Who killed Jonah Lomu?

I have no answer to this question, but I reserve my right to ask it. Indeed, anyone who suffers from an illness or disease should ask the question - why do I have this condition?

Jonah Lomu was a fantastic rugby union play. He was young. He was super-fit. He was strong.

Yet we are told that in 1996, aged 19, he was diagnosed by a rare kidney disease. After a short but stunningly successful career he had to have a kidney transplant. Even after this he was fit enough to return to the game, he played again, briefly, at the top level. Then he died, aged just 40, totally unexpectedly, from a heart attack.

This alone justifies the question. What was this 'rare kidney disease'.

I have looked at the internet and there appears to be two suggestions. One is Nephrotic Syndrome, which apparently affects mainly children and young people. The other is Sjogren's disease. How did he contract one of either of these? What causes these diseases? NHS Choices does not appear to know, and this is what the website says about the causation.

Nephrotic Syndrome. "Most children with nephrotic syndrome have what doctors call "minimal change disease". This means their kidneys will appear normal or nearly normal if a tissue sample was studied under a microscope. The cause of minimal change disease is unknown.

Sjogren's disease. "It's not known exactly what causes Sjögren's syndrome, but it's thought to be linked to a problem with the immune system."

And as far as conventional medicine is concerned, the question of Jonah Lomu's death, and the cause of either disease in anyone else, will end. It is not a question that is asked, and certainly not a question asked by our compliant mainstream media.

Yet the question should be asked, not just with kidney disease, but every other illness or disease.

In my new ebook, "The disease inducing effects of drugs and vaccines", I am trying to answer the question, and with most illnesses and diseases, the so-called 'side effects' of pharmaceutical drugs have been investigated to find out whether there is a link. The book is still in the process of being written, but what has been written is available to see.

I have not investigated either of these kidney diseases. But what becomes clear, the more I study the admitted side effects of a variety of drugs, damage to the kidneys is common. I have absolutely no idea whether Jonah Alomu took any of them.

But I am certain that anyone who is given a pharmaceutical drug should be aware of the possible damage they can cause to our health.

Illness and disease is undeniably caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

And the damage pharmaceutical drugs can cause does not affect the sick and the ageing only, but anyone, including otherwise fit and strong young people.

What is also certain is that the conventional medical establishment will never tell us this voluntarily, and certainly it will not admit any such connection until it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt!

Antibiotic resistance. A problem only for conventional medicine?

We have been told for several years now that antibiotic drug are failing because of microbial resistance. It is usually presented to us as a tragedy that will lead to mayhem, with people dying in large numbers from diseases once treated with antibiotics. The BBC has returned to the theme this morning (19th November 2015) in its news broadcasts, and its article "World on cusp of 'post-antibiotic era', focusing on the news that bacteria has been identified in China, in both people and livestock, that is "able to shrug off the drug of last resort - collision".

A few corrections are necessary to this, and the way the mainstream media generally, deals with the situation.

First, let's correct the quoted passage above, which should read "able to shrug off the conventional drug of last resort".

I will now go through the BBC article, and make corrects to each of their sentences, my additions being done in bold and larger print.

          "They said that resistance would spread around the world and raised the spectre of .... infections that are untreatable by conventional medicine".

          "Bacteria becoming completely resistant to conventional treatment - also known as the antibiotic apocalypse - could plunge conventional medicine back into the dark ages".

One doctor is quoted with both the comments below, and again, I have corrected what he has said, for the sake of accuracy.

          "At that point if a patient is seriously ill, say with E. coli, then there is virtually nothing you (conventional medicine) can do."

          "He said there was no single event that would mark the start of the antibiotic apocalypse, but it was clear "we (conventional medicine) are losing the battle".

The BBC then quotes the Lancet, as follows, with the usual correction inserted.

          "A commentary in the Lancet concluded the "implications [of this study] are enormous" and unless something significant changes, conventional doctors would "face increasing numbers of patients for whom we will need to say, 'Sorry, there is nothing I (conventional medicine) can do to cure your infection.'"

Homeopathy has never used antibiotics in order to treat any of the conditions, illness or disease. It does not need to. I have written about the crisis of pharmaceutical antibiotics on several occasions.

Parents call for ban on family of antibiotics
Antibiotics - not such a wonder drug?
Antibiotics - the failure of conventional medicine's wonder drug?
Antibiotics - not as safe as we have been told?

What the mainstream media, including the BBC, should begin to recognise it is the crisis largely confined to conventional drug-based medicine, the only type of medicine they will consider or talk about!

