Search This Blog

Wednesday 30 March 2016

BMJ discovers truth about dangerous antidepressant drugs (But they won't be telling anyone)!

Antidepressant drugs cause harm to children and young people. But just how dangerous are they? The BMJ (British Medical Journal) has tried to find out, and the answer appears to be:

We are not sure, our doctors don't know, and we are not going to tell them, or you!

The BMJ included 70 trials in their study, involving nearly 19,000 patients. They found that the trials "had limitations in the study design, and discrepancies in reporting, which may have led to serious under-reporting of harms."

All pharmaceutical drugs are supposed to be scientifically tested for their effectiveness and safety. If depressed young people are given drugs that cause they to commit suicide, this is not very effective! If conventional medical doctors are prescribing them without realising the dangers they are not very safe.

Nor is it very scientific! What were these 'limitations' and 'discrepancies'? How was it that so-called 'scientific' trials could be so badly designed? Why did scientists misreport the data? More important, if the conventional medical establishment cannot undertake proper trials, or report accurately on what they find, how can doctors prescribe safely? And just how can patients believe what doctors are telling us?

If course, this is not just a problem with the testing of antidepressants. It is the same for every pharmaceutical drugs and vaccine.

Medical science is paid for by the pharmaceutical companies who will profit from their sale. Their profits are enhanced if they can ensure that 'scientific' studies are favourable. They sell more drugs if doctors can be convinced they are safe and effective. Patient harm does not impact on their profits. In other words, the drug companies profit from patient harm.

          "In the summary trial reports on Eli Lilly’s website, almost all deaths were noted, but all suicidal ideation events were missing, and the information on the remaining outcomes was incomplete."

So what conclusions do the BMJ come up with as a result of this study?

          "Because of the shortcomings identified, and having only partial access to appendices with no access to case report forms, the harms could not be estimated accurately ........ but in children and adolescents the risk of suicidality and aggression doubled. To elucidate the harms reliably, access to anonymised individual patient data is needed."

So, they do not have enough evidence, and it would appear that they have not got, nor are they being given access to, the information they need! The study makes it obvious that medical research has been intentionally hiding harmful side effects from doctors, thus ensuring that patients do not discover just how dangerous these antidepressants can be.

Yet the evidence of the dangers of antidepressant drugs, in particular, have been known for a long time, even if the conventional medical establishment has not acknowledged it (and conventional doctors have not been to).

And a final word of warning, antidepressants are not the only drugs that are known to cause suicide! Click on this link to discover other pharmaceutical drugs that are known to cause suicide (although don't assume that the conventional medical establishment has accepted this yet, or that doctors have been given the information).

Friday 25 March 2016

Painkillers. Doctors told they are not safe for patients. But will patients be told?

Our doctors have been bemoaning the fact that painkillers do too much harm to prescribe safely. One doctor wrote honestly about "the vanishing option for chronic pain' in the GP e-magaizine, Pulse, in September last year.

          "... GP options for managing persistent pain in their patients have declined markedly over the past decade, but it seems we may have finally reached crisis point".

NICE, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, has now confirmed this position, issuing new guidance for the prescription of painkilling drugs. Pulse has reported on this in it article 'NICE dramatically reduces drug options for low back pain', (24 March 2016).

          "The draft guidelines – which now also cover sciatica – said that GPs should offer NSAIDs as first-line for pain relief, and should offer paracetamol only alongside a weak opioid."

Although this is a clear indication that conventional medicine is failing, disastrously, NICE cannot avoid taking a swipe at traditional medicine, this time Acupuncture, saying that GPs "should avoid acupuncture altogether - which ..... is no better than sham treatment". Well, perhaps patients should be allowed to make their minds up about this, although it has to be recognised that NICE is firmly part of the conventional medical establishment, and supporters of the pharmaceutical industry.

Instead NICE recommends exercise, such as stretching, strengthening, aerobics or yoga "to be the first step to help patients manage their condition". Clearly, the drugs cabinet of conventional medicine is becoming increasingly bare!

