Search This Blog

Monday, 18 March 2019

40 DEATHS LINKED TO CHILD VACCINES. Also suspected to have left 2 children with brain injuries PLUS 1,500 other neurological reactions

               "40 deaths linked to child vaccines over seven years".

               "Childhood vaccinations are suspected to have left two children with brain injuries and caused 1,500 other neurological reactionsThese include 11 cases of inflammation of the brain, 13 cases of epilepsy, and a coma."

This information comes from The Times, once one the most respected British newspapers, relied upon by the Establishment, presumably because it could be relied upon to be an honest and trustworthy source of news. Indeed, the article says that the data itself came from a reputable source within the conventional medical establishment, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA), following a request by The Sunday Times under the Freedom of Information Act. So what might emanate from this information?

  • How will this affect the attitude of conventional medicine towards 'anti-vaxxers', like myself, who are being heavily criticised for doubting the safety of vaccines?
  • How will it affect NHS doctors, who routinely inform their patients that vaccines are safe, and regularly pressurise us to get vaccinated, and to vaccinate our children?

Perhaps doctors haven't caught up with this information yet. Perhaps those who attack anti-vaxxers haven't heard about this information. Perhaps now, at last, the mainstream media will begin to recognise that there IS a need properly and openly, to discuss vaccine safety.

The problem with such hope and expectation is that this information comes from a Times article of 24th October 2010!

The same information was published here, and here by WDDTY, on this blog, on this 'Vaccine Risk Awareness' website, so the information was well publicised at the time.

  • Yet nothing has happened.
  • We are still being told that vaccines are safe.
  • No mention is made of this information when telling us that vaccines are safe.
  • Those who say that vaccines are not safe are dismissed as anti-vaxxers, a danger to public health!
So let's go back even further, to 13th February 2006, and an article in the Telegraph, "Secret report reveals 18 child deaths following vaccinations". This reported that

               "Eighteen babies and toddlers have died following childhood vaccinations in just four years, a secret Government report reveals. Four deaths have been linked to suspected adverse reactions to the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) triple jab, according to documents prepared for the Government's expert advisers on immunisation." (My emphasis).
  • Yet nothing has happened.
  • We are still being told that vaccines are safe.
  • No mention is made of this information when telling us that vaccines are safe.
  • Those who say that vaccines are not safe are dismissed as anti-vaxxers, a danger to public health!
Going back to 2006 reminds me that conventional medicine always blames all this 'anti-vaccine' stuff on Dr Andrew Wakefield. These reports, 'secret' as one may have been, have absolutely nothing to do with him!

So what has changed? Have the vaccines changed? Have they not caused further damage to patients since 2006, or 2010?

  • ignored in the interests of the future profitability of the pharmaceutical industry?
  • ignored to safeguard the reputation of the conventional medical profession?
  • and all achieved with the willing connivance of politicians, governments, the conventional medical profession, and the mainstream media?

Friday, 15 March 2019

Bowel Cancer - An operation - Then 5 years of alternating diarrhoea/constipation - Then a complete cure - Thanks to homeopathy!

When treating illness with homeopathy you sometimes hear of cases of cure that are really quite amazing. I got to know about this case when a colleague posted a serious illness on the ARH (Alliance of Registered Homeopaths) members discussion group. It concerned her husband, who had bowel cancer over 5 years ago, and who subsequently suffered from alternate periods of diarrhoea and constipation that changed their lives.

I asked whether I could post her experience on this blog, and she and her husband agreed to do so. More than that, she provided me with this short synopsis of the case history, which is given here in italics. My comments are interspersed.

I am a qualified homoeopath. I graduated in 2003, after a 4 year part-time course at the College of Homoeopathy (Midlands).

In late July 2013 my husband was diagnosed with bowel cancer and surgery was performed in late August 2013. The cancer was located in the sigmoid colon and during surgery 18 inches of colon was removed. Doctors decided that neither chemotherapy or radiotherapy was needed. The surgery was considered a success in that all the cancer had been removed. For the next 5 years he was monitored by the surgeon’s team and the cancer did not return.

Post Surgery

Whilst still in hospital symptoms of painful, alternate diarrhoea and constipation began. He was in extreme distress (especially with the diarrhoea). The day after surgery, and unable to reach the bathroom in time, he pulled a red cord for assistance from the nursing staff but none came.

He was discharged on about 2nd September. I cannot remember whether it was that first evening back home or the next that he experienced severe diarrhoea. He spent the evening having diarrhoea. The washing machine was in use all that evening since he had to change his pyjama trousers several times! The whole evening was very distressing for him. We had not been warned by the surgeon to expect such extreme post surgery symptoms post so we thought them to be something that had to be expected.

However, this was to be forerunner of the next five years!

The distress that was caused by this alternating diarrhoea and constipation was considerable, and the hospital were quite aware of the condition, and the stress that it was causing.

At all consultations over the next 5 years the surgical team expressed surprise when he told them about his symptoms. He was told the symptoms were ... unusual!  It was suggested he try 'Loperamide', a conventional medication for diarrhoea, which, whilst relieving him of the symptoms, temporarily, did nothing permanently to relieve the problem. At one such consultation it was even said by a registrar that “mistakes do happen ...”  We were stunned!

So for 5 years, following successful surgery for bowel cancer, he was left with these alternating bouts of diarrhoea and constipation, and which conventional medicine could do nothing.

So since his operation he has needed always to wear protection, in the home and outside in the wider world - very uncomfortable.  A physical cancer had been removed only to be replaced by over 5 years of a physical and mental misery. It was life changing - for both of us.

I was, before retirement, a member of a professional association, the Alliance of Registered Homoeopaths (ARH), which has an email forum composed of homeopaths. It is used to give and share advice, especially on difficult and ‘stuck’ cases. I have contacted the forum, a wonderful group of homeopaths, several times over the 5 years, and advice was readily forthcoming. I acted upon it, searching for a remedy that might help relieve the symptoms.

So for the past 5 years my husband has taken a variety of remedies, and also consulted another homoeopath.

It is worth pointing out at this stage that homeopathy is not about 'placebo'. This case is proof of this, remedies were given over this time, and none made a significant difference to the condition.

Homeopathy means treating 'like' with 'like', that is, a remedy with a symptom picture has to be found that matches the symptoms of the patient. They do NOT work if there is not a sufficient match. In other words, none of the remedies used during this time were 'homeopathic', in the true sense, that is, they were not remedies that treated 'like' with 'like'.

In January of this year (2019) the symptoms were particularly severe. He experienced a Tsunami of diarrhoea! The condition was getting worse, so I suggested that perhaps it was time for a colonoscopy bag. It would, at least, enable him to have some sort of a life, the freedom to go out without any concern about embarrassing himself.

So I decided I would ask, one final time, for help from the ARH forum. On this occasion a homeopath gave a description of what had happened to one of her patients. The symptoms she described matched those of my husband. She had prescribed the homoeopathic remedy Sulphur. Since I had nothing to lose, and more in hope than expectation, I prescribed Sulphur for my husband...

The symptoms, which he had been experiencing for over 5 years, immediately stopped! I was flabbergasted! 
It had been a ‘last chance saloon’ attempt.

My colleague was not just flabbergasted, she felt humbled, and perhaps a little cross that she had not thought about using Sulphur before. As a homeopathic remedy it probably has the widest symptom picture of any remedy that we use. Yet for this reason alone we homeopaths are regularly guilty of not using it! I have been guilty of this myself, recently, for an itch that I developed a year or so ago. Nothing I tried worked. Yet Sulphur was the 'obvious' remedy. When I started taking it, within a couple a months ago, the itch had gone!

