Search This Blog

Tuesday 21 March 2017

Medical Failure and Denial. Who will be first to break cover?

Conventional medicine is failing. One after another pharmaceutical drugs are falling by the wayside, with doctors, for example, no longer able to prescribe painkillers and antibiotics freely, and without reference to the damage they are causing. We are facing the medical failure of a system of medicine that has dominated health services for the last 70-80 years. Doctors have promised much over the last 100 years, but they have delivered little, except creating levels of sickness and disease (Autism, Dementia, ADHD, Diabetes, Arthritis, Osteoporosis, et al) never known before. But everywhere there is denial.

When will it end? When will the whistle be blown on the medical experimentation that has been done on entire populations with the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have caused so much harm and death?

The movement against conventional, drug-based medicine is growing rapidly. Just look at social media. It is full of stories about the ongoing damage being caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. It will continue to grow because it is based on fact, on the evidence of what is happening all around us, of increasing harm done to patients. The movement is unstoppable because conventional medicine has nothing to offer other than treatments that do not work, and devastate the health and lives of so many people and families.

Yet we might have to wait a little longer yet for the end game!

The conventional medical establishment is immensely powerful. It influences every strand of our society - politicians, governments, the mainstream media, medical science and the universities, drug regulatory agencies, not to mention the doctors and other medical personnel who are part of the 'inner' establishment.

So who is going to be the first to break cover? Who will be the first to tell us that conventional medicine has failed, and must end?

One of the problems, perhaps the most important problem, is that it is difficult for anyone who is, or has been part of, or associated with the conventional medical establishment, to break ranks, and to blow the whistle. Consider this.

  • Doctors and Nurses. These are the people who have been directly responsible for giving their patients harmful drugs and vaccines. What do they say? Sorry? I was wrong? What I have been doing for my entire career has harmed patients? I have dedicated my life to conventional medicine, and it does not work?
  • Medical scientists. These are the scientists who have tested the drugs and vaccines that have harmed and killed so many people. They have pronounced them to be both safe and effective when none of them have been either. They have been employed by the pharmaceutical industry, and, to a significant extent, they have danced to their tune. They have consistently exaggerated the benefits of the drugs they tested, and failed to spot the dangers to patients before millions have suffered. Can they really be expected to say that the much lauded 'scientific' basis of conventional medicine has been a sham? Will they admit that they have been engaged in cheque-book science, junk science?
  • Drug regulators. These are the people who have been charged with the responsibility of keeping patients safe from harmful drugs and vaccines, and they have singularly failed to do so. They should have examined the science behind conventional treatments, and closely observing the serious and harmful adverse reaction to them. Almost exclusively they have been place-men, the stooges of the pharmaceutical industry, more intent on promoting the profits of the industry rather than the safety of patients.
  • Politicians and governments. What can we expect these people to say? Over the years they have invested heavily in national health services, and increasingly in dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. They have been seduced by the investment and employment provided by the drugs industry, but turned a blind eye to the devastation the drugs and vaccines have caused to their constituents.
  • The mainstream media. The media has been, and continues to be, slavishly compliant to the messages of the pharmaceutical industry. When they have released news of a new 'wonder' drug they have announced it, loudly, from the rooftops. When evidence of harm has emerged the mainstream media has kept studiously silent, to the maximum extent they have been able to keep the information from the general public. Investigative journalism has been totally absent, especially during the last 10-15 years. So what can we expect the newspapers to say? That they got it wrong? That they promoted drugs when asked to do so by the drugs industry, and then consistently failed to inform the public about the very obvious dangers they presented to our health? That they have failed to accomplish the very first task of journalism - to keep us informed/ And for a 'public broadcaster', such as the BBC, to make these admissions could have serious consequences to their claim to be fair and impartial.
  • The Pharmaceutical Industry. And do we expect these people to say anything that might be harmful to their profits, their lucrative business, the top salaries or their top managers? It is highly unlikely. Indeed, they will continue to spend their money to ensure that they keep doctors, medical scientists, drug regulators, politicians, and the media 'on-side', whether this be through direct payments to keep them on-side, or if necessary, by downright fraud.
I thought that the 'end-game' may have come with Dr William Thompson, the whistle-blower who in 2014 admitted that the medical 'science' that said the MMR vaccine was safe, and not linked to Autism, was fraudulent. I was being over-optimistic! I have written about this situation several times here, tracing the issues, how they developed, and what has happened to it.

