Filling the Holes: Homeopathy Deserves a Place in Cancer Treatment

Thanks to Allison Brooks for this blog.  Allison describes herself "a recent college graduate and a holistic health nut" who is very passionate about enlightening people about the benefits natural therapies can have on multiple diseases and illnesses. Well, there are not enough of these sorts of people around! So here is her first blog.

Homeopathy is the oldest form of medicine around.  Before there were “white-coat doctors” and hospitals, there was nature. Nature provided and still provides everything needed to sustain life. Nature gives life, food, water, and health. But as time goes on, humans separate themselves with nature more and more, and the trust in using natural remedies is nonexistent. But, if people looked at the facts, their trust in conventional therapies and medications would diminish.

This is where the example of “filling the holes” comes in; what better way to explain a medical therapy from nature, than with an analogy from nature. Holes do not form themselves; either someone must dig a hole, or the soil composition is weak and then slumps to form a hole. If a conventional cancer therapy were to see this problem, it would simply fill the hole, only to see it re-appear in the future. But if a homeopathic consultant saw the hole, he/she would consider how the hole formed and then fix that problem or soil-imbalance to prevent the hole from recurring.

Since conventional therapies focus only on the treatment of symptoms, like a tumor or growth, the underlying bodily imbalances go un-noticed. If the imbalance or root of the problem is not treated, then the problem will continue to arise. This is where homeopathy steps in. Using what is Nature supplies and following the law of similars, homeopathy has proven to be a vital force in the fight against cancer.

There is much proof that using homeopathy with cancer treatments actually improves recovery time and reduces the chance of recurrence. Many doctors have recognized that fighting cancer with a multiple-layered approach tends to work the best. Nurturing the body, while using conventional therapies, promotes strength, stamina, and the well-being to combat the cancer with full-force. Doctors that are devoted to treating aggressive cancer or ones with a low-survivability rate, like non-hodgkin’s lymphoma or pericardial mesothelioma, encouraged the use of homeopathy, or another alternative therapy, with cancer treatment. Many hospitals even offer the use of in-house homeopathic consultants or alternative therapy practitioners.

Homeopathy Heals Newsletter (1)

First of all, my apologies to the hundreds of people who have subscribed to Homeopathy Post, http://paper.li/f-1309429178 over the last 4-5 months. The host site proved to be extremely unreliable in picking up the articles that I highlighted for publication, and last week, it failed to pick up any of the 25-30 articles I had selected. This is our new host website, and you can subscribe to this forum by clicking on 'Join this site' to the right of this text.


This is the first of what will be a weekly selection of articles from the internet about what is happening within the wonder world of homeopathy.


Homeopathy and the Quantum World
Homeopathy has been under attack by a group of people who call themselves 'skeptics', but who we call 'denialists'' - because they do nothing but deny the safety and effectiveness of homeopathy. This article is the experience on one 'convert' to homeopathy, and his view of the denialists. It is an excellent article and I recommend that you read it.


The Rejection of Alternative Medicine is 'unscientific'
But don't worry about attacks on homeopathy. This article tells why ConMed is attacking all non-drug therapies - without any scientific backing. As it says, "the mainstream medical establishment's rejection of alternative healing flies in the face of hundreds, or even thousands of years of history, but it also flies in the face of good science".


Peter Hain - a homeopathy supporter
A remarkable politician, who discovered homeopathy when his son had eczema. ConMed treatment did not work. Homeopathy did. Peter Hain commissioned a project on homeopathy when he was Northern Ireland Secretary. It was a remarkably successful project. Doctors liked it. Patients liked it. And the report is now collecting dust in the Department of Health.


The long term impact of homeopathy treatment
ConMed drug treatment lasts just a few hours before having to take another noxious pill. So what are the long-term effects of homeopathy? This study finds that 'disease severity decreased significantly'; and that 'physical and mental quality of life scores also increased significantly.


Homeopathy and Weight Loss (Obesity)
An article looking at the reasons for obesity, and detailing some remedies that can be helpful for patients who want to lose weight.


Homeopathy worked for me. A case of Sciatica
Watch this video, describing how homeopathy cured a case of Sciatica. This is one of a series of short videos on U-Tube on this theme.


And click here if you would like to see a wider appraisal of how homeopathy can help to treat Sciatica.


Homeopathy and Constipation
Natural remedies for constipation can be found in this article.


Homeopathy works for animals (and farmers) too
Farmers who use homeopathy for their animals have resented remarks, fairly ignorant but quite predictable remarks, made by MPs and others, about a grant to investigate the value of homeopathy in the treatment of animals. Note, their opposition is about trials to assess how effective homeopathy is - so these MPs, and other homeopathy denialists, are not sufficiently open-minded to want to know the truth!


