Search This Blog

Friday 14 September 2012

The Impending Demise of Pharmaceutical, Drug-based Conventional Medicine?

Is the end is in sight for the Pharmaceutical  drug companies, and for the drug-based medicine they lead. Perhaps it won’t happen today, next week or even next month. But the beginnings of its decline are already apparent, and the seeds of its ultimate destruction have already been self-sown, and seedlings are beginning to appear.

For those who believed, and still believe, that pharmaceutical drugs would help us 'conquer' disease this may come as a surprise. For those kept in the dark by the failure of the mainstream media to tell us about the failures of pharmaceutical drugs, and the disease and death they cause, this might seem an alarming claim.

For those who know how it controls and dominates the Conventional Medical Establishment, and in particular, the NHS in Britain, its failure might appear to be just an impossible or unlikely dream.

The contribution of drugs and vaccines to health has alway been based more on Optimism and Hope than Performance. Its performance has always been at best modest - largely ineffective, always dangerous to health and life, and ridiculously expensive too.
Big Pharma has always claimed to be based on 'science', and to a limited extent, it has been, and still is. But no matter how much it may know about illness and disease, it has never understood either the nature of health, or the process of retaining, maintaining, and regaining it. 

Conventional Medicine, throughout the centuries, has never discovered the secret of effective, and certainly not safe medical intervention. 

Its former techniques - bleeding, leaching, blistering; its drugs like Calomel and Mercury/Arsenic based drugs, are now recognised to be almost laughably false. Now, in a society dominated by the ‘drug culture’, Conventional medicine is even further away than ever it has been in getting good outcomes from its treatments.
So, although the Conventional Medical Establishment may appear to be powerful and strong (indeed, within the NHS they have almost a monopoly position) their dominance is based upon the enormous wealth, power and influence the pharmaceutical industry built up during the mid- to late 20th Century. Its ability to buy control of politicians, governments, and the media has been the result. But the basis of this power is now quickly dissapating - rotting away in front of us. So what is the problem? And how does the problem manifest itself?
     * Big Pharma has always been able to make remarkable claims about the efficacy of its drugs, and get these claims published. Unfortunately, there is a limit to the time people will continue to believe in the discovery of 'Wonder Drugs' that will transform our health. There is growing cynicism when some of the formerly proclaimed 'Wonder Drugs' are wihdrawn  after they proved to be useless, or dangerous, or both.

     * The drugs that have earnt so much money for Big Pharma are either moving out of patent, or they have been banned or withdrawn, which means that Big Pharma companies are no longer able to make the huge profits that has underpinned their control of the health market place.

     * Big Pharma has been quite unable to discover new ‘Super Drugs’. The supply of ‘Magic Bullets’ has dried up. Indeed, many of the 'new' drugs, produced and marketed as being much better than the old drugs, are proving to be even more dangerous, and less effective than their failed predecessors.

     * In recent years, Big Pharma has been prosecuted frequently in the USA for the corrupt and fraudulent way it has tested and marketed some of its drugs, and for the damage and death these drugs have caused to patients. Government has stepped in to shield Big Pharma from the consequences of selling dangerous drugs - but this damage-limitation has its own limitations.

     * Ultimately, all this 'bad' news for ConMed is difficult to keep from the public, even with the mainstream Media, dominated by the likes of the BBC News and the Guardian, who in recent years have become so slavishly, and cravenly the servants of the Big Pharma, and ConMed Establishments.

     * Despite this Media silence, and increasing number of people are now reluctant to take drugs, and more are just refusing to take them. They would rather suffer! Indeed, even doctors and nurses are proving to be resistant to taking Big Pharma drugs and vaccines - refusing them whilst at the same time giving them to us.

What this means is that the profitability of the drug industry is now much reduced, and reducing rapidly. As the patents on older drugs end, and there are no replacements, and as resistance to drug-based medicine (including antibiotics) increases, they are finding that their income, and their profits are being reduced - drastically.
This reduced profitability is already leading to a serious contraction within the industry. This is happening in Britain, with some high profile closures of industrial plant, and research facilities, and it is happening throughout the world. 

And inevitably, alongside this contraction, will come a reduction in the industrial, commercial and financial power of the Big Pharma companies, and the ConMed Establishment that is dependent upon it.
The Hold over Government
There will be a reduction in the political influence of Big Pharma. As their investment decreases, so does their power to influence Governments. "Sell our drugs, or else we will invest elsewhere" is powerful only to the extent of their investment, or investment plans. With each closure of industrial and research unit, the threat of losing jobs becomes less. 

