Fluoride and Water Supply

Did you know that water companies add fluoride to some of our water supplies? And did you know that all local authorities in the UK have the right to ask them to do so?

And did you know that Fluoride was a poison?

We all need to know more about about Fluoride in our water supplies. A good place to start is to have a look at this article - a good starting point. In it, Dr Mercola speaks to Jeff Green, a long-time campaigner against Fluoride, about the many dangers.

Fluoride is a poison, and one that has not been tested for safety. This may sound amazing - but as this article states, it is true.

Adding Fluoride to the water supply is enforced mass medication. Once it is added, it is difficult for anyone to remove it. This article argues that this violates our constitutional rights. Actually, it violates our human rights, and the ability of people to choose what medication they take, and do not take.

And the good new, at least in the USA, is that those responsible for adding this poison to our water supplies, are now being sued.

Why? The problem is a disease called Fluorosis. This article talks about the disease, and its causes, and its close links with Fluoride, added to the water supplies. In effect, children have been overdosed; and parents have not been told about it.

One reason, the main reason, for adding Fluoride to the water supply is that it help prevent tooth decay. Yet it would appear that even dentists now disagree with this. This article also explains the right local authorities have in respect for adding Fluoride to our water - and our ability to sue them for doing so!

But there are other reasons. One recent Mercola article states that Fluoride in the Pineal Gland, which collects the Fluoride in your body, can cause cancer.

The Conventional Medical Establishment, with the support of the Big Phatma companies, are suspected of favouring mass, enforced medication through our water supply. This Natural News article expresses many of the worries from a US perspective, and suggests that there are plans to add Lithium and Statin drugs to the water supply - on the basis that it is 'good for us'. Of course, it is not.

One important, indeed vital element of any healthy diet is healthy ingredients. Water is one of the main ingredient of any meal, any drink.

So how do you find out whether your water supply has fluoride added to it? Write to your water company, and ask them - in the UK (at least) they are obliged to tell you.

The Failure of Conventional Medicine - Vaccines

Although vaccines appear to be the great hope of Big Pharma for their future profits, there is, in fact, no other single area in which the failure of ConMed can be more convincingly demonstrated. The evidence against vaccination is now so strong, no-one should consider allowing themselves, or their children, to have one.

This article, and the attached videos, outlines 49 sudden deaths, 213 permanent disabilities, and discusses the 'silent plan to poison your child - mostly from the Gardisil-Cervarix vaccines. It also outlines how US Presidential candidates are being supported by Big Pharma companies - and how this money is being used to support political campaigns for mandatory vaccinations.

Death and permanent disability arising from vaccines are regularly reported (although not by governments, mainstream media, or the ConMed Establishment). This should not be surprising, as the ingredients of every vaccine contains 'adjuvents' which are known poisons. This article describes how Thimerosol (Mercury) may have been removed from some vaccines - but has been replaced by Aluminium. Out of the frying pan, into the fire it would appear! And of course, these poisons are being injected into our blood stream, and so transported throughout our bodies.

This article thinks that Big Pharma vaccines now cause more disease than they cure. And perhaps this can no longer be seriously denied. More seriously, it asks questions about the links between vaccines and very serious epidemic illness like AIDs, Gulf War Syndrome (soldiers received multi-vaccines prior to engagement), and much more.

At the moment, it is the flu vaccine that is being pushed as hard as any other. But this article provides evidence that it is largely ineffective for most people, but still quite deadly for many. This does not seem to be a good deal. Morever, if you read this article, it suggests that having a flu shot can risk the health of your brain! Yet there are much simpler alternatives. Vitamin D might be a much safer alternative for flu vaccinations. So what are our doctors telling use? Well, this article appears to suggest to our GPs that the flu vaccine is 'evidence based' - so the advice is likely to remain the same. Continue vaccinating people - regardless of the known consequences.

And what we all need to understand is that the failure of Big Pharma vaccines is not a matter of statistics, it is a huge number of personal tragedies. This 13-year-old girl is now in a 'waking coma' because she was given the Cervarix (HPV) vaccine. Or this well-known journalist who was admitted to hospital within 24 hours of having a vaccination. This Guardian article explains the plight of the journalist - who was trying to protect himself from yellow-fever, apparently.