Homeopathy for farms, gardens and plants
And homeopathy works for plants too. The author of this book advised me about an Olive Tree I had in my garden that appeared to have died; and after a dose of Carbo Veg, it is alive and kicking still.


The uses of Saccharum Officinale.
Not the most common remedy - but read about its value in treating Hypoglycaemia, ADHD, Obesity, and much else.

The Failure of Conventional Medicine

Conventional medicine is failing because it is both ineffective and highly dangerous for patients. 

Yet, the public are not being given the evidence of this catastrophic failure. Governments, National Health Services throughout the world, doctors, and perhaps most alarmingly of all, the mainstream media, are failing to tell us about the gross failings of the ConMed Establishment, and of Big Pharma drugs in particular.

Each week, this blog will collect together a series of articles from the internet that demonstrate this failure, and the underlying reason for an increasing number of people looking for non-drug medical therapies that are both safer and more effective.

Big Pharma drugs - the new epidemic sweeping across America (and Europe too)?
Did you know, for instance, that Big Pharma prescription drugs now kill more people than illegal drugs? Indeed, pharmaceutical drugs have become the biggest single cause of death in the USA.

Fresh doubts over flu vaccines
Click on this link if you did not know about the increasing doubts about the safety and effectiveness of flu vaccine we are all being exorted to take. No such doubts have been seen in the mainstream media - we have just been told of the benefits of the vaccine? Did you know, for example, that whilst doctor's might be recommending you to have the vaccine, doctor's themselves, in huge numbers, are refusing to have one?

Show us the evidence for the flu jab.
In fact, doctors are even asking the government, who are criticising them, to provide them with the evidence that the flu vaccine is effective.

Flu vaccines effective in 1.5% cases - not 60% as we have been told
The concern about the effectiveness of the flu vaccine is shown in this 'shock vaccine study'! A shock, of course, only if you have not discovered the truth about ConMed, and the length's Big Pharma will go to sell their drugs.

Flu? There is a better defence
And why aren't we all being told that there are better, safer, more effective alternatives to flu vaccines?

20 Vaccine 'Trivia' Facts
Of course, vaccines have never been safe. No vaccine. Is this right? Have a look at this article from Vactruth, which outlines just 20 examples when vaccines have proven to be either useless, dangerous, or both. Vactruth is one of the foremost websites investigating the dangers of vaccines, and seeking to educate a misinformed public.

US Government Agency has known all along how dangerous vaccines are
Or perhaps look at this, from Tim Bolen's website, frightening evidence that government agencies know about the dangers of vaccines, but haven't been prepared to tell us.

Vaccines and the increasing rate of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Cancer
This sort of negative evidence about vaccines, though, is coming out all the time though - so we don't have to look at the history of vaccine cover-ups in order to know that they are linked with patient harm, and the increasing rate of diseases of all kinds.

Healthy babies given dangerous and unnecessary drugs
Or, how often are we told about Big Pharma giving us drugs when we do not need them? And it would appear that not even healthy babies are not safe.

ADHD Drugs are a common source of drug reaction.
Of course, children are more susceptible to the disease-inducing-effects of drugs, and this link states that ADHD medication cause substantial adverse reactions in children.

NHS Breast Screening programme under review
And it is not just drugs that are a problem. What about useless tests that lead to taking toxic drugs - unnecessarily? Well, the BBC did report on this (26th October 2011). But the point it not just that the test is 'being questioned' but that lot's of women, who did not need treatment for breast cancer, received it - despite its toxicity and dangers.  Of course, in their reporting, the BBC did not focus on this, or inform us about the dangers (and sheer nastiness) of ConMed cancer treatment.

Pfizer pays $14.5 million to settle Detrol off-label suit
So do Big Pharma tell us that their drugs are dangerous? Of course not, they are in business to make money by selling drugs. Big Pharma companies are regularly paying out $millions of dollars in compensation for the dangerous drugs they provide for patients. In some parts of the more litigious world, they abound. And if you want more - here is another example (there are many, many more). My question is - shouldn't patients be told before they are harmed by such drugs?  But again, we rarely, if ever, hear about these dangers.

So why the cover-up? By government? By government health agencies? By the NHS? By our doctors? And above all, by the mainstream media? Why do we not hear about these compensation payments? And, indeed, who pays to set up these cover-up's?

On BBC Radio, on 25th October 2011, I heard a programme discussing the cost of treatment for Macular Degeneration. One treatment, they said, was cheaper, but it had 'side-effects'. However, not once did the programme tell the listeners what the 'side-effects' of this drug (Avastin) were!

The BBC, like most of the mainstream media, does this all the time - it salutes new wonder drugs - but never tells us about the damage drugs do to us. The question is - why? Who is controlling the BBC? Here are a couple of articles on the subject that the BBC certainly did not use.