What happened was that politicians in the USA Senate did not pick up the story. The mainstream media, including the BBC have refused to report on it, drug regulators and medical science have neither acted or commented, and doctors and nurses continue to give the MMR vaccination to young children. In the USA politician are even trying to make vaccination mandatory!

And the Thompson situation actually makes the situation worse for the future. How will those who refused to comment and act on this situation defend themselves?

The house of cards that is the conventional medical establishment is imminently vulnerable to collapse, to catastrophic collapse. But when the collapse comes there are a lot of people and organisations who will have a lot of explained to do!

Monday 20 March 2017

Skin creams? Setting us on fire!

Conventional medicine is dangerous to patient health. Vaccines containing a variety of poisonous substances are injected into our bloodstream. Prescription drugs are toxic, and cause side effects that are really serious illnesses and diseases.

But what about skin creams, moisturisers? We don't ingest or inject them. We just spread them over the skin, especially for 'dry skin' conditions such as Ezcema and Psoriasis. So what possible dangers can they present to patients? Well, the BBC told us yesterday (19th March 2017) that they are leading to death, with patients catching fire as a direct result of these skin creams. They are based on petroleum-based chemicals, which are inflammable.

Using petroleum to treat skin conditions is something done safely by homeopathy. The remedy Petroleum is often used for conditions where the skin is itchy, dry, rough crusty and cracked, such as eczema and psoriasis. But of course, the homeopathic remedy it is entirely safe as the chemical has been diluted and potentized in the usual way. This is not so in conventional medicine, which believes that there has to be an 'active ingredient' in its drugs and vaccines, and even in its skin creams. Hence, the dangers of conventional medicine!

Yet the significance of this news is not what the BBC 5-Live investigation revealed, it is what the the investigation, and the accompanying article does not quite say! Read the article closely.

               "Despite warnings going back more than 10 years, BBC Radio 5 live Investigates has discovered there have been 37 deaths in England since 2010 linked to the creams."

Philip Hoe died in 2006. He was suffering from psoriasis. He was in a hospital. He would not have expected that smoking a cigarette would kill him.

               "The coroner at his inquest drew attention to the dangers posed by skin creams, and the now defunct National Patient Safety Agency advised that paraffin-based products are easily ignited with a naked flame if used in large quantities."

So what did conventional medicine do? How did they react to a death caused by the treatment he was receiving within a hospital setting?

               "The Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency later issued two more warnings, but deaths continued to occur."

Patient safety does not rate highly within the NHS. Dangerous drugs and vaccines are given to patients regardless of the evidence of danger. Drug regulatory agencies (who primary task is to protect patients, and keep them safe) fail. Hospitals fail. Doctors fail. And the 'National Patient Safety Agency' is closed down. Patients are not told about the dangers of conventional medical treatment, and they suffer!

So, 9 years later, in 2015, Christopher Holyoake dies in Leicester for the same reason. After his death the coroner "wrote to the manufacturer of E45 - outlining her concerns there were no warnings on the packaging about the product being highly flammable". Philip Hoe's death had clearly been in vain. E45 cream has been widely used since 1952. It is readily available, over-the-counter, in pharmacies. The BBC state in their article that "E45 has since agreed to include a flammability warning on some products and these will find their way onto shop shelves from next month." I have looked at the E45 website this morning. There are warnings, just promotion. They have been producing the cream for 65 years, but no still no warning!

Also in 2015, John Hills dies, in Worthing. His moisturiser was "a paraffin-based cream called Cetraben", and he smoked a pipe and died as a result. Again, the coroner expressed concerns that the dangers of the product was not widely known. He was assured that the manufacturers intended to carry out a review of the safety information included on their product packaging. I looked at Cetraben's website this morning. No warnings there either. Just promotion.

