Ronald. A patient getting to the end of the long journey through pain and painkilling drugs, ending up in chronic pain and Tramadol

I wrote in general terms about the "long journey through pain and painkilling drugs" in July 2018. It is, of course, a very personal journey, and in recent days I have come face-to-face with two such journeys. I wrote about Janet's journey a few days ago. Ronald's long journey through pain was somewhat different to hers. Just as pharmaceutical drugs do not have a single side effect, individuals have their own personal side effects, their own personal route to ever more chronic, ever more untreatable pain.

Ronald was always a fit and active man. When he began to suffer some mild rheumatic pain he did what everyone does. He resorted to taking painkilling drugs.

The tragedy (yes the tragedy) was that they worked!

• The pain went. 
• The wonders of modern medicine. 
• The triumph of medical science.

The problem was that the pain came back. But this was really no problem, he could take some more, and whenever the pain returned he took more again. Like with most people suffering with pain it became routine. Pain, pop a pill. It always worked.

Trouble was that Ronald found himself popping a pill more frequently. Monthly, then weekly, then daily. Then more of them each time. One, became two, then the need for more.

No matter, the doctor was there to help. If over-the-counter pain killers did not work, there were strong drugs that he could prescribe. And they seemed to work too. Pain, a pill, and relief from pain. Temporary relief, by relief no less. And he trusted his doctor, he would not give him anything that was harmful. He knew best, and as he said, there was no alternative - until the pain was much worse than it was.

The pain did get worse, his hip became unbearable. It affected him mobility, his life. He had always been an active man, but now he undertook his activities in almost permanent pain. His doctor, though, was not phased. It was wear and tear. His body was wearing out. He needed a hip transplant, and soon he had one.

It worked! It was brilliant, and he soon recovered from him operation.

• The pain had gone.
• The wonders of modern medicine.
• The triumph of medical science.

Unfortunately the pain returned, not to the mechanical hip, but his other hip. More painkillers, more often, more of them, and increasing strength. They worked every time, but so did the pain. Don't worry, said the doctor - when it gets bad you can have another hip transplant.

And so he did. It worked! It was brilliant. He would soon recover from his operation. And he did. What marvellous things surgeons were able to do these days.

Trouble was that the pain soon returned. I was due to see him but his wife phoned. His doctor had given him more painkillers, and he had a terrible reaction to them. My eyes rolled. Being a homeopath is difficult sometimes, especially when good friends have such faith in conventional medicine. What had he taken? Tramadol came the answer.

Tramadol is an opiate painkiller, a narcotic. I checked it out. It has the most dreadful side effects, as the website Drugs.com outlines.

* Abnormal or decreased touch sensation

* blisters under the skin

* bloating

* blood in the urine

* blood pressure increased

* blurred vision

* change in walking and balance

* chest pain or discomfort

* chills

* darkened urine

* difficult urination

* dizziness, or lightheadedness, fainting

* fast heartbeat

* frequent urge to urinate

* gaseous abdominal or stomach pain

* indigestion

* irregular heartbeat

* loss of memory

* numbness and tingling of the face, fingers, or toes

* pain in the arms, legs, or lower back, especially pain in the calves or heels upon exertion

* pain or discomfort in the arms, jaw, back, or neck

* pains in the stomach, side, or abdomen, possibly radiating to the back

* pale, bluish-colored or cold hands or feet

* recurrent fever

* seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not there

* seizures

* severe cramping

* severe nausea

* severe redness, swelling, and itching of the skin

* stomach fullness

* sweating

* trembling and shaking of the hands or feet

* trouble performing routine tasks

* weak or absent pulses in the legs

* yellow eyes or skin

When I eventually saw Ronald we went through this dreadful list. He told me he had never felt as bad as he did. He felt 'out of it'. His consciousness had not so changed as disappeared, he was outside looking in, he was unaware of his whereabouts, he was lightheaded, almost unconscious, and was too tired to do anything. The experience had frightened him. His body was swollen up too, and he came out with a massive rash, around his neck and shoulders.

