Search This Blog

Wednesday 18 December 2019

Pharmaceutical Medicine. It's death throes within the NHS. Perhaps Patient Choice and Homeopathy can help?

Pharmaceutical medicine within the British NHS is in it's death throes. Only patient choice, and the reintroduction of homeopathy, and other natural therapies, is likely to save it.
  • Sick patients cannot get timely access to treatment anywhere in the system
  • Hospital beds are full, with some sick patients laying on trolleys in corridors
  • Accident & Emergency (A&E) waiting times are getting ever longer
  • In most areas it is getting more difficult to get a doctors appointment
  • Doctors are in short supply, many retiring early, and/or reducing their working hours because of the stress involved in the jobs
  • Nurses are getting scarcer too, overworked and underpaid (nurses in Northern Ireland are on strike today)
  • The routine annual winter NHS crisis is already worse this year than it was last year
  • There appears to be a flu epidemic of massive proportions on the near horizon, with admissions to hospital rising by more than 40% just this week alone
  • The newly elected Conservative government is making promises about huge increases in funding for the  NHS, and the recruitment of thousands more doctors and nurses (without apparently too much idea about from where they might emerge)
Anyone who has not read this blog before might be scratching their head and asking why this should be, or otherwise accepting the usual excuses - about us getting older, and the chronic under-funding over the last 10 years.
  • This is all nonsense. This is the failure of an entire medical system - pharmaceutical medicine, based as it is on drugs and vaccines - which through their (largely denied) 'side effects' and 'adverse reactions' are making us increasingly sick.
  • So to spend more money on more drugs and vaccines; and more doctors to dispense them; and more nurses to cope with patients who suffer not only from an illness, but from the side effects of drug treatment, do not get well but are being made sicker. This is NOT a solution.
So can I offer a solution? Offer every waiting, suffering patient - 'patient choice' - a choice of medical therapies.

Go the the people who are queuing at the GP surgeries, at hospitals, at A&E, and make them an offer - an appointment with a local homeopath, or osteopath, or naturopath, or herbalist, et al.

The NHS (dominated and controlled as it is by pharmaceutical interests) will most certainly complain that these natural therapies do not work (and other nonsense). And some patients will not want to take up the offer - which in terms of patient choice and health freedom is fine.

But many patients will welcome the opportunity to remove themselves from the queues, and to receive treatment.

The therapists are out here. Many will be able, happy, even glad to take on additional patients. For the NHS it will not only shorten the queues, it will take the pressure off doctors, nurses, and other staff. For the therapist it will be an opportunity to demonstrate how successful they can be in tackling serious illness and disease. For patients it will open their minds to new medical therapies that can be used for sickness that is not, or cannot be successfully treated with pharmaceutical medicine.

This would be a win-win situation for everyone
(with the possible exception of the pharmaceutical industry)

Tuesday 17 December 2019

VACCINES & VACCINATION. Political bribery and industrial corruption.

  • Most politician in the USA support mass vaccination programmes.
  • Many politicians in the USA support mandatory vaccination.
  • All politicians in the USA seem incapable of understanding, and unwilling to see, that vaccines cause patient harm.
The HPV-Vaccine Side Effects website has asked the question
  • Why do almost all politicians support mass vaccination?
and came up with a simple but telling answer from some publicly available statistics to back up that answer. The generated a list of donations accepted by leading USA politicians from the health sector. They require little clarification.

Bernie Sanders. Democrat. $2,052,050

Joe Biden. Democrat. $1,330,186

Donald Trump. Republican. $1,797,878

Mike Pence. Republican. $1,003,645

Elizabeth Warren. Democrat. $1,369,497

Nancy Pelosi. Democrat. £454,745

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Democrat. £34,965

Ted Cruz. Republican. $34,965

Pete Buttigieg. Democrat. $1,870,719

Lindsey Graham. Republican. $514,197

Cory Booker. Democrat. $525,164

Marco Rubio. Republican. $920,884

Mitt Romney. Republican. £148,350

Mitch McConnell. Republican. $2,748,789

They looked only at the most popular current politicians on the website. Their conclusion was simple.