Yet it is the comments on the Pulse article that is perhaps most interesting. As far as doctors are concerned, the response varies from despair to denial. Yet one feature of GP comments appear to show some misunderstanding of what is actually happening. There is some sense that NICE are making their life difficult for them, that the new guidance is either misguided or incorrect. One comment reminds us that all the painkillers doctors can no longer freely prescribe can be purchased at chemists at a cost far lower than a prescription.

All this misses the essential truth behind the new guidance. NICE have recognised that conventional painkilling drugs are not safe. They are harmful. They are dangerous.

Nowhere can I see significant concern for patient health. Nowhere can I see doctors asking how they can protect patients, or whether they should stop prescribing or recommending painkillers. Nowhere is the question asked - 'if painkillers are too dangerous for doctors to prescribe, why are the still on sale at chemist shops?"

As might be expected, the 'medical fundamentalists' have entered the argument, but they only to focus on the attack on Acupuncture, and do not mention the dangers of conventional painkilling drugs.
  • Andy Lewis appears to think that acupuncture has not been used for for thousands of years (which makes me wonder where he has been for all that time)! His claim is refuted by Tony Gu, who correctly says that "it has a fairly reasonable evidence base"! Yes, indeed it has! An evidence base that stretches back thousands of years!
  • David Colquhoun states that "the results of more than 3000 trials of acupuncture ... have consistently shown that (acupuncture) is indistinguishable from various sorts of sham, yet some people still advocate it".  These trial are, of course, 'randomised controlled tests', and RCTs are the tests that told us initially that painkilling drugs were safe and effective.
  • In another post Colquhoun says he is 'heartened' by the new guidance because "the fact is that none of the treatments works very well and that has led to clutching at straws". So this conventional medical fundamentalist professor is heartened that we are 'clutching at straws' - a dispiriting and defeatist comment indeed.
 At least Colquhoun is correct here. It is a dispiriting time for supporters of conventional medicine, on which society has placed so much trust, and spent enormous resources, during the last 70 years and more. It is dispiriting for patients. And it must be dispiriting for professors, sitting in their university faculties, largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

Patients are needing some positive guidance, and this will not come from the conventional medical establishment. It will come from traditional therapies, including acupuncture, osteopathy, chiropractic, homeopathy,  and many others. At least these treatments are not dangerous. And patients will increasingly seek and use these therapies because their doctors have nothing to offer. And they will find that they do work - just as millions of patients throughout the world over centuries have told us!

Friday 18 March 2016

NHS in Crisis (Spring 2016)

The British Medical Association (BMA) has called a special meeting, and 'extraordinary conference', to discuss the 'deepening crisis facing the NHS', according the doctors email magazine, Pulse (16th March 2016). One BA council member is quoted as saying that UK doctors saw the NHS collapsing.

          "The BMA council discussed the parlous state of the NHS due to the year-on-year funding cuts,  something which is a political choice made by this Government. This extraordinary meeting will discuss the crisis in the NHS and attempt to come up with solutions, challenging our politicians to step in and rescue the NHS from collapse."

The problem with this assessment is that there have been no 'year on year' funding cuts. The government has protected cuts to NHS budgets. The problem is that there has been no additional money ploughed into the NHS since 2010, and in 'challenging our politicians to step in and rescue the NHS from collapse' the BMA is, once again, asking for an increase in spending.

It was budget day yesterday, and the BMA chair is quoted as condemning the lack of new investment in NHS services as 'disgraceful'.

The NHS budget has had spending increases every year from its inauguration in 1947. Between 1997 and 2010 the government actually tripled spending on the NHS!

NHS Confederation statistics indicate something of this massive increase in resources.
  • net expenditure on the NHS has increased from £64.173 billion in 2003/04 to £113.300bn in 2014/15.
  • planned expenditure for 2015/16 is £116.574bn
  • Health expenditure (medical services, health research, central and other health services) per capita in England has risen from £1,841 in 2009/10 to £1,994 in 2013/14.
So what is going on. Why cannot the NHS manage on this huge budget? Why, year by year, is our NHS is crisis?

