Search This Blog

Wednesday 23 January 2013

Pemphigus Foliaceus and a cure with Homeopathy

When SA phoned me initially, he told me that Pemphigus Foliaceus was a very rare condition. Although I had heard of Pemphigus I was not sure what this condition was, and knew little to nothing about it! He told me he had suffered from the illness for some 10 years, and his conventional doctors had been trying to treat it during all that time, without any success whatsoever. So, he asked - could I help? I explained that Homeopaths did not treat specific, conventionally diagnosed conditions, but worked with the symptoms of the patient. I asked him to come to see me, so that we could discuss what Homeopathy might be able to do for him.

When I looked up the condition, I found that it was a rare skin condition that caused blisters, bullae and sores, and could do so all over the body. One closely connected form of the disease, Pemphigus Vulgaris, could be fatal. The cause of Pemphigus was unknown, but it was apparently an autoimmune condition. So I immediately began to wonder whether SA had been subjected to conventional drug or vaccine treatments over the years, as they are known to undermine the immune system.

I saw SA in October 2012. He was 76 years old. He described the symptoms of his Pemphigus. It was all over his body, mainly on his torso and head, but none on his arms and legs, or his face. It was itchy but not painful. He said the doctors had told him the condition was very rare, and he confirmed that no conventional treatment had worked. He was clear that he wanted me to try to treat the condition. I had apparently seen a relative of his some years earlier, and had treated him successfully.

I asked him when the condition had started, and what he had been doing at the time. He told me that he had 'travelled the world', and the condition had started when he visited South Africa in 2003. I asked him whether he had ever been vaccinated, especially before his visit to South Africa. He said that he had been given vaccinations for every disease under the sun, some of them many times over. So here, immediately, we had a reason, a trigger for contracting an 'auto-immune disease!

We chatted about his health for about an hour, and I came to two conclusions. The vaccinations were a possibly trigger, and needed to be addressed. As there was no specific vaccine I decided to give him Thuja 30c, a remedy known to antidote the damage caused by vaccines generally. And the remedy I was coming up with, quite strongly for his Pemphigus, was Cantharis. I asked him to take the Thuja first, for several days, and then the Cantharis 200c.

When he contacted me 2-3 weeks later he said that he, and his wife, had noticed a difference within 3 days. This was before he had taken any Cantharis. This confirmed my suspicion that the trigger for his condition had, indeed, been the vaccinations he had received over the years.

However, by this time he had also started taking Cantharis, and he told me 'we seem to be on the right track'. He continued taking the two remedies in regular but reduced sequence.

We arranged to meet again in January 2013. Just prior to Christmas SA told me he had a 'minor re-occurence' of the condition. However, when I saw him these had gone, and he no longer had any sign of the condition. He assumed that he would continue taking the remedy (as is usual with conventional medicine), but I told him there was no further need to take them as his body, through his immune system, was now doing what it should have been doing all along. It was back in charge. So now, SA has both remedies, in case the condition return, with instructions that should it do so he should take Cantharis at the very first sign of any re-occurence.

So what had been impossible for ConMed in 10 years, a cure for SA's Pemphigus, was achieved by Homeopathy in just 3 months. And at the total cost of two visits to a Homeopath.

So ends the story? Is the only conclusion that can be drawn from this case is that Homeopathy is a more effective medical therapy than conventional medicine? Well, not really. The case raises several other questions, wider and perhaps more important questions, one's often raised in this blog.
  • Are these 'new', 'strange' and 'rare' conditions (of which there are now so many) really medical illnesses? Or are they the result of the 'disease-inducing-effects' (DIEs) of conventional medical  treatment?
  • Why is the Conventional Medical Establishment not able to treat this (and so many other) conditions? Does it result from conventional medical failure to recognise that it may have caused the condition in the first place? Is there a problem with conventional medicine's failure to recognise, or accept that its drugs and vaccines cause autoimmune diseases?
  • If the Conventional Medical Establishment cannot cure a condition, why is the NHS not prepared to send patients to other medical practitioners? Note that SA was not referred to me by his NHS doctor. Nor was his treatment paid for by the NHS. He came to see me only because I had successfully treated his relative several years ago.
  • If SA had the more serious complaint, Pemphigus Vulgaris, would the NHS then have been more likely to refer him to a Homeopath? In my experience this is unlikely. I have written before that the NHS appears content to allow patients with serious, and terminal illnesses, to suffer and die rather than refer to any alternative medical therapy.
  • Why is the NHS unable to recognise that by allowing the Conventional Medical Establishment to monopolise healthcare provision in Britain it is failing to treat illness and disease successfully, that it is doing so at great cost to the nation, that conventional drugs and vaccines are actually creating new illnesses and diseases, and that as a result, as a nation, we are getting sicker rather than healthier. And of course, we are doing all this at an ever-increasing cost.
  • It is not always possible for Homeopathy to treat these sorts of conditions so quickly, or so effectively. But in order to do so, Homeopathy does not require any fancy medical diagnosis, it requires no expensive specialism, no ongoing treatment with expensive drugs and vaccines. It needs just a competent, well-trained Homeopath, who is capable of applying the homeopathic principle of 'Like Curing Like' to an individual patient.
Of course, Homeopathy is not such a good business proposition! Treating illness effectively means that patients are lost, they are not lining up at GP surgeries, month by month; they are not adding to hospital waiting lists, they are not taking drugs and vaccines regularly. Which, of course, is why Big Pharma, the rich, powerful and affluent multi-national pharmaceutical companies, hates Homeopathy, and why they are prepared to support and fund organisations like Sense about Science to attack us.