And as this influence begins to fade, Governments will be able to make more rational decisions about health, and how patients are best treated. They will, in other words, be more open to alternative medical therapies, to non-drug options, for maintenance of health, and the treatment of disease.
Increased Public Awareness
The mainstream media are finding it increasingly difficult to 'ignore' what is happening to our health. As a society we are getting sicker - and we get sicker in line with the amount of pharmaceutical drugs we consume. The ascendence and dominance of Big Pharma and its drug-led medicine has run parallel to unprecedented and epidemic levels of disease. 

It is likely that the Media has already suffered through their one-eyed approach to health, their uncritical support of Big Pharma, and their connivance with increasing levels of disease, and increasing numbers of people dying from the very medicine they have been given. Why should people continue to read in the Media what they know to be untrue? 

If the Media is incapable of telling us the truth about health, if it refuses to take part in the Health Debate, whether for their commercial, or whatever other reason, why should we believe that they tell the truth about anything else?

So there is growing awareness, amongst a growing proportion of the population, through blogs like this, that the ConMed Establishment, and the Big Pharma drugs industry in particular, has been compromising our health. They will realise, increasingtly, that we have been lied to. The movement, which is now quite apparent, of people looking for more effective, safer, and less expensive medical therapies, will continue to increase.
There will be a 'tippling point', and that tipping point will probably come more quickly than anyone can imagine at present time, given the wealth and influence of Big Pharma, and its almost monopoly position within the NHS.
There will, however, be one further, and quite major problem to overcome. This has to do with the people who are either part of, or submissive to, the ConMed Establishment, the people who have been selling us the false 'dream' of drug-based medicine over the last 60 years and more. When will these people be willing to admit that they have been wrong for all these decades?
  • How long will it take for ConMed practitioners, from NHS Bureaucrats, to Consultants, to GPs, to admit their failures, and their culpability for the damage patients have suffered from what they have given us?
  • When will politicians be willing to admit that their subservience to the ConMed Establishment, the reasons for it, and their almost total failure to protect their constituents (us) from dangers and damage caused of drug-based medicine?
  • When will the mainstream Media, particularly organisations like the Guardian and BBC News, admit that they have been biased, unbalanced, dishonest, and even inept in their reporting of health matters.
There is certainly a limit to how long the Conventional Medical Establishment, national governments, and the mainstream Media can continue to defend the indefensible! And there are already signs that this time is approaching.

Thursday 13 September 2012

Denialists and Time Wasting Comments

I have taken the decision to remove the 'comments' section from this blog. I apologise for this. Unfortunately, the blog has become infested with Denialists whose main aim appears to be to waste time, and deflect the debate away from the topics posted, away from safe medicine, and away from the ongoing failure of conventional medicine.

If anyone wishes, genuinely, to discuss any issue raised in this blog, please contact me directly by email. 

Tuesday 11 September 2012

When EVERYONE should give up on Homeopathy!

Homeopathy denialists, no doubt at the behest of Big Pharma, and Conventional Medicine, insist that Homeopathy cannot work, and does not work; that people like myself are 'deluded'. One what basis, one denialist has asked me recently, would I admit that I am wrong, and agree with him that Homeopathy, as a Medical Therapy, does not work?

It is an excellent question, and one deserving of an answer!

First, supporters of Homeopathy (like myself) would want scientific proof that repudiates our own personal experience. I have had 3 significant medical conditions, Gastric Ulcers, Migraines, and Heart Palpitations. They have each been treated successfully by Homeopathy.

This is an experience similar to many people. Homeopathy has worked for them, and has done so often when conventional, drug-based treatment has failed, often for many years, and sometimes for decades.

Indeed, our experience of the effectiveness of Homeopathy has been shared by literally millions of people, throughout every continent of the world, for over 200 years.

And to these people, we would have to add the animals, both pets and farm livestock, who have been seen to benefit from Homeopathy too.

Homeopathy Denialists just deny these experiences. They just did not happen. They make firm, definitive statements which are not more than 'personal opinions', given without evidence, and usually without even knowing the individual concerned, and his/her medical condition. The denials of Denialists take these forms, and each can be found within this blog:

* The condition healed itself, some kind of 'natural remission' that, strangely, did not happen during the years of conventional medical (ConMed) treatment.
* The connection between getting well and homeopathic treatment was just coincidental.
* We are just mistaken. It was not homeopathy that has made us well.
* We are lying, no such thing ever happened.

So, my first pre-condition for agreeing with Denialists that Homeopathy does not work is this.

I would want to see proper evidence (perhaps from Randomised Controlled Trials - RCTs) that shows that we, all of us, are wrong in making the connection between homeopathy and overcoming illness, and that denialists are correct.