And equally if not more important to the NHS crisis, is another question.
  • Why is the incidence of chronic disease actually increasing, and often increasing at epidemic levels?
What is happening, before our eyes, is that increased spending on the NHS is leading to increased levels of sickness, and has done so for the last 70 years! Increased spending on the NHS is actually making us sicker!

The reason for this, and perhaps the solution that the BMA is NOT looking for at its conference, is that the medicine we are investing in, whenever we increase NHS funding, is actually making us sick!

So what exactly is making us sick? Why is no-one asking this question? Why does increased spending lead to worse results.

If this was happening to any other business, in any other sphere of human activity, the question would be asked, the issue resolved, or the business would go bankrupt.

The answer, being avoided by the NHS and the BMA, is that conventional, drug and vaccine based medicine is failing. It is not making us better. Worse, the hugely increased consumption of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines we have taken over the last 70 years is actually making us sick.

What is the mechanism for this? It is well known. The conventional medical establishment usually refers to it as 'drug side effects'. Sometimes, it is referred to as 'adverse reactions' to drugs. I refer to it, more accurately, and more in tune with what is happening, as 'DIEs', or the 'disease-inducing effects' of medical treatment.

So the more we spend on conventional medical treatment, dominated as it is by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, the more DIEs we will suffer, the sicker we will be, and the more money the BMA will need in order to respond to it.

It is an ongoing carousel, it has never stopped, it will never stop.

The solution to the problems of the NHS, and the BMA, is more investment in traditional medicine, like naturopathy, homeopathy, herbalism, acupuncture, physiotherapy, osteopathy, chiropractor, and other therapies that work with, and alongside the body, not against it. Therapies that will treat a condition successful, even cure them, rather than causing more disease.

And then give patients health freedom, the freedom to choose the therapy of their choice!

Thursday 17 March 2016

DPT vaccine. Should you allow your baby to have it?

It would appear that it has been acknowledged that the DPT vaccine does cause Autism! At least the package insert of Tripedia, one DPT brand admits that Autism as been reported as an adverse reaction, alongside sudden infant death (SIDs), apnea, seizures up to and including epileptic 'gran mal' attacks, neuropathy and many mores
  • DPT is the vaccine ALL our children are routinely given by our conventional doctors.
  • DPT is the vaccine that our doctors have been telling us for years is safe for our children.
  • DPT is one of the vaccines they want to make mandatory in many USA states, and elsewhere.
  • DPT is one of the vaccines our mainstream media has refused to discuss for 12 year plus.
The fact that autism, sudden infant death, neuropathy, seizures, epilepsy might be bad enough, and a matter of considerable concern for parents who love their young babies.

Yet what is even more alarming is that young parents have not been told, and are not being told even now, about the link between the vaccine, and these dangerous and potentially lethal 'adverse reactions'.

I have seen a copy of the Tripedia package insert on this website - have a look for yourself.
  • If there is a possible link should not the entire conventional medical establishment be concerned?
  • Should there be more good quality research done into any possible link?
  • If there is a possible link should parents be told by their doctors?
  • If there is a possible link should the government not be warning us?
  • If there is a possible link should the drug company not be warning us?
  • If there is a possible link should the mainstream media not investigating, and telling us?
None of this is happening. Instead, as usual, there is silence. Well, it is on the package insert perhaps. But who ever sees the package insert? Doctors and nurses, perhaps, but not the child's parents.

Instead, we have to witness the ever increasing epidemic of autism sweeping the world.

Does the conventional medical establishment know what is causing this autism epidemic? Apparently not. This is the succinct summary given by the NHS Choices website.

          "The exact cause of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is currently unknown. It's a complex condition and may occur as a result of genetic predisposition (a natural tendency), environmental or unknown factors." 

And what treatment does the conventional medical establishment have for autism? NHS Choices is equally succinct about this too.