Perhaps it is time for the conventional medical establishment to stop attacking homeopathy, and ask how homeopathy can help them through this crisis.

Brilliant solution to NHS problems!

There is a brilliant new plan to save the NHS!

Listen to the news on the radio or television, read your newspaper, and you will know that the NHS is in trouble, serious trouble. For those people not living in the UK, let me put you in the picture by outlining just some of the problems facing the British NHS.

• GP surgeries cannot cope with the demands of sick people.
• GP surgeries are finding it difficult to recruit new doctors to replace those leaving or retiring.
• A&E units in hospital are struggling to cope with the demands of people who need emergency care.
• Junior doctors are threatening to go on strike next month over pay and conditions of employment.
• Morale throughout all levels of the NHS is at an all-time low.
• Winter is approaching, and there is serious concern that the NHS will cease to function, and that if there is a cold winter it will grind to a halt.
• The NHS is underfunded. Only £120 billion is spent on our health services, and we are told that this is just not enough (spending has tripled from about £40 billion in 1997).
• Many NHS Trusts throughout the country are overspending. It is estimated that there will be an overspend of about £1 billion this financial year.

The plan is simple, and it will overcome all the travails of the NHS. At the moment, £4 million is spent by the NHS every year on Homeopathy. This should be stopped, and spent instead on the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that people need.

This plan has been put forward by Simon Singh, that well known supporter of conventional medicine, and the health-giving benefits of Coca Cola drinks. And the BBC was good enough, this morning (13th November 2015) to give him a platform to espouse his views.

So, with another £4 million being added to the NHS drugs budget, which is about £20 billion, all should be well.

There are perhaps a couple of minor things the NHS might have to do.

• Ensure that the pharmaceutical drugs are working, like overcoming the problem of antibiotic resistance, the problems doctors face prescribing painkilling drugs because of their dangerous side effects, and the increasing awareness of just how dangerous Statin drugs are.
• Overcoming the increasing patient reluctance to taking more 'safe' drugs and vaccines that are proving to be harmful, and 'effective' drug and vaccines that are proving incapable of dealing the the rising epidemic of chronic disease in Britain.
• Overcoming the policy of 'patient choice' and health freedom that are central to the health policies of the Conservative government, the Labour, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National, Green party, et al.
• Persuading every patient in the country that we should only be taking those drugs approved by Simon Singh, and his organisation 'Sense about Science'.

Apart from that, I really do think that Simon has cracked the problem!

Now, do I sense another large cheque floating through the ether from a pharmaceutical company? No, of course not. Sense about Science is not moved by such things in any way whatsoever!

Menopause Issues and NICE guidelines? HRT might cause cancer, heart problems and dementia, but what the hell, women should take it anyway!

"Women whose lives are being affected by the symptoms of menopause should not feel they have to suffer in silence". This is the guidance of NICE, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence.

Instead, their guidance to doctors recommends hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which the say is "effective for treating several menopausal symptoms". It recommends that doctors offer HRT for hot flushes and night sweats "after discussing the risks and benefits".

HRT has been around for many years. Premarin was first introduced in 1942. So why has this NICE advice only been brought out today (12th November 2015)? NICE explains.

          "Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is a treatment option for menopausal symptoms, yet over the last decade confusion over its safety has led to a decline in its use and variation in practice" (my emphasis).

So, there has been 'confusion' for the last decade over its safety. What is this confusion? NICE does not bother to tell us. Indeed, in the whole of their guidance article, the word 'CANCER' is mentioned just once, and that tucked away at the bottom of the article! Perhaps they hope that we have forgotten about HRT's safety issues. So if there are women who have forgotten, and might be considering taking HRT, this is something I wrote several years ago.

          "Eventually, several trials produced results that were so bad they had to be discontinued.  In 2002, trials conducted by the Women’s Health Initiative in the USA, described as 'the largest and best designed federal studies of HRT'  was halted because women taking the hormones had a significantly increased risk of breast  and cervical cancer, heart attacks, stroke and blood clots. More trials were terminated in 2007, when a study of 5,692 women taking HRT raised similar concerns but added 'more definition to the health risks' (WDDTY 9 August 2007, source: British Medical Journal, 2007; 335: 239-44).

Note that the scientific studies were stopped before they had been concluded! The results were so bad, HRT was found to be so dangerous, researchers refused to continue with the trials. It should also be noted that other trials had found that HRT caused many other serious illnesses and diseases too, including a significantly increased the risk of dementia.

So during the 2000's, prescriptions for HRT treatment for the menopause were drastically reduced. The result was that breast cancer rates were significantly reduced. One result was that in the USA breast cancer rates fell by 12% in 2003 among women aged between 50 and 69, the most likely to be taking HRT.