               "You will notice for sure that it doesn’t matter much to which party the politicians belong. Republicans or Democrats, they all get money directly from the health industry and of course this will influence their decisions."
My conclusion.
  • The payments are not made for nothing, without accepting something in return. 
  • The payments are corrupt, corrupting of both payer and beneficiary. 
  • They are made by an industrial sector that has an agenda - the problems associated with a failing industry that is harming and killing millions of people.
Is it the same in Europe. Perhaps not to the same obvious extent, there are rules that prevent these kinds of excessive political donation to politicians, and to political parties. But with an industry with unlimited resources to spend on bribery there are no doubt lots of ways they can generate the same result.


DEATH BY PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS. Equivalant to one Jumbo Jet crashing every day. And that's just in the USA! The failure of Regulation. The failure of politicians and governments to protect the people.

Jon Rappoport's blog has regularly referred to the medical drugs that are killing Americans at the rate of 106,000 per year, or as he says, a million deaths every decade. He takes this figure from an estimate published on 26th July 2000 by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), entitled "Is US health really the best in the world?", written by Barara Starfield at the John Hopkins School of Public Health.

Yet even Starfield's calculation must now be considered to be an under-estimate, given the prodigious number of pharmaceutical drugs being prescribed now as compared to 20 years ago. As Rappoport said in his blog

               "Countries of the world are literally being assaulted by pharmaceutical companies and their foot-soldier doctors. It's chemical warfare".

Yet even with 106,000 people dying from pharmaceutical medicine, 1,000,000 every decade, remains just a statistic, and number. So what exactly does this number represent?

It represents a Jumbo Jet crashing every day, killing nearly 300 people,
plus the distress and grief caused to their families and friends.

So, if a Jumbo Jet did crash every day what action might we expect to be taken by the aviation authorities? They would surely ground all the planes, remove them from the sky, and insist that they do not fly again until they were proven to be safe.

And, of course, this is exactly what has happened following 'a mere' 2 jumbo jets crashing earlier this year, one in Indonesia, the other in Ethiopia, killing many more than 300 people. The planes, Boeing 737 Max airliners, were grounded, removed from the sky, and told they would not fly again until they were proven to be safe.

Yesterday, the USA's Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) announced that the planes would not be allowed to fly again, even after nine months after the two planes had crashed. The FAA has taken decisive action, even though it has been (quite rightly) criticised for allowing a flawed aircraft to fly in the first place!

This is, after all, what people expect from regulators, whether it is planes, drugs, or anything else  - that they take decisive action to protect the public from harm, both before it happens, and after tragedies of this kind.

So what is the US drug regulator, the FDA, doing about the public dying at an equivalent rate on one Jumbo Jet crashing every day?


In fairness, the FDA is not alone in its incompetence and lack of concern. Just as aviation regulators in other countries failed to take action against the Boeing 737 Max airliner, other pharmaceutical drug regulators around the world (the EDA in Europe, the MHRC in Britain, et al) are failing with an equal lack of concern, and displaying an equal lack of competence.
  • Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines continue to be approved, and subsequently given to patients, who are harmed and even killed by them.
  • And when this harm is proven, little action is taken, beyond exhorting doctors to be more careful when prescribing them.
And just as the FAA has been accused of being "too close" to Boeing, and its commercial and financial interests, the FDA is regularly accused of being "too close" to the massively powerful pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, all industrial regulators are too close to the companies they are supposed to be regulating. The reason is usually simple, but essentially corrupt.
  • Usually, regulators and the process of regulation is paid for by the companies they are supposed to be regulating.
  • It is in the financial and commercial interest of companies to 'cosy-up' to regulators, to make it worthwhile for the regulator not to regulate too rigorously. And this is what happens.
  • There is also, often. a 'revolving door', with company employees becoming regulators, and vice versa. The regulated becomes the regulator!
  • Even politicians and governments seem unconcerned, perhaps in the realisation that company investments, and the employment they provide, are good for their political interests.
The only people who lose out are the very people regulators are supposed to be protecting!

Tuesday 10 December 2019

Pharmaceutical medicine. What a faff! Drugs make everything so complicated. Homeopathy is so much simpler

Have you ever wondered how complicated conventional, drug-based medicine can be? For instance, we have all heard the usual instructions from our medical doctors in recent months about the importance of the getting the influenza, or flu vaccine.

Yet it's not as simple as that - going along to your doctor, having a variety of noxious materials (like mercury) injected into your bloodstream, and resting assured that all is well.