On prescribing Sulphur, even though I had not repertorised (this is the matching process) his symptoms, the remedy matched his physical symptoms. Indeed, on reading the remedy picture again (in the homeopathic materia medica) it was obvious that it matched his other physical symptoms, plus, importantly, his ‘whole’ symptom picture. It was what homeopathy describes as his 'constitutional' remedy!

It is said - often - by those who do not understand the curative action of homeopathy that, “homeopathy doesn’t work...” It quite clearly does. What this case synopsis shows clearly is that the homoeopathic remedy is only truly 'homoeopathic' when it matches the symptoms of the patient. Otherwise it is simply a pill. It will do no harm (as can pharmaceutical drugs), but neither will it act curatively upon the presenting symptoms.

I am more than delighted to say that after over 5 years of misery, during which time he received both homeopathic and allopathic treatment, my husband is now one month into a new freedom!

No more diarrhoea, constipation or pain
We live again!

There are many lessons that can be learnt about homeopathy from this amazing case. The main one is that homeopathy does work, and works really well. However, the second is that homeopathy only works when the remedy used is truly 'homeopathic', that is, the remedy description matches the patients symptoms.

Tuesday, 12 March 2019

VACCINES ARE ENTIRELY SAFE! This is what doctors tell us. So does conventional medicine admit that vaccines cause any harm?

Anti-vaxxers are being criticised for saying the vaccines are unsafe, that they cause serious adverse reactions, that they cause diseases such as Autism.

Moreover, so heinous is the anti-vaxxers message, the evidence for vaccine damage is censored from the mainstream media. It is never mentioned, the message of conventional medicine goes largely unchallenged, it is stated as 'truth', usually without question. Even major internet companies are now succumbing to censorship, with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, et al, now engaging in censorship, denying freedom of speech, in one way or another.

So is the position of the Conventional Medical Establishment that vaccines never cause patient harm? Well, yes, it is. But unfortunately the message is not entirely and completely enforced!

This link is to the CDC (the 'Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 'website, and its article, " Possible side effects from vaccines". This is the organisation that speaks for conventional medicine in the USA in matters related to "savings lives" and "protecting people", so what it says should be considered to be 'authoritative'.

Anyone who complains about anti-vaxxers, or anyone who remains undecided or confused about the whole issue of vaccine damage, should read it. The article lists the side effects they accept are now associated with the vaccines licensed for use in the USA. They say that this information is copied directly from CDC’s Vaccine Information Statements, which in turn are derived from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommendations for each vaccine.

Natural News has summarised some of the more important patient damage caused by some of the most used vaccines. They are as follows:

Flu vaccine
  • Seizures
  • Guillain-BarrĂ© Syndrome
  • Diarrhoea
  • Fever
  • Abdominal pain
  • Joint pain
  • Upper respiratory tract infections
  • Sore throat
  • Cough
  • Swollen glands
  • Nausea and vomiting
  • Rash, itching and bleeding
  • Fatigue
  • Headaches
Diphtheria, Tetanus and acellular Pertussis (DTaP)
  • Permanent brain damage
  • Seizures
  • Coma
  • Fever
  • Nausea and vomiting
  • Rash and itching
  • Bruising or bleeding
  • Fatigue
Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine
  • Permanent brain damage
  • Seizures
  • Coma
  • Deafness
  • Low blood or platelet count and bleeding disorders
  • Fever
  • Joint pain
  • Rash and itching
  • Bruising or bleeding
Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine
  • Permanent brain damage
  • Seizures
  • Pneumonia
  • Low blood or platelet count and bleeding disorders
  • Fever
  • Rash and itching
  • Bruising or bleeding
Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Varicella (MMRV) vaccine
  • Permanent brain damage
  • Coma
  • Deafness
  • Low blood or platelet count and bleeding disorders
  • Fever
  • Rash and itching
  • Bruising or bleeding
So when you hear doctor saying that vaccines are safe, that they do not cause patient harm, and that anti-vaxxers are 'dangerous', and are providing 'false news', you can rest assured that the information about the harm caused by vaccines comes from within the conventional medical establishment itself.

Thursday, 7 March 2019

Vaccination. It's becoming more difficult to discuss the vaccine issue. And the anti-vaxxers clampdown is set to increase vaccine revenues. How will they be used?

  • The conventional medical establishment states that vaccines are entirely safe and effective, and they protect us from dreadful killer diseases.
  • Anti-vaxxers disagree, pointing to evidence that vaccines are ineffective, unsafe, and protect us from diseases that are no longer a threat to our health.

The problem with the debate is that it is a very one-sided!

  • All our conventional doctors, nurses, and other medical staff, inform their patients that vaccines are safe.
  • The entire NHS structure, including medical science and drug regulatory agencies, confirms that vaccines are safe, all constantly striving to get us all fully vaccinated.
  • Pharmaceutical drug companies confirm that their vaccines are entirely safe, that they have been fully tested and approved by medical science.
  • And the mainstream media only provides information that confirms the safety of vaccines, talking only to conventional doctors, other representatives of conventional medicine, and the drug companies; and censoring anything that questions this orthodoxy.
The only place there is a debate about vaccine safety, and patient damage, is through the internet, and the social media.

Now, even these outlets are also being closed down, censored. Key internet companies (which once championed free speech, and access to information) such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon, and related internet companies, are now getting on side with the medical establishment, and clamping down on 'anti-vaxxing' stories.

Unless patients are fully informed about the treatments available to them it is impossible for them to make an 'informed choice' about that treatment. Closing down debate does not help people make decisions. It keeps patients in the dark, unaware of any of the issues that the conventional medical establishment does not want us to know about. I have written here about this aspect of censorship on many occasions.

Yet, as the magazine 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' (WDDTY) informs us, any such censorship in the sphere of healthcare produces only one big winner. The Pharmaceutical companies.

               "Market research group HTF MI said the revenues from the MMR vaccine will see 'the hike' (in profits) by 2025, and other research firms have also been forecasting big revenue increases for the global market for all vaccines."

               "Market research group Research & Markets estimates revenues for all vaccines will increase to $57.5bn by 2025, compared to just $33.7bn last year."

               "Another market research group, Transparency, is forecasting vaccine sales revenues will reach $48bn by 2025."

WDDTY goes on to say that government initiatives, to promote vaccines, and silence the 'anti-vaxxers', is one of the big drivers of the increase profitability. It continues with its business analysis.

               "Although North America will remain the largest market for vaccines - where it is compulsory in most states and others are dramatically restricting the type of exemptions - the biggest growth will be in the Asia Pacific region, which has witnessed an increase in cases of TB (tuberculosis), malaria and dengue fever."

WDDTY also says that the global market is also being bolstered by pro-vaccine government initiatives, and that the Transparency report says that "This strategy has immense potential to increase patient acceptability and also increase the rates of immunisation."

All this information has been gleaned from business sources, not from the medical literature. These are the references given in the WDDTY article.

So how will these augmented pharmaceutical profits be spent? It will be additional money that can be spent on supporting 
  • the election funds of politicians, 
  • to support national governments in return for their compliance, 
  • to buy the positive approval of medical science, 
  • to subvert the drug regulatory agencies, 
  • to control national health services, 
  • and to spend on mainstream media advertising campaigns (now extended, no doubt, to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Amazon, and related internet companies) to ensure their censorship is kept in place.
The only losers will be the patients who do not have the time or the inclination to research the hidden evidence for themselves. They will continue to be unable to make an informed choice. They will continue to be damaged by the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines they are urged to consume by doctors.

