Search This Blog

Wednesday 14 March 2012

US Soldier and Mass Killings in Afghanistan

This event, like all mass killings, was dreadful, quite appalling. But what caused a US soldier to go on a killing spree? This article suggests that it might have been concerned with a brain injury.

If so, this would be bad enough. But I am left wondering whether the tragedy was not caused by something much simpler, self-inflicted by the Big Pharma drugs given so routinely to soldiers to 'help' them through their ordeal.

Anti-depressant and anti-psychotic drugs have been implicated in hundreds of mass killings, and similar violent acts - click here to see evidence.

If this is so, we are unlikely ever to know. We can expect it to be subject to cover-up, and diversion.

A former 'Skeptic' defects, and speaks out!

When a skeptic (or homeopathy denier as we call them) sees through the 'game' they are playing with the truth, it has to be good news! But when, as described here, the former skeptic provides a detailed and well-considered insight and analysis into the psyche of skepticism, particularly when it is spoken with such integrity, it is even better. This is what he has to say about 'skepticism' and medical science.

Medical science. In criticising homeopathy, chiropractic, faith healing and the like, skeptics tend to overstate the integrity of medical science, which for all its achievements is still rife with difficulties. I can't help but be suspicious of a field in which research is dominated by a handful of particularly large and unscrupulous corporations. But even if Big Pharma doesn't bother you, you should consider, for example, the political assumptions inherent in the sciences of pathology and psychopathology. Symptoms can be empirically there, but the decision to categorise a set of symptoms as an illness is frequently a political call. Over the years, medical science has tended to pathologise those sets of symptoms which interfere with an individual's participation in the profit system (like physical disability), or which confirm existing social prejudices (homosexuality and female hysteria were once considered mental illnesses), or which can be profitably "treated", regardless of whether the symptoms are actually debilitating (a process known as disease-mongering). It is conceivable that to a future society all these decisions might seem as barbaric as the decision to categorise a set of cranial measurements as characteristic of an inferior race. 

The analysis is much deeper than this, and for any social group (including homeopathy and CAM practitioners) that has had to go through the tiresome negativity of these people, this blog is certainly worth reading. The power of Big Corp is certainly behind these people.

Quicker births with less complications.

This blog has been taken from the Homeopathy Plus newsletter, to whom I express gratitude for pointing out this research into homeopathy.

Quicker Births and Fewer Complications

The following study, involving 93 women, showed that a complex of potentised remedies reduced labour lengths and the number of complications.
In a randomised double blind trial involving 93 women, a combination (complex) of Caulophyllum, Actea racemosa, Arnica montana, Pulsatilla pratensis and Gelsemium sempervirens, all in 5C potencies, was used from the ninth month of pregnancy and its effect on the length of labor and complication rates examined. The average time of labor was reduced to 5.1 hours while, in comparison, the placebo was associated with an average labor time of 8.5 hours. The rate of complications for those using the homoeopathic complex was 11.3% while the complication rate under placebo was 40%.
Complex and routine prescribing, as done in this study, is recognised as amateurish homeopathy so it is reasonable to think that individualised prescribing according to each woman's symptoms would have produced results of even further significance. If you are planning for a baby in the near future it may be well worth considering homeopathy.
Unfortunately this study, being from 1987, has not yet been placed online but it can be referenced from the journal in which it was published.
More Information:
Dorfman P., Lassere N.M., Tetau M., Homoeopathic Medicines in Pregnancy and Labor, Cahiers de
Biotherapie, 94, April 1987, 77-81.

