Shaken Baby Syndrome. The lengths to which the conventional medical establishment will go in order to protect vaccines!

Shaken Baby Syndrome, or SBS, is an illness proposed by the conventional medical establishment to explain some deaths of babies and infants. The term dates back to the early 1970's. Wikipedia describes the condition as follows:

          "Shaken baby syndrome (SBS) is a constellation of medical findings.... subdural hematoma, retinal bleeding, and brain swelling from which physicians, consistent with current medical understanding, infer child abuse caused by violent shaking".

It is variously known as 'Non-Accidental Head Injury', 'Abusive Head Trauma', and 'Inflicted Traumatic Brain Injury'.

Based on this medical diagnosis, several parents have been accused of abusing and damaging their children, and have been given lengthy prison sentences as a result. Some conventional medical 'experts' have testified that there is no other explanation for this condition, and convictions were based largely, if not solely, on this testimony. It is perhaps fair to say that the conventional medical establishment is not entirely in agreement with this partial testimony, particularly after a number of parents appealed against their sentences, which were subsequently quashed.

So what are the alternative explanations? The Wikipedia article suggests vitamin C deficiency, and Gestational problems. There is, however, another explanation. That the 'syndrome' is caused by conventional childhood vaccines, and should really be called "Vaccine-Induced Encephalitis".

          "Many infants who suffer the so-called 'shaken baby syndrome' may be victims of undiagnosed vaccine damage. Ever since mass vaccination of infants began, reports of serious brain, cardiovascular, metabolic and other injuries started filling pages of medical journals." In fact, pertussis vaccine has been used to induce encephalomyelitis, which is characterized by brain swelling and hemorrhaging".

This assessment is taken from the website, 'Shirley's Wellness Cafe: holistic health for people and animals', and it provide a clear and concise explanation of SBS and its links with childhood vaccinations. It includes the statements made by many leading physicians who clearly believe, and evidence, that SBS is, and has been caused by vaccinations. It goes on to describe a number of actual cases of SBS that outline the role played by the conventional medical establishment in blaming parents rather than the vaccines, and other medications, that the child concerned was subjected to.

Anyone who is unfortunate enough to be involved in an 'Shaken Baby Syndrome' case or allegation should read this article.

What is important to emphasise here is this.

     1. The conventional medical establishment is adept at inventing new 'syndromes' to explain injury, illness and disease.

     2. Further, it is willing to exclude any evidence, or counter information, that implicates any of their treatments.

     3. Rather than draw attention to the damage their treatments can cause, they are willing to see innocent parents go to prison, on the basis of their incomplete and partial testimony.

The conventional medical establishment is well versed in denying, or at least downplaying, the culpability of their treatments in causing serious illness and disease. But here we have a situation where they are actually prepared to go one stage further, to pass the blame on elsewhere, presumably to ensure that the blame does not attach to their treatments.

This articles was first published on the "DIEs" website.

Sciatica? Is conventional or homeopathic treatment best?

Sciatica is characterised by pain caused by irritation or compression of the sciatic nerve. The sciatic nerve is the longest nerve in our body, running from the back of the pelvis, through the buttocks, and down both legs to the feet, and when it is irritated or compressed it causes pain, numbness and a tingling sensation that travels from the lower back down through one or both legs to the feet and toes.

The pain can range from being mild to very painful. It can be made worse by sitting for long periods, or by sneezing and coughing. There can be muscle weakness to in the affected leg. Often, sciatica can be accompanied by general back pain.

Conventional Medical Treatment for Sciatica

NHS Choices describes the conventional treatment for sciatica, although it says that treatment is not always necessary, as the condition often improves naturally within around six weeks. For mild cases it recommends remain active, using hot or cold compresses, and gentle exercise. Or taking “simple painkillers” such as paracetamol or ibuprofen.

Even when the sciatica becomes persistent or troublesome, NHS Choices says that doctors can only prescribe painkilling drugs, including NSAID painkillers, and opioid drugs (codeine and morphine), or antidepressant drugs, such as amitriptyline, or anticonvulsant drugs, such a gabapentin. These drugs only relieve the pain for short periods. It warns that “these medications are not suitable for everyone, particularly when used in the long term” and that “some of these medications can also cause significant side effects in some people”.

If these drugs do not work, NHS Choices says that the doctor may refer you to a specialist pain clinic for further treatment. Here, you might be given spinal injection with corticosteroid drugs, or a local anaesthetic injection “which may help release the pressure on your sciatic nerve and temporarily reduce your pain”.

Physiotherapy can also recommended, this comprising of exercise designed to “strengthen the muscles that support your back and improve the flexibility of your spine” and “teach you how to improve your posture and reduce any future strain on your back”.

Surgery, as usual, is the last resort for conventional medicine, although NHS Choices says it is rarely used, but can include discectomy (where the part of the herniated disc pressing on your nerve is removed), fusion surgery (to fuse a vertebra that has slipped out of place), laminectomy (where a section of vertebrae called the lamina is removed). The risks of these surgical techniques are then outlined.

Homeopathic Treatment of Sciatica

Important Note 

Homeopathy does not treat illness or diseases. It treats the individual who has been diagnosed with a particular illness or disease. The distinction is important, and if you wish to read more about this, click on the chapter “Illness Diagnosis” above.

The following remedies provide a guide to the kind of symptoms they will treat, and they have been taken from the Hpathy.com website.

Colocynth

The most important remedy in sciatica, corresponding to the worst cases. There are pains in the sciatic nerve extending to the knee or to the heel, worse from any motion, and especially aggravated by cold. The pain is paroxysmal, followed by numbness and partial paralysis. There is a sensation which has been described as if the thigh were bound with iron bands, or as though screwed in a vise; the muscles are fearfully tense and fixed. This is particularly a right sided remedy. There are stitches during walking. It is especially useful in recent cases. There is a sense of constriction around the hip. The pains, too may come suddenly and leave suddenly, they may be sticking and burning, and all are worse from cold or damp and at night,when the patient can find no easy position for the limb. Colocynth typifies the sciatica due to nerve changes with no special inflammatory conditions attending it.

Gnaphalium

This remedy is quite similar to Colocynthis. It has intense neuralgic pains along the nerve, and numbness. The whole trunk and the main branches seem affected, worse when lying down, worse from motion, stepping and better whiles sitting in a chair. The pains extend to the toes.

Arsenicum

With this remedy the pain is marked by complete intermissions; it exacerbates every night at a particular hour, and becomes unbearable; it is increased by vigorous and relieved by gentle motion. It is aggravated by cold, but relieved momentarily by warmth. It is a pure neuralgia, neither inflammatory, toxaemic nor reflex. Arsenicum is one of our most reliable remedies in sciatic.