But vaccines are big business, and the source of big profits for Big Pharma. So more and more vaccines are being offered to us. This article examines the situation in the USA - where children can expect more than 60 separate vaccinations now - all in the name of health!

The time to say 'No, no more' is here. And indeed, an increasing number of people are saying 'No', and this has serious implications for Big Pharma profits.

So how can Big Pharma continue to profit from such vaccines? One way is not to offer them, but to force them on us, whether we want them or not. In this article, it is the children of poor families in Australia who are the target. If these families want to receive their 'Family Tax Benefit' they have to have their children vaccinated - what an awful choice this gives parents. Risk your child's health, or lose financial benefits. Your money and your life? And who profits from this?

The increasing failure of other Big Pharma drugs is also an issue, as this article suggests. Antibiotics, once Big Pharma's great claim to medical competence, are rapidly failing. And they see vaccines as taking over from them.

So why aren't we being told about all this? It would appear that however much damage vaccines cause, however many personal and family tragedies are caused by them, the British media is determined not to tell us about it. Is Big Pharma advertising just too important? Or are the Media Moguls, and the Big Pharma moguls, is concert about what we are, and what we are not allowed to know? I understand, for instance, that James Murdoch is also on the board of a large pharmaceutical company.

Sounds cosy!

The failure of conventional medicine.

Homeopathy and Cancer (Healthy Medicine)

This blog was first published on the http://arh.blogspot.com/ blog, but was removed because of the difficulty in the UK discussing the medical treatment of cancer. With a few minor amendments, here it is.

Can homeopathy heal cancer? Well, no, of course it doesn't. The Cancer Act, 1939 does not allow any such claim to be made. Therefore, it is unusual for the mainstream media, but the Telegraph has recently retold the story of Gemma, and her recovery from cancer. 

In 2010, my 'Homeopathy Safe Medicine' blog featured Gemma's story. It is, indeed, a quite a remarkable story. It is worth looking at these two articles in their own right, but also the responses to them, mainly made by homeopathy 'denialists', who, rather than being 'delighted' with the possibility that people claim that homeopathy has treated their cancer, do their best to rubbish all such stories. At the time of writing there are over 50 responses to the Telegraph article, and what they demonstrate is that the supporters of conventional medicine have no interest in such stories, and no intention of delving further.

"This is just and anacdotal, subjective experience - it is not science..."
"Homeopathy has never been shown to be better than placebo...."
"I just can't believe in homeopathy... it is quackery"
"It is cruel, because it raises people's hopes....."
"It is just 'spontaneous remission'...."

I know Gemma, and I know that she is pleased to be well. Indeed, she is pleased to be alive! So why do the denialists go out of their way to deny the evidence in from of them? And why does the Establishment support them?

Gemma's experience is not unique. Indeed, it is not even unusual. This is the story of Kaviraj. And this Kevin's story'. And these are just two that have appeared in my 'Homeopathy Safe Medicine blog. 

There is much, much more; many more people who have tried homeopathy have found it to be both safe, free from awful adverse reactions, and effective. The whole topic of Homeopathy and cancer does need to be discussed, if only as a matter of information. So here are some recent articles on the subject.

* This article looks at how a homeopathic remedy emanating from Cuba is being used in the treatment of cancer in China.

* Homeopathy even works with animals that contract cancer. See this description of the homeopathic treatment of animals with cancer - and article that includes several case studies.

What this experience means is that homeopaths are being asked to treat cancer. Indeed, many homeopaths are developing programmes for doing so. Take this example - Welling Homeopathy have developed an interesting programme that focuses on the treatment of cancer.

* Even for people who want to go through the gruelling adverse effects of ConMed's cancer treatment, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, homeopathy can still be useful in combating some of this suppressive treatment.

So what should be done about homeopathy and cancer? Certainly, anyone looking seriously at developing more effective ways of treating cancer should not be dismissing any form of treatment out of hand - as the law appears to demand. Such an approach is a totally 'unscientific'. Science demands that the world is first observed, and then explained. Cancer patients deserve nothing less than this, unless we are all to assume that Big Pharma drug and radiation treatments are all that are available. There has to be a search for truth, and where possible, the development of new approaches to cancer.