          "There's no 'cure' for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, a range of specialist educational and behavioural programmes can help children with ASD."

So what should parents of young babies consider when they are asked by their doctor to be allowed to give them the DPT vaccination? Three things....
  1. Conventional medicine is a suspected cause of autism, and our doctors know this.
  2. Conventional medicine says it does not know what causes autism, and fails to mention that one of their vaccines, has been linked with the condition.
  3. Conventional medicine has no treatment for autism if you normal baby should contract the condition.
Instead, conventional medicine tells parents how they can 'live with autism'. In other words, the vaccine can cause autism, the link is denied, the epidemic continues, and parents just have to get on with it!

Does that sound like a good deal? Does that sound like an honest deal? Does that sound like a deal likely to lead to parents making an informed choice?

Monday 14 March 2016

Doctors and dangerous drugs. Is their medicine cupboard bare?

The doctor's magazine, Pulse, recently published an article "50% hike in antidepressant use in UK children". (9th March 2016).  The increased use of antidepressant drugs for children, 'according to an international study' was actually 54%, and this rise took place between 2005 and 2012.

The Pulse article said that the World Health Organisation (WHO) was ‘very concerned’ by the rise in use of these drugs in children .... which it said was ‘not justified’.

However, this increased use of antidepressant drugs is not confined to Britain. Similar increases (60% in Denmark, 49% in Germany, 26& in USA, 17% in Holland) were recorded over the same period.

The Pulse article tried to defend GP's by pointing out that the increased prescriptions were made by 'secondary care specialists', but also added that that there was rising pressure on mental health services which led to British doctors being forced to prescribe.

Yet doctors have known about the dangers of prescribing these drugs to children for many years now. In 2005 I wrote this about antidepressant drugs.

          "In the UK nearly all antidepressants were banned for children in 2004, due to the increased risk of suicidal ideation. The USA however, still allows children to take these deadly, mind-altering drugs."

So even when conventional doctors are told that pharmaceutical drugs are dangerous they continue to prescribe them! Why do they do this? Do they not know that the drugs are dangerous? Do they forget the instructions given to them by drug regulators? Do they not care about the damage caused to patients?

Or could it be that the pharmaceutical cupboard getting bare?

There are signs of increasing desperation in the activities of the conventional medical establishment. If doctors cannot use antidepressant drugs, what can they do? If talking therapies are not available in sufficient quantity, owing to demand, do they have anything else to offer?

So is the mental health epidemic now so large that it is forcing our doctors to prescribe drugs that they know can be harmful to patient health?

The failure of conventional medicine is manifesting itself in many ways, but two in particular are worthy of note here.

  • Disease epidemics are stretching conventional health services, not only in mental health, but for conditions such as autism, arthritis, ADHD, allergy, cancer, diabetes, dementia, and many other diseases (all of them, by the way, caused at least in part by pharmaceutical drugs).
  • The failure and ineffectiveness of pharmaceutical drugs, such as antidepressants, and the paucity of any viable alternative for conventional doctors.
Most of the drugs that conventional doctors have relied upon for years are now no longer available to them, including two of their old stalwarts, antibiotics and painkillers.

Antibiotic drugs
Just as doctors are now prescribing antidepressants drugs to children when they should not be doing so, they have done the same with antibiotics drugs for decades. One by one resistance has built up rendering them useless, and now there are only a handful that are still known will work. For decades doctors have prescribed them. For decades, drug regulators have told them not to do so. But conventional doctors have had nothing else to offer patients, nothing else that worked. Conventional medicine is in a state of panic about the imminent total demise of antibiotics.

Painkilling drugs
Similarly with painkillers. In September 2013 I reported on 'The Failure of Painkilling Drugs'. This blog was triggered by another 'Pulse' article, written by a doctor who said that GP options for managing persistent pain had declined markedly over the past decade, but that crisis point had been reached. As I commented at the time, 

          "The GP goes on to talk about the rise of fall of co-proxamol, selective Cox-2 inhibitors, and traditional NSAIDs. And now, she bemoaned "the safety of yet another analgesic called into question, especially the one most often prescribed". She refers, of course, to Paracetamol."