Tuesday 13 March 2012

Alternative Medicine for Mesothelioma Patients

Although surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy are the most common treatments for mesothelioma, many patients turn to alternative therapies in place of (or in addition to) their traditional therapies.
Since traditional treatments are associated with high rates of complications (including chemotherapy toxicity and operative mortality risks), alternative therapies are often selected for their milder impact on the body. Elderly or advanced-stage patients may especially benefit from alternative treatments, when traditional treatments offer a greater likelihood of detrimental side effects than a total cure. 
Alternative therapies for mesothelioma can include (but are not limited to):
  • Nutritional supplements, juicing and/or basic dietary changes
  • Yoga  
  • Meditation
  • Acupuncture
  • Massage
Homeopathy, which is based on a principal of “like curing like,” can also be used in mesothelioma treatment. 
In this approach to therapy, an agent that causes symptoms similar to the symptoms of a disease is given to a patient to treat their disease.  This is used to treat the person instead of their tumor. Homeopathic approaches to mesothelioma treatment may combine a number of natural remedies, including teas, minerals and plant extracts. 
Combining Alternative Medicine and Traditional Medicine 
Patients who do elect a traditional treatment method may also choose to supplement their therapies with alternative approaches. When alternative medicine and traditional medicine are combined into a single treatment plan, the result is called integrative medicine. 
Many alternative treatments can help support a patient’s body through a course of traditional treatment and potentially improve their body’s response to the therapy. 
Alternative mesothelioma treatments can also be used to combat some of the side effects of traditional medicine. Take for example:
  • Patients who feel fatigued from chemotherapy may benefit from the invigorating benefits of a gentle yoga class.
  • Patients who are experiencing cellular damage from radiation therapy may be able to counteract some of this damage through herbal celandine products.
  • Patients needing a boost of immune function to ward off post-surgical infection may turn to astragalus root – a traditional Chinese medicine plant – to boost their immune system.
Dietary changes are also one of the simplest ways to integrate alternative medicine into traditional mesothelioma treatment. Proper nutrition can help the body fight off cancer or help manage side effects of radiation therapy or chemotherapy. These benefits can be explained by a licensed nutritionist or dietitian, such as one employed by your hospital or cancer center.  Centers like the Hippocrates Health Institute are home to oncologists who promote the effects of a raw, vegan diet on cancer patients. 
Precautions to Take With Alternative Medicine
Although most types of homeopathic and alternative medicine have few – if any – detectable side effects, some herbal supplements can actually interfere with the body’s ability to properly respond to traditional treatment. Many chemotherapy drugs come with warnings to avoid certain supplements or foods during use, while other therapies may also have similar warnings against alternative medicines that may compromise their effectiveness.
To avoid any such negative interactions, patients should still thoroughly discuss their interest in complimentary therapies with their oncologist before beginning their regimen. 
Bio: Faith Franz is a writer for the Mesothelioma Center. She combines her interests in whole-body health and medical research to educate the mesothelioma community about the newest developments in cancer care.

Thursday 8 March 2012

BBC News: sales rep for Big Pharma drug companies? Alzheimers.

BBC News regularly provide their listeners and viewers with compelling reasons to use pharmaceutical drugs, and it would seem that they do so without question or reserve. The BBC seems content to comply fully with Big Pharma news releases, and the drug-dominated Conventional Medical Establishment. 

The BBC, like the rest of the mainstream media, is failing to provide patients with full and complete information.

In March 2012, on the Today programme, John Humphrys undertook not one, but two sets of interviews that focused on the availability, or non-availability of Alzheimer's drugs, such as Aricept, for patients with severe dementia. All the people he interviewed were from the ConMed Establishment. They all sang from the same hymn-sheet. 

So I can envisage many carers of people with dementia rushing to their GPs to demand Aricept, and similar Alzheimers drugs. The 'good news' is now on the BBC website, where the article displays a similar, slavish adherence to conventional medicine's view that 'we all need more drugs' for this, and any other condition.

So where is the balance, where is the impartiality? Where is the BBCs responsibility to report fully and fairly on health issues. As usual, it is entirely missing!

The central question here is about whether patients are entitled to know about the side-effects, adverse reactions, and the diseases-inducing-effects (DIEs) of Big Pharma drugs. The BBC, and John Humphrys, clearly think this is not necessary. So just out of interest, what are the DIEs of Aricept?

* Severe diarrhea
* Severe nausea, heartburn, stomach pain and vomiting
* Loss of appetite
* Insomnia and abnormal dreams
* Fainting
* Headache
* Generalised pain, chest pain
* Unexplained weight loss
* Swelling of hands, ankles, feet
* Unusual bruising
* Fatigue and tiredness
* Stomach pain
* Changes in vision or balance
* Dizziness and fainting spells
* Nervousness or agitation
* Muscle cramps
* Arthritis
* Uncontrollable movements; tremor
* Skin discolouration
* Mood and mental problems, including depression
* Slow and irregular heartbeat
* Difficulty in passing urine; or frequent urination
* Shortness of breath, worsening of Asthma
* Seizures
* Stomach ulcers or intestinal ulcers
* Signs of an allergic reaction, such as an unexplained rash, hives, itching, swelling of the mouth or throat, wheezing, or difficulty breathing.

Did the BBC mention any of this? No, they did not! Should it have mentioned this? Do patients, and their carers, have the right to know? 

Or is the BBC setting itself up as an official spokesman, and/or salesman, for the pharmaceutical drugs industry?

If you have a relative with dementia, would you not want to know? 