Rhus tox

This remedy typifies sciatic with muscular and ligamentous involvement. It is seldom adapted to recent cases, but comes in later. The pains are tearing and burning, worse during rest, alleviated a short time only during motion. There is lameness and a disposition to muscular twitching, bowels are constipated. It is a rheumatic sciatica, the fibrous sheath of the nerve being involved. It is the best remedy for a combination of lumbago and sciatica. Sciatica arising from over-exposure to wet or from lifting, wrenching and over-exertion. Great relief from warmth. 

Arnica 

Arnica is a remedy for sciatica due to over-exertion. The acute pains are followed by a sensation as if bruised. 

Ruta Grav

This remedy also has shooting pains down the back, down the sciatic nerve on first moving or on rising after sitting; the patient is obliged to walk about constantly during the paroxysms o;f pain. The pains are felt most in the region of the knee. It is worse during damp or cold weather and from cold applications. 

Bryonia

Bryonia has shooting pains worse from motion and relieved by hard pressure. It is a valuable drug in the treatment of sciatica of rheumatic origin. 

Kali iodatum

The pains calling for this remedy are worse at night, and from lying on the affected side, better from motion. When of mercurial or syphilitic origin, it is well indicated and may help, but it is not a very reliable remedy. 

Kali bich

Darting pains in the left thigh relieved by motion. 

Phytolacca

The pains are darting and tearing, aggravated by motion. It is perhaps better adapted to syphilitic cases. 

Colchicum

Right-sided sharp-shooting pains extending to knee, worse by motion; the patient must keep quite. The pain is sudden, constant and intolerable.

Ammonium muriaticum

Sciatica, with aggravation of pain while sitting, somewhat relieved by walking and entirely relieved by lying down. Pains in the left hip as if the tendons were too short. Legs feel contracted. Painful jerks, feet feel as if asleep.

Pulsatilla

This remedy typifies a sciatica due to venous stasis and is useful in the milder forms where there is a sense of fatigue and heaviness, flying attacks, aching in loins and hips. Uterine sciatica. 

Lycopodium

Lycopodium is sometimes most useful in chronic cases where there are fine burning or stinging pains, or tearing, drawing or jerking pains worse from rest. The lithic acid constitution will decide the remedy.

Aconite

The congestive variety of sciatica from exposure to colds, dampness and from suppressed perspiration indicates Aconite. There is much numbness, perverted sensation, pricking and a sense of coldness in the parts, especially toes. The pains are very severe and worse at night; the patient is restless, there is tingling along the affected nerve.

Belladonna

Here the inflammation is high and the pains come on suddenly. There is a neuritis, and the course of the nerve is sensitive; the pain is especially severe at night, the parts are sensitive to the touch, the least concussion or a draft of air aggravates. Severe lancinating pains coming on in the afternoon or evening; has to change position often; worse from motion, noise, shock or contact; cannot bear the clothing to touch him. Relieved by letting the limb hang down, warmth and the erect posture.

Nux vomica

From its action on the spinal cord, Nux is frequently the remedy in sciatica. It has lightning-like pains, with which twitching of the parts. Violent pains, has to change position; pains shoot down into the foot, the limb is stiff and contracted and the parts feel paralyzed and cold. Better when lying on the affected side and from the application of hot water. Constipated bowels and sedentary habit. 

Plumbum

Plumber also has lightning-like pains and in paroxysms. Pains and cramps along sciatic nerve, and especially where atrophy is present.

This article was first published on the "Why Homeopathy? website.

The brilliance of surgical operations is based on the failure of pharmaceutical drugs

Surgical operations will always be a necessary part of any modern and effective health service. These are not necessarily or per se ‘dangerous procedures’, in today’s world, and many are necessary and life-saving procedures. However, the demand for surgery, and the amount of surgery actually undertaken, would not be as great if it was allied to a medical therapy that could deal more safely and effectively with the illness and disease that precedes the need for it.

Organ Replacement

The human body comes with a fully-equipped, fully-operational and integrated set of organs that have been honed to support life, and to maintain good health. When patients develop some form of organ disease conventional medicine will treat this initially by some form of pharmaceutical medication.

Often, organ failure or disease is a direct result of conventional medical drugs and vaccines that are taken for other conditions and ailments. Even common pharmaceutical drugs, sold without a doctor’s prescription, such as painkillers, can damage our organs, and do so more frequently than we are told!

When conventional drug treatment does not work, if the organ deteriorates, or when its function is significantly reduced, it can become life threatening situation for the patient.

When this happens, conventional surgery seeks to replace the disease organ with another organ taken from a donor. The number organ replacement operations has increased rapidly over the last 50 years, as the techniques and procedures have developed to make them viable.

The surgeons who do these operations are brilliant technicians, but they are used only after conventional medical drug treatment has failed, or has exacerbated the situation..

There is, thereafter, another problem. In order to stop the body from rejecting the new organ, the patient has to take drugs, and take them for the remainder of their lives. These drugs can have serious disease-inducing effects.

Limb Replacement

Limb replacement surgery has become commonplace, often described now as ’routine’ surgery. Limb replacement is required for people who have usually suffered some form of arthritic pain for a considerable amount of time. Conventional medicine has no effective treatment for arthritis. It can use painkillers, which can temporarily reduce the pain, but the condition remains. But painkillers, especially when used over a long period of time, come with long-term health effects. They cause harm, and they create new diseases. But most of all, they do not deal with the arthritis, which gets progressively worse, require more powerful painkillers, which cause great harm, and are more likely to cause serious new diseases.

One feature of painkillers is that they can actually worsen the arthritic condition that is causing the pain, so that ultimately, the pain, and the deterioration of the joint, or joints, is actually made worse by the ‘treatment’ conventional medicine offers!

Eventually, the pain levels become unbearable, and surgery becomes the last resort. The natural limb is removed, and an artificial one replaces it. There are four main problems or issues arising from limb replacement procedure.

1. The fitting of this new limb by the surgeon may not be completely successful, and ‘complications’ can arise from the surgery itself. This can include immediate problems, such as blood loss, infection, early hemorrhage, wound breakdown, fractures, and anaesthetic problems. Other problems might also emerge to the cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and other systems. Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) can also be a major danger.
2. Drugs may then be used, for example, Heparin is often given to avoid DVT , and Warfarin for several weeks following the operation. Older people are particularly at risk of complications, and the drugs used to reduce these, and of course limb replacement is often done for older people!
3. The new limb may not function properly. The device can fail, or not perform in the way it was designed. It is found, for example, to be loose. This can often lead to painful complications for the patient, especially if the patient is obese, or uses the new limb beyond its capabilities. Sometimes, the device fails because of faulty design or manufacture. Sometimes devices have been found to be inadequately tested. Patients and surgeons will not be aware of this until after they have already been fitted, and the surgery has to be repeated, and a new device fitted.
4. Drugs have to be taken following surgery, often to deal with issues of infection following the operation. When a micro-organism enters the body, the body can deal with it through it own blood supply. Or antibiotics can be used to circulate to the infected area through the blood supply. But the replacement limb does not have its own blood supply, so the micro-organisms can attach to the device, and infect surrounding tissue.