His doctor had been brilliant. He immediately told him to stop taking the Tramadol, he had only taken a couple, and surmised that the drug just did not suit him. Instead the doctor put him a steroid drug, and he was now much better. No criticism - that he had given him such a drug with such dreadful side effects!

So I ask the same question as I did in Janet's case. What will happen to Ronald? And lots of people like Ronald? The pharmaceutical cupboard is desperately bare. It has never been very full of helpful drugs for treating pain. Perhaps his doctor will put it down to wear and tear, to his age. After all, this is the main explanation doctors give for all the epidemics of chronic disease we are suffering. Or maybe he will be subjected to limb transplantation - usually the final admission of conventional medical failure - an inabiity to keep our body healthy and functional.

 

Certainly, conventional medicine is unlikely to admit that these epidemics have all been caused, to one degree or another, by the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines they have been prescribing to us for decades.

And my message is the same message as I gave in Janet's case. I urge everyone not to start on this long journey. See through the charm of doctors, the propaganda of drug companies, the idea that medical science is winning the battle against disease, and the silence of the mainstream media. Start looking at natural therapies, and try them, before it is too late.

Janet. A patient getting to the end of the long journey through pain and painkilling drugs, ending up in chronic pain, Amitriptyline - and dementia?

I wrote in general terms of the "long journey through pain and painkilling drugs" in July. It is, of course, a very personal journey, and in recent days I have come face-to-face with two such journeys. This deals with the first one.

Janet (not her real name) is now in her early 70's, and she has suffered from arthritis for many years. She said that she is getting increasingly forgetful, often confused, and her once good memory has become poor. This came to a head recently when she was out, driving her car. She was not far from home but she suddenly realised she did not know where she was. She realised that she did not know how to get home. As you can imagine this frightened her. Was this dementia? What else could it be? It would only get worse. And she knew there was no treatment.

I asked her what drugs she was taking? This is now the first question I ask anyone when they say they are unwell! Amitriptyline came the reply. I groaned. She smiled, knowing what I was going to tell her. She did not believe in homeopathy, and she knew my views on pharmaceutical drugs. She was someone, like so many others, who has always had great confidence in her doctor. Well, it's scientific medicine, isn't it!

Amitriptyline is an antidepressant. It is usually used to treat depression, but is also used for pain when painkillers no longer work. She took it, in desperation, so that she was able to get some sleep at night. A few days later, I heard, the doctor had discontinued the Amitriptyline.

Over the years Janet has gone a long way down that long journey through pain and painkilling drugs. They are the only treatment for arthritis that conventional medicine has. They have no treatment that deals with the cause of arthritis, just the pain. Doctors state that there is no cure. So once diagnosed Janet was given painkilling drugs, many years ago now. These drugs dulled the pain, but did nothing for the condition itself. Painkilling drugs, all of them, are highly toxic. They cause side effects, some quite horrible disease-inducing effects. And as time goes on painkillers become less effective. They may take the edge of the pain, temporarily, but in time more drug, in greater potency, have to be taken. So the patient is regularly taking the drugs, and suffering not only from arthritis but from the toxicity of the drugs.

As the years went by the effectiveness of painkillers for Janet's pain subsided. Pain was constant, and she could not sleep. So her doctor has to look for something else, anything he had left in their medicine chest. Hence Amitriptyline - an antidepressant - for pain. As far as I know the drug has never been tested or approved for the treatment of pain, but doctors don't have much else to use once patients are in so much pain they cannot sleep. It must be depressing! So maybe this is the reason for prescribing it.

Anyone who wants to see what a dangerous and harmful drug Amitriptyline is should have a look at the known (and accepted) side effects. Go to this Drug.com webpage to read the full horror story! The list is too long to include here, but it includes blood in urine or stools, blurred vision, changes in patterns and rhythms of speech, chest pain, cold sweats, coma, continuing ringing, buzzing, or other unexplained noise in ears, convulsions, difficulty in breathing, passing urine and speaking, irregular heartbeat, general feeling of tiredness or weakness, headache, hearing loss, high fever, high or low blood pressure, inability to speak, lack of coordination, lethargy, loss of balance control, loss of bladder control, loss of consciousness, lower back or side pain, mental depression or anxiety, muscle spasm or jerking of all extremities, nausea and vomiting, nightmares, poor coordination, seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not there, seizures, sleeplessness, stiffness of limbs, swollen glands,
trouble in speaking, sleeping, breathing, unsteadiness, trembling, or other problems with muscle control or coordination, unusual tiredness or weakness. And much, much more.