Would you not want all the information, in order to make an informed choice? 

Apparently, the BBC does not think so. Alongside the rest of the mainstream media they are content to run the evidence produced by the Conventional Medical Establishment uncritically, partially, as if there were no problems associated with Big Pharma drugs. Either they know about DIEs, and refuse to inform us about them. Or they are unaware of them; and they are poor journalists.

Either way, the BBC are doing a disservice to the health debate going on out here, where increasing numbers of people are looking for non-drug treatment for illnesses.

Wednesday 7 March 2012

Ear Infections and Homeopathy

Sadly, ear infections are commonplace with children, and can also cause severe problems in adults too. Since there appears to be no prospect of prevention, the debate as to whether homeopathic treatment, antibiotics or placebos are the best form of cure, is important. 

The recent meta-analysis of studies, published in the Journal of American Medical Asso- ciation, showed that the use of antibiotics only slightly improved the sufferer’s symptoms compared with a group not given any treatment. The improvement in health was, unfortunately, offset by adverse-reactions to the drugs, such as rashes and diarrhoea.

There have been scientific studies which confirm that homeopathic treatment is superior to both antibiotic treatment and/or no treatment at all. 

In 1997, a study, published in the International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, examined the recovery period of 131 children suffering from ear infections. The children were divided into two groups – those using antibiotics and those using homeopathy. The conclusion was that the group treated with homeopathy recovered, on average, a day faster than the group treated conventionally. 

In order to determine homeopathy’s effectiveness in treating ear-infections, side-by-side with placebo, another study, published in 2001 in the British Homeopathic Journal, compared the two treatment options in 230 children with acute ear infections. After 12 hours of treatment, 72% of the children, who had been given homeopathy recovered 2.4 times faster than those who received the placebo.

In addition to the positive conclusions of these studies, homeopathic treatment has the advantage of being natural, with no adverse reactions, and therefore safe to use. The treatment is easily accessible - basic, readily-available homeopathic remedies that can be purchased from most health stores, and at all homeopathic pharmacies. So if you, or your children, suffer from ear infections, the following remedies may be of help; although it is always advisable to contact your homeopathic practitioner for a more individualised prescription.

Belladonna 30c - earaches which come on suddenly with intense pain, ear is bright red and there is a high fever

Hepar Sulphuris 30c - use when a sharp, severe earache which may be accompanied by a thick coloured discharge from the nose or ears; the sufferer is usually very irritable

Pulsatilla 30c - excellent children's remedy for ear infections; sufferer is clingy, weepy, and craves affection; there is a yellow or green, bland discharge from the nose or ears.

Please note, in addition to the above remedies, ear drops or tablets containing a combination of different homeopathic remedies are easy to use and are an effective way to relieve the pain.

The dosage and repetition for any of these remedies can be given as needed, for example every 15-30 minutes for up to six doses during an acute crisis, and then three times daily as symptoms subside.
(Homeopathic treatment for ear infections is superior to antibiotics).

Monday 5 March 2012

The Failure of Conventional Medicine: Anti-Psychotic drugs

Just how dangerous are anti-psychotic drugs? Who is at risk of having them prescribed? And should doctors and GPs be prescribing them at all?

The idea that pharmaceutical drugs do more harm than good to those who take them is not a new one for those people who read this blog. Indeed, it would seem that most Big Pharma drug-types fit into this category! 

Robert Whittaker in his book, "Anatomy of an Epidemic" published in 2010 comes to just this conclusion. This article summarises some of his conclusions:

          "As recently as the 1950s, Whitaker contends, the four major mental disorders — depression, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia — often manifested as episodic and "self limiting"; that is, most people simply got better over time. Severe, chronic mental illness was viewed as relatively rare. But over the past few decades the proportion of Americans diagnosed with mental illness has skyrocketed. Since 1987, the percentage of the population receiving federal disability payments for mental illness has more than doubled; among children under the age of 18, the percentage has grown by a factor of 35".

As usual, then, in mental health issues, as with so many others, there is an increasing use of drugs to treat a condition; and the main result is that the number of people suffering from that condition increases -  often exponentially.

This article looks at an increased diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder in th USA - an increase of 40 times over the last 10 years - so high, apparently, that doctors are apparently trying to alter the diagnosis! It discusses the dangers of these "powerful psychotropic, mind-alterning drugs"

          "Aside from the immediate risk of death, another serious and widespread problem caused by these drugs is excessive weight gain and metabolic problems like diabetes. The effect varies by drug, but children typically gain TWICE as much weight in the first six months on these drugs as they should through normal growth, adding an average of two to three inches to their waistline. A lot of this is abdominal fat, which also increases their risk of diabetes and heart disease".

