Search This Blog

Tuesday 31 January 2017

Now Malaria Drugs are failing!

The effectiveness of conventional medicine is suffering another blow. Today, 31st January 2017, most mainstream media sources have carried the story that malaria is becoming drug resistant. The main drugs, used  in combination, to treat patients in the UK failed for four patients who had the tropical disease on returning to Britain. Although they worked, initially, all four were readmitted to hospital when the disease returned. They had to be treated with the antimalarial drug combination of artemether and lumefantrine.

The treatment of malaria has become a highly publicised issue in recent years, not least because the conventional medical establishment (and their friends in the organisation 'Sense about Science') objected to homeopathy treating the condition. It needed, they said in the words of Kirsty Wark, to be treated with 'proper' medicine! Well, it looks as though 'proper medicine is failing. I wrote about the homeopathic prevention and treatment of malaria in 2012

There appears to be no panic within conventional medical circles at the moment. The news release clearly says that conventional medicine has lots of other alternative drug treatment. Yet if this entirely true? Wikipedia talks about resistance to antimalerial drugs (all of them, not just this combination) and comments, simply, straightforwardly, that "Antimalarial resistance is common". So are we facing yet another group of pharmaceutical drugs that are becoming useless?

Yet in addition, all antimalerial drugs come with the most dreadful side effects. This particular combination, however, is apparently the treatment of choice. So let's examine the side effects of this 'treatment of choice' (taken from the website)
  • Abdominal or stomach pain
  • chills
  • cough
  • fast, irregular, pounding, or racing heartbeat or pulse
  • fever
  • headache
  • muscle aches
  • pale skin
  • right upper abdominal or stomach pain and fullness
  • sore throat
  • stuffy or runny nose
  • troubled breathing with exertion
  • unusual bleeding or bruising
  • unusual tiredness or weakness
  • Accumulation of pus
  • acid or sour stomach
  • belching
  • black, tarry stools
  • bladder pain
  • blood in the urine
  • bloody or cloudy urine
  • body aches or pain
  • change in hearing
  • chest pain
  • cloudy urine
  • convulsions
  • cough producing mucus
  • decreased urine
  • diarrhea
  • difficult, burning, or painful urination
  • difficulty with breathing
  • difficulty with swallowing
  • dizziness
  • dry mouth
  • ear congestion
  • ear drainage
  • earache or pain in the ear
  • frequent urge to urinate
  • general feeling of discomfort or illness
  • heartburn
  • increased thirst
  • indigestion
  • joint pain
  • loss of appetite
  • loss of voice
  • lower back or side pain
  • mood changes
  • muscle pain or cramps
  • nasal congestion
  • nausea or vomiting
  • noisy breathing
  • numbness or tingling in the hands, feet, or lips
  • red rash with watery, yellow-colored, or pus filled blisters
  • shivering
  • shortness of breath
  • sneezing
  • sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
  • stomach discomfort, upset, or pain
  • sweating
  • swollen glands
  • swollen, red, tender area of infection
  • thick yellow to honey-colored crusts
  • tightness in the chest
  • troubled with sleeping
  • Incidence not known:
  • Large, hive-like swelling on the face, eyelids, lips, tongue, throat, hands, legs, feet, or sex organs
If you examine the alternative drugs available to conventional medicine there are equally long and worrying lists of side effects to be found. In August 2013, the FDA announced that the antimalarial drug, mefloquine hydrochloride, is now known to cause "serious psychiatric and nerve side-effects". These can last for 'months to years' after taking the drug, and although the drug has not been withdrawn it now has 'Black Box' warning labels.

This is not good news for those people living in over 100 countries in Africa, Asia and Central America, or the 14 million people affected with malaria, or and 438,000 who died from it in 2015. Or, indeed, the 1,500 travellers who are diagnosed with it every year.

So the conventional medical treatment of malaria appears not only to be failing because of resistance. It is not, as Kirsty Wark would have had us believe in her notorious Newsnight programme in January 2012, "proper medicine". It is dangerous and failed medicine!

And Homeopathy, the medicine that Kirsty Wark, and the BBC attacked so vehemently, is still being used, throughout the world, still as safely and effectively as before. This should not come as a surprise. Homeopathy has been treating malaria for over 200 years, with no 'resistance' to the remedies that have been used during all that time.

Monday 30 January 2017

Steroid Inhalers. Not as good as we were told, and more harmful to our health

Many people use inhalers, and have done for decades. Now it has been discovered they are not as good as we have been told, and they are more harmful to our health too. New NICE guidelines have been issued, asking doctors to start reviewing all COPD patients, and consider taking those using inhaled steroids off their inhalers. It is thought that this could involve at least 500,000 patients.

               "It comes amid mounting evidence that steroids are less effective in COPD than previously thought and also more harmful – in particular by increasing the risk of pneumonia, as well as other side-effects such as worsening diabetes and reduced bone density."

The GP's magazine in Britain, Pulse, from which this quote is taken, say that new international guidelines are advising greater caution with the use of steroid inhalers following publication of "a raft of new studies". Experts in respiratory medicine are calling for an overhaul of the management of patients with COPD in primary care.