As more people look towards homeopathy for treatment, homeopaths need to 'hone' their techniques and their strategies, not to deny them. And there is promising research evidence that suggests why we should be doing so.

* In particular, look at this article, which states that when considering the treatment of breast cancer, homeopathy should be doing this in conjunction with other natural therapies. 

Of course, more scientific research should be done, both pure research into the impact highly diluted homeopathic remedies has on tumours, and through 'outcome' studies. As far as pure research is concerned, this process has already begun.

In this study, the Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer, 4 remedies were used, with interesting, and positive results.

And in this study, just one remedy, Ruta Grav, was studied for its effect on brain tumours, again interesting and positive results.

So there is increasing evidence that homeopathy has a part to play. Moshe Frenkel, MD., looks here at the evidence for homeopathy in the treatment of cancer in this paper. Unlike the homeopathy denialists, Frenkel comes to a proper science-based conclusion. He says that the existing data 'necessitates further studies'. He says that there are already two conclusions from what has already been done. 


* First, homeopathic remedies 'appear to be safe and without adverse reactions'.
* Second, that there may be a role for homeopathy in improving the quality of life of cancer patients.

Yet because homeopathy is a safe and gentle form of medicine, in contrast to the toxicity of ConMed treatment, I would argue that it is the development of treatment that should be the main objective of homeopathy at this time. And much work has already been done here too, especially in India, and especially by Dr AU Ramakrishnan, who has developed a method of treatment, which he calls 'plussing'. He can make extraordinary claims of success over the past 20 years of practice. For instance, he claims a 73% success rate for breast cancer, 55% for stomach cancer, 75% for pancreatic cancer, 32% for liver cancer, 40% for colon cancer, 80% for prostate cancer, and so on.
A Homeopathic Approach to Cancer. Dr AU Ramakrishnan, Catherine R Coulter. Quality Medical Publishing. 2001.

Gemma's story in the Telegraph may be the start of something new and exciting. It means that a national newspaper has now been brave enough to publish a story about homeopathy and cancer. It could open the door for people with cancer, to try new treatments. It could provide an opportunity for the mainstream media to begin telling us more about such treatments. It could start a process within the NHS to compare and contrast the value of different treatments, even to offer them to people who might otherwise die of their cancers, or the toxic treatments that conventional medicine has been offering them now, for decades.

We are what we eat (2)

'The Food Hospital' is a series of Channel 4 television programmes (8pm, Tuesday evenings). Last night's edition featured a young girl, a dancer, who suffered from Crohn's Disease. She was taking Steroids to control her condition, although it appears they were not doing so. In order to replace them, she was given a dietary programme, which she followed, with what appeared to be outstanding results.

The Channel 4 webpage is entitled 'Using food as medicine'. I mention it for three reasons.

First, to congratulate Channel 4 for having the audacity to transmit a programme that is mildly critical of ConMed drugs - not something that the mainstream media (and certainly not the BBC) does often.

Second, it highlights the growing realisation that there are better, safer, and more effective responses to disease that resorting to Big Pharma drugs, and that tiny pockets within the NHS are now prepared to recognise this (another example is the greater use of 'talking therapies' in the treatment of depression).

And third, the central importance of good diet to our health and well-being. We are, indeed, what we eat!

Although this series of blogs does not give dietary advice, it is going to focus on many issues concerned with what is wrong with the food and drink that we consume, or perhaps more accurately, the food and drink we are encouraged (by big food corporations) to consume. Indeed, the concept of the 'Big Food' industry is going to be central to many of the arguments used here.

Big Food 'adds value' to food by processing it.

But the 'value' added to our food is a monetary rather than dietary concept. Food, taken from the ground, and consumed in its (almost) natural form, is usually inexpensive, and good for our health, our well-being, and our energy levels. The more that food is processed the more expensive it becomes - and the less value it is to us, and the way we function.

Take, for example, this article about the chicken we eat - especially from 'fast food' outlets, such as McDonalds. This is not fresh chicken, taken from the field, and cooked. As the article states, the 'chicken' is only 50% of what you are eating. You are also eating foaming agents, and preservatives - not there to assist your health, but to enhance profit. As the author states, not many people realise what they are eating. It is called chicken - so we believe it to be chicken.

