Arthritis. Improvements continue with Homeopathy

On 4th January 2012 I published a story sent to me by Noor Muhammad Khan (DIHom), a touching story about his mother, who suffered with arthritis, for which 5 years of conventional medication had done little, or nothing. 

http://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2012/01/joy-of-discovering-homeopathy.html

I am pleased to say that her progress continues - as this update from Noor indicates:

It has been 12 days since my mother is on *Rhus Toxidenderon 6 C* 5 drops. Her present condition is as follows:

   1: She had persistant itching in ears and discharge which is quite better.
   2: She had toothaches which are quite better.
   3: Her cough was quite fine but for two days she has some episodes of cough.
   4: Pain in between her shoulders and upper limbs are better.
   5: She still has pain in legs.
   6: She had itching in both eyes which are better and tears fall just from one eye now.

She has stopped using Allopathic drugs for allergy, cough. She is taking pain killer just once a day (NSAID Group). Before she used it twice.

The thing to notice here is that progress is not just with the patients' main condition - arthritis - but several other conditions that, in conventional medical terms, would be considered to be 'unrelated'.

The moral of this update is simple. Get the right remedy - and general health tends to improve. 

In my early days as a homeopath, I remember treating one woman for menstrual problems. When I saw her for a second appointment she reported that she was much better - and wondered if I had given her something to improve the 'split ends' on her hair. She had not mentioned them!

The joys and wonders of homeopathy at work!

The Failure of Conventional Medicine. Just how dangerous are Big Pharma drugs?

Evidence for the failure of drug-based conventional medicine comes through thick and fast. The evidence is rarely used in the mainstream media; so pass this blog on to all your friends and family. It may save them from the dangers of the Big Pharma drugs we are regularly told are 'safe' and 'effective' when in fact they are neither.

Indeed, the question can be asked - just what do doctors and GPs know about the dangers of the drug they give us?

Aspirin in one of the oldest pharmaceutical drugs. So look at this advice now being given to GPs. The benefits of Aspirin are heavily outweighed by the dangers! Has you doctor ever told you this before? Have you heard about it in the media? And if they can't get it right about one of the oldest drugs, used for years, how can they possible get it right about newer drugs. And in this the message is reinforced; the value of Aspirin in more in the spin than the science!

And some painkillers are now known to kill over 15,000 people each year - just in the USA

The answer is, of course, that they don't know. Conventional medicine gives us drugs but in reality have no idea what they might be doing to us. We patients appear to be one huge drug trial! Here are some more examples.

Antidepressants. They cause suicide and violence.
                           And mums who take them risk giving babies high blood pressure.
                           And Canadian Judge says they can cause children to commit murder.

Antibiotics. The links with Obesity, Diabetes and Stroke. How long have we been told these drugs are entirely safe!

BigPharma drugs to prevent abnormal heart rhythms actually cause them!

Is the epidemic rise in Alzheimers Disease, and Dementia caused by drugs? Well, a common 'side-effect' of many, many drugs is - confusion. See this article, published in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, about 'common' drugs that cause memory disorders.

Statin Drugs. These dreadful drugs are now thought to cause diabetes! Once, not so very long ago, we were told these drug were 'entirely safe'. They are not! Look here for further information on this.

Not even doctors, our own GPs appear to know about the dangers of drugs. Here, they complain about being kept in the dark about the dangers of Viagra. Some time earlier, doctors were told that Viagra should not be taken more than twice and month. Makes you wonder just how dangerous they are!

So perhaps, when doctors are accused of, and sued for creating Valium addicts, they were not aware of the problem because they were not told(?)

Perhaps you will have noticed that I have said nothing about the dreadfulness, and the horrors of vaccination. Why? Because there is just so much coming out about how dangerous they are, and the devastation they are causing. So this will be the theme next week.

Homeopathy Healthy Medicine

This article first appeared at 

http://arh.blogspot.com/2012/01/healthy-medicine-8-more-evidence-for.html

In my last blog in this series, there were a couple of responses indicating that homeopathy had not been able to prove itself over the last 200 years. This is utter nonsense! Homeopathy is a form of medicine that has never been subsidised, as conventional medicine is now subsidised by the NHS. People use it because it is safe, and effective. And as patients have had to pay for it, another advantage is that it is inexpensive too.

See, for example, this article that covers a brief history of homeopathy in the treatment, and prevention, of acute diseases like Scarlet Fever, Cholera, Diphtheria, and Malaria.

For those of you who are new to homeopathy, here is an excellent description of homeopathy, and how it differs from conventional medicine. For anyone who worries about the drug-based medicine that dominates the NHS, this is well worth reading.
Indeed, as this article suggests, homeopathy is the natural way to treat both body and spirit.