This article looks specifically at the link between anti-psychotic medication and diabetes in children. Indeed, much of the increased use of anti-psychotic drugs in recent years has been found to be in the 'treatment' of children.

* Channel 4 television (UK) did a survey recently that exposed that as many as 15,000 children and young people under 18 were prescribed anti-psychotic drugs in 2010. However, this figure included just GP prescriptions, and excluded hospital prescriptions - so the figure is likely to be considerably higher. This situation, however, has been well known in conventional medical circles for some time. In a study published in January 2010 in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry  it was found the number of children aged 2-5 being given anti-psychotics had doubled 'in recent years'.

* Yet the situation is the same in the USA, where these harmful, mind-altering psychiatric drugs have been given to children, some of them less than a year old.

* And children in Canada are also being 'drugged' by anti-psychotic drugs - in increasing numbers.

So is there any evidence that anti-psychotics do any good to children? Quite the contrary! The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a “Review on the current use of antipsychotic drugs in children and adolescents”  and it stated there was 'no information about the efficacy or safety of anti-pyschotics in your people'.  So much for 'evidence-based medicine!

But it is not just children, as this article explains; anti-psychotic drugs are now drugging US soldiers to a dangerous degree.

Yet it is older people who have perhaps suffered most from anti-psychotic drugs, and much attention has been paid to this in recent months within conventional medical circles. These drugs are known to kill, and it is clear that GPs are, or should be aware that anti-psychotic drugs cause death in older people.

The large analysis of patients in nursing homes – published in the British Medical Journal – looked at 75,500 new users of antipsychotics aged 65 years or older. Over five years it found haloperidol had double the risk of mortality compared with the most commonly used antipsychotic, risperidone.

The researchers concluded that "the use of haloperido (an anti-psychotic) to this vulnerable population cannot be justified, because of the excess harm".

The BMJ (British Medical Journal) is also aware that anti-psychotic drugs cause death.

"...... it was confirmed by the team that the use of antipsychotics by dementia patients is responsible for a surge in drug-related deaths, presumably as a result of negative side effects both internally to the body, and externally in the form of altered behavior. The findings also confirmed previous ones that identified an uptick in at least 1,800 additional deaths a year as a result of dementia patients taking antipsychotic drugs.

Accordingly, GPs were warned in November 2011 that they required PCT permission to prescribe anti-psychotics to older people with dementia - or face jail if they prescribed without permission.

The stark message, and the threat to GPs, was repeated in the GP magazine, Pulse, in February 2012. Why? Apparently because the original message was ignored by doctors! A further article appeared in March 2012 stating: "... a Pulse investigation revealed PCTs are failing to implement a major NHS programme seen by ministers as key to their campaign to cut the use of drugs".

So, it would appear that even if our government issues a direct instruction, and makes a serious threat, the Conventional Medical Establishment (ConMed) is so hooked on giving us drugs - regardless of the limited evidence for their efficacy - despite the extensive evidence that anti-psychotic drugs are dangerous - it steadfastly refuses to do so.

How much trust can be placed in a medical system that does this?

And, equally pertinent, why is the mainstream media not picking up on the ineffectiveness and dangers of these drugs; and telling us that our doctors are insisting on prescribing them to us, even when they have been instructed not to do so?

Friday 2 March 2012

Avastin. The new Conventional Medical breakthrough for some cancers?

Mimms have announced that the drug, Avastin, has now been licensed for ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers.

What a wonderful breakthrough! So for more of this good news from ConMed and Big Parma, look at this link.

But before rejoicing too much, look at these articles:

* Avastin can cause potentially fatal brain inflammation.
* Avastin can cause blindness.
* Avastin was (almost) withdrawn in the USA in 2007.

Avastin drug sales dropped as a result of this, and other evidence known about Avastin for many years. So, if this new 'evidence' an attempt by Big Pharma to rehabilitate the drug? You will note the Mimms article makes no mention whatsoever of these DIEs (disease inducing effects) of the drug.

So presumably, Roche,  the drug company thinks it is okay to go on selling it.

And the Drug Regulator thinks it is okay to approve it for these cancers.

And one of the magazines giving advice to GPs thinks it is okay for doctors to prescribe it.

But is this not normal practice for Conventional Medicine and Big Pharma? Why should uncomfortable facts get in the way of making big profits selling dangerous drugs to sick people?

What do you think?