Instead, as usual, the the BBC is happy to go along with the balm. "The creams themselves aren't dangerous, it only becomes dangerous when you mix it in with other factors." Well, that's alright then!

There is also ignorance. The true scale of the problem is not known - 11 years after Philip Hoe died! 2 years after Christopher Holyoke and John Hills died. Hundred's? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

               "Until recently, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency only asked that a flammability warning be put on packaging if a cream contained more than 50% paraffin. The agency is now urging manufacturers to add a warning to the packaging of skin creams containing any paraffin."

So, MHRA is stumbling into action! Well, perhaps. Or will the problem be shelved when the media turns its attention to other investigations? After all, why should the pharmaceutical industry jeopardise a profitable product. Its business is profit. Action, in the interests of patient safety, is not profitable.

This is how conventional medicine works. It produces dangerous products. It hides the dangers from patients. Patients suffer. And nobody is prepared to do anything about it!

Post Script
Doctors have been petroleum, usually referred to as petroleum jelly, since the 1870's, when Vaseline was introduce in the USA. It is used as an industrial lubricant, but conventional medicine also uses it for nappy rash on babies skin, to heal raw noses and soothe chapped lips. It is also used in many cosmetic products, including lipsticks, and baby oils.

Thursday 16 March 2017

Conventional Medicine. Useless Treatment?

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has published an article that discussed the issue of 'useless' conventional medical treatment. It is called "Choosing Wisely in the UK: the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges’ initiative to reduce the harms of too much medicine". BMJ 2015;350:h2308. Reading the article it appears that it is not just the effectiveness it is discussing, but also the cost and value of the treatment, and its dangers. The conclusion, however, is that we are being offered too much of it.

The Independent newspaper commented that "dozens of common medical treatments and procedures routinely given to patients by doctors are effectively pointless", and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC) were quoted as saying that "scores of treatments which can be given to patients for various ailments ranging from grazes to cancer frequently do little more or the same as doing nothing at all, while also potentially incurring side effects". It states that the NHS is spending £2 billion on "useless or harmful treatment".

The Guardian newspaper provides the same information, only with a slightly different slant, that makes it into a rationing and resources issue.

               "In a move that has roused fears that it will lead to the widespread rationing of NHS care, the body representing the UK’s 250,000 doctors is seeking to ensure that patients no longer undergo treatment that is unlikely to work, may harm them and wastes valuable resources".

The BMJ report is about the cost-effectiveness of conventional health. It warns that the NHS will not be able to cope with growing demand for healthcare unless 'over-treatment' is banished. The Guardian comments how the structure of the NHS leads to this over-treatment.

               "The NHS’s “tariff” system of paying hospitals for treatment incentivises them to undertake medical activity, as does the Quality Outcomes Framework system under which GPs are rewarded for, for example, treating high cholesterol or high blood pressure".

All this comes at a time when the NHS, and the conventional medicine that dominates this, is once again in deep crisis, as it has been every winter since its inauguration. Of course, the media are seeking to put a gloss on the failure of conventional medicine. It isn't that pharmaceutical-led medicine is failing, or that the NHS is virtually bankrupt, it is that patients are expecting too much, and doctors are 'overtreating' us by giving us treatments we do not need, or which do not work. As the BMJ paper says, the NHS needs to 'choose wisely'.

The BMJ paper comes to some interesting conclusions, all expressed in terms that are as uncritical to conventional medical treatment as possible.