The only questions will be these:
  • why on earth isn't all this money we are spending on healthcare actually making us well?
  • Why are we getting sicker, year by year?
  • Why are we witnessing chronic diseases at epidemic levels?
  • How much more money does the NHS want?
And the only response we will get to these important questions will be:

Sorry, we are not allowed to ask such questions!
Just keep taking the drugs!
Do as you are told!
We know best.

A Measles Quiz. Measles is a dreadful disease from which we all need to be protected. Everyone needs to have the vaccination as soon as possible!

Measles, and the MMR vaccine, has been a matter of controversy for many years now, and although the conventional medical establishment continues to insist that the vaccine is safe and effective, and that it is the reason for the drastic reduction of measles, the debate will just not go away.

I came across this measles quiz this morning from 'Physicians for Informed Consent. There are 12 questions, with multiple choice answers, as follows. Have a look and see if you know the answers. Some might surprise you.

1. Which of the following describes measles?
  • A chronic condition
  • A persistent bacterial infection
  • A short term viral infection
  • None of the above
2. Before the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, nearly everyone had a mild case of measles (which provided lifetime immunity) by what age?
  • 15
  • 30
  • 45
  • 60
3. Between 1900 and 1963, death from measles declined by 98% in the U.S., due to advancements in living conditions, nutrition, and health care. This significant decline happened before the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963.
  • True
  • False
4. Right before the measles mass vaccination program was introduced in the U.S., what percentage of measles cases fully recovered?
  • 99.99%
  • 90%
  • 80%
  • None of the above
5. Which of the following is one of the main reasons why people in underdeveloped countries, especially those with widespread poverty, die from measles?
  • Heavy smoking
  • Low vitamin A
  • Inadequate transit systems
  • None of the above
6. Which vitamin is recommended by the World Health Organization for the treatment of measles?
  • Vitamin A
  • Vitamin D
  • Vitamin E
  • Vitamin K
7. Studies suggest that which of the following may be a benefit from getting measles?
  • A reduced risk of Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas
  • Reduced risk of allergy-related diseases such as hay fever, eczema and asthma
  • A lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease in adulthood
  • All of the above
8. Babies born to mothers who have had measles are protected from measles for a longer period of time than babies born to mothers vaccinated with the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine.
  • True
  • False
9. About 1 in 640 children will experience a seizure from the first dose of the MMR vaccine.
  • True
  • False
10. Of the 5,700 U.S. children who get a seizure after the MMR vaccine each year, about 300 cases will result in epilepsy.
  • True
  • False
11. The manufacturer’s package insert states that the MMR vaccine has not undergone safety studies for its potential to cause cancer, genetic mutations, and impaired fertility.
  • True
  • False
12. It has been proven that the MMR vaccine is safer than measles infection.
  • True
  • False
I am not going to give you the answers here, so why not go to the website and take part in the quiz yourself.

In medicine, informed choice is important, so why not also try it out on all your friends, family and colleagues?

And did you know.....
.......... about 38% of suspected measles cases in the 2015 Disneyland measles scare in California were actually vaccine-related and not caused by transmission of wild-type measles.

The article says that "doctors are stunned"! They shouldn't be, in most cases of a measles outbreak it is vaccinated children who are affected.

Tuesday, 5 March 2019

Health Freedom? Another USA hospital refuses to treat unvaccinated children. Mandatory vaccination in the 'land of freedom''?

Health freedom, and patient choice, are under threat throughout the world, or at least in countries where conventional medicine has become totally dominant.

A headline in the magazine "What Doctors Don't Tell You" (WDDTY), March 2019, stated that "Hospital refuses to treat unvaccinated children". This is the policy of the Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine Clinic at John Hopkins All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida, USA, which

          "....... has given parents a 90-day notice to get their children fully vaccinated or find a different doctor. The clinic says it won't recognise the usual religious exemptions, even though it's an exclusion that is permitted under Florida state law".

Sadly, it is not the only hospital to do so, especially in the USA. The USA has always prided itself as being 'the land of freedom' so how can doctors at this hospital, or any other, justify mandatory vaccination? The medical director is quoted as saying this.

          "Our practice believes that vaccinating children and young adults is a crucial step to promoting healthy lives and futures".

That's fine. In the 'land of freedom' she is quite at liberty to hold that opinion. But she is going much further than that. She is seeking to force parents to vaccinate their children, regardless of their opinions, regardless of whether they believe that vaccines promote healthy lives and futures, or not.

This is not an isolated example of conventional medicine trying to force its will on patients. Some national governments are trying to do it. Conventional health services are doing it whenever and wherever they can. Some schools and nurseries are trying to do it too.

It is important to realise that within health services around the world these vaccinations are either free, as they are in Britain, or free through medical insurance, as in many other countries. 
  • So we have here a situation where conventional medicine cannot give away free drugs and vaccines!
  • A situation where parents cannot be persuaded to accept blanket medical propaganda about the safety and effectiveness of these free pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines!
The problem that conventional medicine has is that some parents, who are sufficiently bright or engaged, are obtaining information from sources that are not under the control of the government, national health services (dominated as they are by conventional medicine), or the mainstream media (which depends heavily on pharmaceutical advertising). Many people, for instance, are now reading about the USA's vaccine court that is regularly paying out $billions to vaccine damaged families - the same vaccines that conventional doctors tell us are safe and want to force on us - the same vaccines that the pharmaceutical industry takes no responsibility for the damage they cause - this comes from government, taxpayers money!

So there is a growing number of people who now recognise the lies and deceit that are being used to convince us that vaccination is safe. The hospital director states that 'vaccines have been "thoroughly tested" for their safety and effectiveness'.

          "Unvaccinated children are a higher risk for becoming ill with a host of preventable diseases that can have serious and sometimes devastating consequences. In addition, unvaccinated children can potentially spread a preventable disease to another child who may be too young to be vaccinated or who is immune compromised"

Most of this is untrue, certainly not a single statement is unchallengeable, using good supporting evidence. Vaccines have not been thoroughly tested. Unvaccinated children at not at higher risk They are not more likely to spread disease. The 'preventable' diseases rarely, very rarely have serious or devastating consequences. Indeed, there are many studies that have shown that it is vaccinated children that become less well, that pick up the diseases that have been vaccinated against, and who spread disease.

Conventional doctors can, of course, get away with providing this deceitful and dishonest information. Conventional medicine, and particularly the pharmaceutical industry, have been practising deceitfully, dishonestly, and fraudulently for decades. As a result doctors know that they can say that their drugs are safe, in the knowledge that they will never be seriously challenged.

Yet the debate about vaccines will not go away. It is just that the debate is banned by government, not heard within national health services, and censored by the mainstream media. We are not supposed to know about it. But thankfully an increasing number of us DO know!

Yet there is another point about vaccination. There is NO illness or disease, for which children and young people can be vaccinated, that cannot be more easily, safely and effectively treated by natural medicine. Homeopathy, for instance can treat all the illnesses covered by the DPT vaccine (Dipththeria, Pertussin, Tenanus) and the MMR vaccine (Measles, Mumps, Rubella). And it can do so for any other illness for which there is a vaccination.

But this is also censored information, don't expect to hear it from your doctor, or the health service, or government, or the mainstream media. If you want to know about it click on the links to each of the diseases mentioned above, and compare conventional and homeopathic treatment.