The mental side effects that Janet suffered were all there too, of course. She did not have dementia, she was suffering from the side effects of the drug her doctor had prescribed.

• change in consciousness
• confusion
• confusion about identity, place, and time
• disturbed concentration
• stupor
• sudden loss of consciousness

She took them because she trusted her doctor, and the 'scientific' medicine he administered! But for Densise, and probably many millions of people suffering from dementia, this is where decades of taking painkillers had led. Her 'long journey' had led to a diagnosis of dementia.

Pharmaceutical drugs DO cause dementia, and Alzheimer's disease - and it is not just painkillers that are cause this epidemic!

This is one of the reasons why dementia is now running at unprecedented levels. This is why young and middle age people are now being diagnosed with dementia in increasing numbers.

What will happen to Janet now? And lots of people like Janet? The pharmaceutical cupboard is desperately bare. It has never been very full of helpful drugs for treating pain. Perhaps her doctor will put it down to her age. After all, this is the main explanation doctors give for all the epidemics of chronic disease we are suffering. Certainly, conventional medicine is unlikely to admit that these epidemics have all been caused, to one degree or another, by the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines they have been prescribing to us for decades.

Or perhaps she will now see through the mirage of conventional medicine, and look for more effective and safe treatment.

So I urge everyone, don't start on this long journey. See through the charm of doctors, the propaganda of drug companies, the idea that medical science is winning the battle against disease, and the silence of the mainstream media. Start looking at natural therapies, and try them, before it is too late.

Two drugs, both with seriously harmful side effects, are 'good news' for people suffering from Melanoma

The pharmaceutical industry has discovered another 'wonder drug', or in this case, two drugs that in combination produces 'miracle' results. We have heard it before, of course. Indeed, we hear it regularly.

This time it is Melanoma patients (an aggressive skin cancer) that will 'benefit' According to BBC News (and the rest of the mainstream media all of whom, as usual, have regurgitatied the promotional material of the pharmaceutical industry) if will offer

• targeted treatment for melanoma, free on the NHS
• The drug (or rather the combination of two drugs) "has been shown to improve the survival of people with stage III melanoma, with a particular mutation".
• A skin cancer charity (probably one of those heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry) is quoted say that "making the treatment available on the NHS was a huge step forward".

The two drugs are (i) Dabrafenib, and (ii) Trametinib. They are MEK inhibitor drugs that have been around for several years, and their side effects are already well known. The BBC article mentions them briefly, in passing; it says they cause 'fatigue and nausea'. The truth, which is largely unknown to most of our mainstream media, is rather different.

The 'commonly reported' side effects of Dabrafenib, as outlined by Drugs.com are squamous cell carcinoma, fever, and hyperglycemia. but they also mention a long list of others, including bleeding gums, bloody or cloudy urine, blurred vision, coughing up blood, difficulty in breathing or swallowing, dizziness, dry mouth, fever, flushed, dry skin, fruit-like breath odour, greatly decreased frequency of urination or amount of urine, headache, increased hunger, increased thirst, increased urination, lump or growth on the skin, nausea, nosebleed, prolonged bleeding from cuts, red or dark brown urine, red or black, tarry stools, redness, swelling, or pain of the skin, scaling of the skin on the hands and feet, skin blisters, skin rash, stomach pain, sweating, swelling of the feet or lower legs, tingling of the hands and feet, ulceration of the skin, unable to move, unexplained weight loss, unusual tiredness or weakness and vomiting.

Drugs.com is a website owned and controlled by pharmaceutical company interests, so it will admit only to side effects that have been proven beyond doubt and denial.