And so, in order to demonstrate the kind of conditions it can treat, here is a small collection of articles that can be found on the internet. Have a look at them - and decide if homeopathy is for you.

The treatment of Influenza with homeopathy. Or alternatively, look at this article. Or this one for the prevention of colds and flu.

Homeopathy and Croup.

Homeopathy and Diarrhea.

The treatment of Carbuncles with homeopathy.

The treatment of Impotence with homeopathy.

Homeopathy and infertility.

Homeopathy and menstrual cramps.

Homeopathy and the treatment of ulcers.

In treating illness, homeopathy is always safer than conventional alternatives; and this is for many a big advantage, and why people use it initially. These articles show how homeopathy can be used rather than popular, but largely ineffective and dangerous conventional drugs.

This is an excellent article on why homeopathy should be used to treat depression, not least because the dangers and ineffectiveness of antidepressant are gradually becoming more widely known.

And with the growing awareness of the dangers of antibiotics, and increased resistance to them, this article explains why homeopathy is a better alternative.

Conventional Medical Drugs. What price the value of human life?

Big Pharma company GlaxoSmithKline has been fined 400,000 pesos for killing 14 babies during a vaccine trial in Argentina between 2007 and 2008.

Good news? Well, at least they were caught! But one Argentinian peso is worth just $0.25 dollars - about 20p. So I make that to be just over £500 per life lost. No prosecution of GSK personnel responsible for conducting these trials. And the money - well - it is not even pocket money for GSK. (For a more local report see this).

So what is the value of human life? I wonder what my sentence would be if I had murdered 14 babies? A heavy fine?

But life is cheap - at least when Pharmaceutical drugs are involved!

Estimates about how many people Big Pharma kill each year vary amazingly. This article states that it kills just 106,000 deaths per year. This leaves me wondering at what point they stopped counting! But it is a difficult calculation to make - not least because when deaths occur the association with Pharma drugs is usually denied. But at least this article tries to show the extent of the fraud, the illegal sales activities, and the total fines that Big Pharma companies have been paying in the USA. It also states clearly that spending money on drugs does not lead to saving lives. Whilst spending more on drugs than any other nation, the USA is 49th in terms of life-expectancy.

Drugs are regularly being linked to disease and death. The diabetes drug, Actos, for instance is now being linked with cancer. Last year it was banned in France because it was found to cause bladder cancer. But this does not prevent drug companies selling it elsewhere - for as long as they can get away with it!

When medicine causes disease, or death, it is called Iatrogenesis - caused by doctors. This article explains that it is not just drugs that cause this in conventional medicine, but many other factors. It states that iatrogenesis cause approximately 225,000 deaths each years, making it the 3rd biggest killer in the USA.

In an attempt to assist us, this article picks out the 10 most dangerous Pharma drugs. But is it wise to do this? Highlighting these is only the tip of the iceberg of dangerous Big Pharma drugs, and what is needed is to highlight that they are all potentially dangerous to our health, and even to our lives. But it does point that that for the first time, in nearly a century, automobile accidents are not the leading cause of accidental death any more (according to the US National Center for Health Statistics). This prize now goes to Big Pharma drug companies!

Our experience with Pharma drugs now points to only one sensible conclusion; they are a danger to our health, and to life itself. And it is no good trying to apportion blame to just a few drugs. They are all heavily implicated. Any trying to decide which drugs are okay, and which are dangerous is no good. We just don't have the information - mainly because the drug companies refuse to tell us!

The British Medical Journal has actually complained about this practice! An amazing outbreak of honesty from them! Apparently, when there is evidence that a drug might work - Big Pharma publishes it. When they have evidence that it doesn't, or where there is evidence that it might cause problems, the evidence can be witheld. I have discussed this in an earlier blog - and raised some of the issues it raises (or should raise) for all of us.

It would seem that we never know quite what we are taking when offered Big Pharma drugs. The only information we are given is positive information, and this means that it is bogus information! Nor do doctors and GPs. Nor do the Drug Regulatory bodies.

There is no-one out there appears either able, or willing, to protect us from the consequences of conventional medicine, and Big Pharma drugs. Except ourselves, of course. And we must all begin to say: 

"NO" - "ENOUGH OF THIS" - "LIFE AND HEALTH IS TOO VALUABLE"

How can we eat to stay well?

The problem with eating well, or our health, is that we are so often given loads of conflicting advice. Take for example the issue of breast feeding. The are 'scientific' studies to show that it is best for mums; and for babies. And there are conflicting studies saying that formula milk is best.