The first complication comes when you suffer from vaccine side effects. I have written about about these side effects several times over the years, the last time in July 2019. Doctors know about these serious side effects. They are readily available within their own medical literature, not least in the Patient Information Leaflets (PIL) that accompanies each vaccine. Moreover, these side effects can be serious, and as the link above shows, quoting the PIL, ends up with the warning that the vaccines can cause death!

The second complication is that the vaccine does not work. Perhaps the drug company has chosen the wrong strain of the flu virus, or some other excuse. So after every flu season statistics are produced (but not widely publicised) showing that the effectiveness of the vaccine has been severely limited. I last wrote about this in detail in January 2018.

This leads directly to the third complication, as described on 4 December 2019 in MIMS. "Flu antivirals approved for NHS prescribing as cases increase" (my emphasis). So the vaccine isn't working (yet again) this year, but doctors can now prescribe antiviral drugs (Tamiflu) for both the prevention and treatment of influenza. They now have a second line of treatment for you. But the 'complication'  arises when we see that Tamiflu is also known to be both ineffective, and causes very serious side effects. Indeed, the drug, also known as oseltamivir, has already been withdrawn or banned in some countries.

The fourth complication is that it's not just YOU who have to be vaccinated against flu - it's everyone else! Doctors call it "Herd Immunity". So even though you are vaccinated, you are still at risk - because other people aren't. The solution (sic) to this, according to pharmaceutical medicine, is to make vaccination mandatory, to force you to have a vaccination that is both dangerous AND ineffective. Forced vaccination is already becoming a reality in some parts of the world.

So when dealing with influenza, as with most other illnesses, pharmaceutical medicine struggles to provide any treatment that is safe, effective, straightforward and uncomplicated.

With Homeopathy, everything is so much simpler.

First, you can avoid getting the flu by taking a simple remedy regularly, every month or so, throughout the flu season. I have described the simple process in this blog.

Second, if you forget to do this, and should you contract flu, there are a number of homeopathic remedies that will treat (reduce, ease and shorten) the symptoms, and reduce your suffering. I have written about these remedies here, providing simple descriptions about when they should be used. No home should be without these remedies.

That's why I don't have to worry about the flu. It is a dreadful illness. Many years ago, before I became a homeopath, both my wife and I had fully-fledged flu over the Christmas period. Neither of us have ever felt so bad, and for so long. Neither of us want to go through it again. So we now rely entirely and completely on homeopathy. It's just so easy!

It is only yesterday that I wrote this blog, yet I already need to write this postscript. Why? Today, it has been announced that an outbreak of bird flu in Suffolk will lead to a mass slaughter of 27,000 chickens. So is this another 'complication' to add to the four I outlined yesterday?

Pharmaceutical medicine has no answer to influenza, of whatever sort it might be. So when "a number of the birds" were found to have the H5 strain of avian flu on a Suffolk chicken farm, it panicked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

Panic is a regular response of conventional, drug based medicine. It knows that if there is an outbreak of any illness it has little or nothing to offer. It is the ideal breeding ground for panic! So, in this case, and as these are only (sic) chickens - cull them - cull them all. And set up a 1km (0.6 mile) exclusion zone around the farm to limit the risk of the disease spreading.

I feel sorry for the chickens, who have to die because of a disease that homeopathy could deal with, easily, by adding a homeopathic remedy to their water supply. But of course, Defra would not think of doing so. It's not just that the government department is controlled by conventional vets. The law of the land states that animals cannot be treated with homeopathy. Conventional vets have been given a monopoly in the treatment of animals, and 27,000 chickens are now going to pay the awful price.
What a faff! How senseless! What nonsense!

It is time that we all began to see through the hopelessness and helplessness of pharmaceutical medicine. 
It has little or nothing to offer in the treatment of any disease - not just influenza - and not just for chickens.

Monday 9 December 2019

Health Issues and Politics. The General Election in Britain (2). 2019.

              " I predict, (in advance) that these (and other) false assumptions will underlie the basis of the political debate to come, and that the inevitable result will be that Britain decides to spend still more money on a medical system whose failure is spiraling out of control."