Yet this is a process to which the conventional medical establishment has subjected us too now for a very long time.
  • New treatments are introduced, heralded as wonder cures for this or that ailment, with its benefits greatly exaggerated, and its side effects greatly underestimated.
  • Millions of people are placed on the treatment in the belief that it is helpful, and that they are safe taking it.
  • The Pharmaceutical Industry makes enormous profits.
  • Decades later 'medical science' discovers that it got it wrong, the treatment is not a wonder cure, and the harm it does was far greater than they had previously thought.
  • There is a grudging, but partial recognition that patients have  been, and are being harmed, that the health of many may have been compromised.
Doctors are already overworked. The NHS is already in crisis because of the demands made upon it by sick patients. Many more of these demands, it would seem, are the result of inhalers! One recent study (Price D, et al. First maintenance therapy for COPD in the UK between 2009 and 2012: a retrospective database analysis. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med 2016; online 3 Nov. has apparently showed more than half of patients with COPD were started on an ICS inhaler and, as many more will have therapy stepped up. Now most of them could probably be taken off steroid therapy completely. The medication they have been taking, sometimes for decades, are no longer considered to be safe!

So how many patients have suffered pneumonia, worsening diabetes, and reduced bone density because of the inhalers prescribed to them as effective and safe?

Pulse does not say. Perhaps no-one knows. Perhaps no-one want us to know! Yet Pulse states that a recent study highlighted that large numbers of patients, with mild or moderate COPD, end up on triple therapy - with two long-acting bronchodilators and an ICS. This, the new guidelines state, is treatment that should be reserved for those with the most severe disease.

Consider this for a moment, and then ask what sort of medical system it is that has dominating health care for the last 100 years!

  • Patients with mild or moderate COPD have been over-drugged with inhalers that are less effective and more harmful than previously realised, and as a result many patients have suffered from pneumonia, worsening diabetes, and reduced bone density as a direct result.
  • In future, it will only be the sickest patients who will have this level of treatment because it is no known that it has too many harmful side effects, it is just too dangerous for anyone else! In other words, the sickest are getting the most dangerous treatment!
No wonder the NHS is in crisis. As I have said many times before pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are not making us better, they are the cause of increased levels of sickness and disease.

Yet there is a further problem for the conventional medical establishment. Their medicine cupboard has just become a little bit barer!

  • Antibiotics are failing, coming to the end of their useful life.
  • Painkillers have so many serious side effects they should only be used with the greatest caution
  • Psychiatric drugs are so dangerous to our health that doctors have to use 'talking therapies' instead.
Now doctors are losing their inhalers. So what do they have to replace them? The Pulse article provides us with the answer

               "One barrier to stepping down therapy is that it is often started because of a lack of alternatives. Dr Gruffydd-Jones adds: ‘Pulmonary rehabilitation has not been freely available in a timely manner. Waiting lists can be several months, so as a GP what are you going to do? You feel you have got to try something and end up escalating the treatment.’"

So this is yet another very serious problem for the conventional medical establishment. They have been prescribing dangerous and ineffective drugs for a long time. As a nation they have made us sicker. They are running out of money. They are running out of drugs. And they are running out of time!

References given in the Pulse article.

GOLD, 2017. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of COPD.

NICE CG101. COPD in over-16s: diagnosis and management, 2010.

Price D et al. First maintenance therapy for COPD in the UK between 2009 and 2012: a retrospective database analysis. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med 2016; online 3 Nov.

Haughney J et al. The distribution of COPD in UK general practice using the new GOLD classification. Eur Respir J 2014;43:993–1002.

Royal College of Physicians, 2016. National COPD Audit Programme: primary care work stream.

White P et al. Overtreatment of COPD with inhaled corticosteroids. Implications for safety and costs: cross-sectional observational study. PLoS ONE 8: e75221.

Mak V and D’Ancona G. Avoiding inappropriate prescribing of high dose inhaled corticosteroid combination inhalers – is the message getting through? Thorax 2016;71 (Suppl 3):A118-A119.

Friday 27 January 2017

Burnt Toast and Medical Science. Why is it so laughable?

Sometimes medical science comes up with an idea, a link between what we do and an illness, that is so completely laughable that everyone raises their eyebrows in amazement. This happened on 24th January 2017 when it was announced over-cooked starchy food, like burnt toast and roast potatoes, might cause cancer. It seems to have been covered by every media organisation around the world! So it was considered important enough to hit the headlines. But generally it was treated with a level of scepticism and amusement. This is how the Mail Online treated the news.

Your essential Good Health SURVIVAL GUIDE: Can roast potatoes and burnt toast really give you cancer? Experts reveal over-cooked starchy foods is worse for you than you think

The Mail Online article suggested that millions would be 'choking on their breakfasts', stated that the Food Standards Agency (FSA) had advised people to avoid most crispy food, that acrylamide, a toxic chemical created in the cooking process was the worry, but asked how damaging it really was, and what could do to avoid it? This was fairly typical of the coverage.

So why does medical science come up with such information. Why is it felt necessary to engage in extremely expensive research into such things?

Conventional medicine has no explanation for the cause of cancer
Despite cancer now running at record levels, despite cancer being the most feared of all diseases, despite the money medical science has spent on looking for the cause, despite many millions of people walking, running, swimming and doing other things to raise money for cancer research, the conventional medical establishment still does not know the cause of cancer.

Have a look at the NHS Choices website if you question this. Go to this page. Then click on the various different types of cancer and look at the causes given. They are as follows:

And that is the story with most of the other cancers. Conventional medicine does not know the cause. So perhaps they are still searching for a cause. Is that the explanation? Perhaps burnt toast is responsible for the epidemic levels of cancer. Perhaps cancer patients have been gorging themselves on enormous amounts of burnt roast potatoes.

Does conventional medicine really want to know what causes cancer?
There is one major cause of cancer, in all its many forms, that is well known. Even conventional medicine, and the pharmaceutical companies, know about it. 