This happens regularly; and it is probably quite intentional! It is done to confuse us. There is one simple rule of thumb to determine with 'science' is right, and which is not. Who paid for the research?!!? Unfortunately, this information is not always immediately available to us. So there is a second rule to follow. What is the more natural option? Clearly, humanity has been designed to feed our young with breast milk from the mother. Any 'science' which says otherwise is probably funded by those who produce, and make profits, from the alternative.

This article links the use of formula milk in the USA with baby deaths. Whether this is true of not, the article argues, interestingly, that food regulators tend to assume that processed food is always safe, and that locally produced food is always dangerous.

Some the claims of this 'cheque-book science' can be quite absurd! It has, for instance, let to the EU banning any claim that water can prevent dehydration! Apparently, according to an article that appeared in the Telegraph, this finding was made by 21 scientist in Italy, who concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control. Presumably, then 'dehydration' is a medical condition; and one that has nothing to do with water intake; and indeed, it is a medical condition that cannot be corrected by drinking water.

What about this research? Does sugar really accelerate the ageing process? The key here is the massive increase in sugar consumption over recent decades. It is used in lots of food processing and confectionary; it is not a 'natural' food; and we can live quite well without it. So it is probably correct. Yet we need to be careful here. Often, sugar consumption is attacked on the dubious basis that we are better off eating sweeteners; don't drink coke, it has sugar, and will make you fat; instead, drink 'diet' coke. If research suggests this, read this blog. You are better off with sugar than artificial sweeteners; but probably better off without both!

See, for example, this article on Aspartame linking it with both cancer and premature birth.

In this blog I will try to steer away from research that is clearly been used to promote processed, and largely unhealthy food - and here are a few articles that are linking what we eat to our health.

There are several article about Green Tea. It is always difficult to know just how clear-cut these claims are; but people having been drinking this tea for centuries; and it has always had the reputation of being a 'healthy' drink.
* This one links the drinking of Green Tea with reduced LDL Cholesterol levels.
* This one points to several studies linking Green Tea with reduced Cholesterol.
* This article associated the drinking of Green Tea and the prevention of cancer, and how much we should drink.
* And this one links Green Tea consumption with the prevention of Prostate Cancer.

And this two articles concern Probiotics - in an age when we have all been over-prescribed Antibiotics, without knowing just how dangerous to our health they can be.
* This article highlights 4 pieces of research that suggests Probiotics can reverse the damage done to our stomach by antibiotics.
* And this article appears to reinforce that message - that Probiotics can offset the damage caused by antibiotics.

Homeopathy - winning the battle against the denialists!

This blog was first published at 
http://arh.blogspot.com/2012/01/healthy-medicine-7-winning-argument.html


Homeopathy is gradually winning the health debate! Homeopathy denialists, with their so-called 'skeptical' arguments, have for the last decade been trying to undermine homeopathy, but they are gradually being found out for what they are - an attempt to support drug-based, conventional medicine from competition - not only from homeopathy but from other CAM therapies. Foremost amongst the 'winning' arguments for homeopathy is that research in three key European nations have recently come out 'in favour' of homeopathy.

In Sweden, an attempt by the ConMed Establishment to prevent the practice of homeopathy was over-ruled by the Supreme Administrative court. This case began when a medical doctor, trained in homeopathy in the UK, used it in his practice. He was put on probation by the 'Medical Responsibility Board', but he appealed on the grounds that he had used homeopathy when the patient requested it, and after conventional treatment had been ineffective. After being sentenced in two lower courts, the doctor had been forbidden to use homeopathy - on the grounds that 'homeopathy is unscientific'. So this case shows the lengths that people will go to prevent patients gaining access to homeopathy, and that when the 'there is no evidence to support homeopathy' argument is examined, it is found to be entirely without substance.

In Switzerland, the situation was similar to that in Sweden, but on a much larger scale. Anti-homeopathy sources tried to prevent the use of homeopathy in their compulsory national health insurance system. After an exhaustive investigation that took several year to complete, the conclusion reached in the Health Technology Assessment report, recently published, on the effectiveness, appropriateness, safety and costs of homeopathy in health care was as follows:

"In conclusion we have established that there is sufficient supporting evidence for the pre-clinical (experimental) as well as clinical effects of homeopathy, and that in absolute terms, as well as when compared to conventional therapies, it offers a safe and cost-effective treatment.”

In Italy, a team of researchers evaluated the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment through 'standard objective public health indicators'. There is a summary of this research here, and this is what they found.