I predicted this back in August - that political parties would seek to outbid each other on how much additional money they could spend on the NHS. And this is what has happened! It was an easy prediction based on one of these false assumptions - "that health is good: therefore spending more money on health is good".
  • At the moment (2019-2020) the UK spends £121 billion on the NHS.
  • The Conservative party has plans to increase this to £149 billion.
  • The Liberal Democrats have pledged to spend £154 billion.
  • And Labour is committed to spend £155 billion.
It remains to be seen who will win the election, but two things have already been made clear
  • there is no longer a political debate about how much more money to spend on the NHS, and conventional medicine: the politics now is about each party seeking to outbid each other in their plans and expenditure promises
  • despite the mainstream media castigating the Labour party for its spending promises - the huge increases being promised are not sufficient to meet the needs of the NHS. The NHS, now totally dominated and controlled by pharmaceutical medicine, has announced that these increases are not enough. The NHS needs even more.
NHS Providers has accused politicians of not offering 'credible answers' to the NHS's biggest challenges, of ducking the big issues in health and social care during the election. Its head, Chris Hopson, writing in the Times, has urged all political parties not to make 'empty promises' or create 'unrealistic expectations.

The parties have also made promises to increase staffing. Labour, for instance, has pledged to boost nurse numbers by 24,000, the Conservatives by 50,000.The Liberal Democrats have promised to put one penny on income tax to help fund health and social care.

But despite this Hopson said the election debate had 'fallen short' - presumably of his hopes and expectations. Politicians have just not listened to him.

What this does is to give notice to all political parties that spending money on an NHS dominated and controlled by pharmaceutical medicine is always going to fall short. The NHS, as currently constituted, is a bottomless pit. It does not matter how much money is thrown into it - it will still demand more.

So why is this? And why has this 'why?' question never been asked - by politicians, or the media?

This is what happens when you continue to increase spending, exponentially
- on a failed medical system.  

Pharmaceutical medicine is not making sick patients better, so the demand for health care never gets less. And drug and vaccine 'side effects' cause epidemic levels of chronic disease which then have to be treated. And they are treated by a medical system that does not work. Then, patients damaged by these drugs and vaccines have to be looked after.

So I am not critical of politicians who believe it is a good idea to spend more on health. But I do blame politicians for failing to ask appropriate questions.

Why is it that, no matter how much money is ploughed into the NHS, it is never enough?

The problem with the NHS is not decades of under-investment, or an ageing population. It is that investment is being made into a medical system, pharmaceutical medicine, that does not work, that has never worked, and will never work.

Wednesday 4 December 2019

Pharmaceutical Medicine. What have they done to the health of our children?

I receive regular emails from the USA organisation 'Children's Health Defense'. The latest, received today (4th December 2019), includes the following frightening statistics. They indicate, dramatically, the health outcomes of  70 to 100 years of pharmaceutical medicine on our young children. It is nothing less than a catastrophy
  • 1 in 2 USA children is chronically ill
  • 1 in 2 USA 13-18 year olds diagnosed with one mental health disorder
  • 1 in 3 USA children suffer from anxiety disorders
  • 1 in 6 USA children has developmental disorder
  • 1 in 8 USA children requires special education services
  • 1 in 11 USA children has ADHD
  • 1 in 12 USA children has asthma
  • 1 in 13 USA children has food allergies including deadly peanut allergies
  • 1 in 36 American children has autism
  • More than 15,000 children will be diagnosed with cancer in 2019 alone
And, as they say, beyond the USA, in Europe and elsewhere, these health conditions in children are equally concerning.

Why is this happening - unprecedented levels of seriously damaged children?


What is the response of the pharmaceutical medical establishment to this health crisis?



Wednesday 27 November 2019

MEDICAL MISTAKES & ERRORS. What is happening at the NHS Trust in Shrewsbury and Telford is old news. It has been happening for decades

  • The piece that follows was written in 2008, and published in my E-Book, 'The Failure of Conventional Medicine'.
  • Since that time there has been regular reports of 'medical mistakes' and 'medical errors' within the NHS, and around the world.
  • These mistakes and errors cause serious illness and disease and death.
The most recent health scandal concerns what has been happening at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust, where there is now an ongoing investigation into more than 600 cases of newborn children and mothers dying, or left injured.

Further, we are being told that this may be just the tip of the iceberg, and that the scandal has been going on for decades, and that the failure "might be more widespread in the NHS".

Yet are these really just mistakes and errors?
Or the consequence of operating a medical system 
that is INHERENTLY dangerous?
A failed system of medicine

So this is what I wrote 11 years ago, about the same kind of 'mistakes' and 'errors' that are currently hitting the headlines .....