Even at this moment I can hear Homeopathy Denialists rehearsing their arguments:
  • SA was not ill in the first place; we were mistaken, or even lying perhaps.
  • The condition righted itself, and it was not Homeopathy that cured the condition.
  • The condition will probably come back (it might, no guarantee about this).
  • And the rest of the nonsense usually spewed out by the Denialists.
What they cannot deny is that there is another cured patient, who is delighted, and has joined the ranks of converts to Homeopathy. And a Homeopath who is once again pleased, and as usual somewhat bemused, by the power of Homeopathy.

Thursday 17 January 2013

Vaccinations: a total hoax, a fraud; is criminal prosecution the answer?

Vaccinations are a total hoax, and Big Pharma drug companies, and Government agencies, are fully integrated into the hoax - which constitutes a fraud - and imposes unnecessary dangers to those persuade to vaccinate themselves, or their children

These are the finding of Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD. in a paper she wrote in 2011. The assertions she makes are powerful, and insightful. Read through each one of them carefully. It encapsulates, brilliantly, what the Conventional Medical Establishment has been doing now for many decades.

In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:
  1. 1)  Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;

  2. 2)  Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;

  3. 3)  On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations;

  4. 4)  Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies;

  5. 5)  Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits;

  6. 6)  Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted;

  7. 7)  Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues;

  8. 8)  Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage;
The author notes that all of these actions appear to violate the JCVI’s own Code of Practice

Yet these are allegations that have been frequently made in this blog, and many others. We are being misled, and placed in danger, by successive Governments, the Conventional Medical Establishment, and the mainstream media.

The full report should be read as it highlights all the 8 points made above.

A serious question must now be asked  by all of us. 

Are organisations, and individuals, who are recommending dangerous medical treatments, principally pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, not legally responsible for their advice. As these drugs and vaccines are not safe, as they are causing disease and death, should those who promote them not be subject to the full rigours of the law?

At the moment, drug companies are paying paltry financial fines for drugs and vaccines that have damaged and killed hundred's and thousand's of patients. No-one else, implicated in such crimes, would be protected from criminal prosecution for offences such as Actual Bodily Harm, Manslaughter, and Murder.

As yet, no Government, no National Health Service, no Medical Practitioner, and no Media Organisation, has been subject to fines. They clearly deserve to be as they are misleading us all, and subjecting us to unnecessary danger.

There are calls, now, for the prosecution of individuals who have led the Banking industry in criminal activity. Now we should be calling for the prosecution of those who are implicated in encouraging us to consume dangerous Pharmaceutical drugs.

The Conventional Medical Establishment has failed in its duty to protect the public from the dangers of Big Pharma vaccines and drugs. Indeed, it has failed to observe its duty, under the Hippocratic Oath, to 'do no harm'. Quite the contrary, what this report shows is that it has known it is causing harm, but has decided that the public should not know about it.

Tuesday 15 January 2013

BBC News Attacks Homeopathy Again

The BBC (and indeed most of the mainstream media) hates Homeopathy, in much the same way that it loves, and indeed, does all it can, to promote conventional medicine, and support the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies. The BBV, our public broadcaster, takes every opportunity to attack Homeopathy and Homeopaths, and in doing so, forgets entirely about its Editorial Guidelines which focus on 'Impartiality'.

The latest attack comes from BBC South West, and its "Inside Out" programme, which last night (14th January 2013) featured another attack on Homeopathy. You can watch it here. Or read about it here. However, in truth, you could save yourself time - it is the usual BBC News bias and bile, easily and simply described here. This programme follows an almost identical pattern to the notorious 'Newsnight' programme which gratuitously attacked Homeopathy in January 2011.