The side effects of Trametinib, reported by Drugs.com, are no less scary. Again, it says that 'commonly reported' side effects include: acneiform eruption, cardiomyopathy, decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, dermatitis, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, skin rash, erythema, plus cardiac failure. It then lists this comprehensive list of adverse effects, which include bleeding from the rectum or bloody stools, bleeding gums, blemishes on the skin, blistering, crusting, irritation, itching, or reddening of the skin, bloating or swelling of the face, arms, hands, lower legs, or feet, bloody nose, blurred vision, chest discomfort or pain, cracked, dry, or scaly skin, coughing up blood, decreased urine output, diarrhoea, difficulty with breathing or swallowing, dilated neck veins, dizziness, extreme fatigue, faintness, fast, slow, irregular, or pounding heartbeat, headache, increased menstrual flow or vaginal bleeding, irregular breathing, irregular heartbeat, lightheadedness, dizziness, or fainting, nervousness, nosebleeds, paralysis, pimples, pounding in the ears, prolonged bleeding from cuts, rapid weight gain, rash, red or black, tarry stools, red or dark brown urine, redness, swelling, or pain of the skin, scaling of the skin on the hands and feet, tightness in the chest, tingling of the hands and feet, ulceration of the skin, unusual tiredness or weakness, and unusual weight gain or loss

Nothing is mentioned (that I can find) which deals with the side effects of these two drugs - in combination. Perhaps they are not known yet!

Conventional medicine always discounts the serious side effects of pharmaceutical drugs. For both these drugs the website Drugs.com says that "along with its needed effects" the drugs "may cause some unwanted effects", but cheerily tells us that "not all of these side effects may occur" but that "if they do occur they may need medical attention". 

So these are the two drugs providing this 'big step forward'. So what exactly is this miracle they create together? According to BBC News it is based on a clinical trial of more than 800 patients, and was found a lower the risk of the cancer recurring. We are told that 3 years after surgery, 58% of this group survived, with no relapse compared to 39% of the placebo group.

What does this mean? It means that for ever 100 patients, the drug helps 19 people. A further 39 would not have had a recurrence. And 42 died anyway. There is no mention of the loss of life-quality of the 19 patients, or the 39 who did not need the drugs anyway.

Homeopathy and Melanoma

And, of course, there is no mention of other medical therapies that might be safer, and more effective in treating melanoma. For instance, in 2010, Brazilian researchers have investigated the effects a combination of homeopathic remedies on cancer cells. Their research showed they

               (i) Prevented melanoma and bowel cancer cells from invading or sticking to the cells and tissues that surrounded them

               (ii) Improved the immune system’s ability to kill cancer cells, and

               (iii) Caused cancerous melanoma tumours to shrink or become dormant

• Patients are not supposed to know this! 
• The media certainly won't tell you. 
• Conventional doctors won't mention it, they prefer to prescribe dangerous (and largely ineffective) drugs that are known to cause patient harm. 
• And clearly they won't tell you about the extent of the harm pharmaceutical drugs, wonder drugs, miracle cures, can cause either.

Why doesn't conventional medicine work? The failure to understand the most fundamental principle of cure

• If something needs fixing we need to have someone look at it who knows how it works.
• Moreover, whatever is wrong, we have to willing to recognise and accept what is wrong.

Is this too trite?

• Surely we would never ask someone to service our central heating, or a car or washing machine, who did not understand how they worked? 
• Would we be confident if someone who did a repair that made the situation worse than it was before, and then denied that the repair could possibly be the problem.

Yet this is exactly what we do with our health.

• When we are ill we go to a doctor, an expert, and we ask him/her to diagnose what is wrong, and make us better.
• If we don't get better, or if we get worse, we go back to the same doctor for yet more treatment.

We do this as individuals; and we do it as a nation too. And we do it, time after time.

• we rarely ask questions about the quality or safety of the repair.
• We never question whether the repair has made the original situation worse.

The first assumption we make is to assume that the doctor is the right person, and indeed the only person to ask. We have been led to believe that conventional medicine is scientific medicine, that doctors know what they are doing, and that all their treatments have been scientifically tested, and are both safe and effective. 

None of these assumptions are correct, but we believe them to be correct. And in any case, our national health system, our politicians, and our mainstream media all tell us that this is true - and that there are no alternatives.