Or this article about Pringles Potato chips. Made from potatoes. Well, no - actually they are made from a slurry of rice, wheat, corn and potato flakes that are then pressed into shape, cooked. An enjoyable, harmless snack? Well, no - as the author explains, rather than eating something we consider good and wholesome, the production process actually creates Acrylamide, a substances known to be carcinogenic.


Over the coming weeks and months, we will examine more about food, how Big Food produces it, processes it, and profit from it, often at the expense of our health.

Michael Jackson - death by drugs

Michael Jackson died of a drugs overdose. His personal doctor, Conrad Murray, has been convicted of manslaughter. It is a tragic case. The death of a man revered by many. And the conviction of a conventional doctor for failing to care for him properly.

Yet it was a tragedy waiting to happen, and which probably happens many thousand times each year, is less well-publicised circumstances.

On the one hand, we have a man who believes that his problems can be solved by conventional medical (ConMed) drugs, and as he takes more of them, demands more.

On the other hand, we have a ConMed doctor who also believes that pharmaceutical drugs are helpful, and that his training enables him to control their side-effects - or, as I prefer to call them - disease-inducing-effects, or DIEs.

So develops a situation where the patient is giving a cocktail of drugs, including Propofal, Loracepam, Medazalin and Valium - and he dies. All because he wanted to sleep.

Did Jackson know the possible consequences? Did Murray tell him? Or were they both playing with fire?

What we have to remember is that Big Pharma drugs are now the biggest single killer in the USA. So this incident, high-profile as it has been, is not alone.

Champix (Chantix) - a drug worth banning?

Champix (or Chantix in the USA) is an anti-smoking drug manufactured by Pfizer. It is causing havoc with people's lives through its quite dreadful disease-inducing-effects (DIEs).

And now the Health Sciences Institute is asking the question - should it be banned?

According to the HSI newsletter, the response of the drug company, and the drug regulators, are the usual ones:
* that the risks are outweighed by the benefits.
* that all drugs have 'side-effects'.
* with this drug, it is being claimed that the 'side-effects' are just the withdrawal symptoms from smoking.

So, of course, the drug will not be banned, or withdrawn - not yet, anyway. It will continue to be prescribed to people who want to stop smoking, quite regardless of the evidence against it. HSI claim that over 1 million people within the UK have been prescribed the drug. This has been the history of Big Pharma drugs over the decades; a wonder drug is introduced; so it is found to have serious DIEs; but those DIEs are denied or discounted; eventually the denials are no longer viable so the drug is withdrawn or banned - often many years, even decades after it's introduction.

The 'side-effects' listed on the package insert include nausea, constipation, gas, vomiting, and 'changes in dreaming'. But, as usual, this is only part of the pictrure, and there are many more DIEs that are not listed - including diarrhoea, gingivitis, chest pain, back pain, dizziness, anxiety, depress, emotional disorder, polyuria, menstrual disorder, and hypertension

The HSI article includes the comments on the DIEs Champix (or Chantix) users, and these make worrying reading - and demonstrate just how Big Pharma drugs can change people's lives, and lead to serious damage to their health. Can I suggest you go to their website, and whilst there, sign up for their consistently interesting newsletters. Clearly, the DIEs mentioned are a matter for serious concern - and are much more dangerous to health than smoking. And I say this without wanting to imply that smoking is a good thing!

The 'cure' is clearly worse than the 'disease' in purports to cure.

And there are much safer, more effective treatments to help people stop smoking that this drug.

The Failure of Conventional Medicine.

Homeopathy is Healthy Medicine

This blog was first published in Homeopathy Pure and Simple.

Homeopathy - its time is coming! So states Amy Lansky, PhD., in this lovely article. If you are new to homeopathy, or if you are looking for a safer, more effective medical therapy, you should read it. And it is hard to disagree with her argument that 'energy' medicine, and homeopathy in particular, is the medicine of the near future. If the 19th century saw its birth and development, and the 20th century saw it being overshadowed by the promise of the emerging 'scientific' medicine, the 21st century is proving that so-called 'scientific' or conventional medicine (ConMed) has little to offer patients, who are now, in increasing numbers, looking a real, effective alternative.