Despite this, the drugs were never banned, despite the high probability of significant harm to the women who continued to take them. And now, NICE is trying to rehabilitate them!

It would appear that the new NICE guidelines have been written in the belief that it is possible to ignore this evidence, and encourage women passing through the menopause to take the drug. They actually call the new guidelines 'the Gold Standard'!

• HRT will still cause cancer, and all the other diseases it has been associated with.
• No-one taking HRT will be guaranteed that they won't suffer from one or more of these serious diseases.
• But despite this doctors are now expected to encourage women to take HRT.

One problem is that the pharmaceutical industry has never found an alternative to HRT. However much a woman is suffering from menopausal symptoms, the only treatment the conventional medical system has to offer her is this failed and dangerous drug.

Nor does NICE mention that women do have alternatives, outside conventional medicine, dominated as it is by harmful and dangerous drugs like HRT. For  many years, an increasing number of women are now looking towards Homeopathy as a safer, and more effective treatment for menopausal problems. For a comparison of conventional and homeopathic treatment of menopausal issues, go to this website.

So why does NICE not mention such alternatives to drug-based treatment? Why does their guidance fail to point menopausal women to non-conventional treatments? Would this not extent informed patient choice?

NICE are part of the conventional medical establishment. It is an organisation dominated by people with close links to the pharmaceutical companies. It seems to be intent on encouraging doctors and patients to take more and more drugs. Yesterday, for instance, I wrote a blog about their promotion of Statin drugs. So whilst NICE recognises drug and vaccine dangers it fails to highlight them, and discounts them.

HRT might cause cancer, heart problems, and dementia. But what the hell! Drugs are profitable. They are indeed, the 'gold standard' for the pharmaceutical industry. Homeopathy is not profitable, and using it will reduce those taking drugs. 

And women's health, it would appear, is not really that important at all to the conventional medical establishment!

POSTSCRIPT
It has now emerged (WDDTY 17th November 2015) that it was an influential study by a researcher who had been recruited by a major HRT manufacturer who persuaded NICE to relax their guidelines on using the drug for women. 

          "Her research helped influence the UK’s NICE (National Institute for Healthcare and Excellence) decision to relax their stand on HRT and to put the therapy back on the table as an option for menopausal women. But Dr Nachtigall didn’t reveal that she had been recruited by HRT manufacturer Wyeth in 1999 to put her name to an article that extolled the benefits of the therapy.  Her involvement was reviewed by a US Congress hearing in 2008.

So this is yet more evidence that 'medical science' does not protect patients, but favours pharmaceutical companies.


Postscript
7th March 2019
The "its dangerous, but keep taking it" message about pharmaceutical drugs continues. BBC News is always intent on selling pharmaceutical drugs of all descriptions on behalf of the drug companies.

However, in this article, "HRT. Women told don't be alarmed by Alzheimer's study" it manages to parrot, unquestioningly, the publicity of the conventional medical establishment. It mentions research by the BMJ on data taken from 170,000 women in Finland, over 14 years, that found a 9% to 17% increased risk for Alzheimer's, particularly in women taking HRT for more than 10 years.

So there is further evidence that HRT is a dangerous drug!

But the BBC is willing to dismiss it, reporting that "... HRT is an effective and safe treatment for most women with menopause symptoms and the risk is 'extremely low'."

And the BBC does not feel the need to mention that HRT causes not only dementia, but also cancer and heart problems, as outlined in this blog.

Does the BBC know that HRT causes breast cancer? They have known at least since 2003, as this article proves. Perhaps it's just a case of selective amnesia then!

 

Postscript

July 2022

So HRT was safe until the early 2000's: then it was so unsafe that research was stopped because these drugs were too dangerous; then new research in 2015 (financed by the pharmaceutical industry) 'proved' it was safe...... AND NOW "new evidence" is being considered that NICE guidelines might have to be renewed - because the drug is causing breast cancer.

• When will conventional medicine learn?
• When will patients learn that conventional medicine is not to be trusted?
  

Dust Mite Allergy. A new conventional treatment - and it's homeopathy?

The Times announced a new treatment for dust mite allergy in an article published on 11th November 2015. As the article said, this is great news as an estimated 12 million Britons are thought to struggle with ailments brought on by dust mites, with symptoms including wheezing, disturbed sleep and inflammation.

And, as the Times points out, whilst previous treatments (vaccines and antihistamine drugs) have not been very successful, the new treatment, according to clinical trials, could be "a lasting cure". Good news indeed. Apparently the new treatment begins to ease the symptoms within 3 to 4 months.