This leads to a second assumption. The monopoly of conventional medicine within our health services must mean something. Surely the dominant consensus about health cannot be wrong. It is just that there is not enough money for more of the same treatment. The problem with health services is that there are insufficiently resources. It is not a medical matter.

A third assumption soon follows. If our health was poor, and then got worse after medical treatment, it must be the body that is breaking down. Things were worse than we thought. It is not the treatment, we just need more help, more treatment of the same kind. And if, after more treatment, our health again fails to improve, and gets worse, it just confirms that our ailing body is to blame!

So let's examine these assumptions

1. There are many alternatives to conventional medical treatment, I call them natural therapies. These treatments all seek to work alongside the body. They are widely dismissed (if not condemned) by conventional medicine, by national health services, by politicians, and by the mainstream media.

2. The monopoly of conventional medicine (within most national health services around the world) reflects powerful and influential business interests, principally the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Its dominance within health services around the world is more about commercial power and political interests than health.

3. No central heating boiler, no car or washing machine, is unfixable. As they get older they may not function quite as well but an expert will be able to diagnose the fault, and can usually repair it so that it works reasonably well.

So what is so different about health? Why are so many chronic diseases (arthritis, autism, dementia, diabetes, et al) running at epidemic levels? Why are young and middle-aged people getting ill with conditions once believed to be an illnesses of old age? Why can't conventional medicine fix these trends? There are two main problems.

HOW TO FIX AN AILING BODY?

Conventional medicine knows, in the very minutest detail, about the functioning of the human body, both in its normal or healthy state, and in its sick or diseased state. Conventional doctors will always be able to tell you, often in great detail, what is going wrong when you are sick. Diagnosis is their forte, and they have a plethora or instruments and tests that can determine what is wrong with us. Doctors know when things are right, and when they are wrong.

Yet putting matters right is quite another matter. This is where the problem of conventional medicine, dominated by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, starts. What they try to do is to stop something happening in the body that, in their view, should not be happening. So they kill pain. They bring down a fever. They stop inflammation. This is their view of healing. The body is not functioning 'normally', so it must be stopped. It must be forced to function properly.

Natural medicine does not do this. Homeopathy, for instance, uses remedies based on substances which, in their normal state, produce pain, or fever, or inflammation. Why? Because homeopaths know that this is the way to return the body back to its normal functioning. Counter-intuitive? No. It is a recognition that only the body can heal, and pain, fever, inflammation are the body's natural response to illness. To undermine them is counter-productive. So the remedy supports what the body wants to do, it triggers and augments natural healing processes. 

In contrast to this conventional medicine seeks to stop, to block, to inhibit the body's healing mechanism. It is this battle between the body and pharmaceutical drugs that causes so-called 'side effects', or 'adverse drug reactions'. I prefer to call them, 'disease-inducing effects'. This link takes you to my website that outlines how disease is caused by pharmaceutical drugs, and which of these drugs cause which diseases.

So for the patient there is a choice to be made. Conventional medicine and natural therapies have distinctly different ideas about the treatment of illness. These ideas of diametrically opposed. They cannot both be right. If one is right, the other is wrong. 

The important point here is that knowing about how the body functions in illness is not the same as being able to return it to good health. To do this another skill is necessary, a proper understanding of the healing process.

RECOGNISING ALL THE CAUSES OF ILL-HEALTH?

This is a major problem for conventional medicine, one that is rarely talked about. Conventional medicine has a problem with the side affects (the disease-inducing-effects) of their drugs and vaccines. They cannot entirely deny them as they are written up formally in medical texts such as the British National Formulary, and MIMS.

• But they can discount them. For instance, doctors will acknowledge that many pharmaceutical drugs can cause 'confusion' and 'memory loss' but they cannot admit that these same drugs can cause dementia, or Alzheimer's disease.
• And they can deny them entirely, for instance, when doctors insist that vaccines are "entirely safe", or that diseases like autism are not caused by childhood vaccines.

Although occasionally this discounting and denial can be heard - by anyone prepared to listen hard enough, but conventional medicine does not want to discuss them. Nor do politicians, or our docile mainstream media.

But denial about the side effects of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines has another vitally important consequence. It means that conventional medicine is unable, quite unwilling in fact, to look at one of the real causes of the increased levels of illness and disease we are experiencing.