1. Underlying BBC's anti-Homeopathy programmes is the assumption that conventional medical vaccines (and drugs) are the treatments we should all be having (this time for Pertussin, or Whooping Cough). And if we do not avail ourselves of these treatments, there is a problem for the BBC to address. We are either foolish, or misguided. The MP for Totnes, Dr Sarah Wollaston, who figures in this programme, is a well-known and vocal opponent of Homeopathy (and supporter of drug-based medicine), who decries the fact that only 7 out of 10 children in her Devon constituency have been vaccinated against Pertussin. The DTP vaccine is, of course, given routinely to babies just a few months old - and parents have to 'opt out' to prevent their children having the injection. It is not a matter of parents 'forgetting' to get their children vaccinated!

The BBC's commitment to drug-based conventional medicine appears to be total. Their health and science correspondents appear to take the 'Sense About Science' approach to the Health Debate. And as a result, as far as the BBC is concerned, there is no Health Debate. The BBC's commitment to Big Pharma drugs can be seen in every news bulletin which presents them as 'magic bullets', and refuses to discuss their 'side-effects', 'adverse-reactions', or disease-inducing-effects (DIEs).

2. The programme completely ignores the obvious question that most good journalists would, at some point, want to ask - why are so many parents actively refusing to allow their children to have the DPT vaccination.

The BBC never moves beyond the assumption that such people are foolish, or badly informed, and that have no good or justifiable reason for doing so. The BBC never seems to want to investigate why people are asking Homeopaths for an alternative to something the NHS gives to them 'free'. What is their motivation? It is clear that the BBC does not want to ask them the question.

3. The programme ignores the 'good reasons' for refusing the DPT vaccine - that there are serious questions about both its effectiveness, and its safety for our children. These are not the quirky and unfounded prejudices of silly people. The concerns arise from solid evidence; from large numbers of parents who have children who were normal before vaccination, and sick afterwards; and from research evidence that is routinely ignored by the BBC.
It is this kind of evidence that persuade parents to seek alternative treatment, and to refuse conventional vaccinations. They are right in seeking safer and more effective treatments. They do not do so for any other reason than they feel that such vaccines are dangerous, and they no longer trust what the Conventional Medical Establishment, supported by the media, tells them. This biased BBC programme merely reinforces this view.

4. The programme makes the implicit assumption that the recent increase in the number of serious Pertussin cases, including a handful of deaths, are the result of children who have not received the DPT vaccine.

The ability of BBC News to make this assumption depends on their ability, and determination to ignore the growing evidence that various recent epidemics have affected vaccinated rather than unvaccinated children. Here are a few sources, there are many others, including a recent Mumps outbreak in the USA.
It is just not true that vaccinated children are safer than non-vaccinated children. Indeed, it is quite the reverse - regardless of what the BBC believes.

5. The programme, and particularly the presenter Sam Smith (who does not at any stage seek to adopt a stance of impartiality), makes repeated statements about Homeopathy - that there is no evidence supporting Homeopathy, that remedies have 'no active ingredients' so cannot possibly work.

This is, of course, the language and the attitudes of the Conventional Medical Establishment, but expressed here by a BBC presenter who appears to want to present herself as a concerned and impartial investigator.

It is difficult to determine whether the BBC takes this approach because it is ignorant of the centuries-old experience of Homeopathy, or the large and growing body of scientific studies that show that Homeopathy is an effective medical therapy, whose action is much more than just 'placebo'. If anyone wishes to know about the effectiveness of homeopathy, they just have to look at the evidence, available on the internet to everyone (although not the BBC apparently). Here are few few links to the treatment of Whooping Cough with Homeopathy/
Positive RCT evidence for the effectiveness of Homeopathy in 'upper-respiratory' complaints can be found in these two sources:

Bornhöft G, Wolf U, Ammon K, et al. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice – summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementärmedizin, 2006; 13 Suppl 2: 19–29.
Bellavite P, Ortolani R, Pontarollo F, et al. Immunology and homeopathy. 4. Clinical studies – Part 1. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine: eCAM, 2006; 3: 293–301.

The repeated recitation of the 'their is no evidence for Homeopathy' mantra will no longer prevail for anyone who takes a proper interest in health, or who genuinely looks at the evidence, which is available for anyone who wants to see it. It would appear, however, that this is not good enough for Sam Smith, and the BBC. Or is it just that the conventional medical mantras are easier to understand.

6. To support the BBC's hypothesis, that there is 'no evidence' for Homeopathy, the programme called on 'experts', and several times during this 10 minute programme, Sam Smith called on 'experts' who were entirely from the Conventional Medical Establishment. What is their view of Homeopathy? Well, surprise, surprise, they didn't think it works, and it can be dangerous. So what did experts on Homeopathy say? They had no real say in the programme! And what they are quoted as saying was presented in a confusing and contradictory way, by a presenter who clearly misunderstood, or perhaps did not want to understand, what she was being told. Perhaps this not surprising in a programme that took no time, and made to effort, to understand Homeopathy, and how it works.