"In general, results were significant for the drug usage indicator: the population of homeopathic care users uses fewer drugs than the standard population. Furthermore, it can be seen that the number of drugs and the drugs expenditure reduce significantly after homeopathic treatment. Hospitalization indicators tended to favour patients who had received homeopathic treatment but were not always statistically significant". 

In other countries, like India, homeopathy is rapidly becoming the preferred medical therapy. This article explains that homeopathy, according to a survey conducted by the Indian government, is the number two preferred mode of treatment, after allopathy. And as the survey says, homeopathy costs just a fraction of conventional medical costs, and has no side-effects or adverse effects.

Even the UK government has refused to be brow-beaten by the homeopathy denialists. The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, in a 2010 report, led by the denialist and ex-MP, Evan Harris, and signed off by just 3 MPs, recommended that the NHS should stop spending money on homeopathy. The committee was able to do so by deciding to ignore completely the evidence presented to them by the ARH, and other UK homeopathy organisations. Despite this, the New Labour government, and more recently the Coalition government, have said they would not implement this recommendation, in favour of 'patient choice'.

Even so, the NHS continues to be dominated by the Conventional Medical Establishment, and there are still battles to be fought and won. The financial influence and industrial power of Big Pharma companies will ensure that this is so. For instance, throughout the country, local Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are refusing to allow patients a choice of medical therapy when they are ill - and they do so on a similar basis - there is no evidence.... etc.

But homeopathy will win these battles for one very simple reasons - that in stark contrast to conventional medicine, homeopathy is a medical therapy that is entirely safe, and very effective.


And as a result, homeopathy is a medical therapy that people will want choose - when they have either personal experience of this, or they are given access to the information that demonstrates it.

BBC News, Big Pharma - and an outbreak of honesty?

Could this be an outbreak of (very welcome) honesty within the BBC News service? Hitherto, their reporting of health issues has been lamentable, apparently only willing to publish the 'good' or 'positive' news about pharmaceutical drugs, and quite unwilling to tell its listeners, viewers and readers, any of the 'bad' or 'negative' news.

This morning, on its Today programme, the BBC reported that a BMJ (British Medical Journal) editorial had attacked the 'long-existing habit of the pharmaceutical and science community' to publish only selectively (that is, the good bits) about the clinical trials on new drugs. This, by itself, is an amazingly refreshing outbreak of honesty from the Conventional Medical Establishment! But to listen how the BBC dealt with this, listen to the broadcast at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9671000/9671074.stm

You will hear in the short clip that two examples are given of this Big Pharma practice, which has been going on for decades, largely without comment or concern from the BBC, or indeed, the mainstream media generally:

1. Tamiflu - about which Roche has apparently been refusing to publish data, and
2. Vioxx - where evidence about its link to heart attacks has been suppressed by the drug company.

Apparently, the BBC asked the drug companies to comment - but they declined! However, Professor Colin Blakemore said, presumably in their defence:

What journal will publish boring results?

Indeed, he appeared to assume that the public only wanted to hear the 'good' news, and certainly for as long as I can remember, this is all the BBC has wanted to report too.

Blakemore, perhaps mirroring the attitude of the entire conventional medical establishment, appears to have been more concerned about the need to 'entertain us' rather than ensuring, and safeguarding, the health of patients!

However, despite this unusual but welcome display of BBC honesty, it is also clear that they did not know how to ask searching and relevant questions on the issue. Indeed, they did not appear to recognise the importance to us all of this issue.

* How many pharmaceutical companies are failing to publish the full evidence about their drugs?

* On what basis are Big Pharma companies allowed to withhold important clinical information? Is this being done in order to sell more drugs? And if so, can this be in the interests of the health of patients?

* Are the Drug Companies being held fully accountable for any consequences to patients of the drugs they manufacture and sell? (Drug companies are being sued in the USA for the damage they cause patients, but not, it would seem, in this country).

* How many pharmaceutical drugs, and indeed which ones, are currently being prescribed without the full clinical information being known to medical personal and patients?

* How many patients are at this moment taking pharmaceutical drugs about which full information remains unknown? And what action will now be taken by the medical authorities to obtain this information?

* How long has the government, the NHS, and MHRA been aware of the practice? If the medical establishment has known about it, why has nothing been done? And if it did not know, is there a need to re-examine the basis on which pharmaceutical drugs been sanctioned, approved and prescribed to patients?

* Are local doctors and GPs aware of this practice? Are they, indeed can they be, fully aware of the impact any drug has on their patients?

Clearly, the BBC are more adept at criticising and attacking those people who are aware of the dangers of Big Pharma drugs, and who are looking for 'non-drug alternatives' to the medicine being offered to us within the current NHS-ConMed monopoly.