But you are not forced to! Nor will you be forced by anyone to use natural therapy. We just don't do that. We just provide information, not propaganda. It is (or should be) up to every individual to make his or her own INFORMED choice.

And the final benefit? Once you know that conventional medicine does not have a monopoly in treatment you won't be too upset when your local hospital withholds conventional treatment from you and your children. The threat will be an empty one. They will cease to have control over you because you will be happy to use alternative medical treatment!

Monday, 4 March 2019

Evidence for Homeopathy. Is it just anecdotal? If so, what is wrong with that?

Critics of homeopathy have an axe to grind. They are really closet supporters of conventional medicine, so called 'scientific' medicine, whose evidence base is supported mainly by 'randomised controlled testing', or RCT's. Anything else, they say, is 'anecdotal'.

But what is wrong with ‘anecdotes'? Especially when these are no more than ‘stories’ about successful medical treatment. They all take this general form.
  • A patient is sick
  • The patient is treated with homeopathy
  • The patient gets better
Such anecdotes are what proponents of conventional medicine really dislike. They spend so much of their time telling us that homeopathy doesn’t work, that it cannot work, and that it is complete nonsense! So they have to dismiss them - and they do so by calling them anecdotal, and unscientific.

Yet this is exactly what most patients want when they are sick. They don’t want to be ill! They want to be well again! They are not too concerned about ‘how’ or by what means!

So conventional medicine attacks homeopathy because of these ‘anecdotes’. These people get better just by chance. It’s just placebo. The patient would have got better anyway. Or sometimes the patient is said to be mistaken, or even lying.

I first discovered homeopathy because I went through this ‘anecdotal’ process - with one important added feature.
  • I had extremely painful gastric ulcers
  • I used conventional medicine - and it did not work
  • I was persuaded to try homeopathy (which I thought at the time was nonsense)
  • I got better
So what sort of evidence does conventional medicine require? What makes drug-based medicine ‘scientific’ in the eyes of conventional doctors?

It is that every drug and vaccine used by conventional medicine has been proven to be effective and safe by medical science, using randomised controlled trials.

And it is true that all pharmaceutical drugs have been scientifically tested, and found to be both safe and effective. The problem is that most of these drugs that have been used during the last 70 years have either been withdrawn or banned (because they have eventually been found to be neither safe or effective).

And even the pharmaceutical drugs that remain are known to have serious, harmful side effects. Doctors are told to prescribe them in the most restricted circumstances. In other words, these drugs will also be banned - in the fullness of time!

So is this what patients want when they are sick? Do they want to take drugs that doctors say are safe and effective, only later to be told they are neither?

So anecdotal evidence is important. Anecdotes should not be dismissed out of hand. Indeed, it is anecdotes that make the world go around! If I find that someone who has suffered from illness has tried something to treat it, and it worked, I listen to what they have to say, intently, and try it myself when I become ill. It is common sense!

Certainly I no longer listen to, or trust conventional medicine when they tell me (as they regularly do) that their drugs and vaccines are ‘scientifically’ tested, so are safe and effective. Far too many pharmaceutical drugs have been withdrawn and banned in recent decades.

So we should never dismiss anecdotes. We should find out what is happening in the real world. And we should certainly see that homeopathy is now the second most used medical system in the world. And this is largely to do with the passing on, from friend to friend, of 'anecdotal' evidence during the last 220 years.

There is now so much more than anecdotal evidence to support the effectiveness of homeopathy, including many scientific studies, many of them RCT's.

But we should never dismiss anecdotal evidence! It is far more important than anything that medical science can offer. It means that sick people have got well again.

Tuesday, 19 February 2019

Limb Replacement. How long do replacement hips and knees last? The positive news proclaimed.... the negative news news hidden

Call me a pessimist if you like, but when I hear positive news coming out of the mainstream media about conventional medicine I tend to run for cover! What are they trying to sell us now? What is the truth behind this 'good' news story?

"Eight out of ten knee replacements and six out of ten hip replacements last as long as 25 years", says a study undertaken at the University of Bristol, and published in the Lancet. The research looked at 25 years of operations, in several countries, involving more than 500,000 people. So it is not a small or insignificant study. And I have no wish to question the findings. Instead, I want to point to two reasons for not celebrating this 'good' news, or even considering it to be 'good' news.

I have yet to hear anyone say to me that they prefer their replacement limb to their natural limb, when that limb was functioning properly, and without pain. I have written about this several times.

In March 2018 I asked the question - Surgical Operations. Miracle? Or Medical Failure?
In this blog I pointed out that both limb and organ replacement constituted the failure of conventional medicine to keep limbs and organs in good working order.

In August 2015 I argued that "The brilliance of surgical operations is based on the failure of pharmaceutical drugs", and so, it that sense, avoidable. 

In July 2018 I described "A long journey through pain and painkilling drugs to surgery" after speaking to an old friend whose operation had not gone according to plan.

So yes, limb and organ replacements are brilliant surgical feats! But most of them are necessary only because in the years leading up to them conventional medicine, and particularly pharmaceutical drugs, have failed, or have actually exacerbated, the problem.

The other reason comes from the figures themselves. It is, indeed, good news that artificial limbs can last up to 25 years - at least for those that actually do last that long.
  • Yet if 8 out of 10 knees last for 25 years, what about the other two?
  • And if 6 out of 10 hips last for 25 years, what about the other four?
So let's look closer at the figures that have been revealed in the Lancet article.

Hip replacements: 89% lasted for 15 years: so 11% did not last 15 years. 70% lasted 20 years: so 30% did not last 20 years. 58% lasted 25 years: so 42% did not last 25 years.

Total knee replacements: 93% lasted 15 years: so 7% did not last 15 years. 90% lasted 20 years: so 10% did not last 20 years. 82% lasted 25 years: so 18% did not last 25 years.

The mainstream media can be relied upon to herald the 'good news' about the triumphs of conventional medicine. But I suggest that within this 'good news', within the very figures it has used to proclaim it, there is an awful lot of bad news too - contained within the same statistics - and ignored.

So consider the situation of a woman, in her mid-40's, who has already had a hip operation? She had great faith in conventional medicine, and when the doctor told her to take painkillers, she took painkillers - for many years. What will happen to her?
  • By the time she is 60 her replacement hip has an 11% chance of failing. 
  • By the time she is 65 her replacement hip has a 30% chance of failing. 
  • By the time she is 70 her replacement hip has a 42% chance of failing. 
And then what? More pain? Another operation? Another hip?

And all because when we suffer pain doctors encourage us to take painkilling drugs, which are toxic, which we become used to, so we need stronger painkillers, which are more toxic. And the pain gets worse because of the toxicity that is building up, year on year, until the pain becomes unbearable.

This 'long journey through pain to surgery' is quite unnecessary. Homeopathy deals with pain, it can ameliorate it, it can get rid of it. It is what homeopaths, naturopaths, osteopaths, chiropractors, and other natural therapists do every day. The outcomes of natural medicine are so much better than the outcomes of conventional, drug based medicine. But don't expect your doctor to tell you this!

So from the 'good news' that conventional medicine is proclaiming through this study, there is bad news. We face a future in which an increasing number of people will become crippled - because patients have been told by doctors that having an artificial joint is a good thing (and the only thing) - and they believe it because of the agony they suffered during years of taking toxic painkillers.

Monday, 18 February 2019

Medical Science. It does not test new pharmaceutical drugs for side effects that can harm patients!

Since the Thalidomide tragedy of the 1950's and 1960's new drug testing regimes were introduced that would test all new pharmaceutical drugs their efficacy, and their safety. Never again, we were told, would such a tragedy be perpetrated on patients by the drug industry. Drug regulation was to be tightened, and medical science was to be our safeguard against harmful and dangerous drugs.