  • psychiatric drugs, antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, amphetamines and stimulants, and anticonvulsant drugs, cause cancer.
  • HRT (hormone therapy), and the contraceptive pill, cause cancer.
  • Statin drugs are known to cause cancer.
  • Tamoxifen, used to treat breast cancer, is known to cause cervical cancer, and a more virulent form of breast cancer.
  • Heartburn and reflux drugs, like Omeprazole (Prilosec), are known to cause 'abnormal cell growth'.
And there are many, many more pharmaceutical drugs, and vaccines too, that are known to cause cancer. So why do our doctors continue to tell us that the cause of cancer is unknown? Or why do they omit to tell us about the voluminous evidence that pharmaceutical drugs is one known cause?

Well, really this is the point. They don't admit the link between cancer and pharmaceutical drugs because they don't want us to know about the link. It is not part of the drug industry's commercial plan. It would harm profits! We might think twice before we took them! We might look for a safer, more effective medical therapy.

Yet, something is causing the cancer epidemic. And pharmaceutical companies cannot just pocket the money millions of people are raising for cancer research every day without coming up with something. So they come up with nonsense research. It might be caused by burnt toast. No loss of profit there. Research funds can be spent on that. The drug companies will fund that.

But they certainly don't want to spend cancer research funds on discovering the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have been taken, for other less serious conditions, by people who contract cancer. Such research may suggest that we should not be taking psychiatric drugs, or Statin drugs, or HRT. And that would be an enormous own goal.

The same can be said of many other diseases. Indeed, sometimes the situation is far worse. Take  autism, for example, where there is not just a refusal to investigate the links with childhood vaccines, there is outright and total denial of any such link. I know it exists! You know it exists! Doctors know it exists! And the pharmaceutical industry knows it exists! But most people don't. So they accept their doctors advice, and get vaccinated.

So how many young people who have not been vaccinated develop autism. In the Amish community there is no autism. So surely this is good reason for medical science to investigate the link. It could be easily done.

But it isn't done. Vaccines are too important. They are the source of most pharmaceutical profit, now that most of their drugs have either failed completely, been withdrawn or banned, or no longer work without serious side effects. So vaccines have become sacrosanct, untouchable.

So, we are left with burnt toast, and many other more laughable causes of cancer, and other diseases. These scientific studies are not so much about medical research, they more about deflecting attention away from one if the major causes. 

Monday 23 January 2017

Pharmaceutical Drugs on sale at the pharmacy are no safer

In America there are few restriction on the advertising of pharmaceutical drugs. In Britain, however, there are more restrictions, which divide drugs into two types, prescription drugs, and 'over-the-counter' (or OTC) drugs. These are pharmaceutical drugs readily available for sale at chemists and supermarkets without the supervision of doctors.

Most people believe that OTC drugs are safer as they can be bought and taken without medical supervision. But is this true?

Note. For the 1000's who read this blog from outside Britain, a warning! The OTC drugs sold in other countries may not have the same names, but whatever they are called, they contain the same harmful and dangerous pharmaceutical ingredients. Having multiple names for the same drug is part of obfuscation routinely practice by the drug companies!

Want to avoid paracetamol, as you know it has dangerous side effects? Have some Calpol instead then. Problem is that the main ingredient of Calpol is paracetamol (acetamorphen)!

The message is clear. Just because pharmaceutical drugs are readily available without the approval of doctors, in pharmacies, and over the internet, does not make them any safer than prescription drugs!

Most OTC drugs are designed to treat pain, stomach ailments, and mouth and throat ailments. The ingredients of most OTC drugs are drugs that normally can only be prescribed by doctors because they are considered to be potentially harmful. Links below take you mainly to the website where you can see a description of the serious side effects caused by the linked drug. Often, OTC drugs are a mixture of different drugs, and we have very little knowledge of drug interactions.

Alka Sultzer
An 'fizzy' antacid drug and pain reliever that contain a mixture of aspirin, sodium bicarbonate, and anhydrous citric acid.

A painkiller, a mixture of paracetamol (acetamorphen), ibuprofen, aspirin and other ingredients such as caffeine.

Beechams Powders
Powders advertised to relieving aches, pains and fever associated with colds and flu, headaches, sore throat, nerve pain (neuralgia), period pain, toothache, and other aches and pains. The main ingredient is aspirin and caffeine.

A range of cough syrups containing ingredients such as codeine, dextromethorphan, pseudoephedrine, paracetamol (acetaminophen) and guaifenesin.

A painkiller for children, marketed for relieving headache, toothache, teething, earache and sore throat, reducing fever, and relieving the aches and pains associated with colds and flu. It is liquid paracetamol!

Dulcolax is a stimulant laxative that stimulates the bowel muscles to cause a bowel movement. The website informs us that it is a drug with many contra-indications (don't take it if), and some serious side effects, including muscle cramps, faintness, stomach discomfort, severe allergic reactions (rash, hives, itching, difficulty breathing, tightness in the chest and swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue).

A drug for period pain (dysmenorrhoea). It's main ingredient is Naproxen, a NASID (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory) painkilling drug.

A range of antacid drugs treating acid indigestion, reflux and heartburn. It's ingredients included aluminium hydroxide and magnesium carbonate. Widely advertised as 'safe' it comes with a wide range of serious side effects including gastro-intestinal, renal, musculoskeletal, metabolic side effects, and on the nervous system.

Lemsip is a brand of cold and flu remedies, aimed at relieving headache, fever, blocked nose, sore throats, and flu-related aches and pains. They are enticingly flavoured with lemon, blackcurrant and others to disguise the main ingredient, which is paracetamol (acetamorphen). Other ingredients are phenylephrine hydrochloride, a decongestant.

This is another painkiller, widely used for children, whose main ingredient is the NSAID drug, Ibuprofen.