“The surfaces of the implant components are ideal for organisms to adhere to and multiply. Once they multiply, they create a film that acts like a biological shield and protects them from antibiotics. Although rare, the risk of infection continues for as long as the prosthesis remains in the body.

The dangers of antibiotic drugs, and any other conventional medical drugs used following limb replacement, also has to be considered when considering the safety, and long-term viability of the operation.

In addition, as the cause of the arthritis has never been addressed, many patients find that a single limb replacement leads to arthritis developing in other limbs, which previously may have been unaffected. After a time, this newly affected limb can become so painful that it, too, has to be replaced. What this demonstrates is that limb replacements do not deal with the underlying cause of the patient’s problem. They are brilliant technical achievements, but not achievements that ultimately improve health in the longer term.

So patients who need them will benefit from them by the reduction of pain, and often greater mobility. They will be pain-free, often for the first time for many years. But safe and effective treatment, years earlier, would have been a better solution.

MMR Vaccine, Autism, and the silence and culpability of the Political, Medical and Media Establishment

In the early 2000's, the truth about the MMR vaccine, and its connection with the epidemic rise of Autism in children, was beginning to emerge. Leading doctors and scientists, like Andrew Wakefield were raising awareness, and for a short time the number of parents prepared to risk vaccinating their children was in serious decline.

The conventional medical establishment, led by the Big Pharma drugs companies, were quick to take action. It was, after all, impacting on both their credibility and their profits. So they produced a study in 2004 that proved, conclusively, that there was no connection between the MMR vaccine and Autism.

The 2004 medical study, "Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta" was used thereafter to stifle any debate about the MMR vaccine.

This was the end of all public debate! Measles continued to be a 'killer' disease (despite the lack of people dying from it). The MMR vaccine was essential to combat the disease. And moreover, it was entirely safe for our children.

After all, medical science had discovered the truth, and science does not lie.

So the governments of the world told us all to carry on. The national health services throughout the world got on with injecting the vaccines into our children. Our doctors and nurses were told that the debate about the safety of the vaccine was no longer in doubt.

But then, one year ago, in August 2014, one of the scientists involved in the 2004 study broke silence, and unearthed an enormous deception, a despicable fraud that the conventional medical establishment has covered up, and continues to cover-up, as best it can.

William Thomson, an experienced researcher for the CDC (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention) in the USA admitted that he had concealed evidence that would have indicated that there was a connection between the MMR vaccine and Autism. Thompson, and his two colleagues who undertook the research, Frank DeStefano and Collen Boyle are all top CDC 'experts' in the field of vaccine safety.

The result was that for over 10 years, parents have continued to vaccinate their children based on evidence that was a total and complete lie.

So after Thompson's revelations last year, have governments and the national health services throughout the world sought to remedy the situation? Are patients, at last, being told? Or are they going to be told? Has the MMR vaccine been withdrawn pending further studies? Has there been further (more honest) efforts to study the connection between vaccine and Autism?

The answer to all these questions is a resounding "NO". The only response has been the continuation of a cover-up, orchestrated by the conventional medical establishment, and meekly accepted by the mainstream media.

The silence is deadly.

Over 11 years after the 'conclusive' study, and over 1 year since the deception and fraud was admitted by one of the medical scientists involved in the study, nothing has happened. Throughout all this time, and even now, at this very moment, whilst you read this blog, parents are yielding up their children's arm to receive the injection - believing that it will do no harm to their child.

Many parents of healthy children will thereafter spend a lifetime of looking them because of the vaccine damage inflicted by a deeply corrupt medical system that does not want us to know the truth about vaccines, and refuses to tell us the truth, even after it has been revealed.

Except, of course, it has not been revealed. Our mainstream media have been completely silent. They have not sought to discuss it, or even to examine whether Thompson's information is true. Small sections of the conventional medical establishment have whispered, quietly, that Thompson's statements are untrue. And our 'free' media have accepted all this, at face value, without question!

Thompson himself has been silent. Given the enormity of what he has revealed, the public might have thought there would be demands from governments, from politicians, from the media, from our 'free' press, for him to make his evidence known so that it can be properly examined.

This has all been happening in the USA, so are Thompson's revelations known about there? There can be no doubt about this. A USA Congressman has publicly presented to matter to the USA Congress. Yet, as John Rappoport (who has taken a lead in publicising this matter) has said, we need to hear from him, fully, properly, but that we are unlikely to do so. In his blog dated 23 August 2015 he said this"

     "At the moment, the possibility of such a hearing is remote, because the US Congress is bought and sold"

It is an alarming statement, yet what other reason can we provide for the ongoing silence? Have our politicians, and our governments been 'bought and paid for' by the powerful conventional medical establishment? And if Big Pharma has bought our politicians and governments, have they also bought our media, our 'free' press?

We know that Big Pharma companies fund a significant part of political campaigns within the USA. If the situation is not so bad in Britain, and elsewhere in Europe, they are still powerful players within our societies. We know that drug company executives are on the boards of influential media companies, and vice versa - wheels within wheels - I'll scratch your back if....?

I have been aware for many years now that the British mainstream media are not prepared to publicise news that might be, in any way, 'critical' of conventional medicine, although they are willing to publicise any news release, from any drug company, that speaks of new 'medical breakthroughs', or 'magic pills' that will transform our health!

Even the British (so-called) 'public service broadcaster', the BBC, refuses to inform it viewers, listeners and readers of anything that might be considered minutely critical of the conventional medical establishment. For instance, they, like the rest of the mainstream media, have never bothered to tell the general public about the Thompson revelations.

As far as they are concerned, we can all continue accepting the vaccines conventional doctors thrust upon us, without demure, without question, without the merest mention that something just might be wrong.

There is an issue of culpability arising here. 

If we, as patients, are given a medicine, a drug, a vaccine, a medical test, that proves to be harmful to us, we would expect to receive compensation from the manufacturer. This is what happens in other areas of commerce and business. So, what if governments, politicians, national health services, doctors and nurses, and our mainstream media are also aware of the dangers of these treatments, and do not inform us, what is their culpability?

Actually, there is little or no culpability resting anywhere in this, or related matters concerning our health. Even the drug companies, who profit enormously from these harmful treatments, have stated that any future compensation payments have been 'factored in' to the cost of the treatments! That is, they accept that their treatments will be harmful, and the price they charge us, as patients, has been increased to pay for any damages we might make against them!

And besides, most of our governments have provided the drug companies with 'indemnity' against any such claims we might want to make. If we are damaged, it will not be the pharmaceutical giants who pay, it will be our governments - through the taxes WE pay.