And as the Faculty of Homeopathy argues, homeopathy is not only far safer that ConMed, it is also less expensive. This article refers to a French government report that found that the total cost per patient receiving homeopathic treatment was 15% less than the cost of conventional treatment.

I must say that I would dispute this figure, as it is probably far higher. As a practising homeopath, I have always found that homeopathy was a difficult business. A patient walks through the door, you treat him, or her, and he, or she, gets better. End of business! ConMed treatments don't make people better in that permanent way; often patients are told they have to take drugs for the rest of their lives, their ailments and diseases carry on, ameliorated, but not cured. And with the disease-inducing-effects of Big Pharma drugs, conventional medicine has, in time, even more illness and disease to treat and pay for.

Yet talking a individuals being 'cured' of disease does not go down well with those who criticise homeopathy - the homeopathy deniers. They are dismissed as 'anecdotes'; their testimony is not 'scientific'. They forget that these people, myself included, are patients, who were once ill, but are now better. And being well is what all patients want. So let's look at a few more 'anecdotes'!

This is one - who states that "after about 18 weeks of being on homeopathy my life went from being almost unbearable to the best I have ever known". Note that she says that homeopathy was 'a bit pricey' - but remember that she clearly paid for her treatment, and did not have it on the NHS. We tend to compare 'free' health treatment on the NHS with paying for homeopathy privately. And homeopathy denialists are keen that patients should be refused the choice of having homeopathy paid for by the NHS.

Here are two cases of 'retained placenta' - cured by the homeopathy remedy, Sepia.

And here, a single patient suffering from obesity, and much else, treated with Calcarea.

And here, a case of a young boy with facial tics, again treated with Calcarea.

But of course, anecdotes don't remain as such after a significant number of people have been known to be cured. They becomes statistics - people who know the value of homeopathy. So altogether, these 'anecdotes' now mean, according to the British Homeopathic Association, that some 15% of the UK population currently use homeopathy. And as this article explains, part of the anecdotal evidence now includes celebrities such as Paul McCartney, David Beckham, Twiggy, Roger Daltrey, Susan Hampshire, Tina Turner, Louise Jameson, Gaby Roslin, Jude Law, Sade Frost, Nadia Sawalha, Richard Branson, Debra Stephenson, Meera Syal, and of course the Queen, and many of the Royal Family.

And where homeopathy is used, high levels of patient satisfaction are usually reported. This is a study emanating from Germany, but I wonder how many of you know about a pilot project undertaken in 2008 by the Department of Health, and the NHS, in Northern Ireland. This, too, showed great support from patients, and considerable benefits for the NHS. These included, amongst others, a reduction in drugs expenditure, an alleviation of GP and hospital workload, and savings accruing from reduced sick leave. What happened as a result? Nothing! There are clearly people in the NHS and the Department of Health who don't want you to know just how good homeopathy is! I cannot even find anything about the pilot study on their website! However, I have a copy of the PDF report - and if anyone emails me I will forward a copy to them.

Yet everywhere homeopathy is under attack. Why? The underlying reason is that the ConMed Establishment wants to retain its monopoly within the NHS. But Big Pharma drugs are failing, and failing badly. And like most wounded animals, it attacks those it is most fearful of - and homeopathy fits this bill. As Harvey Bigelsen, MD, says:

"What is common among the (CAM) professions ... is that they cost far less than drugs, surgery, imaging, and laboratory tests. The AMA, through its state medical boards, in conjunction with the FDA and other local, state, and federal agencies, keeps a close eye on these practitioners in case they might claim to "cure," "diagnose," "treat," or "prescribe." Each profession noted has, at one time or another, experienced relentless legal pursuit. Any non-drug sold in this country must follow strict rules about labeling to avoid suggesting any "medical" or "health" benefit. 

Only ConMed can do this - and they signally fail to do so. So their attacks are not undertaken from a position of strength, but a position of weakness. Big Pharma companies, and their apologists may have a lot of wealth and influence. But they have no ability to 'treat' or 'cure' illness. Homeopathy does.