  • Doctors should provide patients with resources that increase their understanding about potential harms of interventions and help them accept that doing nothing can often be the best approach.
This is, of course, a statement about the value of what conventional medicine has to offer, and the safety of its treatment.
  • Patients should be encouraged to ask questions such as, “Do I really need this test or procedure? What are the risks? Are there simpler safer options? What happens if I do nothing?”
Patients have never been encouraged by conventional medicine to ask questions, or to seek safer treatments. If they were to do this, and patients become aware of the limited, even spurious benefits of conventional treatment, and the availability of homeopathy, and other traditional medicines, it would have serious implications for the dominance of drug based medicine. 
  • Medical schools should ensure that students develop a good understanding of risk alongside critical evaluation of the literature and transparent communication. Students should be taught about overuse of tests and interventions. Organisations responsible for postgraduate and continuing medical education should ensure that practising doctors receive the same education.
This indicates that the key staff of the conventional medical establishment are currently working from the premise that drug-dominated medicine is good for us, that we will be healthier if only we used more of it, quite regardless of outcome, quite regardless of cost, and quite regardless of the harm it causes to patients.
  • Commissioners should consider a different payment incentive for doctors and hospitals.
This suggests that not only are medical staff not taught about the overuse of conventional medical treatments, they are given the profit-driven incentives to use and overuse more of it.

The failure of the medical system we have increasingly relied up during the last 70 years lurks beneath the issues raised in this BMJ article. Conventional medicine has always faced three significant issues or disadvantages.
  • It is the most expensive of all medical therapies (and it is now causing the bankruptcy of national health services throughout the world).
  • It is the most dangerous of all medical therapies (and it is now causing epidemics of chronic disease in areas of the world where it dominates medical services).
  • It is the most ineffective of all medical therapies (which leads to populations becoming sicker, and unable to cope with patients demand for treatment).
So it is not just that 85% of conventional medical treatments are 'useless' (probably an underestimate) it is that what it offers is too ineffective, too dangerous, and too expensive. Radical as this MBJ articles might seem, there is a need for a much more fundamental re-think of how health care is delivered to patients.

There is an urgent need to recognise that conventional medicine is failing, and that homeopathy, and other traditional therapies have to be embraced.

Friday 10 March 2017

Pharmaceutical drugs cause illness and disease

I have called my new E-book, "DIE's. The Disease Inducing Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs. It is now live, with new illnesses being added every week. I hope it will be a book that many readers of this blog will visit regularly. This blog concerns the writing of each section, and some of the things I have found.

1. The Nature of Side Effects
We are persuaded to take pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines on the basis that they will all have 'side effects'. The term has almost a benign effect! Perhaps they will give us a mild headache, a dry mouth, or perhaps some redness around the injection site of a vaccine. Nothing to worry about!

Yet there is plenty to worry about! "These so-called 'side effects' of pharmaceutical drugs are much more serious than the term implies. Even the term 'adverse drug effects' is not sufficient to describe the damage drugs can do to our health. No pharmaceutical drug or vaccine in safe, and most have proven to be harmful to both human and animal health."

This weeks task is 'Birth Defects'. It has taken me much longer than I had imagined! Indeed, I have not completed it at the time of writing, as there are so many drugs that cause damage to the foetus in the womb. And it is sometimes difficult to find the evidence of the harm they do. Lots of information on the benefits of a drug, not so much on the harm they cause!

2. There is no gain without pain
If a drug does not have a side effect, if it does not have an 'active ingredient' conventional medicine considers it to be useless. It will have no effect. Therefore, if we want to treat any illness or disease we have to go through the game of 'Russian Roulette' with drug side effects, and just hope we do not get the loaded cartridge!

**** Most alternative medical therapies do not have significant side effects, but most conventional doctors will not tell patients about treatment alternatives!

3. Weighing the 'Benefits' with the 'Risk'
We will often hear doctors telling us that a particular drug constitutes a 'risk', but that the benefits outweigh the risk involved. Who undertakes this risk analysis? It is done by the drug companies, and drug regulatory agencies who are under the direct control of the drug companies. And so the analysis is done on the basis of
               (a) hyping or exaggerating the benefits of the drug or vaccine, and
               (b) discounting the importance or seriousness of the side effect.

**** The resulting advice is to take the drug - the 'risk analysis', we are told, is that the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks.

4. The Under-Reporting of DIEs, or side effects
It has been estimated, several times, in several different times, that only 10% of drug and vaccine side effects are ever reported to drug regulators. Were you aware that doctors have a responsibility to report any drug side effect we report to them? Usually they don't. They say that the side effect had nothing to do with the drug, or they just change the drug. Yet it should not be the doctor who decides on the link between a drug and a side effect. They should be routinely reported so that the drug regulator can decide whether this is an isolated link, or whether there are sufficient to warrant further investigation.