Yet the good news does not end there. The Times says that another study, published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, appears to show that it is safe for most teenagers, even for two patients with 'life-threatening allergic reactions'.

And it gets better. Other tests have apparently indicated that it could be a potent treatment for asthma, which affects 5.4 million people in Britain, and is often closely linked to dust. Indeed, the Times says, the tablet seems to be a particularly effective treatment for those whose asthma cannot be controlled with inhalers.

So what is this new treatment? It is a pill made from freeze dried dust mites, that is taken by mouth, and dissolves under the tongue. The pill has been developed by the pharmaceutical companies, Merck and ALK. It received approval from the European Medicines Agency in August 2015, and it is planned for it to go on sale in 11 countries in 2016.

So, dust mite allergy is being treated with dust mites. Why should that work so well, so safely, and apparently so cheaply too.

Well, of course, this is Homeopathy. It is based on the homeopathic principle of 

"curing like with like".

So Merck and ALK should be congratulated with coming up with such a cure for dust mite allergy. Although they, and other pharmaceutical companies, attack homeopathy regularly and relentlessly, they have at last been able to prove that homeopathy does work. They are catching up. A principle developed by Hahnemann over 220 years ago is now being utilised by the conventional medical establishment. Even the means of taking the new pill, by mouth, and dissolving under the tongue, is common homeopathic advice given to patients when taking remedies!

This is my third blog about how conventional medicine is now utilising homeopathic principles. The first, "Superbugs. Homeopathy is proven to work - treating like with like" concerned the treatment of Clostridium difficile. The second concerned a new treatment for peanut allergy, "Peanut Allergy Treatment - another success for Homeopathy".

Perhaps Merck, ALK, and other pharmaceutical companies, might like to give some credit to the homeopathic community for these new treatments.

Statin Drugs. Doctors conflicted about their safety?

The conventional medical establishment appears to be conflicted over Statin drugs. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which provides doctors in Britain with advice and guidelines about prescribing drugs recently advice an increase in Statin prescribing. Whereas previous advice was to prescribe them to any patient who had a 30% risk of a heart attack or stroke, they changed that advice to anyone who had a 10% chance.

This would have meant a considerable increase in the number of people taking Statins, particularly amongst older people. NICE said that it would prevent 28,000 heart attacks, and 16,000 strokes every year. So, something worth doing?

Well, unfortunately, doctors did not think so. A recent analysis by the GPs' magazine, Pulse, discovered that since the new NICE guidelines were given, prescriptions for statin drugs had shown only a 2% rise.

So why the discrepancy? Is there increasing conflict within the conventional medical establishment about Statins? And if so, what is the conflict about?

The problem concerns the safety of Statin drugs. Once, not many years ago, conventional medicine was telling us that these were miracle drugs, reducing heart attacks and strokes, but with little or no side effects. They were, we were told, entirely safe.

Indeed, it is that type of blue-sky thinking that underlay NICE's amended guidelines to doctors. The reason for this is not difficult to find. NICE, like most government sponsored health advisory bodies, is influenced, infiltrated and dominated by medics who have strong links with the powerful pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, most of NICE's advice is driven by the interests of these companies, whose major objective is to sell drugs to patients.

Yet the dangers of Statins is becoming increasingly obvious to an increasing number of people. There is growing numbers of people who are reluctant to take Statin drugs. Doctors meet with people every day. They are aware of this growing concern. And they cannot be unaware of the very serious evidence that is building against these harmful drugs.

In 2014, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) reported that it had received 730 adverse reports related to the five most prescribed Statins in Britain, namely Simvastatin, Atorvastatin, Rosuvastatin, Pravastatin and Fluvastatin. Yet it is well known that only about 10% of adverse reactions to drugs are reported - this, in itself, probably an underestimate. What this means is that in one year, in Britain, over 7,000 patients has been damaged by Statin drugs.

What damage is it causing? The side effects of Statins are now known to include:

• Muscle pain, weakness (myopathy).
• Fatigue.
• Cataracts.
• Weight gain.
• Diabetes
• Kidney failure.
• Liver dysfunction.
• Memory loss, confusion and dementia.
• Parkinson's disease

This is a frightening list of serious illness and disease, all possible outcomes for patients who are taking these 'entirely safe' Statin drugs.

Concerns have also been expressed that the benefits of taking statins have been greatly exaggerated. Some research has questioned whether Statins can reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes to the levels claimed.