Rennies tablets are antacid drugs used for stomach pain, bloating and sickness related to indigestion, heartburn, reflux and flatulence. The active ingredients are calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate, usually alongside a flavouring. In a blog I wrote in 2015, I noted that Rennies tablets have been identified as a cause of dementia.

These are cough and cold drugs containing a number of pharmaceutical ingredients, including the painkillers paracetamol (acetaminophen) and codeine, chlorpheniramine, an antihistamine, dextromethorphan, a narcotic antitussive (with possible psychedelic effects), diphenhydramine, an antihistamine, doxylamine, a sleeping drug, guaifenesin, an expectorant, menthol, an oral anaesthetic, phenylephrine, a decongestant, and promethazine, another antihistamine.

Another range of painkilling drugs containing various amounts of paracetamol (acetamorphen), ibuprofen, caffeine and codeine.

These are throat lozenges, used to relieve sore throats and mouth and throat infections. The active ingredients are amylmetacresol and dichlorobenzyl alcohol, which are antiseptic.

The main ingredient of this painkiller is the drug Diclofenac, "a NSAID painkiller, launched in Britain in about 1993 ... been found to cause heart attacks, and banned by the MHRA in June 2013".  For more information go to the above link. The drug is widely advertised on radio programmes, notably Classic FM, so is readily available - even though its main ingredients has been banned

Another drug for treating heartburn and reflux. Its main ingredient, ranitidine, is known to cause a variety of serious side effects and diseases, including those affecting the stomach, the heart, the skin, the liver and kidneys, the nervous system, the musculoskeletal system. It is very openly on sale on the internet.

The moral of this blog is to remember that all pharmaceutical drugs are unsafe, often dangerous, and sometimes lethal; that pharmaceutical companies go out of their way not to tell us this; that doctors either don't know, or don't bother to tell us; and that OTC drugs are no safer than any other kind of pharmaceutical drugs. They are best avoided. There are other, alternative medical therapies that are safer and more effective, so rather than take any drug, it is safer to check these out.

For instance, have a look at my 'Why Homeopathy?' website.

To keep yourself regularly informed about the failings of the conventional medial system, and to search for safer, more effective medical treatment, click on 'follow this blog' to the right of this blog. This will notify you whenever new blogs are published.

Wednesday 18 January 2017

Transgender. Sexual Identity. What role are pharmaceutical drugs playing in this?

There are lots of new illnesses and diseases plaguing us that were hitherto unknown. And many illnesses and diseases that we have known for millennia that have become more severe, and more common. I have regularly suggested that pharmaceutical drugs were one of the main reasons for this decline in health, and my ebook "DIE's - the Disease Inducing Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs" provides the plentiful information that supports this supposition. Now, it would appear, the harm being caused by these drugs is affecting our sexual identity.

The website 'RxISK' is a free, independent drug safety website that helps weigh the benefits of pharmaceutical drugs against the potential dangers. It is an important website because it asks this important question.

               "All drugs have side effects, but people often don’t link the effect they are experiencing to starting, stopping, or changing the dose of a drug. RxISK provides free access to information and tools to help you assess the connection between a drug and a side effect."

In October 2014, RxISK published an article, "Asexuality: a curious parallel". It noted the 'explosion'  during the last two decades in the number of children being prescribed antidepressant, antipsychotic and stimulant drugs, and also the 'dramatic' increase in the number of children exposed to these drugs before they are born. It pointed out that SSRI antidepressants caused birth defects, and were implicated in causing autistic spectrum disorders. It stated that SSRIs had "a profound effect on brain chemistry after only a single dose", that patients, even after their first dose, "will be aware of some degree of reduced genital sensitivity within 30 minutes of taking the dose,  and that "If an expectant mother is taking an SSRI, so is the unborn baby". It also added that all antidepressants transfer taken by mother's also transfer to the child through her breast milk.

Indeed, the article outlines a new condition, called Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD), and referred to several articles published by RxISK, and referred to a published paper that looked at 120 cases of enduring sexual dysfunction. As RxISK stated,

               "Given what we know about enduring sexual problems caused by SSRIs, it is reasonable to wonder how a prenatal or childhood exposure would affect a person’s long-term development and functioning. No studies have ever been done to investigate whether children exposed to psychotropic drugs either directly, or during pregnancy, grow up to have an unaffected sexuality."

Recently RxISK published two further articles on the issue, Asexuality, Transgender and SSRI's, published 31st October 2016, and Transgender, Asexuality and SSRIs, published 7th November 2016. They both raise the question of the link between SSRI antidepressant drugs and children with sexual identity issues. What is interesting about these articles is not so much the articles themselves, but the comments they have attracted from readers. This is testimony from individuals who have either experienced, or witnessed the sexual issues that have arisen from the pharmaceutical drugs implicated.

If the evidence of the link between SSRI drugs and sexual identity / transgender issues continues to increase, as it has done during recent years, a new issue will arise, not about the link between drugs and sexual identity, but focusing on denials by the pharmaceutical industry that any such a link exists, and the failure of the conventional medical establishment to do nothing about it.
  • We will be told that there has always been transgender children, the only difference being that now they are 'coming out'.
  • The testimony of people affected by sexual identity issues will be dismissed as 'anecdotal' and 'unscientific'.
  • The drugs industry will commission new 'scientific' studies that will discover there is no link between drugs and asexuality.
  • And, of course, the media will refuse to discuss the issue.
The latter appears to have already begun. RxISK has noted that Wikipedia (a close friend of the pharmaceutical industry, so not a website that should be considered reliable on any health issue) has taken down its PSSD page. RxISK say that they restored it, but I have not been able to find it today (18 January 2017), so that too has probably been removed. It can, however, be found here, on the RxISK website.