**** What this means is that every pharmaceutical drug is 10 times more dangerous the conventional medical establishment knows or accepts!

5. Informed Choice
When conventional medicine asks us to take a drug or vaccine we take them on the basis of trust. Our doctor would not ask us to take a dangerous drug, we would be informed of any 'side effect'! Surely? Well, actually, no. We are not usually told, not fully, not completely, not honestly. We are not told about them if the side effect is still disputed, if it has not been 'proven' by medical science. There is usually a long wait from the time a side effect is first noticed to when drug companies admit it, and acknowledge it in PILs - the patient information leaflets. They work on the basis that 'there is no evidence',  meaning there has been no RCT's (randomised controlled testing) done on the issue. Our reports are just dismissed as 'anecdotal'. There is no proven correlation between the drug and the illness or disease it causes!

**** When we are not told about the possibility of serious side effects, or DIEs, no patient can make an informed choice. We just

6. The Result - Disease
Yet the most amazing discoveries I have made writing 'DIEs' for the last few months concerns just how culpable pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are in causing almost any illness and disease. There are often other causes too, of course, but where there is an illness or disease there are usually several prescription drugs that are known to cause the illness. On most pages I have provided this description.

               "Do you suffer from (disease name)? What caused it? Is it just chance, or bad luck? Pharmaceutical drug and vaccine 'side effects' are actually illnesses and serious disease. Could this be the cause?

**** Yet most people would not believe that they have become ill, often seriously ill, as a result of the drugs their doctor have prescribed to them over the years.

7. The 'new' disease is worse!
When a pharmaceutical drug is taken to treat an illness, the disease the drug causes as a 'side effect' is usually far worse, more serious than the original illness. Soon, we discover we are in a downward spiral - ill, more illness, more serious illness - more drugs to treat the illnesses, more side effects, and more illness.

**** It is not an ageing population that is putting conventional health services under severe strain. It is not bad management of resources that is bankrupting national health services. It is the reliance we have placed on conventional, drug-based medicine that have made us increasingly sick.

8. What to look for
So what diseases should we be particularly aware are caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines? Well, every disease really. The website already covers articles ranging from from Allergy to Violence, from a lack of libido to dementia, from depression to cancer. But in particular these tell-tale signs are indications that drugs could be the cause of the disease!

**** Illnesses where conventional medicine says there is 'no known cause'.

**** Illnesses where, instead of a cause being given, there is a description of what is happening to the body; such descriptions are not what causes the body to behave in this way.

**** Diseases described as a 'syndrome'.

**** Diseases that were unknown prior to about 1950, when taking drugs became more widespread, and often supported by government-backed national health service schemes.

**** Diseases that have always been with us, but which we now experience at unprecedented and epidemic levels.

8. Abstinence. A cure for lots of illness and disease!
Good diet, and exercise is good general advice for staying well, and disease free. But there is another essential rule to maintaining good health through into older age.

Abstain from taking ANY pharmaceutical drug or vaccine!

And instead look for safer, more effective medical therapies to use when you feel unwell.

Wednesday 8 March 2017

Children and Sleep Deprivation. Are drugs to blame?

The BBC Panorama programme has recently (6th March 2017) broadcast 'Sleepless Britain', which concerned the problems created for children by sleep deprivation. It stated that sleep problems had tripled over the last 10 years.

It focused on the use of mobile phones and television screens, and also mentioned the consumption of unhealthy foods, sugar and fizzy drinks. Surprisingly, for the BBC, it also mentioned the 10-fold increase in the use an unlicensed drug, Circadin. It said that £13.5 million had been spent on this drug in 2015, a 10-fold increase in 10 years.

Circadin contains a synthentic form of the hormone, melatonin, that aids sleep. However, it is licensed only for the use of people over 55 years. It is not licensed for children, but doctors are given 'discretion' to use it with young people. Clearly, doctors are using this discretion. Yet at what cost to the health, and indeed the sleep, of our children? Typically, the BBC were not forthcoming on this, being satisfied to suggest that the drug was not very effective. The website is more forthcoming about the side effects of Circadin.