Nor are we just talking about one rogue study here. As Rappoport goes on to say in his blog:

     "More is at stake here than the danger of the MMR vaccine. The CDC has done hundreds of key studies on vaccine safety. There are all thrown into doubt by Thompson's assertion, recently quoted by Congressman Bill Posey on the floor of Congress, that Thompson and his colleagues brought a garbage can into the CDC office and threw out documents that would  have shown the MMR connection to Autism

As Rappoport says, this displays a massive indifference to human life and safety. And it is this indifference that underlies everything done by the conventional medical establishment, and indeed everyone within this powerful establishment who fails to speak out, and inform patients about the potential harm and dangers of the treatments they offer us.

Thompson himself has apparently spoken to Andrew Wakefield, and others about the damage caused by vaccines, and in particular, vaccines that contain mercury (thimerosal). So clearly it is not just the MMR vaccine that is brought into question here!

In truth, we have all been bought and paid for by the conventional medical establishment, and this establishment is now so totally corrupt it cannot admit the damage it causes patients.

• is it now impossible for our governments and politicians to tell us that the drugs and vaccines it has been giving us for decades have been a disaster?
• is it now possible for our doctors and nurses to tell us that the treatments they have been giving to us have been largely ineffective, and usually harmful to our health?
• is it now possible for our mainstream media to inform us about the failures of the conventional medical system when for decades it has been meekly and unquestioningly subservient to it?

It is difficult for people in any walk of life to admit to themselves that they have been culpable in failure, in a dangerous and harmful enterprise. It is even more difficult to admit the truth openly, in public.

In this sense, Thompson has been brave to break his silence. Rappoport believes that he has been hauled in, and effectively silenced. If so, this is a frantic effort to keep the truth from the general public. It is a silence imposed by deeply implicated, fearful and culpable political, medical and media establishments.

     "To achieve the stunning media silence of (the last) year, there was active repression and collusion and pressure, and lies told and excuses made".

Yet this is a huge story, and there are plenty of others like it about our medical system. If our politicians, our governments, and our 'free' press will not speak, they should perhaps realise that information is now available through the internet, through blogs like this one, and John Rappoport's.

But more whistleblowers are necessary. Surely, there are doctors and nurses out there who are aware of the damage their treatments are causing to patients? They need to come forward, and speak about their experiences. They need to join us, and to make the decision to protect patients throughout the world.

Superbugs. Homeopathy is proven to work - treating like with like.

Conventional medicine has caused many diseases through the side effects of their toxic drugs. Not least amongst these diseases are the result of antibiotic drugs, and the superbugs they have generated. Not least amongst these superbugs is Clostridium difficile.

C. difficile infections cause diarrhoea and fever. It has been estimated that every year it causes 29,000 deaths in the USA alone, but of course, it is ravaging populations in conventional hospitals around the world, so the annual death toll is much greater than this.

The C. difficile bacteria takes over our gut when conventional antibiotic drugs kills off the bugs that normally live there!

If that is not bad enough, the only treatment conventional medicine has been able to offer is more antibiotics! Their warfare against our bodies appears to know no boundaries. As so often said in this blog, our doctors not only create disease, but they have no answer to the disease they cause!

Yet is this about to change? Has conventional medicine found a more effective treatment?

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has recently published information about a new treatment for C. difficile, and according to a BBC article, published on 6th May 2015, it is  causing considerable interest within the conventional medical establishment. So what is this new treatment?

The deadly Clostridium difficile infection is treated with a dose of more C. difficile!

As the BBC article explains it, the aggressive version of the bug in replaced by their 'friendlier cousins', and the result was that repeat infections were cut dramatically.

So the conventional medical establishment has, yet again, stumbled upon the principle of homeopathy (treating like with like), and they have found it to be successful. There is, of course, no attribution to the use of homeopathic principles.

I wrote a similar article in January 2014 about the treatment of peanut allergy was treated by using very minute portions of peanut.

It is pleasing to know that the conventional medical establishment is beginning to stumble upon homeopathy, even if they are not aware of doing so, as yet. As their drugs and vaccines are seen to be causing more harm and disease to patients, they are having to look for something safer and more effective - and this will almost inevitably draw them towards homeopathic treatment.

Yet, don't expect a sudden, 'Road to Damascus' conversion. There is still much resistance to the idea of the safety and effectiveness of homeopathy. This was demonstrated to me when I tweeted the BBC article, some weeks ago, and the answer I received from Richard Stelling, @rjstelling.

Please DO NOT read this response if you are in any way sensitive, or interested in the health outcomes of medical treatment.

     "You Sir, are a fucking idiot. That has nothing to do with your notions of magic water".

This is not, of course, the considered response of the conventional medical establishment, or indeed the response of anyone interested in discussing health issues in a sensible, open-minded or honest way. People like Richard Stelling often attack me in personal terms, using similar language, and I usually ignore them, completely.

Yet this particular remark does demonstrate the amount of anger and resistance that can be generated by the discovery of 'successful' and 'safe' treatments; if and when these treatments highlight the failure of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

So what this research, and the peanut allergy treatment demonstrates is that whilst pharmaceutical drugs cause disease, they have no answer to the treatment of these diseases. The future of health treatment lies with homeopathy, or with treatment that adopt homeopathic principles. It might take a long time to persuade the 'Richard Stelling's' of this world, but they, of course, are quite at liberty to continue accepting conventional drugs and vaccines.

Malaria. BBC News discovers truth about Malaria treatment - after 30 years?

Malaria is a controversial disease! The conventional medical establishment believes that it can both prevent and treat it with their drugs. But it denies the claims of Homeopathy that it is a safer and more effective treatment, and has attacked homeopaths about these claims for several years.

This is one of the reasons why my blog "The Prevention and Treatment of Malaria with Homeopathy" is one of the most visited on this website! I remember still the disgracefully biased BBC Newsnight programme, broadcast on 4th January 2011, in which Kirsty Wark described conventional pharmaceutical drug treatment for Malaria as 'proper medicine'.

Well, let's have another look at the 'proper' medical treatment of Malaria!

On 17th August 2015, BBC News reported that a conservative MP, Johnny Mercer, had called for an immediate ban of a 'controversial'  malaria drug given to British soldiers.

Well, if the drug in question, Mefloquine, or Lariam, is controversial it is not because the BBC has ever told us about the controversy! Mercer is reported as saying that he has received dozens of letters from service personnel claiming they have become affected since taking it. Their article states that the side effects of Mefloquine have been linked to "severe depression and other mental illnesses". (The BBC forgot to mention other 'side effects' like adverse heart, kidney, liver, skin, reactions, seizures, insomnia, visual disturbances, tinnitis, impaired balance, and severe skin lesions. And perhaps the BBC did not have room to mention that the 'mental illnesses' included depression, acute anxiety, mania, aggression, rage, psychosis, confusion and memory loss, suicide, and brain damage.