     "It has been estimated that between 5-10% of patients admitted to hospital are infected with hospital-acquired diseases, such as MRSA (360 deaths in 2005 in England alone) and Clostridium Difficile (1,300 death in 2004). The problem, according to the NHS is that health professionals needed to do more to address hygiene to improve patient safety - thereby ignoring the troublesome fact that whilst these infections can be spread by bad hygiene their actual cause is the overuse of antibiotics - conventional medicine's most miraculous miracle drug!

It is the same throughout the world. On 25 October 2006 the BBC reported that in Italy it has been estimated that as many as 90 people die in hospital every day “due to medical malpractice and organisational errors”. Note that the deaths are not caused by ‘medicine’ - but by malpractice, and error. The calculation of 33,000 annual deaths is more than the number of people killed on the roads in Italy, which means that there are an awful lot of ‘errors’ and ‘malpractice’ going on!

Celia Hall, Medical Editor, Daily Telegraph.
"One NHS patient in 10 'is harmed in hospital'"
6 July 2006.
This article said that nearly a million patient safety incidents or 'near misses' in a single year were recorded in NHS trusts, drawing attention to the effectiveness of the Patient Safety Agency. It estimated that in 2004-05 there were 974,000 patient safety incidents in England and Wales and MPs believe that 22% of mistakes go unreported.

In the same Daily Telegraph article the charity, Peter Walsh, the chief executive of 'Action against Medical Accidents' (AvMA) called for stronger sanctions.

               "We hope the report will give an injection of urgency into work to improve patient safety. Whilst there has been welcome progress we want to see more teeth given to existing guidelines and safety alerts. It should be compulsory for NHS providers to implement them".
Sarah Bosely
11 August 2006
This outlined 40,000 NHS drug errors logged in a year, the figures having been collated by the National Patient Safety Agency. The article said that the statistics inevitably underestimated the problem 'since not all errors are reported'.

Jerome Burne
Daily Mail
12 September 2006

              "In the UK, 10,000 people are killed every year by adverse drug reactions which happens when the prescription drug supposed to be curing you kills or harms you instead. That is more than the number who die from cervical cancer, taking illegal drugs, cancer of the mouth and passive smoking combined. It's actually more dangerous to visit your doctor than it is to drive your car - in 2004, traffic accidents were responsible for some 3,221 deaths. Yet a further 40,000 people each year are made sick enough by drugs they are taking to be admitted to hospital".
WDDTY e-news
Doctor Error: It’s rife, especially among the newborns
7 February 2008
"It's an urban myth - and one that happens to be true - that the death rate plummets when doctors go on strike. Patients in hospital are especially vulnerable to the doctor's ministrations, and it's even worse for the newborn baby who hasn't yet made it home. A new study into newborns that needed 'hospital' care - usually because of low birth rate or premature birth - has revealed the extent of doctor error or doctor-induced (iatrogenic) problems. Researchers monitored the progress of 388 babies who had been admitted to a neo-natal unit in Southern France from January to September 2005; in that time, researchers witness 267 doctor errors, and nearly 30% of these were serious. Two babies died as a direct result of the errors".
(Source: The Lancet, 2008; 371: 404-10).

WDDTY reported on research (published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, 2006; 166: 1410-6) that studied the progress of 7,054 patients admitted to a veterans' hospital between 2003 and 2004. Of these, 792 patients suffered a heart attack while in the hospital (about 11%) and that they were twice as likely to die from the attack.

As the article says, this means that up to 2,690,000 people could be harmed by medical ‘mishaps’ every year. This represents around 4.5% of the entire population. It goes on to say that in the USA, where twice as much is spent on pharmaceutical drugs, the problem could be affecting up to 13,450,000 people every year. Government officials were said to be 'shocked' to hear that nobody knows how many of the reported 'blunders' ended in death. Apparently, only 1 in 4 hospitals 'own up' to the patient when something goes wrong; the rest presumably blame the patient illness on admission. Just 1 in 25 drug reactions is ever reported.

Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts committee said that 1 in 10 people admitted to a hospital in Britain every year will suffer a mishap or accident that will harm him, and that this is based on known, reported accidents. Apparently, the committee members discovered that the situation is not getting better, that doctors and hospital staff are not learning from mistakes, but repeating them every year, that guidelines are being consistently ignored, and safety recommendations are not being implemented.


Tuesday 26 November 2019

SCIENCE IS NOT A PANACEA. It is not always definitive. It does not resolve everything. So how can we tell when it's right or wrong?