  • Flu-like symptoms, such as headaches, sore throat, weakness, body aches or sweating. None of these are likely to increase sleep!
  • Stomach upset or weight gain, such as stomach pain or constipation, with vomiting, abdominal gas or bloating. Weight gain was mentioned in the programme as a cause of sleeplessness.
  • Jaundice. According to the European Medicines Agency, the drug can cause bile to accumulate in the blood, leading to jaundice.
  • Circadin cause mood changes - abnormal irritability, restlessness, nervousness, and hyperactivity.

Yet the most amazing side effect of Circadin is that it causes sleep difficulties!

                "Patients taking Circadin can experience sleep difficulties as a side effect of treatment. Insomnia symptoms may persist in certain patients, while other patients may experience increased drowsiness or fatigue throughout the day, explain health officials at the European Medicines Agency. Abnormal, vivid dreams can also cause patients to wake frequently throughout the night and can contribute to side effects of increased daytime tiredness. Sensations of dizziness that arise as a side effect of Circadin can affect a patient's ability to walk or stand normally. Patients should only take Circadin before bedtime and should avoid participating in potentially hazardous activities, such as driving a car, immediately after taking this medication."

Yet this drug is used for children who already have sleep problems. Yet it is well known that there are a large number of pharmaceutical drugs, taken for other conditions, that are known to cause sleeplessness. This received no mention from the BBC.  These include alpha blockers, beta blockers, statins, corticosteroids, ACE inhibitors, Angiotensin 11-receptor blockers, Cholinesterase inhibitors, antihistamines, glocosamine, chondroitin, and many others.

Many of these drugs are routinely taken by children, and are certainly a cause of the insomnia problem that the Panorama programme was seeking to cover. 

This is a pity, but unfortunately it is typical of a media that is unwilling, or too fearful to confront the pharmaceutical companies, and the damage their drugs and vaccines are doing to our health.

Thursday 2 March 2017

Statin drugs are safe! No, they are unsafe! Does Medical Science know?

Are Statin drugs safe?

Patients are given drugs by their doctors because they are told by medical science that the drugs are safe. Experience, particularly over the last 70 years, but actually over the last 200 years, has demonstrated that medical science has got it wrong, most of the time.

So what about Statin drugs? Are the safe? Let's look at what medical science is telling us about drugs that vast numbers of people (6 million in the UK alone) are now taking to lower cholesterol levels, and prevent heart disease. In particular, let's look at two articles published recently by 'The Telegraph' newspaper.

"A third of adults should take statins, new research suggests", is the headline to its article dated 8th September 2016. This takes the line patients have been given for the last 30 years and more.

               "The number of people taking statins should double, according to the author of a landmark report which has found that the drug's side effects have been exaggerated and the treatment prevents 80,000 heart attacks a year. The study, which looked at 30 years of evidence, today declares the cholesterol-reducing drug safe and says that the reported side effects have "inappropriately dissuaded" people from taking them."

In the article, Professor Rory Collins stated that the review showed “the numbers of people who avoid heart attacks and strokes by taking statin therapy are very much larger than the numbers who have side-effects with it”. He went on to talk about the "misleading claims" about the side effects "that inappropriately dissuade people from taking statin therapy despite the proven benefits.” The study estimated that the drugs helped to prevent 80,000 major cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks or strokes, every year.

On 25th November 2016, The Telegraph published another article, "Lancet study on statins was 'fundamentally flawed', critics say". It said that a group of doctors, including Harvard statin expert Dr John Abramson, Sir Richard Thompson, former president of the Royal College of Physicians, and Professor Sherif Sultan, president of the International Society for Vascular Surgery. had attacked the Lancet study on the basis that some of the data behind the trials had not been published, while some claims about the impact of the drugs on cholesterol were based on forecasts. The lead author, Dr Aseem Malhotra is quoted as saying:

               “Decades of misinformation on cholesterol and the gross exaggeration of statin benefits with downplaying of side effects has likely led to the overmedication of millions of people across the world.  The lack of transparency in the prescription of statins is just one symptom of a broken system of healthcare where finance based medicine has trumped independent evidence and what is most important for patients.”