Incidentally, the homeopathic community has attempted to publish a reasonable article on Wikipedia for some time, without success. The owner is, apparently, stolidly anti-homeopathy. So much for its claims to be an 'encyclopedia' of information and knowledge!

So, as the evidence of a link between pharmaceutical drugs and sexual identity issues is becoming compelling, the pharmaceutical industry is engaged in a massive cover-up, alongside its friends and allies. RxISK are doing an exceptional job with this issue, and others. They are, however, pushing up against very powerful and influential forces, who power and influence depends upon their continuing and ongoing ability to sell drugs, regardless of the harm they cause to patients, or, as it would seem, even the future of the human race!

14th October 2019
Sexual identity and transgender issues continue to discussed, and the number of young people involved appears to be growing. Yet one report appears not to have hit the headlines. The Christian Post reported (26th September 2019) that drugs being used to halt puberty in gender-confused children have been linked to thousands of adult deaths.
               "The Food & Drug Administration has recorded thousands of deaths associated with Lupron, a puberty-blocking drug that is routinely used to treat prostate cancer in men and endometriosis in women. Adverse complications related to its use include breast disorders, malignant neoplasms, and psychiatric and nervous disorders."
Lupron, and similar drugs, intentionally alters the hormone levels in the body. It is known that they contributed to blood clots, other cardiovascular complications, brittle bones and faulty joints.
               "Between 2004 and June 30 of this year, the FDA documented 33,478 adverse reactions suffered by patients who took Leuprolide Acetate (Lupron), which is used as a hormone blocker. More than 19,054 reactions were considered "serious," including 6,056 deaths."
So is this yet another case of pharmaceutical drugs CAUSING a problem, conventional medicine trying to TREAT it, and causing DISEASE AND DEATH in doing so?

Tuesday 17 January 2017

The Plague of Auto-Immune Disease

The functioning of our immune system is complex, and most descriptions of how it functions are usually difficult for the layman or non-medic to understand. I include myself in that! However, there are five things we should all know and understand about our immune system.
  • Our health and well-being depends on our immune system working efficiently and well. It is what keeps us healthy, and allows us to fight off infection and disease.
  • Increasingly it is not doing so. Auto-immune disease, that is diseases caused by our immune system turning against us, are rapidly expanding in number and increasing in incidence.
  • Conventional medicine usually tells us that the reason for the explosion of auto-immune diseases is 'ideopathic' - that is, the causes are 'spontaneous', or unknown.
  • Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are known to adversely effect the functioning of our immune system, and although rarely admitted, can often be the cause of auto-immune diseases.
  • Immunotherpy is a conventional treatment of many conditions and diseases. It does so by 'inducing', 'enhancing', or 'suppressing' the body's immune response. In other words, conventional medicine actually seeks to interfere with the immune system.
In seeking to interfere with the immune system, conventional medicine is the only medical therapy to do so. In traditional or alternative medicine, in all its many forms, there is a recognition that the body will stay healthy, or will regain health, only through the its own healing mechanism, that is, through the immune system. For this reason, they all seek to support the immune system, not to change it in any way, and certainly not to outguess, to out-think or manipulate it in any way.

Autoimmune Disease
Many people will suffer from auto-immune disease without knowing it is an auto-immune disease! It can affect almost any part of the body, including the heart, brain, nerves, muscles, skin, eyes, joints, lungs, kidneys, glands, the digestive tract, and blood vessels. The sheer number of diseases that are now known to fall into this category has now reached over 100, is this number is rising, year on year! For a comprehensive list of this diseases, go to Auto-immune Disease List website. Just a few of the most common ones below demonstrates how important they are, and how much they are increasing.
  • Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis
  • Addison's disease
  • Alopecia Areata
  • Ankylosing spondylitis
  • Autoimmune hepatitis
  • Autoimmune inner ear disease
  • Bullous pemphigoid
  • Coeliac disease
  • Chagas disease
  • Dermatomyositis
  • Diabetes (Type 1)
  • Endometriosis
  • Goodpasture's syndrome
  • Graves Disease
  • Guillain-Barre syndrome
  • Hashimoto's thyroiditis
  • Hidradenitis suppurativa
  • Interstitial cystitis
  • Lupus
  • Morphea
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Myasthenia gravis
  • Narcolepsy
  • Necrotizing Fascitis
  • Neuromyotonia
  • Pemphigus Vulgaris
  • Pernicious anaemia
  • Polymyositis
  • Prader-Willi Syndrome
  • Primary biliary cirrhosis
  • Psoriasis
  • Retts Syndrome
  • Rheumatoid arthritis
  • Schizophrenia
  • Scleroderma
  • Sj√∂gren's syndrome
  • Temporal arteritis ('giant cell arteritis')
  • Vasculitis
  • Vitiligo
  • Wegener's granulomatosis
The Cause of Autoimmune Disease
Conventional medicine tells us that the reason for the explosion of auto-immune diseases is 'ideopathic'. In other words, its causes are 'spontaneous', or unknown. This HealthLine website is fairly typical of what conventional medicine tells us. It says that autoimmune disease may be caused by bacteria, or viruses, or by chemical and environmental irritants, or by drugs. But it is the explanation of autoimmune disease that is typically cited as the cause.

               "An autoimmune disease develops when your immune system, which defends your body against disease, decides your healthy cells are foreign. As a result, your immune system attacks healthy cells. Depending on the type, an autoimmune disease can affect one or many different types of body tissue. It can also cause abnormal organ growth and changes in organ function."

As a description this is adequate, but as an explanation of the causes of autoimmune disease it is not. The cause is about why our immune system makes this elemental mistake? Why is it attacking healthy cells? 