It is as if the car mechanic has analysed the problem with the car, but decides that as it was he who changed the carburettor it cannot be a carburettor problem. After all, that would open up questions about his past work. So his response is to claim that problem "has no known cause". 

Conventional medicine often makes this claim, even when doctors who read MIMS and the BNF must be fully aware that pharmaceutical drugs do cause the illness that has been diagnosed. What this means is that conventional medical, in denying a important cause of illness, is unable to cure chronic disease, or to stop it growing to unprecedented levels. Doctors are too busy looking for excuses for illness in the wrong area, instead looking at an ageing population, environmental pollution, bad diet - all important factors, but rarely the whole story.

Only when a problem is properly and fully analysed can a solution be found. If doctors deny an important cause of illness because it is their own work that will be criticised, there will never be a cure. Either you look openly and honestly at what is causing a disease, or you defend the drugs and vaccines that have been used to treat illness, and deny their role in creating disease.

• So, for example, what is the cause of Autism? Doctors say that it cannot be the MMR vaccine. This means that the route to a solution of this particular epidemic is barred to conventional medicine. For them, the cause remains 'unknown'!
• So what is the cause of Dementia? Doctors do not recognise that pharmaceutical drugs, which can cause confusion, and memory loss, can cause dementia. So the route to a cure is blocked to them. The cause remains 'unknown'!

And so, for conventional medicine, there is no route through to treatment, to healing, to cure. Conventional medicine is running blind, as it always has done. It is thrashing around in a desperate search for self justification, and effective treatment for conditions it has itself, in part, caused. But it is quite unwilling to consider the dangers of its own methodology. Medical science is running, quickly, up a blind alleyway leading nowhere. 

And all because it does not understand the basic principle of cure

- that they body must be allowed to heal itself.

2018. A new flu vaccine season starts

Every year I repeat the same message! The flu vaccine is neither safe or effective. It is not something you should ever allow your doctor to persuade you to have.

The reasons for this never change, so when I began to write this blog I made the decision not to continue repeating the same message, year after year. Instead, I will provide you with references to my past blogs which include what is already known about the flu vaccine - but which your doctor will refuse to tell you. The information in them is just as relevant now as it was at the time. Nothing changes!

All I ask is that you do two things. (i) listen to what your doctor tells you, and (ii) read the information below that (s)he will not tell you. (S)he either won't, or (s)he can't, or it is not in his/her financial interest to tell you.

Patients only take pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines because they are kept ignorant of the harm they can do to our health. So it is important that you make an informed choice, one based on ALL the evidence, not just the evidence that conventional medicine wants you to know. So click on these links.

2013
The Flu Vaccine. Is it worth the serious risks involved? Should you have the flu vaccine this Autumn?

2016
The Flu Vaccine. It is the time of year when doctors will be pressing us, and our children, to have the annual flu vaccination. It is an offer everyone should refuse!

2018
The Flu Vaccine - it just does not work!
(This is an important reason for saying 'No, thanks'. Why risk the dangers of vaccination when conventional medicine itself, year after year, has admitted that the vaccine does not work?)

2017
Flu Vaccine. Consternation within the NHS
The consternation referred to concerned increasing patient reluctance to have the vaccine. People are getting to know - and YOU need to get to know the truth. Plus the fact that doctors are now paid for every vaccination they can persuade us to accept, meaning that they have a financial interest persuade  us to get vaccinated.

The dangers posed by the flu vaccination are many and varied. I have written many times about the dangers of the flu vaccine. For instance, it is the only known cause of Narcolepsy

The Flu Vaccine that causes Narcolepsy? Pandemrix.
Narcolepsy and flu vaccine: drugs may harm us: but Big Pharma takes no responsibility

And perhaps most alarming of all is the association between the flu vaccine and dementia.

Alzheimer's Disease and the Flu Vaccine
I wrote this in 2014, following the tragic death of a close friend who regularly had the flu vaccines, and paid the price by contracting Alzheimer's disease.

It is not surprising that the flu vaccine can have such drastic effects on our health. Doctors are injecting Thimerosal, a derivative of mercury, one of the most poisonous substances known to mankind, straight into our bloodstream. 