Doctors are at the very end of the drug consumption line. They deal with patients who are taking them, and suffering from them. Little wonder, then, that some doctors have expressed concerns about the benefits of taking statin drugs, certainly for people who are healthy.

So why are doctors ready to defy NICE's new recommendations on Statins? GP's and NICE has different motivations and priorities. If NICE wants more people to take drugs, in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, regardless of the harm they do to patients, the role of doctors is to put patient interests first. Perhaps it is unusual for them to do so. Doctors have been prescribing harmful and dangerous drugs to patients now for decades on the basis of the guidance and advice they have received. And, in the main, they have done so without serious questioning.

So is there change happening within the conventional medical establishment? Are doctors beginning to take a more independent line? Are they beginning the question some of the advice and guidance coming down from the pharmaceutical industry?

It would appear, in this case, to be what is happening. It is a real signs of conflict and disagreement within the conventional medical establishment. Whilst the production and management end continues to maximise the use, and over-use of harmful drugs and vaccines, the retail end is at least beginning to question the value of this single, but extremely important drug.

Can we expect more? Possibly. It is certainly time that the value of many other drugs and vaccines, whose harm and dangers are well known to anyone prepared to look, are seriously questioned.

Yet there is a problem with our doctors. If they did begin to question the value of drugs and vaccines more widely, what would they have left to offer patients? Conventional doctors have dismissed alternative medical therapies. They do not speak out sufficiently about the processed diets being served up to us by supermarkets and the Big Food companies. They are not on board, sufficiently, with the importance of exercise, or the environment concerns that affect our health. Their cupboard, without drugs, would be bear.

Real change will still have to come from patients, not doctors, who in order to tell us the truth will have to admit that they have been giving us 'medicines' that have made us ill for years! More people will have to become aware of the dangers of conventional medical treatment. More people will have to become aware that there are other routes to good health, and other medical therapies available that are safer, and more effective than what the conventional medical establishment are providing to us.

It is still going to be a long, laborious process. We have been indoctrinated by the conventional medical establishment for over 100 years. It will take time to understand that health does not come from a pill or an injection.

Parkinson's Disease. Is it caused by pharmaceutical drugs?

Parkinson’s disease is described on the NHS Choices website as a condition in which part of the brain become progressively damaged over many years. It describes the main symptoms as tremor, an involuntary shaking of particular parts of the body, slow movement, and stiff and inflexible muscles. It is often accompanied by other illnesses, like depression, constipation, insomnia, and memory problems.

What is the cause of Parkinson’s disease?

Conventional medicine does not know what causes Parkinson’s disease. The NHS Choices website gives a description of the disease, “the loss of nerve cells in the part of the brain called the substantia nigra”, but then goes on to say that it is not known why the loss of nerve cells occurs.

History and facts about Parkinson’s disease

Parkinson's disease been known about since ancient times. It was once known as ‘the shaking palsy’ by the physician Galen 175AD. In 1817 a London doctor, James Parkinson wrote a detailed medical essay was published on the disease which he wrote from his experience of six cases he had dealt with. This encouraged further study of the condition, and it acquired his name as a result.

It was not until the 1960s that that the chemical differences in the brains of Parkinson's patients were identified. This concerned the low levels of dopamine in the parts of the brain that was degenerating, and led to the development of the drug Levodopa.

The Parkinson’s UK website says that in Britain 1 in 500 people now has Parkinson’s, estimating this to be about 127,000 people. It says that it is largely a disease of people over 50 years old, but notes that younger people are now getting the disease too.

The MedTV website says that about 50,000 Americans are diagnosed with Parkinson's disease each year, with more than half a million Americans affected at any given time. It also says that the assumption that Parkinson’s is the result of normal ageing is no longer correct, that whilst it is often a disease that develops in late middle age, there are now more cases of  "early-onset" and that an estimated 5-10% of Parkinson’s disease are people under the age of 40.

So it would seem that Dr Parkinson would now discover more than 6 cases if he was to return to practice!

Pharmaceutical drugs that can cause Parkinson’s disease

The magazine WDDTY reported in July 2010 that people who suffer from Parkinson’s disease, who often display the typical symptoms of shaking and sudden involuntary movements, and that scientists are now “beginning to wonder if the drugs are the cause”.

Indeed, the Alzheimer’s Society website has discussed the concept of ‘drug induced Parkinson’s’. This is a concept that is known by the Parkinson’s Disease Society, who have written an information sheet on the subject. This states that “about 7% of people with parkinsonism have developed their symptoms following treatment with particular medications”. The information sheet says that 

“… any drug that blocks the action of dopamine, dopamine antagonists, is likely to cause parkinsonism. Drugs used to treat schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders such as behaviour disturbances in people with dementia (known as neuroleptic drugs) are possibly the major cause of drug-induced parkinsonism worldwide. Parkinsonism can occur from the use of any of the various classes of neuroleptics”.