Any research on conventional medical websites, such as NHS Choices, will demonstrate that there is an acceptance that the cause of autoimmune disease is 'unknown'. Many forms called 'idiopathic', which now link automaticallywith the description 'iatrogenic'!

They are doctor-induced, that is, they are caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Many of the diseases were unknown before the 'Age of Drugs' that began around of middle of the mid-20th century. The rise of these diseases has mirrored the rise in our consumption of prescription drugs.

Pharmaceutical Drugs and the Immune System
Yet it is well known that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines adversely effect the functioning of our immune system. Conventional doctors know this, although they rarely admit it, or warn us before prescribing them. Certain drugs are known to cause autoimmune disease through knowledge of their 'side effects.
  • Antibiotics. Many autoimmune diseases, like allergies, psoriasis, irritable bowl, et al., are known to start in the gut, where the bacteria residing there are needed to undertake important functions in digesting food. They have been compromised, targeted by antibiotics, whose task is to kill bacteria, good and bad, useful and necessary, and usually do so quite indescriminently.
  • Vaccines. Vaccines, of all kinds, introduce toxins that are known to destroy the functioning of the immune system. This is achieved by injecting poisonous substances, like embalming fluid, and toxic heavy metals like mercury or aluminium, into the muscle tissue, whilst at the same time introducing genetically modified bacteria, live viruses, chicken embryos and aborted fetal proteins into the body! Scientists have known about the connection between autoimmune diseases and vaccination for many years. In the February 2000 issue of the magazine Autoimmunity, ten research articles evaluated the causal link between vaccinations and autoimmune disease.
  • Other Drugs. There are several specific pharmaceutical drugs that are known to upset the immune system. These include Alferon N, Inerferon Alfa, Infergen, Intron A, PegIntron, Roferon-A. Yet it is likely that most pharmaceutical drugs can cause autoimmune disease, and to discover which ones are responsible it is probably better to look at the specific autoimmune condition involved.
  • Other causes. There are many other factors known to compromise our immune system, including a diet high in sugar, fluoride in our water supply, and pesticides in our food.
Maybe these drugs and vaccines affect our immune system by accident rather than design, they are the 'unintended consequence', they cause 'collateral damage' to patients when doctors are treating other conditions! Perhaps they are a 'side effect', in the way conventional medicine always uses that rather ineffectual and inadequate term! But the failure of conventional medicine to diagnose the problem leads to even more problems.

The conventional medical establishment knowingly, willingly, intentionally targets the immune system in order to combat autoimmune disease. Immunotherapy treats cancer, through drugs that attempt to 'stimulate' the immune system to destroy tumours. Immuno-suppressive drugs are used following organ transplants, and to treat a variety of autoimmune diseases. Immunotherapy is used to treat allergies by seeking to 'reduce the sensitivity' of the immune system to allergens.

Immunotherapy is used mainly to reduce or suppress the immune response. The reason for doing so is that the immune system is seen to be attacking the body, in one way or another. Unfortunately conventional medicine does not ask 'why' the immune system is doing so? Indeed, it usually says it does not know why! It is deemed good enough that they have observed that the immune system is not working correctly, so it needs to be suppressed!

Immunotherapy drugs are an attempt to treat illnesses and diseases that have been caused by a faulty immune system - to stop the development of cancerous cells, to respond to allergens that an already compromised immune system is failing to recognise, to replace organs that no longer function properly, usually after many years of treatment with pharmaceutical drugs.

Yet the suppression of the immune system by powerful drugs absolutely fails to address the root cause, which is a faulty immune system! It is a strategy akin to taking a painkiller because of a painful foot after we have stood on a nail that is penetrating in it. Logically, the first thing to do is to remove the nail, not to prescribe painkillers! The first reaction to autoimmune disease, and a faulty immune system, is not to suppress it, but to find out why it is not working properly!

Conventional medicine has many pharmaceutical drugs that are specifically designed to suppress the immune system, including azathioprine, chlorambucil, cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, mycophenolate, methotrexate and many others. Corticosteroids, such as prednisone, are immunosuppressants drugs, used to relieve inflammatory illnesses, but which, when taken over a long period, have many serious side effects. They all seek to undermine the body's ability to defend itself against foreign substances and microorganisms. As a result they increase the risk of serious infections and cancer.

So, pharmaceutical drugs are not only a cause of autoimmune diseases, but faced with them, conventional medicine introduces more pharmaceutical drugs to treat them! This demonstrates that conventional medicine is not just an ineffective medical system, but one that actually creates disease, and then profits from the new disease by introducing more drugs!

Vaccination is immunotherapy too, this time by introducing infectious agents to artificially activate the immune system. In this sense, vaccines are used by a medical system that has no confidence in the immune system to cope with the rigours of staying healthy, of protecting itself from infectious disease, without the direct intervention of doctors, who (of course) know better is needed than our own bodies!

There are many non-medical ways of boosting our immunity, and supporting our immune system. They include regular exercise, exposure to sunlight, vitamin D supplements, and a good diet, rich in herbs and spices, reducing stress, and getting plenty of rest and good sleep.

But perhaps the best way of supporting our immune system is to avoid conventional medicine, and pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. If you are already on conventional medication, insist that your doctor works with you to get you off them. Then seek a homeopath, or a naturopath, or some other traditional therapist, to support your immune system.

To keep yourself regularly informed about the failings of the conventional medial system, and to search for safer, more effective medical treatment, click on 'follow this blog' to the right of this blog. This will notify you whenever new blogs are published.