So since that time all new drugs have been tested, and we have been told that they are both safe and effective. Yet it is undeniably true that many new drugs and vaccines, that have gone through this process of testing, and subsequently prescribed by doctors to patients, have eventually been withdrawn BECAUSE they proved to be ineffective, or harmful and dangerous to patients.

Why should this be? This new evidence should provide one of the answers.

Researchers from the University of York reported in January 2019 that only about 65% of medical drug trial recognise the possibility of side effects, and included them in their reviews.

So conventional medicine is not as safe, and is even more dangerous, than we have been led to believe. The study reviewed 187 research papers undertaken in 2017-2018 and found that only one-third of harmful drug side effects were recorded in medical trials. About 35% of research studies, which are supposed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceutical drugs, actually do so. In 8% of the trials they were not set up to study side effects at all, and a further 27% did so only partially.

What this means is that any new pharmaceutical drug coming on to the market cannot be assumed to be safe. Medical science may not even bother to find out. Although patientws have been led to believe that conventional medicine is based on a 'scientific evidence base' this is not necessarily so. Medical science has failed in its primary purpose - to protect patients from harmful drugs.

So when doctors tell us that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are safe they may believe this to be true, but they have been misinformed.

So patients have to be weary - to say the least! Pharmaceutical drugs harm patients through their side effects, and conventional medicine has not even bothered to ensure that medical science has tested new drugs properly.

Tuesday, 12 February 2019

Autism and Vaccines. An exchange on Linkedin. The reason I have got the link all wrong. Apologies to everyone.

This blog has consistently linked Autism with Vaccines. But apparently I have been wrong all the time, so I must apologise, and allow Mike Harris to explain why anyone who blames vaccinations for the autism epidemic are just plain wrong.

It began after I published this comment on Linkedin a few days ago, alongside a link to this webpage from my DIE's (the disease inducing effects of pharmaceutical drugs) website.

AUTISM An illness unknown in 1940’s Now it effects 1 in 58 children in places Autism strikes normal children Only after routine vaccinations do parents become aware Conventional medicine refuses to accept link Parents of healthy children must refuse them

Mike Harris wrote back to inform me that "there is no repeat no evidence linking vaccination with Autism. The reality is that autism has always existed, we just labelled it differently as personality disorder , neurosis etc. We are in the middle of a massive increase in very serious infections which are life altering and life threatening and entirely preventable by vaccination".

I realised that Mike was an apologist for conventional medicine, possibly even a medical fundamentalist (= "I believe in nothing other than medical science"), but for once I broke my rule - to never to engage with such people. I responded mainly because I am always amazed (and angry) when supporters of conventional medicine say that parents of previous generations were so stupid they didn't realise their children were sick, or failing to develop normally.

"Then I think we need to differ! I really think it is stretching things to believe that parents in the 1940's did not notice that their children were not communicating with people normally. And I just wish I knew what this other label was. Moreover, to deny the experience of so many parents who have had children who developed normally until they were vaccinated just beggars belief".

Mike came back to me, quoting his medical qualification, perhaps suggesting that his view was a authoritative pronouncement on our disagreement.

"I am a fully qualified medical practitioner who has been practising psychiatry for the past 43 years. I have no doubt parents did notice their children were different. They would have been differently labelled as behavioural disorder, subnormal, challenging, mute, personality disordered, psychotic, epileptic personality etc. The issue has been present long before vaccination. I’m afraid that posts such as yours are causing huge damage to children who are now becoming seriously ill with entirely preventable diseases. This whole meme started with the disgraced physician from the Royal Free hospital who peddled this dangerous nonsense."

Well, Andrew Wakefield is able to defend himself. But Mike is now saying that its not the vaccines at fault, it's posts like mine that are causing huge damage to children. So I wrote back.

"Dreadful that people like me, a fully qualified homeopath, should listen to parents, and come to the conclusion that they are not telling me lies about their children who were developing normally until they were vaccinated. I must be causing a huge amount of damage, I have noticed all these children who become seriously ill with whooping cough, measles, mumps, et al. Dreadful. And incidentally, don't tell me that vaccines have reduced the incidence of these killer diseases, that reduction was happening, long, long before the vaccines were introduced. I regret that I take an old fashioned view of medicine. I listen to patients, and what they tell me."

And then Mike came back this morning with this devastating insight into what was happening, and why it's not just parents prior to the 1940's who are misguided in their views.

"Steven, of course I’m sure you do listen but to a self selected group who choose to come to you."

So Mike has been kind enough to share his wisdom with me. I fully understand now. My mistake, it would seem, has been to listen to parents and not realise they were a 'self selected' group. Presumably they had a particular axe to grind, an axe that pointed the finger at conventional medicine, so it is they must be singled out for criticism. So I wrote back to Mike, apologising, and informing him that I now knew the error of my ways.

               "Ahhh! I've not heard that one! It's the people I associate with that are getting it wrong. Now I understand. I will let them know! Thanks for the information, and for sharing your wisdom!

So that's Wakefield, me, all parents of autistic children, and presumably anyone who dares to suggest that there is a link between vaccines and autism. And this blog is me, getting in touch with all parents of autistic children, letting them know that they are wrong!

Clearly these misguided parents should not be saying what they are saying, they should be warned that there are people around who KNOW that you are telling lies. After all, as we all know, doctors are always right.

However, I have another apology to make to Mike, and other defenders of conventional medicine. I deeply regret to say that this morning, before I read Mike's final correction, I did send this message on social media after reading a Dr Mercola article on vaccine injuries. I expect Mike will want to put me (and Dr Mercola) right on this too, but I haven't heard from him yet. I will keep you informed!

Vaccine Induced Injury. The USA governments pays out $4 billion to victims. But conventional medicine denies that vaccines injure anyone! What's to be done?

According to the Dr Mercola website Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the USA National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has denied that vaccines cause injuries and death. This is not a surprise - it exactly mirrors what conventional medicine consistently tells us - vaccines are entirely safe!

At the same time the USA Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA), in their latest release of data and statistics, states that approximately $4 billion has been paid to vaccine-injured victims since 1988.

There can be only two conclusions drawn from these two contradictory facts. Either...

  1. Conventional medicine is seeking to cover-up, lie about the dangers of vaccination, and is in denial about the harm vaccines are doing.
  2. The government is spending public money inappropriately, and taxpayer money is being misappropriated by a government agency.
Which is it?

Every USA citizen needs to know, and it is time that they started to demand an answer to this question from their elected representatives, and the Federal government.

Friday, 8 February 2019

Equine Flu. An outbreak leads to all horse racing being cancelled. Mandatory vaccination, so all horses had all been vaccinated.So much for 'herd immunity'!

A bout of equine flu has led to the cancellation of all horse racing in Britain for the next 6-7 days by the British Horseracing Authority. Three horses from a Cheshire stable were tested positive for the disease, and (remarkably) it has been admitted that each one of them had been vaccinated. The result is that several racing events have been cancelled, and various people in the industry have said that it will have a huge impact on the sport, commercially.