We live in the age of SCIENCE! But we need to be able to differentiate between good and bad science, and we are not really very good at doing so. The problem is we have been taught to believe many things about science.
  • It is a panacea, providing answers for all kinds of difficulties and disputes.
  • That science gives us definitive answers about what is right and what is wrong. 
  • That science can resolve differences of opinion that have been debated for centuries.
Often scientists can do this, indeed, scientific evidence is usually presented to us alongside an assumption that it had done just this. And, indeed, sometimes it does - when the the science does not concern matters in which there are too many variables to contend with.
  • So science knows, conclusively, what will happen when we mix two chemicals together. 
  • Science knows, without contradiction, how the sun and planets currently interact, and how the constellations function. 
  • Science has worked out how living organisms function and live, how they survive and how they die.
  • And much more.
But often science quite clearly does not do this. For instance, social science, economics, psychology, and many other areas of human activity, where science has been applied but does not resolve very much at all. One reason is that there are just too many variables. Too often, then they are presented to us on the basis that science does have definitive knowledge, that it can predict what will happen. But it doesn't do so.

Science is often too optimistic about its ability to make sense of the world, and the problem we should all face is how we can different between the two.

This blog deals with two areas of scientific endeavour where the failure to resolve critical issues have been most notably absent, not just because there are too many variables that complicate what is happening, but because the 'science' has been taken over by powerful corporate interests.
  • Climate change
Climate change and global warming is perhaps something that science should be able to come up with something decisive and conclusive about what is happening. And, in fact, it does! The bulk of the scientific community investigating climate change are clear - it is be caused by the impact that we (humanity) are having on our planet. The science is well known, and its conclusions have been getting clearer over the last 40-50 years.

Unfortunately the science of climate change was not coming up with answers that powerful corporate interests wanted or liked.

Quite the opposite, science was coming to conclusions that had massive implications for the petro-chemical industry, the coal and steel industries, the aviation industry, motor manufacturers, et al. So instead of accepting the science they began to fund and finance a kind of 'counter' science, one that denies that it is their industrial activity (the basis of their profitability) that was damaging our planet.

So for all us 'non-scientists' uncertainty and confusion was introduced.
  • Pharmaceutical medicine
Conventional medicine, and its use of toxic drugs, has been with us since the 12th century. But it was at the start of the 20th century that the idea that 'science' would eventually be able to overcome illness and disease. After all, we could now travel without horses, communicate by telegram and then by telephone, we could fly - and all of this thanks to science.

So medical science was born. New 'scientific' drugs began to be lauded as miracle cures. Painkillers did seem to work. And antibiotics were able to revolutionise health care, enabling amazing new surgical operations.The result was that the pharmaceutical industry grew in size, wealth and power. They funded the new medical science, which gratefully came up with new and exciting drugs and vaccines. The industry now dominates national health provision around the world.

Yet, as with climate change, there are small voices raising questions about whether medical science is correct, that we are better, healthier because of it. Not least because the 'wonder' drugs proved to be less than wonderful, and caused the most dreadful 'side effects' that harmed patients. Many of them had to be withdrawn, or banned, because they were just too dangerous to give patients.

However, this has not caused too much uncertainty or confusion as the pharmaceutical industry had, by this time, become so powerful it could ensure these dissident voices were not heard. It could control governments, national health services, drug regulation, and the mainstream media.

So for many people there still is no scientific debate about medicine. Pharmaceutical medicine is what keeps us alive and healthy - just as we are told.

So there is an important question that needs to be asked - how can we tell when science is right or wrong? There are two criteria that we have to apply.
  • 1. Who is funding the science?
The paymaster, he who pays the piper, can have an undue influence over science. It should not have such an influence, but it almost inevitably does.

Scientists funded by industries that contribute to climate change will tend to deny that climate change is caused by human activity. This kind of science, bought and paid for by industry, has become the preserve of the far, or ultra-right of politics. The USA President, Donald Trump, represents (and is part of) the interests of these polluting industries, and for them climate change just does not exist. Mainstream science is wrong, and it suits Trump, and like-minded people, to believe this.

Likewise, medical science is almost exclusively funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which now controls drug testing, drug regulation, the huge conventional medical establishment, and the mainstream media, through which we get most of our information about pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

So to make sense of what science is telling us, in whatever field, we need to know more about the scientists, and who is funding them. Mainstream climate science is not funded, and so does not speak for powerful corporations. It is essentially independent, its conclusions do not make money for anyone, quite the reverse, it does not speak for vested interests.