The Parkinson’s Association of Ireland also recognises ‘drug-induced Parkinsons’. So here are some of the drugs mention by these two organisations.

Antipsychotic drugs

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has said that certain antipsychotics can cause Parkinson-like symptoms, and that these side effects arise because the drugs interfere with dopamine in the brain. Several antipsychotic drugs cause this, notably Clozapine (Clozaril), Quetiapine (Seroquel), Olanzapine (Zyprexa) and Risperidone (Risperdal).

Antipsychotic drugs are regularly used for people who are suffering from Parkinson’s disease.

Calcium Blocker Drugs

Calcium channel blocking drugs, used to treat high blood pressure, abnormal heart rhythm, angina pectoris, panic attacks, manic depression and migraine may, are known to cause drug-induced Parkinsonism. According to the Parkinson’s Disease Society, the most well-documented of these drugs are Cinnarizine (Stugeron) and Flunarizine (Sibelium). 

However, any internet search will demonstrate that there is lots of ‘scientific’ evidence about the link between these drugs and Parkinson’s, split almost exactly between those saying they are helpful, and those who say they can cause the disease!

This is often the case with research into the harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs. Should the precautionary principle apply. Or should we believe what the conventional medical establishment tells us - that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? It is, of course, a personal choice.

Statin Drugs

The role of Statins in causing Parkinson’s was mentioned in a WDDTY article in January 2007, “The safe drug that might cause Parkinson’s disease”.

“Statins reduce levels of the ‘bad’ LDL cholesterol – and the new study, from the University of North Carolina, believes these lowered levels may trigger Parkinson’s.  Sufferers can have levels of LDL cholesterol that are three times below the average”.

In April 2015, the Daily Express article, “Parkinson’s link to Statins: calls to end widespread use of the drug” suggests that nothing much happened about this research during the 8 intervening years! The article referred to Parkinson’s research, carried out over 20 years, and involving nearly 16,000 people, which found that cholesterol (which Statin drugs seek to reduce) may have a vital role in protecting the brain and nervous system. Details of the research to which they refer can be found in the Movement Disorders website.

Other drugs

This is not an exhaustive list of the Big Pharma drugs known to cause Parkinson’s disease, but it is hopefully sufficient for anyone taking, or planning to take any pharmaceutical drug to undertake a thorough web search for possible associations.

It is also known that standard drug for Parkinsons, Levodopa, can develop the common ‘side effect’ of dyskinesia, which is the medical term for jerky and unpredictable movement.

The Parkinson’s Association of Ireland says this about other drugs that might cause the disease.

“A number of other agents have been reported to cause drug-induced parkinsonism, but clear proof of cause and effect is often lacking. Amiodarone, used to treat heart problems, causes tremor and some people have been reported to develop Parkinson’s-like symptoms. Sodium valproate, used to treat epilepsy, and lithium, used in depression, both commonly cause tremor which may be mistaken for Parkinson’s”. 

(My emphasis, the proof is probably lacking because of a lack of research, and the difference between ‘the disease’ and something ‘mistaken for the disease’ may be a marginal distinction for sufferers!)

The Parkinson’s Disease Society mentions some other drugs thought to cause the disease.

“These include some older drugs used to treat high blood pressure such as methyldopa (Aldomet); medications for dizziness and nausea such as prochlorperazine (Stemetil); and metoclopromide (Maxolon), which is used to stop sickness and in the treatment of indigestion”.

Crohn's Disease is caused by common pharmaceutical drugs?

Crohn's disease is an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a long-term condition that causes inflammation and ulcers in the lining of the digestive system. Inflammation can affect any part of the digestive system but most commonly occurs in either the small or large intestines.

Abdominal pain and diarrhoea are the most common symptoms, but it can also cause include rectal bleeding, weight loss, arthritis, skin problems, inflammation of the eyes, and fever. Severe cases can be extremely painful and distressing.

What is the cause of Crohn’s disease?

NHS Causes does not know “the exact causes” Crohn’s disease, but they say that the factors contributing to it are thought to be genetics, the immune system, smoking, previous infection, and environmental factors. They also say that there is “no treatment” for the disease. Several drugs are are used in treatment, however, including anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, cortisone, immune system suppressors, Remicade, antibiotics, and anti-diarrheal drugs.