The sad fact is that conventional pharmaceutical drugs either do not work, or they no longer work safely. And the sooner we realise this, the better it will be for all of us.

So what do doctors do, when faced with sick patients? They give them whatever they have, and increasingly they are drugs they know full well to be not only ineffective, but unsafe, harmful to our health.

The saddest fact, however, is that the conventional medical establishment cannot be honest with us. Instead of our doctors saying to us, "Sorry, I have nothing to give you, our drugs no longer work, or they are dangerous" they prefer to continue giving us ineffective and/or dangerous drugs.

It is a sad reflection of the medical profession, who are still thought to be, by many people, the most honest and trusted of all professional groups.

Friday 4 March 2016

Zika Virus, Microcephaly, and another new vaccine

On 26th February 2016, I published this blog, "Zika Virus. Are we being told the truth?".  It raised several questions, soon after the Brazilian outbreak of microcephaly was first announced to the world.

  • How could Zika virus, known for so long as being benign, suddenly begin to cause an epidemic of Microcephaly?
  • And as Microcephaly was found in places (like the USA and Britain), where there is no Zika virus, how could it be considered to be causal.
The blog put forward the undisputed fact that all pregnant women had received a form of the DPT vaccine, a mandatory inoculation, only months before the outbreak in Brazil occurred. Since that time this suggestion of has not gone away. Indeed, more details about this more likely, more logical explanation can be found here.

Other possibilities, such as the local release of GMO mosquitos in the epidemic area, have been put forward too. One of the most recent theories was suggested by Jon Rappoport, in his blog, "Leaked report: petrochemical pollution causes microcephaly".

So, has this sudden epidemic of Microcephalic children in Brazil been caused by any of these factors?And has the conventional medical established bothered to look into these alternative suggestions?

In short, no, they have not looked at them. But they have undoubtedly been busy! According to the news this morning (4th March 2016), the pharmaceutical industry have already fast-tracked another new vaccine - to combat the Zika virus.

The mainstream media appeared to be delighted! Certainly BBC News was singing their praises. Vaccines, they said, usually take several years to develop. Now, a vaccine against the Zika virus has taken just a few weeks to produce. How brilliant is this? So what exactly has this achievement been?
  • The cause of Microcephaly has been determined, and any alternative explanations have been discussed, without examination or reflection!
  • The drug companies have come up with a new vaccine, in double quick time!
  • The media has, as usual, accept the conventional medical explanation without query or examination!
  • The new vaccine to combat Zika, and could be available, presumably for pregnant women, perhaps alongside the mandatory DPT vaccine, by the end of the year!
So is this great news? Or just another lucrative business opportunity for Big Pharma?
  • If the DPT vaccine was the cause, the solution would have been inexpensive (but costly for the drug companies) - stop forcing women to have the vaccination!
  • If the GMO mosquitos were the cause, don't release any more, again, inexpensive, but costly for the company producing them!
  • If Petrochemical pollution is causing microcephaly, clean it up, inexpensive for the medical authorities, but costly for the petrochemical industry.
And of course, if these alternative explanations had been found to be the cause of the epidemic, the new vaccine, the new business opportunity for the Pharma industry would be lost. Fast-tracking the vaccine would have been an unnecessary and expensive error, 

So it is important for the conventional medical establishment to continue to blame the Zika virus in order to allow the drug companies to profit.
  • It may not stop more babies being born with microcephaly! 
  • It might be an expensive vaccine for the medical authorities to buy!
  • There may be limited time to assess the safety of the new vaccine!
But what the hell, and who cares anyway. The conventional medical establishment is, after all, not about our health. It is about their profits! And once again, the media does not care, so we are unlikely to be told anything other than that Zika is a dangerous virus. So there is very little to worry about. Is there?