Two aspects of this situation have implications for the health debate, and certainly not for horses alone.
  1. Mandatory Vaccination. I understand that all horses engaged in horse racing have to be vaccinated. There is, in other words, mandatory vaccination within the industry, something that many people in the conventional medical establishment would like to see happen with human vaccines.
  2. Herd Immunity. Conventional medicine, for many years, has promulgated this rather strange theory - that a very large percentage of the at-risk population for a disease have to be vaccinated before vaccines are fully protective!
So, with mandatory vaccination, and 100% coverage, these three horse have still contracted equine flu. Only two conclusions need to be drawn.
  1. The equine flu vaccine does not work.
  2. The theory of 'Herd Immunity' is utter nonsense.
The same conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of human vaccines. 
  • Doctors vaccinate for whooping cough (pertussin) but children still get it (although it is now called to the 48 day cough).
  • Doctors vaccinate against measles, mumps and rubella, but children continue to get the three diseases.
  • People of all ages are encouraged to vaccinate against the flu every year, but flu continues to affects large numbers year by year.
Often, when there are outbreaks of these and other diseases, they are blamed (loudly, publicly) on people who have NOT been vaccinated, only for it later to be found (surreptitiously) that both the vaccinated and unvaccinated were equally involved!

This is when the herd immunity is theory is put forward. It's not the vaccine, we are told, it's the people who refuse the vaccine! How can we expect the vaccine to work unless a certain percentage of the at risk population is vaccinated? In other words, vaccinated people aren't protected, they can still get the disease despite having had the vaccine!

Does this not sound like a rather weak excuse?

This bout of equine flu blows both these arguments away. This is a relatively small 'at risk' population, all of whom have had the vaccine - surely a perfect situation to study the effectiveness of this vaccine. The conclusion seems clear. The vaccine does not work!

Nor do human vaccines. For the past several years there have been admissions, quietly made, that the flu vaccine does not work. I noted in this January 2018 blog that the doctors e-magazine, Pulse, reported Public Health England's announcement that the flu vaccine (used in winter 2017) was not ‘significantly effective’ in older patients." One doctor was quoted as follows:

               "We know from the PHE publications that last year, the effectiveness of the conventional influenza vaccines in the over-65s was not apparent. Over-75s fared particularly badly to the point that the JCVI called the effectiveness of the conventional vaccine in the elderly 'disappointing'." (My emphasis)

So are we being taken for ride? Have these horses been taken for a ride? We are all pressured by doctors to vaccinate our children, and ourselves, against an ever-increasing number of diseases. They tell us that this is the best way to avoid contracting them. Certainly they give no indication that the vaccines are anything but effective.

And then, of course, there is the question of vaccine safety.............. but that is quite another issue!

This morning 11th February 2019 there is more news that more VACCINATED horses have contracted influenza. The messages above are confirmed.

* Flu vaccines don't work
* They have serious side effects without any benefit
* Herd immunity is nonsense concept
* They are a vehicle for pharmaceutical industry to make money

Monday, 4 February 2019

Homeopathy in the Garden. Yes, it treats plants successfully too! And any gardener, or farmer, can utilise it

For many years I associated homeopathy with the treatment of illness in people, and animals. I had not even thought that it might be useful in the garden, with plants. Fortunately, other people had connected to two.

In my garden I have an Olive Tree, in a pot. Olive plants are able to survive the British climate, but they do not like extreme cold, and they need protection against long periods of cold weather. When I failed to do this with my lovely plant I was annoyed at myself. So for a time I nurtured the plant, with my very best care I could muster, but as the weather warmed up, I decided that the plant was clearly dead.

So I had given up on it when I read an article by Valkunathanath das Kaviraj on homeopathy and plants. I researched more into his work that he was doing, and quickly bought his book ‘Homeopathy for Farm and Garden’, published in 2006. I also contacted him by email. Kaviraj told me that he had accidentally stumbled on the idea but quickly discovered that it worked. He had studied the subject in considerable depth, and had a brilliant knowledge of remedies. I mentioned my Olive tree to him, and said how annoyed I was about it. He suggested that I tried the remedy Carbo Veg, made from charcoal. Immediately his suggestion made sense to me. I knew the remedy, applied to humans and animals, as 'the great reviver' something that would work with people whose energy was low. In his book Kaviraj described the remedy.

               "Charcoal is, both in crude form and potencies...... (indicated by) the signs of decay and putrefaction are leading indications. Carbo vegetables may also be much more than a rescuer of near-death plants...."

So I tried it, adding the remedy in liquid form to the pot. Kaviraj told me to do it just once. I did it every day for several days! Nothing happened for a week or so, but then a bud appeared, then gradually more, and the Olive returned to life. I now call it our Lazarus Olive, before having to explain that that was not a type of olive, but a description of my plant's history. It had returned to life. And after more than 10 years it is thriving.

Since that time Kaviraj has died, but his work continues. A German homeopath, Christiane Maute, published her book, ‘Homeopathy for Plants’ in 2010.  She says that she has used homeopathy with plants for many years, has studied their application in her own garden, indoor and balcony plants.

There is, of course, no reason to believe that homeopathy should not work on plants. Remedies are made from highly diluted substances that have the capacity to cure when the known energy characteristics of the remedy corresponds closely to the energy of the patient. And this applies regardless of whether the patient is human, animal or plant! The principles apply equally to all forms of life, each remedy having qualities that work with living organisms regardless of their type.

So now I use homeopathy in my garden, regularly. It saves me money (it's inexpensive). It saves me time (it's very easy to apply remedies in water), and it is effective in many different ways.

  • So now I never grow any plant from seed without using water that contains the remedy Nat Mur 6x.
  • I use Calendula 6x to treat salad seedlings after transplanting, to help them recover from the trauma, and grew more quickly and strongly.
  • And I treat the once abundant black spot on my roses with Silica 6x, watering as the plants begin to re-emerge back to life in the Spring, and thereafter whenever necessary.
  • I also have an Ash tree in my garden, and to prevent it contracting Ash Die Back disease, I water it with Silica 6c each spring, a Kaviraj recommendation as a preventative for the disease.
  • And in the wood opposite my house (where many Ash trees with Die Back), I have a favourite Horse Chestnut that suffers badly from Leaf Miner. I water it with a couple of pints of Thuja 30c each spring -another Kaviraj recommendation.

There are many more useful things that homeopathy can do in the garden. I found this information on this website, As it says, it's not the whole thing but it is a great start for any home gardener.

* Aconite napellus* – light rust
* Allium cepa* – onion and carrot fly, weevils
* Belladonna* – red-brown rust
* Bombyx processionea* – caterpillars
* Bufo rana* – pests
* Bovista* – spider mites
* Calendula* – mechanical damage, repotting
* Camphora* – ants
* Carbo vegetabilis* – strengthening weak plants
* Coccinella septempunctata* – aphids
* Cuprum metallicum* – mildew
* Helix tosta* – snails
* Manganum* – monilia, chlorosis
* Mentha* – pests of cruciferous plants
* Natrum sulphuricum* – fungus in rainy weather, brown rot
* Ocymum* – to keep tomatoes healthy
* Ricinus communis* – pests in viticulture
* Salicylic acidum* – aphids, fungus
* Sambucus nigra* – prevention of pests
* Silicea terra* – strengthening resistance, healthy soil
* Tanacetum vulgare* – pests, black vine weevil
* Thuja occidentalis* – leaf curl, scale insects, spider mites
* Zincum metallicum* - nematodes

My hope is that farmers will increasingly use homeopathy for their crops, just as many farmers are now using it for their animals.

For anyone who is interested in developing the use of homeopathy in their gardens, or on their farms, the two books I have mentioned above are essential reading. They come highly recommended, and I certainly would not want to garden without them now!