Can using Avastin for Macular Degeneration cause blindness?
So Avastin can cause blindness? Yes, a drug used for a condition that can cause blindness is actually being treated by a drug that causes blindness! Somehow, this does not seem to be a good deal - at any price! This is especially so as Avastin has also been associated with causing fatal brain inflammation!

Macular Degeneration affects nearly 15 million Americans leading patients to seek alternative healthcare solutions
Nor, of course, did the BBC say anything about alternative treatments. This article states that there are 15 million people with Macular Degeneration in the USA alone - and that many people are seeking alternative therapy. The article focuses on Acupuncture - but homeopathy, and many other therapies, are a safer alternative to Avastin.

Insomnia Drugs linked to 36% increase in death

It has been calculated that people who use drugs to aid sleep do sleep longer. About 11 minutes longer, each night!

So - is it worth it?

The Health Services Institute (HSI) in a recent newsletter reminded us that many sleeping drugs cause dangerous adverse reactions - like sleep-walking, sleep-driving, and sleep-cooking. But HSI say they are much worse than this, and quote a psychiatrist, Dr Kripke.

          "The use of sleeping pills, including zolpidem [the generic name for Zolfresh and Ambien], is associated with higher mortality, and there are 18 studies that show that." 

So is it worth it? 

Researchers have shown that powerful sleeping drugs cause death by inhibiting the respiratory and central nervous system, and by impairing alertness, co-ordination and reaction time.

So unless you want to boost the profits of Big Pharma companies, sleeping drugs are best avoided.

"Medications for Insomnia or Anxiety Linked to 36% Increase in Mortality Risk" Laurie Barclay, M.D., Medscape, 10/5/10, medscape.com 

For more information on Insomnia and its treatment, with a comparison between conventional and homeopathic treatment, go to this link.

Parents call for ban on family of antibiotics

I bet most of you thought that antibiotics were entirely safe! Well they are not (several antibiotics have been withdrawn or banned in the past because they have been found to be dangerous. This blog is taken from the aptly named magazine, "What Doctors Don't Tell You". This is a valuable source of information on what we, as patients, are never told by the ConMed Establishment, and I certainly recommend that you take out a subscription for this magazine.

          "Patients are pressing for a complete ban on a family of antibiotics that can kill or cause blindness and heart disaese. Yet, despite these alarming - and well-known - reactions doctors continue to prescribe them every day.


          Fluoroquinolones or quinolones - which include antibiotics such as Cipro, Legaquin, Avelox, Tequin, Trovan and Raxar - arre the most toxic and dangerous drugs on the market today, says David Fuller, who runs a website to support others who, like himself, have been harmed by these drugs. He was been left with partial vision and permanent damage to his joints after taking one of the antibiotics for pneumonia in 1986.


          Fuller says that no one is recoding the numbers of deaths and serious adverse reactions caused by the drugs, and he believes the problem is far worse than regulators are admittin. So far, five fluoroquinolones have been taken off the market after they were found to cause fatal heart problems.
www.fqresearch.org

Please go to the website for more horrifying details on what Big Pharma, and Conventional Medicine is doing to us - and not telling us!

For more information about the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and the Failure of ConMed, click here.

Homeopathy Politics and Liberty

The more homeopathy denialists attack homeopathy, the more we should all ask the question - what is their venom all about. I wrote this initially in September 2011, and with the recent attack on Homeopathy by the Chief Medical Officer (February 2013), it remains relevant.

The latest attack comes from part of the Conventional Medical (ConMed) Establishment - the BMJ. Dr Brian Kaplan has written an apt response to this gratuitous attack - and I am blogging it here as it speaks so well about what is happening.

I agree with Brian completely - this is an attack on our liberty. And it is an attack supported and funded by the sectional, and vested interests of the Big Pharmaceutical companies.

"The denialists, detractors and critics of homeopathy were back in action this week.  In a critical letter to the BMJ protesting against the Government seeking advice (sic) from experts on the registration of homeopathic products. Referring to homeopathy as ‘naked quackery’ and ‘pseudoscience’, the letter was written by Susan Bewley (an obstetrician) ‘on behalf’ of a list of names including the usual suspects, Ernst, Baum, Rose etc.) It seems the letter section of the BMJ has become a popular forum for these doctors to spout their vituperative, amateur homilies on medical politics.

So let us look at the history of the politics of homeopathy in the UK. It is important to acknowledge that throughout its history homeopathy has been attacked for the same reasons: Dilutions, implausibility, quackery and now ‘pseudoscience’, ‘bad science’ etc.

19^th Century: Dr F. Quin studies homeopathy in Germany, brings it to the UK, treats the Prince of Wales and builds the London Homeopathic Hospital.  Several other homeopathic hospitals are built in England and Scotland.