Medical science is funded by, and speaks for the pharmaceutical industry. The drug testing industry, many university medical departments, prestigious medical journals - none of them would be able to exist without the largesse of drug companies. Those small voices who are questioning, or speaking against the 'science' of the pharmaceutical industry come mainly from the tiny world of natural medicine. There is little or no profit in doing so.
  •  2. Does the science explain what is happening in the world?
Yet there is a more important, and perhaps simpler way of determining the validity of the message that science is giving us:

Does it help us understand what we can see to be happening in the world?

So we should ask - is climate change happening? Are the polar ice caps and the glaciers melting? Is sea level rising? Are there more hurricanes and typhoons than there have ever been? Are there more severe weather events? Is there more flooding? Are there more droughts? Is global temperature rising? Is desertification happening in some parts of the world?

If so, who has the best explanation? Climate scientists? Or climate deniers?

And is pharmaceutical medicine working, as we are told? Is it overcoming illness and disease? Are doctors able to cope with the medical needs of their patients? Are people getting ill, and then getting better? Are the medical outcomes of pharmaceutical drug treatment positive ones? Are people, and governments, able to afford the costs of pharmaceutical medical treatment?

Or, alternatively, are chronic diseases now running at unprecedented epidemic levels - arthritis, asthma, autism, COPD, dementia, heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, mental health, et al? And are there a plethora of new, previously never-heard-of-before diseases, especially those that are affecting our children?

Scientists are like everyone else, every other profession. Some are honest, seeking only the truth, trying to explain what is happening in the world. Some are dishonest, willing to do and say anything as long as they are well rewarded for doing so.

And each and every one of us has to make a judgement about science - what science is telling us the truth - and what science is speaking to conform to the wishes of their paymasters.


Monday 25 November 2019

PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS IN SHORT SUPPLY. But as they are harmful why should this be a problem?

In recent months the mainstream news media have been telling everyone that there are shortages of pharmaceutical drugs. For many people, like myself, who have no use for them this was not the frightening news that it was made out to be. They are dangerous. They harm us. We are better off, healthier, without them.

But it introduces new dangers.  
Yet to my surprise I have discovered that some doctors agree with my assessment. In Pulse, the GP's e-magazine, one GP wrote this in an article entitled "The drugs don't work, so why worry about shortages?"

               "Call me weird, but I reckon there’s a positive spin to the acute on chronic medicine shortage debacle..... It’s true that we’re reaching the point that shortages are even affecting the alternatives, and when there’s no alternative, there’s no drug. But actually, for me, that’s the positive. Because, frankly, I think we doctors prescribe far too many drugs"
I could not agree more, which is rare for me, agreeing with a doctor about the value of pharmaceutical drugs! He does not mention the harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs but goes on...

               "Assuming shortages continue, and extrapolating this effect, hopefully loads of patients will stop loads of drugs. When the drug unavailability issue whips the therapeutic rug from under patients’ feet, they don’t keel over. A few might suffer, but I’d argue a net benefit on the basis that many won’t notice any difference, and a significant number will probably feel better."
I wondered whether he would receive a hostile response from his colleague, so look at the foot of the article, and found comments that agreed with what he had written. One said, quite simply "Well said", another that it would not last, but another said this ....

               "Marvellous opportunity to discuss stopping HRT with the elderly users who have not yet succumbed to breast cancer and stroke".

A doctor admitting a link between Hormone Replacement Therapy and breast cancer and stroke?

It shows that some doctors do understand that pharmaceutical drugs are causing harm to their patients. It shows that doctor-morale is low, that confidence in pharmaceutical drugs is limited, even amongst doctors who spend most of their working day prescribing them. 

But I wondered how many doctors have been quite as transparently honest - when talking to their patients?

Monday 18 November 2019

DISEASE & THE SEARCH FOR CURES. Is it possible to find a cure without first knowing the cause?

If your car, or washing machine, breaks down, the mechanic you employ to fix it will first need to ascertain the cause. 
Only then will (s)he be able to fix the problem.

Yet this is not what conventional medicine does. Indeed, our doctors usually go out of their way to deny one of the most important causes of serious illness and disease - iatrogenesis.

