment for melanoma, free on the NHS
    • The drug (or rather the combination of two drugs) "has been shown to improve the survival of people with stage III melanoma, with a particular mutation".
    • A skin cancer charity (probably one of those heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry) is quoted say that "making the treatment available on the NHS was a huge step forward".
    The two drugs are (i) Dabrafenib, and (ii) Trametinib. They are MEK inhibitor drugs that have been around for several years, and their side effects are already well known. The BBC article mentions them briefly, in passing; it says they cause 'fatigue and nausea'. The truth, which is largely unknown to most of our mainstream media, is rather different.

    The 'commonly reported' side effects of Dabrafenib, as outlined by Drugs.com are squamous cell carcinoma, fever, and hyperglycemia. but they also mention a long list of others, including bleeding gums, bloody or cloudy urine, blurred vision, coughing up blood, difficulty in breathing or swallowing, dizziness, dry mouth, fever, flushed, dry skin, fruit-like breath odour, greatly decreased frequency of urination or amount of urine, headache, increased hunger, increased thirst, increased urination, lump or growth on the skin, nausea, nosebleed, prolonged bleeding from cuts, red or dark brown urine, red or black, tarry stools, redness, swelling, or pain of the skin, scaling of the skin on the hands and feet, skin blisters, skin rash, stomach pain, sweating, swelling of the feet or lower legs, tingling of the hands and feet, ulceration of the skin, unable to move, unexplained weight loss, unusual tiredness or weakness and vomiting.

    Drugs.com is a website owned and controlled by pharmaceutical company interests, so it will admit only to side effects that have been proven beyond doubt and denial.

    The side effects of Trametinib, reported by Drugs.com, are no less scary. Again, it says that 'commonly reported' side effects include: acneiform eruption, cardiomyopathy, decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, dermatitis, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, skin rash, erythema, plus cardiac failure. It then lists this comprehensive list of adverse effects, which include bleeding from the rectum or bloody stools, bleeding gums, blemishes on the skin, blistering, crusting, irritation, itching, or reddening of the skin, bloating or swelling of the face, arms, hands, lower legs, or feet, bloody nose, blurred vision, chest discomfort or pain, cracked, dry, or scaly skin, coughing up blood, decreased urine output, diarrhoea, difficulty with breathing or swallowing, dilated neck veins, dizziness, extreme fatigue, faintness, fast, slow, irregular, or pounding heartbeat, headache, increased menstrual flow or vaginal bleeding, irregular breathing, irregular heartbeat, lightheadedness, dizziness, or fainting, nervousness, nosebleeds, paralysis, pimples, pounding in the ears, prolonged bleeding from cuts, rapid weight gain, rash, red or black, tarry stools, red or dark brown urine, redness, swelling, or pain of the skin, scaling of the skin on the hands and feet, tightness in the chest, tingling of the hands and feet, ulceration of the skin, unusual tiredness or weakness, and unusual weight gain or loss

    Nothing is mentioned (that I can find) which deals with the side effects of these two drugs - in combination. Perhaps they are not known yet!

    Conventional medicine always discounts the serious side effects of pharmaceutical drugs. For both these drugs the website Drugs.com says that "along with its needed effects" the drugs "may cause some unwanted effects", but cheerily tells us that "not all of these side effects may occur" but that "if they do occur they may need medical attention"

    So these are the two drugs providing this 'big step forward'. So what exactly is this miracle they create together? According to BBC News it is based on a clinical trial of more than 800 patients, and was found a lower the risk of the cancer recurring. We are told that 3 years after surgery, 58% of this group survived, with no relapse compared to 39% of the placebo group.

    What does this mean? It means that for ever 100 patients, the drug helps 19 people. A further 39 would not have had a recurrence. And 42 died anyway. There is no mention of the loss of life-quality of the 19 patients, or the 39 who did not need the drugs anyway.

    Homeopathy and Melanoma
    And, of course, there is no mention of other medical therapies that might be safer, and more effective in treating melanoma. For instance, in 2010, Brazilian researchers have investigated the effects a combination of homeopathic remedies on cancer cells. Their research showed they
                   (i) Prevented melanoma and bowel cancer cells from invading or sticking to the cells and tissues that surrounded them
                   (ii) Improved the immune system’s ability to kill cancer cells, and
                   (iii) Caused cancerous melanoma tumours to shrink or become dormant
    • Patients are not supposed to know this! 
    • The media certainly won't tell you. 
    • Conventional doctors won't mention it, they prefer to prescribe dangerous (and largely ineffective) drugs that are known to cause patient harm. 
    • And clearly they won't tell you about the extent of the harm pharmaceutical drugs, wonder drugs, miracle cures, can cause either.

    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