Friday, 1 February 2019

Talking Therapy & Social Prescribing. What they have in common is an admission that pharmaceutical drugs just don't work

NHS England have announced that they will be employing 1,000 "social prescribing workers" within the next year. It says that these "workers are being recruited to help patients find suitable activities that are a better alternative to medication". The drugs and the vaccines have been handed out like confetti by the NHS for the last 70 years, they have not worked, and now they are looking for something that might be more effective.

Social prescribing enables doctors and other health care professionals to refer people to a range of local, non-clinical, social, recreational and sporting services. They include volunteering, educational groups, arts activities, gardening, befriending, cookery, healthy eating advice, and a variety of sports.

It is the second non-drug initiative that conventional medicine is looking towards to improve their dreadful record treating illness and disease. Antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs have proved to be little better than useless in dealing with the burgeoning mental health crisis, and have such serious side effects, they are being replaced, whenever possible, by 'talking therapies'.

They are two good initiatives. Many patients are already benefitting from talking therapies, and many more could benefit social prescribing schemes, including, it is thought, people with mild or long-term mental health problems, socially vulnerable groups, the lonely and socially isolated, and patients who regularly visit doctors with minor, and/or ongoing health issues.

Avoiding pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines is an equally important benefit!

It is good to see conventional medicine looking elsewhere - at last. It has become blindingly obvious over the last 70 years that good health does not come from a bottle or pills, or a syringe. But these initiatives will be insufficient to address the epidemics of serious chronic disease we are witnessing. For this, effective (and safe) medical therapies will be necessary.

And conventional medicine continues purposely to ignore natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, chiropractor, osteopathy and many others.

As pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines continue to fail, become increasingly expensive, and cause serious illness and disease through their 'side effects', it is to these alternatives that the NHS, and other national health services, are going to have to turn.

Thursday, 31 January 2019

The secondary costs of a failing medical system

In October 2018 I wrote about the 'secondary' costs of medical failure.

Secondary costs do not concern the building of hospitals, the employment of medical staff, or the delivery of treatment to sick patients, et al. Given the monopoly of conventional medicine in health services around the world these are certainly costly enough!

But society also has to pay the price of conventional medical failure, and particularly the creation of illness and disease by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

Several English councils have reported that they have overspent, by at least £324m, on their budgets for young adults and children with special needs during the financial year 2018-2019. BBC News said that 136 local authorities provided information, under Freedom of Information laws, and discovered that 123 have overspent on their 'high needs' budget. They were said to be at 'breaking point'. In response, the government told the BBC that it is providing an extra £250m to ease these pressures, and another £100m on new school places.

Dorset County Council, for instance, reported that since 2014 the number of under-25's on education, health and care plans has grown by more than two-thirds! Its 'high needs' budget has been overspent every year, and the council is now predicting a £13m deficit for the coming financial year. A council spokesman said that Dorset was not alone, and that "a day of reckoning will be coming very soon".

So who are these 'high needs' children?
They are children with physical or learning disability, or behavioural difficulties. Local councils, quite rightly, have a responsibility to provide services for them, and those responsibilities have grown by the decision to extend responsibility from age 18 to 25. At the same time there has been a large reduction in county council funding since 2010. Yet neither of these reasons can explain a two-thirds increase! Most of the increase is the result of increasing numbers of children growing into adulthood with physical or learning disability, and behaviour problems.

Readers of this blog, and my DIE's website, will be aware, many of these disabilities are known (although not acknowledged) to be the direct result of pharmaceutical drug and vaccine damage. I have already written about some of these, the links to my DIE's website provided listing the drugs and vaccines known to cause the condition.

All these children require special educational services for many years. Some will move on to colleges and universities, or into apprenticeships, although usually requiring additional support. They are all children, growing into adulthood, who but for dangerous drugs and vaccines they have taken, would have been independent people, living their own lives, contributing fully to society. 
  • Many will never be able to lead independent lives. 
  • Some will be totally dependent on care.

So this is not just a problem for councils, caught between their legal duties towards people with disability, and the requirement to balance their budgets. It is a problem created by a medical system that has failed, that is causing harm to our children and young people, who would all, otherwise, have become fully functioning members of society. It is a human tragedy, transforming the lives of people from net contributors to the economy to a lifetime charge upon it.


HPV VACCINE. What are the arguments against it? Nothing, if you believe the mainstream media! BBC News coverage hits a new low

Are vaccines safe?
  • Your doctor will tell you they are. After all, they prescribe them so they would not be expected to say anything else!
  • The Conventional Medical Establishment will tell you they are. After all, they have been tested, pronounced to be safe and effective, and have instructed doctors to prescribe them!
So what is all this stuff we hear about vaccine injury? Why are all these parents saying that their children have been damaged by vaccines? Why is the Vaccine Injury Compensation scheme in the USA paying out $millions every year to people who  have been vaccine damaged?

It's all nonsense, of course. Worse than nonsense too. Criticism of vaccines, we are now told, is a “global health threat” so anyone who questions the safety of vaccines can now be labeled 'dangerous” to society, stopping people from getting important medication.

And in any case, if conventional medicine was giving us pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that were harmful to our health, they would tell us. Wouldn't they? And even if our doctors didn't tell us, we can rely on the free press, our mainstream media, to do so. Can't we?

So let's examine what the mainstream media tell us about the safety of vaccines. Recently the BBC published a story about the HPV vaccine. in an article HPV vaccine: Thousands of girls did not get full dose. I pick on the BBC as it is part of our 'free press', but more than this, it is a public service broadcaster. Unlike other news organisations it does not have to 'earn a living' by selling advertising to commercial interests, it is paid for by the annual license fee. It does not have the same problem many news organisations have, where pharmaceutical company advertising can represent up to 70% of their advertising income. The BBC has no such vested interests, no requirement to protect the hand that feeds them!

Moreover, the BBC is constrained by its Editorial Guidelines, which means that, amongst other things, that they are obliged to report to us in a way that is:
  • Accurate
  • Impartial
  • Fair
So we might expect the BBC to cover the HPV vaccine story according to these principles. So how did it do? The story, in brief, was that 1 in 3 girls, in some parts of the UK, did not have their full HPV vaccination in 2017-2018 against HPV, the virus that is thought to cause cervical cancer. In this blog I will use the words of the article itself to demonstrate its coverage, adding my own comments as we move through their article.

          "While the national target of immunising 80% of girls is being met, the rate varied between local authority areas. In total 57,048 girls did not receive the two doses required for the vaccine to be effective. Public Health England (PHE) said the vaccine programme was 'stable and consistent'."

This is presumably a statement of fact, passed to the BBC by PHE. I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. To discuss the issue further the BBC brought in the charity, 'Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust' whose spokesperson is quoted as saying that "... educating parents and young people about the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine was 'essential'.

No problem with that either. Education is vital, as long as that education is accurate, impartial and fair. But 'education' should not, of course, be confused with 'indoctrination'. In the former, all points of view are covered. In the latter there is just one point of view, and this is unquestioningly the approach taken by the BBC article. For education read "people need to be told about the importance of vaccination!".

So before proceeding through the BBC article, let's look at some other statistics about the HPV vaccine, not mentioned in it, but which might be of some importance and interest to parents, and their young daughters.

1. WDDTY reported in 2013 that it had been calculated that 1,700 young girls had been killed or suffered permanent disability after being given the HPV vaccine, and a further 19,500 had suffered 'non-serious' reactions.