The same Telegraph article then outlined the response to Mahotra's findings! It stated that Professor Sir Nilesh Samani, medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said:

               “This paper combines data and opinion that risks confusing patients about the benefits and safety of their statins.

Yes, patients have every right to be confused, who have to decide whether to take them or not. So, too, do doctors, who have to decide whether to prescribe them, or not!

Medical science is giving no guidance. If 'science' is meant to be definitive, if the randomised controlled tests (RCT's), much beloved by the conventional medical establishment is supposed to provide certainty, it has completely failed. Indeed, medical science has always failed - it approved pharmaceutical drugs as safe and effective. Then, decades later, discovers that they are neither safe nor effective.

My position on Statins has not changed, and it has been outlined elsewhere. The side effects of Statin drugs make them unacceptable, something all patients should avoid at all costs.

               Statin Drugs. Now doctors, are they still 'entirely safe'?
               Statin Drugs (in 'Why Homeopathy?')
               Statins. From 'wonder' drug to 'killer' drug?

Yet the point of this blog is not that the risks of Statins make them too toxic to be acceptable, but is that medical science itself cannot agree about just how dangerous they are to our health!

Proponents of conventional medicine always claim that what they do is based on science, that their drug and vaccine have an 'evidence base'. But whose science? On what evidence base? The two Telegraph articles highlights the confusion that applies not just to Statin drugs, but to every other pharmaceutical drug and vaccine. Medical scientists do not agree about how safe they are, or how dangerous they are.

The only certainty is that the conventional medical establishment will continue to prescribe the drugs and vaccines to us. They may be largely ineffective. They may be dangerous. But patients will continue to be given them until such time as it is conclusively proven that they are ineffective and dangerous. Many patients will contract the 'side effects' that are really diseases. Many patients will die.

The precautionary principle is not applied to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Patients are expected to continue taking them regardless of the diseases and the deaths they might cause. Only when 'medical science' is completely convinced will it act to safeguard patients.

Wednesday 1 March 2017

Bisphosphonates and Osteoporosis. The drug actually assists bone fractures!

  1. Bisphosphonate drugs are used to treat Osteoporosis.
  2. Osteoporosis is a condition that weakens bones, making them fragile and more likely to break, even given a minor fall.
  3. Bisphosphonate drugs cause tiny cracks within the bone that can make bone fractures more likely.
Three simple but amazing facts. A patient has Osteoporosis, so conventional medicine gives him/her a drug that increases the risk of bone fracture!

What kind of medicine is this? Yet the seriousness of the issue does not stop here, it is actually far, far worse than this.

Bisphosphonates were developed in the 19th century. They have been investigated for disorders in bone metabolism since the 1960's. They have become widely prescribed. In Britain alone it is estimated that 3 million people, mainly women, are taking them.

Yet only today (1st March 2017) do we here about the 'tiny cracks' that these drugs cause, only today does BBC News (and other mainstream news media) deign to inform patients that the drugs they have been taking for over 50 years to avoid fracturing bones actually makes the situation worse.

Medical Science
What have medical scientists been doing for the last 50 years? They are supposed to be protecting patients from dangerous drugs. There was no mention of this possible side effect when the drug was introduced. Even Wikipedia say this today.

               "They are the most commonly prescribed drugs used to treat osteoporosis. Evidence shows that they reduce the risk of fracture in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis." (my emphasis).

No warning there, then! Lots of people take these drug; and the evidence shows they reduce the risk of fracture. The drugs are widely used, so plenty of evidence of use; and they are effective. They have been effective for over 50 years - until today?

What are these drugs?
Perhaps not many people have heard of Bisphosphonates. When there is a problem with a drug the pharmaceutical industry is adept at covering up. They change the name by which the drug is referred to - generic name, brand names, any names to confuse the patient! 