Friday 13 January 2017

NHS in Crisis (Winter 2017)

The British NHS is in constant crisis.
  • It is consistently unable to cope with the demand for health services. 
  • It is continually asking for more money.
  • Governments always gives in, and gives them more money.
  • But any new money is spent quickly, with no apparent improvement it its ability to cope with demand.
I have looked back at my previous blogs, and I have regularly discussed this ongoing problem. "Health Spending brings down Governments, and bankrupts the Nation" was written in 2012, and outlines the long history from 1947 to 2010 of how successive governments have been increasing expenditure on the NHS - but never enough to enable it to cope. Since then, I have been commenting on the the regular NHS crisis, see these blogs, although there are others!

The NHS Debate (The NHS in Crisis 2011) published in May 2011
Our doctors in crisis (NHS in Crisis 2015) published in March 2015.
Britain's NHS in crisis (2016) published in February 2016.
NHS in Crisis (2016) published in March 2016.

Yet the reason for this monotonous repeated failure has never been ascertained.

The media never ask the right questions, questions that would be asked if the issue concerned any other sphere of human activity. Instead, they are happy to discuss the problem in accordance with the agenda set by the conventional medical establishment, the excuses, the self-justifications. Journalists never challenge that agenda, they invariably go along with it.
  • The NHS is inadequately resourced.
  • The NHS needs to be restructured, re-organised.
  • The patient population is ageing, and this is why there is increased demand.
  • More sick patients, with more and more illnesses, are being treated every year.
The problem is non of these things. The problem with the NHS is not financial, it is not organisational, IT IS MEDICAL!
  • Conventional medicine does not work. It is not effective. It rarely, if ever, has successful or effective treatments available that actually cure sick people. They ameliorate, they provide temporary fixes. But patients are seldom completely well again.
  • Indeed, the pharmaceutical drugs that form the basis of conventional medical treatment make patients sicker. Doctors call them 'side effects'. They are really 'disease-inducing-effects', in other words, they actually cause disease. More disease, that is, for the NHS to treat! More cost. More work. More pressure.
  • When conventional medicine tries to prevent disease (often benign illnesses) its main weapon is vaccines. And vaccines also cause disease, especially to children, who then become long-term NHS patients, with long-term needs, long-term sickness, such as ADHD, Autism, Asthma, and many others. More disease for the NHS to treat. More cost for the NHS. More work and pressure for staff.
  • These doctor-induced (iatrogenic) diseases are now running at epidemic levels. And conventional medicine has no effective treatment for these illnesses, most of them, at least in part, caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. These epidemic diseases are at the heart of the ongoing NHS crisis, and they always have been.
The government will almost certainly provide the NHS with more resources, given sufficient pressure from doctors and patients, from patient support groups, supported (in the background) by the pharmaceutical industry, and unchallenged by the mainstream media, by politicians, and by governments, who ask no questions, and fail to challenge the conventional medical establishment about its failure to cope.

So what good will this new funding do? There will be more money for largely ineffective treatments that will fail to reduce the sick population and so fail to reduce workload. There will be more more money to spend on more pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines which, through their 'side effects', will increase levels of sickness and disease, adding to the future workload of the NHS. And with increased demand on NHS resources, there will be another funding crisis.

And this will continue until proper, pertinent, challenging questions are asked of the conventional medical establishment about the performance they are achieving from the money they are already spending, and the outcome of this expenditure on patient outcomes.

To keep yourself regularly informed about the failings of the conventional medial system, and to search for safer, more effective medical treatment, click on 'follow this blog' to the right of this blog. This will notify you whenever new blogs are published.

Monday 9 January 2017

Autism and the Amish community

Is Autism caused by vaccines? The conventional medical establishment has been denying the link vehemently for many decades, not least during the last 10 years. Yet the debate continues, whilst the autism epidemic rises. Only 60-70 years ago, before vaccines were introduced, autism was virtually unknown!

So, perhaps I can make a suggestion to medical scientists. Do one of you randomised control tests (RCT's)! Select a group of people who refuse to have their children vaccinated, and another group who want their children to be vaccinated. Do everything you need to do to 'match' the two groups. Then compare the outcome. How many refusers children develop Autism? How many vaccinated children develop Autism? And then accept the evidence! It should be conclusive, one way or the other. The mystery of the emergence of this new disease will have been resolved!

The problem is that the outcome is already known, the study has already been conducted. In the USA, where most children are vaccinated, about 1 in 50 can now be expected to become autistic. But the Amish community has always refused vaccination. They form are close community of people who remain 'vaccine free'.

And the result of this 'informal' study is, indeed, conclusive. There is no autism within the Amish community. This Natural News article reminded me about the Amish community, and their autism free children. It stated this.

               "Take a little trip to the heart of Pennsylvania Dutch country and try to tag yourself even half a dozen Amish children with autism and you’ll come up short. If statistics matched our national average, there would be about 200 in the Amish community, but to date, there are only three, one of which was adopted and brought over from China...... Another one actually did get vaccinated and developed autism shortly afterwards."

The conventional medical establishment will never allow any such experiment! They will deny the evidence provided to us by the Amish community. They will refuse to replicate this evidence in a properly constructed RCT trial, even though they claim that their medicine is 'scientific' because of the evidence such trials provide. Actually, they only want evidence that supports their drugs and vaccines, not evidence that informs us that they cause illness and disease.

The Natural News always gives another statistic - that children who receive mercury-containing vaccinations (thimerosal) are 27 times more likely to develop autism than unvaccinated children. The statistic comes from a recent study based on the data provided by the CDC (the 'American Centres for Disease Control and Prevention')!

Anyone thinking of having a vaccination, any parent thinking of vaccinating their child, should consider this information. 