Did I hear you say that you did not know this? Well, the BBC may not have mentioned it before, perhaps an oversight on their part (?) The drug was presumably one of Kirsty Wark's favoured 'proper' drugs! 

Yet any cursory investigation will show that the information has been around for a very long time now.

• 1991. The World Health Organisation published a paper detailing the "severe and alarming neurological and psychiatric side effects of Lariam". The paper made recommendations for future studies - which we never carried out.
• 22 Jan 1996. Times article. "Travellers to sue over effects of anti-malaria drug".
• 4 April 1998. Times article by Matthew Pariss, "I think I would rather have Malaria", describing the mental and physical adverse reactions he suffered after taking Lariam.
• 2001. RCT trials conducted 15 travel clinics in the Netherlands, Germany,Britain, Canada, and South Africa was published comparing Lariam with another anti-malarial drug (Malarone), unfavourably.
• 2003. The British Medical Journal published Swiss research comparing Lariam with three other anti-malarial drugs, unfavourably.
• July and August 2003. The WDDTY Magazine (What Doctor's Don't Tell You) article stating that the USA drug regulator, the FDA, had asked doctors to give face-to-face warnings to patients that the drug caused "serious and significant public health concerns” after several US troops returned home, killed their wives and themselves.
• May 2004. WDDTY Magazine article stating that the USA army had launched a study into the side-effects of the drug which was linked to suicides among their troops in Iraq who had taken it.

In fact, as this webpage outlines, studies reporting the serious adverse reactions caused by this drug go back to 1983, and media references to these adverse reactions go back to 1996.

Yet, when asked about the MP's call to ban the drug, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said that mefloquine's use was "based on expert advice", and that the drug was widely used by civilians and military. So it would appear that the MoD was about as 'on-the-ball' as the BBC in these respect! They have both needed over 30 years to become aware of the dangers of Lariam! During this time, many thousands soldiers will have suffered damage to their lives and health on the basis of the MoD's 'expert advice.

And the BBC has allowed many thousands of patients have had their lives damaged by this 'proper medicine', presumably too busy attacking homeopathy to examine the evidence against it.

If homeopathy offered patients anything as dangerous as Mefloquine, or Lariam (and it hasn't), the BBC would rightly be castigating it, and asking serious questions. When will the BBC begin to question the conventional medical establishment?

Diabetes. Is it caused by pharmaceutical drugs?

Diabetes UK, via their website, have warned us that the number of people living with diabetes in Britain has soared by nearly 60% in the past decade. Extracting the statistics from NHS data, they say that more than 3.3 million people now have some form of diabetes compared with 2.1 million in 2005. They remind us that the inability to control blood sugar levels can lead to nerve damage, loss of vision, organ damage, and limbs amputations.

Barbara Young, Chief Executive of Diabetes UK. draws our attention to the cost this epidemic on the NHS budget in Britain.

     “Diabetes already costs the NHS nearly £10 billion a year, and 80 per cent of this is spent on managing avoidable complications. So there is huge potential to save money and reduce pressure on NHS hospitals and services through providing better care to prevent people with diabetes from developing devastating and costly complications?.

The BBC informs us that the NHS are aware of this issue when they quoted Dr Martin McShane, NHS England's Director for Long Term Conditions, saying:

     "These figures are a stark warning and reveal the increasing cost of diabetes. We've said it before and we'll say it again, it's time to get serious about lifestyle change."

There is a similar pattern throughout the world, particularly in Europe, the USA, Canada and Australia. Anywhere, in fact, where Big Food dominates our diet, and Big Pharma dominates our medical care.

Nor is this a new problem for the conventional medical establishment. The Independent newspaper, on 24th February 2009, told us that the problem of diabetes was getting so big, it is "threatening to overwhelm the NHS".  So it would appear that little to nothing has been done to reverse the situation for the last 6.5 years!

Whenever diabetes is discussed, the reason for the epidemic appears to be universally agreed. It is about our diet. As the BBC says, "the explanation for the soaring cases of type 2 are being placed squarely on the nation's ballooning waistline".

And certainly, it is undeniable that the food processing industry causes a large part of the diabetes epidemic, not least as a result of its long-standing love affair with the profits it makes by feeding us with sugar, and sugar substitutes. 

Yet there are other important factors giving rise to the diabetes epidemic, not the least of which are the pharmaceutical drugs used routinely by the conventional medical establishment for the treatment of other medical conditions.

Statin drugs 

Statins are being prescribed to increasing numbers of people to lower cholesterol, as well as to people who have type-2 diabetes. Yet even the USA drug regulator, the Food and Drug Administration, has admitted there is a risk of developing diabetes when taking statin drugs. Indeed, they now place warnings about the risk of diabetes on the labels of all statin drugs distributed in the USA. However, this warning is not required in Britain, and in many other countries, the reason for this lack of caution being rather uncertain, but probably having something to do with being told for decades that these drugs were 'entirely safe'!

The Daily Mail confirmed this in an article dated 5th March 2012 - over 4 years ago.

     "So while popular brands ... (of Statins)... will need to include a new warning on their labels in the US they will not have to on the same products in the UK.

So the conventional medical establishment is dishing out Stating drugs to millions of people, fully aware that they cause diabetes, and then bemoaning the fact that there is an epidemic rise in the numbers suffering from Type-2 diabetes!

• Is this link mentioned by the pharmaceutical industry?
• Is this link mentioned by Diabetes UK?
• Is this link mentioned by NHS spokesmen?
• Is this link mentioned by the BBC, and other media outlets?

Of course it is not. Patients suffer from a conspiracy of silence. We are not supposed to know that the drugs doctors give us cause diabetes. It might upset the profitability of a major industry! So it can all be blamed on the food we eat. Big Food, after all, is less powerful than Big Pharma!

Yet Statin drugs are not the only pharmaceutical culprits linked to the creation of the diabetes epidemic.

Beta Blocker and Diuretic Drugs

In 2006, the Daily mail reported that Beta Blockers drugs have been found to increase the risk of diabetes by 50%. It was quoting a study conducted at Imperial College, London, by Professor Neil Poulter. The study looked at 14,000 patients in the UK, Ireland and Scandinavia. Yet, instead of focusing on the dangers of these drugs, the study sought to compare the risk of the "old style" combination of a beta blocker and a diuretic, and to highlight that 'new' drugs were better! And we are told that "the benefits outweigh the risk", without any real or substantial corroberation about what the benefits are, and just how substantial the risks are!

This focus is typical of medical research. It has the ability to identify a problem, but not to highlight it. So Beta Blocker drugs ar a problem, but they are no longer a problem because there are 'newer' drugs that can be used instead. 

Yet Beta Blocker drugs continue to be prescribed in huge amounts to large numbers of patients.