Edzard Ernst, as usual, was featured in the programme, a long-time opponent of Homeopathy, but a 'Professor of Complementary Medicine' at a University faculty funded largely by Big Pharma companies.

And Sam Smith held in her hand a letter from 'The Nightingale Collaboration', an off-shoot of 'Sense about Science', itself a 'charity' funded largely by Big Pharma companies. She failed to mention the association with Big Pharma, naturally!

It is strange, but typical, that the BBC believes it can gets expert information on homeopathic treatment by asking non-Homeopaths, indeed, asking people who are well known to be antagonistic to Homeopathy

The Homeopathic Community no longer expects fairness or impartiality from the BBC. Several Homeopaths (and Homeopathic Patients) complained to the BBC about their 2011 Newsnight programme, and the response to the complaint, as much as the programme itself, showed clearly that the BBC does not act impartially or fairly in matters related to health.

This raises an important question about the BBC. If this public broadcaster reports in this partial and unfair way in matters relating to health, how can anyone be sure that it is reporting impartially and fairly in other areas of public concern.

Since this time, the BBC has continued its biased and partial reporting of homeopathy, and its unquestioning support for conventional medicine, and the pharmaceutical industry generally. To read more of the BBC breaking its own editorial guidelines, type in "BBC" at the top of this page.

Breast Cancer and Tamoxifen. BBC meekly announces 'great news'! But the drug has very serious side effects that the BBC fails to mention!

On 15th January 2013, BBC News meekly and slavishly announced 'great new information' for those women who fear contracting Breast Cancer. The news, on BBC radio and television, was supported by this article on the BBC News website.

Then on 25th June 2013 BBC News meekly and slavishly announced the 'good news' again. The NHS were now going to allow women to take the drug, Tamoxifen, for up to 5 years, in order to prevent breast cancer.

The way this news is being treated by the BBC demonstrates just how partial they are in reporting on anything to do with health, and how they are failing in their duty to inform the general public about the dangers of Conventional Medicine. The news initially referred to NICE's decision to examine whether pharmaceutical drugs can now be used as a preventative for breast cancer, especially for women who have a history of breast cancer in their family. The later news was its decision to allow it.

Tamoxifen, the drug being considered by NICE for this purpose, is not a new one. I will outline in this blog what is known, and what is suspected about the DIEs (Disease Inducing Effects) relating to this drug. But first, the 'side-effects' mentioned by the BBC. This is what they said in their article.

               "But this (the benefits claimed by NICE) would have to be balanced against the risks associated with taking the drug, such as blood clots".
So, just a few blood clots. Well worth the risk, then!

Except that this ignores just about every one of the serious side effects Tamoxifen has been associated with for the last 30 years and more!
  • Tamoxifen actually causes breast cancer, especially in long-term users. This was outlined by the magazine "What Doctor's Don't Tell you" in October 2009.
  • Tamoxifen was declared to be a 'carcinogen' by WHO (the World Health Organisation) in the late 1990's, and this was confirmed in the NIH "Report on Carcinogens", 2000, in which NIH reported:
               "Tamoxifen is listed in the 9th Report as a "known human carcinogen" based on evidence from studies in humans that indicate tamoxifen increases the risk of uterine cancer in women".
  • Tamoxifen can cause secondary tumours. This was actually reported in the mainstream media on 26th August 2009, by Steve Connor, Science Editor, the Independent. The article stated
               "A drug widely used to treat breast cancer has been found to increase four-fold the risk of developing a second tumour in the opposite breast, scientists have said".

Why BBC News, along with the rest of the mainstream media, routinely ignores this 'contrary' evidence is a question worth asking by anyone who is being treated with drug-dominated treatment on the NHS. Are we being given the full facts? As a a public broadcaster the BBC is not dependent upon advertising revenue. The Pharmaceutical , and related companies are big advertising spenders, and so they will have an influence on what is reported. If anything, therefore, the BBC should be able to take a far more independent and dispassionate view on these medical and health issues.

Yet, BBC News steadfastly refuses to do so - not just in this case but on almost every health issue on which it has reported for the last decade or so.

Sick people in this country are not well served by its media. The NHS is dominated by conventional medicine, and in particular, by dominated by drug-based treatments. Of course, it is entirely fair that the mainstream media presents what NICE are planning to do. But if patients are to be properly informed about health matters journalists have to be more aware of the full picture. And as far as BBC (or public funded) journalism is concerned, they have to recognise that it is their duty, contained in their Editorial Guidelines, to report impartially on health matters. And, as in this case, BBC News routinely fails to do so.