1948: The NHS is formed and all the homeopathic hospitals are INVITED to become part of it. This is the reason why homeopathy (unlike aother forms of CAM) is so strongly integrated into the NHS. Homeopathic doctors and their benefactors had built hospitals staffed by doctors specialising in homeopathic treatment prior to the formation of the NHS.

1948-1990: Homeopathy becomes more and more popular both on the NHS and in private medicine. However the opposition movement becomes more determined to end NHS homeopathy. They attack on two main fronts: PR & Media and direct political attack. On the media front, The Guardian newspaper and the supposedly neutral BBC prove to be particularly useful allies to their cause but in the realm of official politics they suffer serious defeats.

December 2009 Political Defeat I: The denialists manage to get a Science and Technology Subcommittee to do an ‘Evidence Check’ on homeopathy. The controversial hearings (signed by very few of the MPs who were meant to take part in it), is addressed by Mike O’Brien the then Minister of Health in the Labour government. He famously describes the draconian anti-homeopathic suggestions of the Committee as ‘illiberal’ and makes it clear that GPs and local health authorities are best placed to decide if their patients should get NHS homeopathy or not.

July 2010: Political Defeat II: The report (with its authoritarian anti-homeopathic and anti-democratic  recommendations) passes to the new Coalition Government for consideration. The new Health Minister, Anne Milton thanks the S&T Committee for their work but then kicks all their reccomendations into touch. Her reasons for doing so are much the same as the Labour minister’s: GPs and localhealth authorities should be trusted to make the best decisions for their patients. An infuriated Michael Baum pores scorn on her in a well-publicised letter to the Lancet concluding with a condescending “Shame on you Minister!”  I was personally astonished by the aggressive, rant-like nature of this letter as Baum had only a few months before called for the debate on homeopathy to return to the ‘realm of polite disputation’.

So summing up:
Government under Labour: supported homeopathy on the NHS.

Government under Coalition: reiterated this support almost to the letter.

Head of State and family: are known to use and have used homeopathy for several generations.

The detractors, denialists and illiberal, wannabe Statist authoritarians  have tried to thwart GPs (rather than dissuade them which would at least be respectable) from referring patients for NHS homeopathy by insisting that their scientism trump due democratic process – but it hasn’t worked. Despite what Ben Goldacre writes in the Guardian, despite the letters to BMJ and Lancet, and despite inexplicable and inexcusable BBC bias against homeopathy, both Labour and Coalition Governments have seen fit to protect the significant minority support for homeopathy in the UK as well as the rights of British GPs to send their own patients for NHS homeopathy if they so wish. In doing so Government has so far managed to resist a serious, concerted attempt to undermine the democratic provision of health care in this country.

The attack on homeopathy has been a veritable Pandora’s Box of vitriol and bias that has certainly damaged British homeopathy by it’s sheer persistence and seemingly well-funded mass pressure at a PR level. It is heartening to know that at least at a pure political level, there has been unequivocal support by both Labour and the Coalition not only for homeopathy, but for something equally as important –  liberal democracy itself. Fortunately the last thing to come out of this particular Pandora’s Box was still Hope.

Common Pain Killing drugs lead to Heart problems

It is interesting to compare what the Conventional Medical Establishment tells us about pharmaceutical drugs, and what they refuse to tell us. The Health Sciences Institute has done just this in a recent newsletter (to receive their newsletter, well worthwhile, go to their website at http://www.thehealthierlife.co.uk/.

          "Higher daily dose of aspirin could play key role in preventing heart attacks for those with diabetes."

That is the kind of 'good' news we so often hear from the NHS, which is so readily peddled in the mainstream media.

          Higher daily dose of aspirin could play key role in preventing heart attacks for those with diabetes" University of Alberta press release, 7/5/11, eurekalert.org 


What you won't hear is any 'news' to the contrary. For instance, this research will almost certainly not be taken up by GPs, the NHS, or the mainstream media.


"Common Painkillers May Increase Risk of Irregular Heart Rhythm" MyHealthNewsDaily, 7/5/11, myhealthnewsdaily.com 

The drugs implicated in this research is not just aspirin, but that whole group of commonly available painkillers called NSAIDs, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.

     "... Danish researchers compared medical records for about 32,000 atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with medical records for more than 320,000 healthy subjects. Results showed that 60 days or more of NSAID use increased AF risk by 40 per cent, and the same amount of COX-2 inhibitor use increased risk by 70 per cent.

     AF is associated with the long-term risk of stroke and heart failure - and therefore death. But there are more well-known risk with taking NSAIDs - stomach bleeding - which the American Gastroenterological Association says results in more than 100,000 admissions to hospital each year (and I believe that figure in just the USA).

Nonsteriodal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs)" American Gastroenterological Association, 4/24/10, gastro.org 

There are no safe pharmaceutical drugs. The best thing anyone can do is to avoid them - and look for a safer medical therapy.