So despite the risks, little or nothing is done to protect patients. The assumption is made that the drug is safe - until proven otherwise. So Beta Blockers continue to be prescribed to patients. At the same time diabetes continues to rise, exponentially. And we are not told about the link between the two.

Antihypertensive drugs

So what about other hypertensive drugs? WDDTY March 2007 (reporting the Lancet 2007; 369:201-7) said that "it's been suspected for nearly 50 years that antihypertensive drugs provoke diabetes because they lower a patient's glucose tolerance levels". But a 'definitive statement' has been hard to come by because (we are told) many patients with raised blood pressure are simply more likely to develop diabetes in any event. But the article states that researchers from the Rush Medical College in Chicago arrived at these conclusion after re-examining 22 clinical trials involving more than 143,000 patients who did not have diabetes when they started taking an antihypertensive drug to control their blood pressure.

A study entitled 'New-onset diabetes and antihypertensive treatment' in 2010 adds to the picture.

      "Numerous analyses have demonstrated that antihypertensive therapies promote the development of type-2-diabetes mellitus".

Again, the study suggest that using angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor-blockers (ARB) leads to less new-onset diabetes compared to beta-blockers, diuretics and placebo. Note the wording here. It does not say that ACE inhibitors and ARB drugs do not cause diabetes. It says that they cause less diabetes! How much less? We are not told. The conclusion is:

     "Antihypertensive treatment has a significant influence on the incidence of diabetes mellitus, whereas the incidence is higher for patients treated with diuretics or beta-blockers than for patients treated with calcium-channel-blockers, ACE inhibitors and ARB. 

Xyprexa

This antipsychotic drug is used in the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It is not only known to cause diabetes, it is also known that the drug company sought to hide this from patients. In a story published in the New York Times and Yahoo News (17 December 17 2006) and Consumer Affairs (18 December 2006) evidence had been obtained by an attorney representing patients in a lawsuit suggested that Eli Lilly covered up concerns about the drug. Although the company denied this, the documents suggested that the company withheld important information about the drug's links to obesity and increased blood sugar levels for the 10 years it was being marketed. 

So this is yet another  drug implicated in causing diabetes, and this one shows the lengths that drug companies, and the conventional medical establishment, will go to prevent us knowing about the full enormity of the side effects that they cause.

So one of the results of taking these, and no doubt other pharmaceutical drugs, is that patients, in ever-increasing numbers, are contracting diabetes. Common pharmaceutical drugs are an unmentioned and unacknowledged cause of diabetes. The conventional medical establishments calls this a 'side effect' but of course it is not. Diabetes is a disease. Drugs are causing disease!

And as a result of the diabetes epidemic health resources are required to deal with it. It has been estimated that diabetes medication now accounts for 10% of the entire NHS drugs bill, amounting to nearly £1 billion! These diabetes drugs, in turn, go on to cause of side effects (that is, other diseases) for which other drugs are required. 

Yet although we (as tax payers) are required to continue paying for the drugs, and (as patients) take them, and suffer the consequences, we are not told the real consequences of doing so.

Are NSAID painkillers killing us? Are we to be warned?

The history of painkillers have demonstrated three important things about pharmaceutical drugs. The first is that they are important element in the credibility of conventional medicine. The second is that many millions of people take them routinely and regularly on the basis that they are (at least relatively) safe. The third is that painkilling drugs are a profitable product for the drug companies.

It is the second element, the safety of these painkilling drugs that is the issue. I have written about the dangers of NSAID painkillers regularly, this article putting together information about the harm they do to patients, mainly information that has been known for decades.

Other websites have done the same on a regular basis. In 2011, Agora Health's 'Daily Health' bulletin outlined how widely used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), like ibuprofen, naproxen and fenoprofen were, and that they increased our risk of a second heart attack by as much as 45%. More recently Agora Health have said this.

"These popular painkillers have also been associated with a 66 % chance of developing dementia, and a 57% chance of developing Alzheimer's disease. Last year (2014) another study found using NSAID pain relievers increase your risk of atrial fibrillation, a potentially deadly heart rhythm, by a whopping 84%. 

Yet despite the increasing evidence against these painkillers, which has built up over the years, patients have not been informed. Instead there has been a deafening silence from the conventional medical establishment, seemingly content to maintain their credibility with the public against the growing evidence of harm they were causing, and to maintain their profitability regardless of the damage they must have known it was doing to patients.

Now, the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finally admitted that the evidence against NSAIDs is too overwhelming to ignore, and is now demanding that these painkillers carry a label warning about their heart attack and stroke risks. (But presumably, no mention of the risk of dementia). Moreover, the idea that you had to take lots of painkillers, over a long period before suffering the dreadful, disease-inducing consequences has been laid to rest. The FDA has admitted, at last, the NSAID painkillers increase the risk of heart disease and stroke from the very first dose.

• Remember, NSAID drugs, like Paracetamol and Ibuprofen, are readily available, over-the-counter drugs, that can be purchased without prescription, and without any medical oversight.
• Remember that these same NSAID drugs will still be available in the USA, but with a warning on the label.
• Remember that these same painkilling drugs will still be available in India, Britain, and the rest of Europe, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere, even without a warning label.

And listen. Can you hear anything from our mainstream media about this? Is the BBC, our 'public services broadcaster' informing us? No! The deafening silence continues.

Instead, listen to Agora Health, who tell us that after years of ignoring adverse reports about NSAID painkillers that the FDA finally agreed to look again at the science behind these drugs, and what they discovered.

• NSAID drugs can increase your risk of heart failure
• Our chance of having a heart attack or stroke increases quickly from the first time we take them
• But the longer we take them, and the higher the dose, the greater the danger becomes
• Even occasional users have an increased risk of heart attack or stroke, even people with healthy hearts
• And patients given NSAID's following a first heart attack were more likely to die within a year compared to those who did not take them

The conventional medical establishment must be the last industry that runs its industry on the basis that safety is secondary, that harm has to be proven, beyond all reasonable doubt, before any action is taken to protect the public. There is a pattern that seems to fit all conventional pharmaceutical drugs, including not just painkillers, but Statins, Anti-depressants, Beta Blockers, Anti-biotics - the list is endless!

     * Unsafe drugs come on to the market.
          * People take them, with doctors telling us that they are safe.
               * Only then, as we get ill, do serious side effects become clear.
                    * The reported dangers, (heart disease, dementia), are ignored, often for decades.
                         * Increasing numbers of people, usually many millions, are harmed by the drug.
                              * Drug Regulators do nothing, for as long as they can.
                                  * Warnings may then be placed on the drug labels, that few people read.
                                      * But the Media remains quiet, the public largely uninformed.
                                 
AND THE DRUGS, HOWEVER DANGEROUS THEY MIGHT BE, CONTINUE TO BE SOLD, READILY AVAILABLE FOR ANY UNSUSPECTING PERSON TO TAKE.