It is also suggested that Crohn`s disease is an auto-immune disease where the body`s immune system attacks the tissues of the digestive system.

History and facts about Crohn’s disease

Although there is literature purported to describe Crohn’s disease dating back to the 18th and 19th century, even to Hippocrates, the disease was not ‘discovered’ or described until 1932 by Dr Burrill Crohn.

Crohn's disease is now becoming more common. It can be found in both men and women, usually but not exclusively in teenagers and younger people. In 2011 the St Mark’s Foundation estimated that there are about 90,000 people living with Crohn’s disease in Britain, but that this figure is rising with more that 8,000 being diagnosed each year. In North America it now affects about 400,000 to 600,000 people, about 1 in 1000. About 1 in 20 people with the disease go on to develop bowel cancer within 10 years of diagnosis.

Another estimate, in 2014, said that in England, Crohn’s disease had increased by 300% between 2003 and 2012, for young people aged between 16 and 29.

The rise of Irritable Bowel disease, which includes Crohn’s and Ulcerative Colitis is discussed on this Family Practice News website. It describes a literature review that found 260 studies on the incidence and prevalence of both diseases throughout the world. The findings suggested “that the global prevalence of IBD will continue to increase substantially”.

Pharmaceutical drugs that can cause Crohn’s disease

Various food additives have been implicated as the cause of Crohn’s. But it is known that the disease can be caused by some of the most common pharmaceutical drugs.

Antibiotics

Dr Ryan Ungaro Icahn School of Medicine, New York, conducted a meta-analysis of eleven observational and case control studies, involving over 7,000 cases, and discovered that exposure to antibiotics was associated with Crohn’s disease.

"Exposure to antibiotics may somehow contribute to alterations in the microbiome and result in dysbiosis, which is known to be part of the pathogenesis that leads to IBD”.

Antibiotics are usually taken by mouth, and are known to upset the microbial balance of the gut, so a connection with Crohn’s disease is perhaps not surprising.

Aspirin

This common painkiller is also linked to Crohn’s disease. This is perhaps unsurprising as aspirin has been notorious for its harmful impact on the gastrointestinal system. The Science Today website published an article, “Regular use of aspirin increases risk of Crohn's disease by 5 times, study finds” in 2010. Dr Hart, of the University of East Anglia, who conducted the research said.

"This is early work but our findings do suggest that the regular use of aspirin could be one of many factors which influences the development of this distressing disease in some patients”.

Accutane

This drug was used for the treatment of acne but has been linked to Crohn’s disease. The drug was introduced in 1982, but was withdrawn in 2009 because of the number of lawsuits taken against the manufacturer, Roche. The drug was also associated with birth defects and suicide. However, the dangers have not passed! Generic forms of Accutane are still available! The background is outlined on the Drugwatch website.

“Researchers analyzed all adverse drug reaction reports submitted to the Food and Drug Administration between 1997 and 2002 and found 85 cases of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, including cases of Crohn’s disease, associated with isotretinoin (Accutane) use. Of those 85 cases, researchers found that, Isotretinoin use was highly probable as the cause in four cases, probably the cause in 58 cases, and possibly the cause in 23 cases.”

Other drugs

This is not an exhaustive list of the pharmaceutical drugs known to cause Crohn’s disease, but it is hopefully sufficient for anyone taking, or planning to take any pharmaceutical drug to undertake a thorough web search for any possible associations.

This article was first published on the "Disease Inducing Effects of drugs and vaccines" website.

Cancer. Over diagnosis and over treatment? Or massaging the cancer statistics?

The Journal of the American Medical Association published an article in 2013 entitled "Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment in Cancer. An Opportunity for Improvement". The problem with over diagnosis is that it unnecessarily frightens patients, who are told that they have cancer when they do not have cancer. The problem with over treatment is that the treatments are dangerous.This is how the journal described the issue.

          "Over the past 30 years, awareness and screening have led to an emphasis on early diagnosis of cancer. Although the goals of these efforts were to reduce the rate of late-stage disease and decrease cancer mortality, secular trends and clinical trials suggest that these goals have not been met; national data demonstrate significant increases in early-stage disease, without a proportional decline in later-stage disease. What has emerged has been an appreciation of the complexity of the pathologic condition called cancer. The word “cancer” often invokes the specter of an inexorably lethal process; however, cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient’s lifetime. Better biology alone can explain better outcomes. Although this complexity complicates the goal of early diagnosis, its recognition provides an opportunity to adapt cancer screening with a focus on identifying and treating those conditions most likely associated with morbidity and mortality."