So mention Fosamax (alendronate/cholecalciferol), Didronel (etidronate), Zometa (zoledronic acid), 
Reclast (zoledronic acid), Boniva (ibandronate), Aclasta (zoledronic acid), Atelvia (risedronate), Actonel (risedronate, Actonel with Calcium (calcium carbonate/risedronate), Aredia (pamidronate), Binosto (alendronate), Skelid (tiludronate), and no doubt many more different names in different countries, and some people may have heard about them before. But more likely patients are confused by the profusion of names, and of course we are supposed to be. Drug companies don't want to be asked too many awkward questions.

Fosamax is not a name to be mentioned now in conventional medical circles! It has a long list of very serious side effects. These include the following, taken from the website (but read only if you wish to be scared!)

          Abdominal or stomach pain, cramps, difficulty swallowing, heartburn, oesophagus pain, skin rash, blistering, peeling, or loosening of skin, bloating or swelling of the face, arms, hands, lower legs, or feet, bone, joint, or muscle pain, severe, occasionally incapacitating, chest pain, confusion, convulsions, cough, diarrhoea, difficulty breathing, difficulty moving, heavy jaw feeling, hives or welts, irregular heartbeat, loosening of teeth, numbness and tingling around the mouth, fingertips, or feet, pain or burning in the throat, rapid weight gain, red skin lesions, often with a purple centre, red, irritated eyes, redness of the skin, shortness of breath, sore throat, sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or tongue or inside the mouth, swollen joints, tremor, unusual tiredness or weakness, vomiting, constipation, blurred vision or other change in vision, dizziness or lightheadedness, eye pain, feeling of constant movement of self or surroundings, general feeling of discomfort or illness, hair loss or thinning of the hair, sensitivity of the eye to light.....

Indeed, the dangers of Fosamax have been known for a long time. I have references to articles going back to 2003! Merck, the manufacturer faced a large number of lawsuits in and around 2005-2006 because it was known to cause severe jaw decay, known as 'Fosi-Jaw'. This is a Mail Online headline from September 2015.

Better, then, to call these drugs 'biphosphonates', in case patients remember that this is not a new problem, it is a very old problem!

The Precautionary Principle
This principle is used in most industries. I have written about it before, "The Precautionary Principle in Medicine, and Pharmaceutical Drug Regulation". So if there is a problem, even a potential problem with a product, be cautious, take the safest option available. Withdraw the product, don't use the product, replace the product. The only industry that does not use it, and is not expected to use it, is the pharmaceutical industry, supported by the entire conventional medical establishment, and the mainstream media!

The 'experts' BBC News spoke to this morning said that whilst the 'new' evidence was a matter for concern, patients should not stop taking their bisphoshonate drugs. Perhaps they might like to speak to their doctors, sometime soon, but there was nothing to worry about!

This 'expert' used by the BBC is, of course, someone who has been responsible for prescribing these drugs, probably for much of the 50 plus years they are been available. 

Well, then, he would say that, wouldn't he! What doctor wants to admit that he has treated a bone condition that worsens the bone condition!

Just a one-off problem
Actually, the situation with bisphosphonate drugs is not unusual. Whilst the BBC presented it quite casually (not a serious issue for patients), and a one-off blip, it is, of course, no such thing. Most drug reach the market, make the drug company £ billions, and only then are found to be dangerous. It has happened with antibiotics, statins, painkillers, antidepressants, and most other type of pharmaceutical drugs.

A failing medical system
This is a small news item, yet it is a huge news item. It is a tiny part of a huge failure. Conventional doctors are bemoaning the fact that there is growing resistance to antibiotics, that all painkillers are now really too dangerous to prescribe, that statins are not the 'entirely safe' drug they have told us about for decades. Now, doctors have another problem. They have no drug they can safely use to treat Osteoporosis.

Yet doctors will continue prescribing biphosphonate drugs because they have nothing else to offer. As I have said in another recent blog, "Doctors and dangerous drugs. Is their medicine cupboard bare?", they have nothing else to offer us.

Which is why we should all be declining conventional medical treatment! It is just too ineffective, just too dangerous. In fact, it is making us sicker.