Moreover, don't be comforted by the belief that the pharmaceutical industry accepts any responsibility for the harm done by its vaccines. They don't. In the USA $millions are paid out every year for the damage done to patients by all vaccines, but it is the government that pays out this compensation, not the drug companies. Elsewhere, if you are damaged by a vaccine, you are likely to be met with nothing other than denials. Vaccines are safe, you will be told, they did not cause your health problems.

And you will have a hell of a job to prove that they did!

It is safer just to refuse the flu vaccine and stay safe.

So what to do instead? There is an effective way of preventing flu that is entirely safe. I have been doing it for over 20 years, and so have most of my family. It is simply done by taking a homeopathic remedy - and it is all explained on this 'Why Homeopathy? webpage.

Check it out. Stay safe, and flu-free this winter

.

The NHS abandons Patient Choice. We pay for treatment. But we can only have what THEY want to give us. What does this mean for patients like Anne?

The NHS no longer wants to spend money on Homeopathy. This is not a surprise. The NHS has long been a bastion of conventional medicine, a creature of the pharmaceutical companies. If patients want treatment the NHS is set up to give it to us, and to adopt the old motor car adage, you can have any treatment you want - as long as it involves pharmaceutical drugs!

The NHS is now almost totally a pharmaceutical monopoly. Want to buy a Ford car? No, sorry, you can't do that. We don't sell them. WE (a public body funded by people like yourself) have decided that you no longer have that choice. This is the only car we sell now. Take it. Or leave it.

And that is the situation that patients who want homeopathic treatment are now faced with. We may be entitled to treatment because we are UK citizens, but the this public body, the NHS, will no longer fund the treatment of their choice.

• It's a political matter - it is about Health Freedom.
• It's a health matter - it is about Patient Choice.

But it is also a personal matter. Some people have been having homeopathic treatment for their illnesses, and if and when this treatment is stopped they will be in serious difficulty. I have been talking to several people in this situation in recent weeks, usually patients who have tried every conventional treatment available to them without any of them working. Then they discover homeopathy. It works. And a few people were fortunate enough to persuade a reluctant NHS to pay for their treatment. But now those patients are worried their treatment, the only treatment that has worked for them, will now be stopped.

Take the case of Anne - not her real name. She has talked to me about her situation. She has been using homeopathy -since she became paraplegic - for over 40 years

She initially discovered homeopathy following a bout of pneumonia when she was 31, with 3 small children. She was given antibiotics, galore, and it took her ages to recover. Eventually she consulted a homeopath, and has been having homeopathic treatment ever since. She has also had osteopathic treatment, and used herbal remedies. Despite her many health issues she does not take any pharmaceutical drugs, and she is determined that she does not want to do so.

               "It actually terrifies me to end up at the mercy of the NHS because most general hospitals don’t understand spinal cord injury.... Every day is a battle to keep skin healthy, bladder operating to the best of my ability and bowels moving at their scheduled time. It all pulls a lot out of my system and at 66 I need to focus on keeping mentally robust too."

But Anne is a determined and intelligent lady. She has obviously done a lot of work, researching her condition, and the treatments available to her. She told me that she wants to learn as much as she can about using homeopathy in order to to stay well. She has recently cured an ear infection with homeopathic remedies. As a paraplegic she has regular urinary tract infections (UTI's) but thanks to homeopathy she no longer has to use antibiotics for these. So she is delighted. She despairs when she sees her friends in the SCI (spinal cord injury) community having intravenous antibiotics for sepsis and UTI's, and spending months in bed with pressure sores, et al.

So whilst Anne is usually confident about staying well with homeopathy, alongside other natural therapies, she has some trepidation about what the future holds for her. Like all of us she is not in control of her destiny. And she worries that if she does have to go into hospital she knows she will struggle to get the treatment she wants for herself. She will be routinely denied her patient choice.

When the NHS was inaugurated in 1948 its intention was to offer the best available medicine, free at the point of need. Anne knows that any NHS treatment will be free.

• But it will not the treatment she wants. 
• It will not be the treatment she has found, from experience, to be best for her.