In other words, I would need to be assured that Denialists were approaching the subject of health from a scientific, rather than a commercial point of view. Most denialists claim to be 'scientists', or 'science supporters'. What they need to bear in mind, therefore, is that the first duty of any proper scientist is to observe what is happening in the world. With respect to the millions who (claim to) have benefitted from Homeopathy, this has to be honestly observed, and receive an appropriate (scientific) response. The task of Science, and the purpose of any scientific endeavour, is then to explain what it has observed. Mere denial - for example, it did not happen, or homeopathy did not play a role - is not acceptable.

Second, I would like to see some convincing comparative studies showing that Homeopathy was less successful, in terms of patient outcome, than conventional, drug-based medicine. It has always appeared strange to me that a system of medicine that considers itself so superior to Homeopathy (and other CAM therapies) has never challenged Homeopathy to undertake such trials. Certainly, any comparative studies I have seen, mostly done during the 19th and early 20th centuries, and mainly concerned with the treatment of infectious diseases in epidemics, have show that Homeopathy is far superior to ConMed treatment in terms of outcome for patients.

Third, I would need to see that scientific evidence that is now contained within the Homeopathic Materia Medica (HMM) is wrong, or in some way inaccurate. The HMM explains and describes the conditions each remedy produces, given in their normal state, and therefore (on the basis of the principle of 'Like Curing Like') what conditions each remedy can cure. There are some 3,000 to 4,000 remedy descriptions within the HMM, all painstakingly researched, some of them over 200 years, and within the discipline of Herbalism, no doubt very much longer.

Fourth, I would like to see scientific evidence that proves that the central tenet of Homeopathy, that 'Like Cures Like', or providing to patients a 'similar' remedy that matches their symptoms, does not, in fact, successfully treat those medical symptoms.

The fifth pre-condition concerns the safety of the patient. The first four conditions for my 'giving up' on Homeopathy' are concerned with the effectiveness of Homeopathy. But safety issues are also important for me, and most other Homeopathy supporters.

We do not want to be subjected to a medical system that is dangerous. 

"First, do no  harm" is (or at least should be) a primary pre-condition for any medical therapy, or any medical practitioner. Many, indeed an ever-increasing number of people, are now refusing to take ConMed drugs because of their long, disastrous, and infamous history of causing harm to patients.

Big Pharma drugs cause disease.
And they cause death.
And they have a long and dreadful history of doing so.

So, if Denialists are able to provide me with proper (RCT?) evidence that convinces me that Homeopathy is equally unsafe, that it causes disease and death to the same degree as ConMed, then I would gladly abandon my commitment to Homeopathy.

The sixth pre-condition concerns cost. ConMed has always been the most expensive medicine, dealing is has alway done with powerful, noxious poisonous substances. The costs entailed in making these 'medicines' palatable to the human body has proven too much, and led to medication whose costs are now so astronomical they are threatening to bankrupt national health services around the world. Homeopathy, on the other hand, has just one major cost - the skill and expertise of the Homeopath. The remedies cost little, certainly nothing approaching the exorbitant cost of some of the 'modern' Big Pharma drugs. I would, therefore, need Homeopath Denialist to offer some kind of evidence that ConMed was likely to become affordable, either to governments that support national health schemes, and/or to poorer people in the Third World.

Seventh, and very much the least important, is that I would want an explanation for why Homeopathy Denialists are denying the existence and importance of about 200-250 RCT trials that show Homeopathy to be capable of treating illness and disease successfully. This method is, after all, the denialist's 'method of choice', but by continuing to repeat their mantra's .....

- 'Homeopathy does not work' .....
- 'Homeopathy cannot work' .....
- 'Homeopathy is no better than placebo', etc.,

..... they continue to ignore and discount this large, and increasing body of evidence. Moreover, in doing so, I would want the Homeopathy Denialists to inform my why the Shang meta-analysis, to which they refer so often, was not deeply flawed, and why they fail to acknowledge the existence of the four other important meta-analysis on Homeopathy that have demonstrated positive results.

Finally, Homeopathy Denialists would have to convince me that they were not acting in the commercial interests of Big Pharma, and that they are not paid and guided by organisations like 'Sense about Science', which are funded by drug companies, and little more than a 'front' organisation for their propaganda. In addition, some recognition that recent evidence of massive Big Pharma fraud and corruption, with respect to the evidence of drug trials, the peddling of drugs they know to be dangerous, the financial 'incentives' (bribes) given to government and medical authorities, as well as the Media's silence on these scandals, mean that too many patients are being given too many dangerous drugs that are ?detrimental to their health.

Other than that, I require nothing further. I trust I shall be receiving this evidence in due course. Until such time, I will put my 'farewell' to the Homeopathic Community on hold.