They should also read this article on Autism published by TruthWiki, and new internet encyclopaedia, like Wikipedia, but without the ties to conventional medicine, and the pharmaceutical industry!

And in case you are wondering whether Autism is the only disease generated by vaccination, note that the Natural Health article also informs us that the Amish community is also virtually free of cancer and heart disease too!

Thursday 5 January 2017

Flu Vaccine. Consternation within the NHS

There are three important factors about health care for patients - and only three!
  • Effectiveness, we want to get better...
  • Safety, we don't want the treatment to harm us...
  • Cost, treatment should not be expensive, it should not threaten to bankrupt the NHS...

The flu vaccine prevents us from getting flu. That, at least, is what we are told by the conventional medical establishment. They tell us that the treatment is effective, safe, and it is not exorbitantly expensive.

So, with this belief, the NHS tries every year to persuade us to be vaccinated, apparently without significant success. The GP magazine, Pulse, has reported that "Extra GP phone calls and messages failed to boost flu vaccine uptake". According to Pulse, a GP surgery in east London targeted patients in three key 'at-risk' groups, older people over-65, COPD patients, and patients with diabetes. They did so "in a bid to boost vaccine uptake and improve their QOF achievement scores". So in December (2016) the practice contacted patients in these groups by text messages, emails and telephone calls to home and mobile phones.

Pulse says that GP practices are under increasing pressure from NHS England to boost flu vaccine uptake. Coverage in 2015 fell, and with children and younger people, uptake has fallen for the previous three years.

Another pressure, not mentioned in the article, but in a comment from a GP, is that doctors are paid for every patient they vaccinate.

The campaign was a failure. Pulse reported that the proportion of patients vaccinated went up 5% with diabetes patients, 3% with COPD patients, and actually declined by 1% with older patients. The team concluded:

               "This study shows that attempts to intensify patient notification ..... had no significant impact on improving QOF flu vaccine uptake targets... The two main reasons for this appear to be difficulty in contacting patients and a general lack of interest in getting the flu vaccine among the contacted population despite convenient and accessible flu clinics being organised."

Pulse says that this was put down mainly "to misconceptions about the vaccine - that it is unnecessary and causes a range of adverse side effects - as well as health and mobility problems that prevented patients from coming in".

Or is the growing resistance to the flu vaccine, and vaccines generally, a growing awareness that they are ineffective, unsafe, and not cost effective? As one doctor comments:

               "Can we just remind everyone that there is no evidence anywhere from any country in any year that mass inoculation population flu vaccination of anyone over 5yrs of age has any effect on anything other than politician's ego and pharmaceutical's profits. It's non evidence based medicine and should be shunned."

So perhaps patient resistance has less to do with 'misconceptions', and more to do with effectiveness and patient harm. Certainly this blog has gone over both these issues. I will not rehearse them here, again, but here are just a few of the links to articles I have previously written.

          Flu Vaccine. Is it worth the serious risks involved?
          Preventing Colds and Flu's this winter
          The Flu Vaccine
          The Flu Vaccine that causes Narcolepsy? Pandemrix
          Avian flu, a new epidemic. What can conventional medicine do?
          Alzheimer's disease and the flu vaccine

There are others, all pointing to the ineffectiveness and dangers of the flu vaccine; they can be found by searching within the blog-site. Yet perhaps the most interesting feature of this season's flu vaccination campaign can be seen in what is happening within our hospitals. Last night I watched my local news bulletin on the BBC. This was dominated by the warning that our hospitals were under immense 'winter' pressures. The hospitals at Leicester, Milton Keynes, Northampton and Kettering were all operating under a 'black alert', meaning that they were operating at 100% capacity. One of the reasons given was the number of people visiting hospital with flu-symptoms!

Now, who are these people with flu symptoms? Are they the patients who have not had their flu vaccination? Or are they the people who have had their flu vaccination? The question needs to be asked, although I suspect there will be no answer. And there will be no answer because a large number of these flu victims will be those who have had their flu vaccination!

So we spend money on vaccinations, only for our hospitals to be placed on black alert! Conventional medicine does not treat illness successfully. It actually creates illness. They it cannot cope. Then it demands even more resources, to spend on drugs and vaccines that don't work, and increase levels of sickness. It has long been so.

This is not what the conventional medical establishment wants us to hear! That many people who have had the flu vaccine are getting flu, or something similar. But it happens regularly, children are vaccinated against measles, and they are amongst the population who contract measles. Children are vaccinated against mumps, and they are amongst the population who contract mumps. It is part of the growing evidence that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children. The scientific journal that originally published the results withdrew the study from publication. This has been reported in several websites, including the Waking Times.

               "The abstract of the study was published online in Frontiers in Public Health after being accepted November 2 (2016). The study compared children’s health via surveys of mothers who home-schooled their children aged 6-12 years. Nearly 40 percent of the children had never been vaccinated, so the control group was adequate to do a good comparison against children who had been vaccinated. After heavy criticism from the public and scientific community due to the results of the study.... it was retracted. Why? Those that were vaccinated were three times more likely to be diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism."

So, is the poor uptake of the flu vaccine the result of patient 'misconceptions'? (And why is it that the conventional medical establishment always blames the patient for ill-health?) Or is it because patients are now more aware of the ineffectiveness, and the dangers of the flu vaccination, and they are making a personal, reasoned choice.

If the NHS were really interested in reducing flu, this winter or any winter, it would look to more effective, and safer treatments for flu. This is what everyone needs to do, and the conventional health system fails rapidly. Look at this website to compare the conventional treatment of flu with homeopathic treatment.

Homeopathy offers everything the patient needs. Safety. Effectiveness. And minimum expense.