The NHS is now a monopoly supplier of one kind of medicine. It is dominated by pharmaceutical drug treatment. Anne does not want this, and has spent her life trying to avoid it. The NHS has now taken a decision that money should not be spent on homeopathy because (it says) there is "no evidence' that homeopathy works.

Anne is the evidence, one piece of evidence in many millions, who knows that it does.

So for Anne it is not a political matter, health freedom. It is not just a medical matter, patient choice. It is a deeply personal matter concerning her health, her future, and the treatment she receives for her condition. Ultimately it will be about how she dies.

Yet Anne is not alone in this. Anyone who goes into hospital, today or tomorrow, because of an accident, or emergency, or an acute illness, is faced with the same dilemma she is grappling with. We talk a lot about our human rights, but surely this right, health freedom, is the most important right of all.

It is Anne's right to choose the treatment she receives. Her treatment should not be dictated to her by conventional doctors who think they know best, and know everything. But unfortunately that appears to be the direction in which the NHS is going.

VACCINES. The harm conventional medicine does admit to, although still telling us they are safe

Doctors tell us that vaccines are entirely safe. They say that anyone who speaks against them is "anti-vaccine" and is routinely dismissed as being 'unscientific'. We are even accused of being Russian agents! We are accused of wanting to overturn the whole apparatus of conventional medicine.

The strange thing is that our doctors know that vaccines are not safe. There are conventional medical texts that actually talk about the damage to patients that is known to be caused by vaccines (indeed, all pharmaceutical drugs). These texts may not talk about patient damage but are described by the euphemism - side effects. Yet the two terms are one and the same thing.

So when doctors talk to us, and tell us that their vaccines (and drugs) are safe, they ARE fully aware that they cause side effects - or damage. Within the world of conventional medicine there are two conversations going on - the one they have with us, their patients - and the one they have internally, amongst themselves, in doctors 'bibles' such as MIMS and the British National Formulary. But there is more - patient information leaflets.

WITHIN EVERY VACCINE PACKAGE THERE IS A 

PATIENT INFORMATION LEAFLET (PILs)

WHICH OUTLINES THE DAMAGE THEY CAN CAUSE.

We never get to see these. A doctor or nurse usually removes the vaccine from the package without showing us the leaflet. Patients can ask to see them, and read them, but few ever do. Pharmaceutical companies are obliged to provide these PILs, which are a summary of the evidence for their effectiveness, and to inform patients of any known or reported side side effects. So what do these vaccine patient information leaflets say?

The VacTruth website has now published the package information labels for many vaccines. They can be found here, and they should be read before anyone consents to a vaccine.

Human Vaccine Inserts 2017.

So never, ever agree to a vaccination unless you have read these inserts, and you have fully digested them. But before you do this, remember these things

• The language used is highly technical. The leaflets are supposed to be for patients but they are certainly not written in a way that most patients will understand. It is easier to give up and assume that the complex language must indicate that the drug company knows what it is doing! Don't succumb to this laziness! If necessary ask your doctor to translate anything you do not understand.
• The positive news is always highlighted. They have to give us information, but they are more eager to tell you about the good news.
• The negative news is underplayed, and under-estimated. There are various reasons for this. For instance, bad news is given only if there is clear and undeniable link between the vaccine and a particular side effect. Where there is no proof there is no mention.
• Moreover, only between 1% and 10% of side effects are ever reported, which means that 90% to 99% of side effects are ever known about. So if something is described as rare, multiply that rareness accordingly.

This information has been known about for a long time. See my blog, written in 2013 - Vaccines, the research evidence - which deals in more general terms with the dangers of vaccines, and the harm they can do to patients.

Everyone should be particularly weary of the DPT vaccine given to very young babies. I have written about the contents of the patient information for this vaccine. The DPT Vaccine. Do doctor's really know it is dangerous? And if so, why are they not telling us?

• If everyone knew about this information, and knew that the doctor knew too, no-one would consent to any treatment based on pharmaceutical drugs.
• This is why they cannot afford to let us into their trade secrets.
• Our doctors do know about it - but they are not going to tell us.
• We have to find out for ourselves.