AND THE PUBLIC REMAIN LARGELY UNINFORMED, CONTINUING TO BELIEVE THAT THE DRUGS THEY BUY ARE 'SAFE', JUST AS THEY WERE TOLD, MANY YEARS EARLIER.

What other industry is, or would be allowed to carry on in this way? And why is it that the conventional health industry is allowed to continue to do so?

Conventional Medical Monopoly and Big Pharma Profiteering

The Competition and Markets Authority, the CMA, described as Britain's competition watchdog, has accused two pharmaceutical drug companies of "excessive and unfair" prices for an anti-epilepsy drug. So given my blog yesterday (5th August 2015) about a monopoly in NHS healthcare provision, another aspect of the consequences of allowing a monopoly comes to the fore.

It costs us.

It costs patients in terms of our health, and it costs taxpayers in our pockets.

Big Pharma's monopoly position within the NHS is, of course, supported by our mainstream media, who are willing not only to publicise their over-hyped claims for their drugs and vaccines, but giving us with the impression that these drugs and vaccines are the route to good health, and that 'there is no alternative' to them.

The monetary cost of conventional drugs and vaccines are excessive, and they have been for a very long time. I recall, some years ago, when a drug company, which was facing huge compensation payments for the damage caused by one of their drugs, stated that these payments were not a problem as they were 'factored in' to the cost of every drug.

That is, drug companies are aware that their drugs will cause damage to patients, that the courts will fine them heavily, but they charge enough for the drugs to pay compensation!

What this means is that pharmaceutical companies can charge whatever they like for their drugs and vaccines. They operate within a monopoly. "There is no alternative"!

Normally, drug companies profit from the patents taken out on their drugs. A patent is a device that ensures that the inventor is guaranteed profit by removing all competition. Usually, the pharmaceutical industry justifies these excessive profits by pointing to the huge costs of developing a new drug or vaccine.

But this is not the case here. Phenytoin was first discovered in 1908!

The drug Phenytoin is currently prescribed to 50,000 people in Britain. It is manufactured by Pfizer, and marketed by Flynn Pharma. The drug, previously called Epanutin, used to cost the NHS £2.3 million per year. In 2013 it cost £50 million.

How did they do it?

The clue is in the sentence above. The name of the drug was changed! This is a popular device used by the pharmaceutical industry. They do it in order to obfuscate, to confuse, to pull the wool over the eyes of both doctors and patients. So, when one of their drugs or vaccines is found to be dangerous, they change the name, and call it something else.

For instance , the drug Thalidomide, perhaps the most infamous drug ever given to unsuspecting patients, is now called Thalomid, and is being prescribed to patients to treat cancer and leprosy.

Yet now, it would appear, when the Big Pharma industry wants to make bumper profits from sick people, they change the name of the drug, in this case from Epanutin to Phenytoin.

Actually, there should have been no such confusion. According to Wikipedia (never an entirely reliable, or unbiased source of information, but adequate in this instance) the drug, first discovered in 1908, was initially known then as Phenytoin. It was called Epanutin later. The name changed back more recently when Pfizer sold the British marketing rates to Flynn Pharmacy. And certainly, the increase in price was known to Wikipedia, if not to the NHS, some time ago.

     "The capsules are still made by Pfizer's Goedecke subsidiary's plant in Freiburg, Germany and they still have Epanutin printed on them. After Pfizer's sale of the UK marketing licence to Flynn Pharma, the price of a 28-pack of 25 mg phenytoin sodium capsules marked Epanutin rose from 66p to £15.74. Capsules of other strengths also went up in price by the same factor - 2384% costing the UK's National Health Service an extra £43 million (about $68.44 million) a year.

So what is the NHS paying for, and what are the consequences for British patients? Well, that is quite another story! Wikipedia tells us that in 2008, the drug was put on the FDA's "Potential Signals of Serious Risks" list! So what are these 'serious risk', for which we are paying so much to acquire? They are many and varied (and these are taken from a Wikipedia list)!

• severe low blood pressure, and abnormal heart rhythms.
• double vision, slurred speech, cerebellar ataxia, tremor.
• status epilepticus on sudden withdrawal.
• atrophy of the cerebellum.
• megaloblastic anaemia, aplastic anaemia, decreased white blood cell count, low platelet count.
• birth defects, 'metal hydantoin syndrome.
• gingival enlargement of the mouth.
• Hypertrichosis, Stevens-John syndrome, purple glove syndrome, rash, exgoliative dematitis, itching, excessing hairiness, coarsening of facial features.
• Lupus.
• Suicidal thoughts and behaviour.
• Decreased bone density and increased bone fractures.

So why have the FDA not acted on these 'serious risks'? 

So why did the NHS not spot that they were being overcharged by 2,384%?

So why do conventional doctors still prescribe such a dangerous, and hugely expensive drug?

So how can pharmaceutical companies continue to get away with profiteering from a drug they know can cause such serious harm to patients?

It is all connected with the monopoly of conventional, drug-based medicine, within the NHS.

It is time that the monopoly is challenged, that alternative therapies, such as homeopathy, are asked by the NHS if they can do better (both in terms of outcomes and cost) than the pharmaceutical industry in treating disease. It is time that the conventional medical monopoly is challenged, and patients are given a proper choice about how their illnesses are treated in future.

Health Monopoly means patients suffer, and even die

Where there is effective competition, in any sphere of life, customers or consumers are usually given choice. They can see what is available to them, and decide which product most meets their needs and requirements.

• For instance, if we were to visit a car showroom today to purchase a car, and were told that they could not sell us one with windows, or a roof, we would take ourselves to another showroom. 
• If the salesman told us that all their cars could only be started by a turning handle, operated from the front of the car, we might want to look at other options.
• If we were shown a car that could only travel at 30mph, or that only achieved 5 miles per gallon of petrol, we might decide to look for more effective and economical vehicles.

Indeed, such a showroom, such a car manufacturer, would soon find themselves out of business, as most of their prospective customers would want something that worked a little better.

These might sound like strange and excessive scenarios, perhaps as there are many car manufacturers, each seeking to respond to consumer requirements.

Yet, in the provision of health services, there is no such competition. Visit your doctor, or your local hospital, and you will be offered conventional medical treatment, most of which is based on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. If you want some other form of medical therapy you will not only be in the wrong place, no-one at the surgery, or the hospital, will bother to tell you about alternatives.

If conventional medicine was offering something that was safe and effective this might not represent a problem. We would be ill, receive the treatment, and get better. But this is seldom the deal offered to us by our doctors.

Arthritis. 

NHS Choices tells us that "osteoarthritis cannot be cured, but treatment can ease your symptoms and prevent them from affecting your everyday life”. The main conventional treatment for 'easing the symptoms' of arthritis are painkilling drugs. Yet these painkilling drugs are dangerous. And doctors know they are dangerous! But will they direct you to an alternative medical therapy, like homeopathy, which can cure arthritis safely and effective?