Natural News takes the problem more seriously in an article entitled 'Unbelievable scam of cancer industry blown wide open: $100 billion a year spent on toxic chemotherapy for many FAKE diagnoses... National Cancer Institute's shocking admission affects millions of patients'.  They say this of the JAMA article.

          "With $100 billion a year now being spent on toxic chemotherapy treatments that damage patients and cause "chemo brain" side effects, a panel of cancer experts commissioned by the National Cancer Institute publicly admitted two years ago that tens of millions of "cancer cases" aren't cancer at all. Tens of millions of people who have been diagnosed with "cancer" by crooked oncologists - and scared into medically unjustified but extremely profitable chemotherapy treatments - never had any sort of life-threatening condition to begin with, scientists have confirmed".

• Mammograms routinely over diagnose cancer.
• DCIS is often described as breast cancer, when it is not.
• And prostate cancer is routinely over diagnosed.

Health News Review has also dealt with this important subject, and is also an article worth reading. Most coverage of the JAMA study focuses on two factors, first, the scaremongering, and the impact this has on frightened patients. And second, the profiteering that this gives rise to within the conventional medical establishment.

What is not mentioned is that over diagnosis and over treatment has one more advantage for the pharmaceutical industry. It can be simply stated.

When false mammogram results, and calling DCIS 'cancer', et al, increases cancer rates, it enhances the message - "Cancer is a really serious problem. It has to be tacked. Let us encourage as many people as possible to raise money for the pharmaceutical companies so that they can come up with cures". So it is not just that patients are unnecessarily treated with profitable drugs. It enhances the image of cancer as a serious threat to all of us, and facilitates more research, more drugs, and ultimately, more profits.

But then it is discovered that many of these patients, diagnosed with cancer, and treated with pharmaceutical drugs, no longer have cancer. It is a cure! The drugs are working! The five-year survival rates are improving! Pharmaceutical drugs DO work! Early diagnosis is really important.

But unfortunately, it is all a sleight of hand.

It is all part of the brilliance of the pharmaceutical marketing machine.

Drug Companies bribing NHS officials to sell their drugs

Pharmaceutical companies are bribing NHS officials in Britain to use their drugs within the NHS. So reported the Daily Telegraph on 27th July 2015.

          "The undercover investigation found that dozens of NHS officials in control of medicines budgets were being paid thousands of pounds by drug companies. It raises questions about whether the health service’s rules on hospitality and financial interests are being followed – and if they need to be tightened.

Is it a matter of public concern that our doctors are prescribing drugs to patients on the basis of bribery?

Well, apparently not! Not to our mainstream media, anyway. The Telegraph must be praised for this piece of investigatory journalism. Yet I write this over 3 months after the newspaper reported this fraudulent activity, and what has happened to the information.

• It has not been picked up by any other mainstream media vehicles.
• It has not been the subject of any comment by the NHS, or by the British government.
• There have been no admissions of guilt, no denials

In other words it has been followed by total silence. There has been no discussion, no consideration of the morality involved. There has been no consideration of the quality of the information obtained by the Telegraph. It has been totally ignored.

The Telegraph evidence alone is clearly a matter of public concern. The fact that nothing has been done following the report is reason for even greater public concern.

The fact that our media is disinterested speaks volumes about its attitude to public health. 

• If pharmaceutical companies issue a public statement about a new drug, a new vaccine, a new treatment, we are bombarded with the 'good' news. 
• If there is news about serious adverse reactions to drugs or vaccines, there is a deafening silence.
• If there is fraud found within the so-called 'science' of conventional medicine, if this fraud has implications on how doctors treat us, and what they treat us with, it appears to be treated by the media as if it has not happened.

Even our 'public service' broadcaster, the BBC, is blind to any news that might place the conventional medical establishment in a bad light. They should have no financial interests in Big Pharma companies. They should have no Big Pharma directors on its board, as with other media corporations. The BBC should be focusing on news that is of interest to its main interest group - the public. There is no good reason for it doing so. 

• Yet it steadfastly refuses to report on the fraud and corruption regularly found within the conventional medical establishment.
• It regularly refuses to report on the damage that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are causing to patients.

Next time your doctor want you to take a drug, or vaccine, ask whether the prescription is based on lavish trips to exotic places or to some other bribe! As one doctor is reported as saying in the Telegraph article.

          “I can only describe it as superb. And all the delegates came back with this glow. Great company, great to deal, you know… Germans always like to show off in superb hotels".

A nice business to be in perhaps? But if the result is that we, as patients, are given drugs on that basis, it is not a good deal for us!