2. This Vac Truth article provides VAERS (USA Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) statistics showing that the HPV vaccine has caused the following adverse reactions in the USA, up to 2013:
  • Deaths: 140
  • Disabled: 952
  • Did not recover: 6,032
  • Abnormal pap smear: 531
  • Cervical dysplasia: 214
  • Cervical cancer: 64
  • Life-threatening: 562
  • ER visit: 10,557
  • Hospitalised: 3,065
  • Extended hospital stay: 234
  • Serious: 4,091
  • Adverse events: 30,352
3. At least one country, Japan, has not been happy about the HPV vaccine. In 2013 the Japanese government withdrew its recommendation to use the HPV vaccine, citing concerns from the public about the adverse effects it caused. This Medscape article also mentioned the contrast between the promotion of the vaccine by the health authority and the concerns raised about it.

               "The announcement is in stark contrast to the pronouncement last week by health officials in the United States that vaccination rates in teenage girls should be increased after a study concluded that estimated vaccine effectiveness is 'high'."

Japan did not suspend the vaccine, but it instructed local governments that it should not be promoted whilst the concern about adverse effects, such as long-term pain and numbness, were investigated.

The BBC article mentioned none of these concerns. It did not ask any organisation that has these concerns to comment. As will be seen, the only people they asked about the vaccine were people, and organisations that are part of the conventional medical establishment!

So if the BBC felt it was not sufficientlynimportant to inform us about safety concerns, did they say anything about the effectiveness of the vaccine? Again, the BBC article is unequivocal on this matter, entirely content to rely entirely on NHS statements about the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine.

         "The NHS said the vaccine was 'effective at stopping girls from getting the types of HPV that cause most cervical cancers' but it was 'important to have both doses to be properly protected'."

That's it. Moreover, the entire article is based upon an unquestioned assumption about its effectiveness. Too many young girls are not having the vaccine, to too many women are dying of cervical cancer - and the two are linked.

          "PHE statistics showed vaccination rates ranged from about two thirds of year nine girls in some parts of London to more than nine out of 10 in other areas, such as North Yorkshire, Tameside and Portsmouth. Cervical cancer remains the most common cancer in women under 35 and kills about 850 a year."

So should the BBC have raised questions the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine. This Child Health Safety article, again published as long ago as 2013 (the information has been around for a long time), outlines some of the scientific evidence that the HPV vaccine is not only dangerous, but also wrongly promoted as capable of preventing cancer. The evidence the produced questions the inadequacy of the testing regime, which has come under serious investigation, and found it to be seriously flawed. The research reveals that the

          "... scientific and factual evidence that the data behind claims that HPV vaccines prevent cancers and save lives with no risk of serious side effects are 'optimistic' and contrary to the evidence and largely are from significant misinterpretation of available data which is 'presented to the public as factual evidence'." 

None of this evidence is mentioned by the by the NHS in its new release, or the BBC in its article reporting on the issue. The assumptions made throughout the article are three-fold, that the vaccine is:
  1. Safe
  2. Effective
  3. Anyone not having the vaccine is risking contracting cervical cancer. 
The conventional medical establishment DOES know this. This BMC article, "HPV vaccines and cancer prevention, science versus activism" says as much.

               "The rationale behind current worldwide human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination programs starts from two basic premises, 1) that HPV vaccines will prevent cervical cancers and save lives and, 2) have no risk of serious side effects. Therefore, efforts should be made to get as many pre-adolescent girls vaccinated in order to decrease the burden of cervical cancer. Careful analysis of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure data shows however that both of these premises are at odds with factual evidence and are largely derived from significant misinterpretation of available data." (My emphasis).

Clearly this does not stop the conventional medical establishment, and its vested interests, from claiming that it is safe and effective, but it should encourage the BBC to investigate the claims being made for the vaccine. It totally fails to do so.

The BBC article goes on to relate a case example which supports and highlights the message - it is important for all young girls to have the HPV vaccine, and that there should be no concerns about its safety or effectiveness. It concerns a mother who had cervical cancer, and who has explained to her daughter how the vaccine could "save her life". She says it is "the best protection" for girls, that she is keen that her daughter receives the vaccine as she knows, from personal experience, "how potentially devastating cervical cancer can be". The mother goes on to explain that talking about the vaccine may be "difficult to address with children" as it was connected with "sexual activity", and that some mothers "don't want their daughters to have it because they say it encourages 'promiscuity' but that is  "quite a naive approach to take with this vaccine."

There is nothing wrong with relating personal experiences, including a mother with a strong personal interest and opinion on the matter. But once again the BBC fails to offer any balance. Where are the stories of healthy young girls whose lives have been compromised by the HPV vaccine? There are plenty of them. I wrote this in a previous blog, "The HPV Vaccine. We need to protect our daughters from this."

               "There are now, on the internet, hundreds of articles outlining the personal and family tragedy that this vaccine has caused, and continues to cause. It can be likened to a game of Russian Roulette. You may, or you may not be damaged. But dangerous drugs and vaccines should not be regarded as a statistical matter. They represent human and family tragedy, all of them hard to read about. But here are a selection of these tragedies, about people who lost the game, and taken from the internet.
If the BBC had wanted to write an article that was accurate, impartial and fair similar stories could also have been used. The BBC could also have referred to an increasing amount of court litigation, both in the USA and India, but chose not to do so. For instance,
Instead, the BBC continued on its partial journey, bringing in other members of the conventional medical establishment to reinforce their totally one-sided message, and to give their reasons for the low up-take in certain parts of the country.
  • A school administrator is quoted saying that girls needed to know the vaccine would protect them in the future. Parents, she said, should not be "frightened" of a "safe vaccine" or having conversations about it with their children.
  • The chief executive of Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust said there was "wide variation" across England, and although up-take was generally high, authorities should not become "complacent". He said that there were "cultural barriers and myths" about HPV and the vaccine that could contribute to areas having lower up-take rates. He said that concerns over the safety of the vaccine can have "a very damaging impact".
  • NHS teams in Brent and Hammersmith and Fulham said that language barriers and religious reasons were among reasons for a lower up-take rate than in other parts of England.
  • A spokesman for Central and North West NHS Foundation Trust said the areas had a large population of "non-white residents who have different cultural and religious beliefs" and there were "more refusals in these groups of parents".
  • The clinical lead of childhood immunisations for North Yorkshire and York said that some concern was "normal" from parents, that her health teams asked for consent by post, using online forms and by speaking directly with girls eligible for the vaccine.
  • The head of immunisations at PHE is quoted as saying that "Girls who missed either of their HPV vaccines should speak to their school nurse or GP and arrange to get the vaccine as soon as possible as they remain eligible until their 18th birthday."
But not one word about the safety or the effectiveness of the vaccine. Vaccine scepticism is censored on the BBC. The public are not supposed to know what 'anti-vaxxers' have to say, their voice is not heard.

So the BBC blames the social media for such views. The article refers to another one of its articles, Parents' vaccine side effects fear 'fuelled by social media', published in January 2019. This article is equally inaccurate, partial and unfair.

So has the reason for low uptake been missed? Could the real reason for low uptake be none of the things the BBC chose to mention? Could it not be that some people have become aware that vaccines (nor least the HPV vaccine) are not safe, or effective, and that scare stories (have the vaccine or risk cancer) no longer hold sway over their decision-making?

If the public had access to ALL the information about vaccines there would probably be many more people opting out of vaccination. If the BBC understood that informed patient choice was important - if they realised that their journalism was failing adequately to inform the public - that merely parroting the message of the conventional medicine is not good journalism - if the BBC offered its license payers more comprehensive, more accurate, more impartial, and fairer information on health issues more people would be able to make an informed choice, and there would undoubtedly be many more people refusing to accept vaccination.