They will not. One has to suppose they prefer their patients to suffer - even when they admit that they have no cure.

Fibromyalgia (Chronic Fatigue)

This condition can be a very painful, but once again, NHS Choices confirms that: “there is no (conventional) cure for fibromyalgia, but treatment can ease some of your symptoms and improve quality of life”. So patients might be sent to specialists, such as rheumatologies, neurologists or psychologists, who will use painkillers and other drugs, but not to alternative practitioners who can actually treat the disease successfully.

Again, the NHS admits that conventional medicine has nothing to offer, but they refuse to refer patients on for more effective or safer treatment.

And there are many other diseases that conventional medicine has no safe or effective treatment. Indeed, in writing my new ebook, "Why Homeopathy?", which compares conventional medicine with homeopathy in the treatment of a variety of illnesses, I have been surprised at the number of times the conventional medical establishment freely and openly admits it has no effective treatment.

So a car with no windows, with no starter motor, and offering only a dreadful motoring experience is not either strange or excessive. It is what routinely happens which sick people visit conventional medical practitioners. There are many other diseases that conventional medicine admits it cannot treat, yet refuses to refer patients on to those who can.

Moreover, conventional medical practitioners also know, and admit, that their drugs cause side effects, and that these side effects can themselves be serious illness and diseases, including liver, kidney and heart disease, diabetes, confusion (dementia) and much else.

The analogy here might be that the car salesman cannot guarantee that travellers will not be poisoned by exhaust fumes, or crash randomly into obsticles at any time!

Death
Nor is the prospect of death an obstacle to the conventional medical establishment. The monopoly they hold within the NHS is to precious to put at risk by suggesting that there may be other treatments that might help patients.

I remember some years ago listening to news story about the man in Dundee who contracted Rabies from a bat. He was treated in hospital, presumably using conventional medical treatment. It was reported that 'there was no cure' for this condition, but they were making him as comfortable as possible.

I wrote to the Department of Health asking whether anyone within the health service in Dundee had bothered to see whether there was any traditional therapy for the condition, and in particular, whether they had contacted a homeopath in the area. I pointed out that Homeopathy treats 'like with like' using substances in high dilution/potency, and that the remedy 'Lyssinum' was made from the saliva of a rabid dog. I said that if asked, any homeopath could have tried this remedy, or indeed several others used by homeopaths for the treatment of this disease, to try to save this man's life.

The response I received was that was a matter of patient confidentiality, and the could not give me the information I required. The man’s death was announced a few days later.

Homeopathy is regularly used to treat rabies in eastern Europe, and elsewhere. The only assumption that can be drawn from this situation is that when people have illnesses that conventional medicine cannot cure, no effort is made by conventional medical practitioners to check whether alternative  medical therapies  might help – even when, as in this case, death was the outcome.

There are many other medical conditions (dementia, Ebola, et al) that lead to death, for which there is no conventional treatment. Whilst the conventional medical establishment will often conduct vastly expensive research into new drug or vaccine development, a simple referral to a homeopath, or indeed research into alternative treatments, is never suggested.

The NHS, and indeed many national health services throughout the world, are monopoly suppliers of conventional drug/vaccine medicine. Regretfully, they are more interested in protecting their monopoly than offering patients a real choice of medical therapy - even when they have nothing safe, or effective to offer us.

DCIS and Breast Cancer. Beware conventional treatment!

DCIS or 'Ductal Cell Carcinoma in Situ' is often described as a 'pre-cancerous' condition, where there are "abnormal cancer cells in the breast ducts, but the cancer has not yet spread" (NHS Choices). It is, say conventional medicine, a precursor to breast cancer. But, in actually fact, DCIS is not cancer

The diagnosis of DCIS is rising rapidly. A Natural News article states that in the USA it rose from 1.87 per 100,000 to 32.5 in 2004. It has been a similar rise in Britain, and throughout Europe, and no doubt elsewhere.

DCIS is a 'new disease', and condition barely mentioned prior to the 1980's. But technically it is not cancer, and statistically the Natural News article states that the risk of dying from DCIS within five years is "a mere 0.7%". Yet what a God-send it has been for the conventional medical establishment!

Breast cancer rates can be seen to rise, significantly. But the death rate appears to be falling. And conventional medicine can claim responsibility for this magnificent outcome! 

There is also the benefit that DCIS requires treatment, and conventional treatment for DCIS are similar to those for breast cancer, including radiation, lumpectomies and the use of the drug Tamoxifen.

A friend was diagnosed with DCIS in 2006, had an operation, and then spent several years taking Tamoxifen. Like 99.3% of women diagnosed with DCIS she did not go on to develop breast cancer. She put this down to the operation, and to taking the drug. So what can be said about the value of conventional medical treatment?

• Did treatment really prevent her developing breast cancer? 
• And did her experience go into the statistics about conventional medicines successful treatment?

The reverse may well be true. As the Natural News article states, conventional treatments for DCIS can actually be the cause of the breast cancer it purports to prevent!

My friend had regular mammograms, and it was one such test that discovered her condition.
Yet mammography emits low-dose radiation and repeated exposure to this is known to increase breast cancer risk. This study, for examples, found "that low-dose ionizing radiation, and particularly exposures during childhood, increase breast cancer risk".

She was quickly operated on, a 'Lumpectomy'. The effects of surgery on tumour growth has been known about for a very long time, and as the Natural Health article says:

         "It is an established fact that surgery breaches the natural barriers that encase a tumor which enables cancer cells to escape and spread. The trauma of surgery stimulates tumor cell growth as well and reduces natural killer cell activity that is designed to destroy cancer cells".

And then she spent several years on the drug, Tamoxifen. There have been serious question about this particular drug for many decades. The WHO actually classifies this drug as a carcinogen. It is known to trigger more dangerous forms of cancer, including breast and endometrial cancer, as well as cancer of the stomach and colon. It is also known to cause blood clots, a 'fatty' liver, low sex drive, and memory impairment.

My friend did not develop breast cancer. But she did die of Alzheimer's Disease, shortly after stopping Tamoxifen.

Her death will never be attributed to Tamoxifen, or indeed to any other conventional medical treatment. Death certificates are signed by conventional doctors, and they do not implicate the medical practices they themselves practice. So officially, she died of dementia. The question remains, however, what caused the dementia?

The fact is that she undertook all three conventional treatments for a condition that kills only 0.7% of those diagnosed with the condition. This needs to be addressed, not just for her, not just for the treatment of other women with DCIS, but for patients receiving conventional treatment for any condition.

In other words, we need to begin questioning the safety of all conventional medical treatment, which often cause health outcomes far worse than the condition originally treated.