I realised this first several years ago whilst starting to put together my DIE's (the Disease-Inducing-Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs and Vaccines) e-book. Each page of this book focuses on an illness or disease in order to see whether conventional medicial drugs and vaccine can cause it. In doing so I found that conventional medicine routinely denies that their drugs and vaccines cause all kinds of illnesses. 

Indeed, time and time again, conventional medicine states that "there is no known cause".

At one level, perhaps, this is understandable ignorance. What car mechanic, for instance, would want to admit that your car was not working because a previous repair he had done had caused the problem?

But if the mechanic ignored the fact that his/her previous fault was causing the current problem, would he be able to fix the problem? It is unlikely.

But this is what conventional medicine does all the time. In writing each separate page of my DIE's e-book I used the UK's NHS website to see how they described the cause of serious illnesses and diseases. In some cases what they say is that "there is no known cause". In others they describe what is happening, what is going wrong within the body - and mistakenly present this as a cause. Here are some examples of both - all relating to illness that are running at unprecedented levels.

ALLERGY (cause not known)
          "Allergies occur when the body's immune system reacts to a particular substance as though it's harmful. It's not clear why this happens, but most people affected have a family history of allergies or have closely related conditions, such as asthma or eczema. The number of people with allergies is increasing every year. The reasons for this are not understood, but one of the main theories is it's the result of living in a cleaner, germ-free environment, which reduces the number of germs our immune system has to deal with. It's thought this may cause it to overreact when it comes into contact with harmless substances."

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE (mainly description)
          "Alzheimer's disease is thought to be caused by the abnormal build-up of proteins in and around brain cells..... Although it's not known exactly what causes this process to begin, scientists now know that it begins many years before symptoms appear. As brain cells become affected, there's also a decrease in chemical messengers (called neurotransmitters) involved in sending messages, or signals, between brain cells. Levels of one neurotransmitter, acetylcholine, are particularly low in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease. Over time, different areas of the brain shrink. The first areas usually affected are responsible for memories.

RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (cause not known)

OSTEOARTHRITIS (mainly description)
           "As part of normal life, your joints are exposed to a constant low level of damage. In most cases, your body repairs the damage itself and you do not experience any symptoms. But in osteoarthritis, the protective cartilage on the ends of your bones breaks down, causing pain, swelling and problems moving the joint. Bony growths can develop, and the area can become red and swollen.
The exact cause is not known...." 

Pharmaceutical drugs known to cause Arthritis.

ASTHMA (cause not known)
          "The exact cause of asthma is unknown.People with asthma have swollen (inflamed) and "sensitive" airways that become narrow and clogged with sticky mucus in response to certain triggers. Genetics, pollution and modern hygiene standards have been suggested as causes, but there's not currently enough evidence to know if any of these do cause asthma.

Pharmaceutical drugs known to cause Asthma.

AUTISM (cause not known, and also denial)
          "It's not clear what causes autism. Nobody knows what causes autism, or if it has a cause.
It can affect people in the same family. So it may sometimes be passed on to a child by their parents."

However, most unusually, conventional medicine knows what does NOT cause autism, including vaccines!

Pharmaceutical drugs known to cause Autism.

          "The exact cause of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is not fully understood, although a combination of factors is thought to be responsible.

CANCER (description, no cause discussed)

CHRONIC FATIGUE & ME (cause not known)

DIABETES (entirely description)

IRRITABLE BOWEL (cause not known)

CROHN'S DISEASE (cause not known)

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS (cause not known)

I could go on with a much larger list of illnesses, but the ones mentioned have become some of the most serious throughout the developed world, running at epidemic levels, and still on the increase.

What this clearly demonstrates is that the mechanic-doctor does not know what is causing these epidemic levels of disease, instead doctors are myopically working in the dark, either unable or unwilling to accept that the pharmaceutical drugs (s)he is using are (at the very least) an important contributory factor to all these diseases.

So does conventional medicine have any effective, of safe treatment for these epidemic illnesses?
And part of the reason for this is that conventional medicine cannot bring itself to admit that the cause of most of these serious illnesses is iatrogenic - doctor induced.

And that conventional medicine ignores one effective treatment for most, if not all disease, is to stop giving harmful pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines to patients!

Severe allergic reactions rise in children in England over past five years

Severe allergic reactions English children have risen in each of the past five years!

This was reported in some of the mainstream media over the weekend, for example, in this BBC article, dated 15 November 2019 which reported that

               "The number of children being admitted to hospital in England with a severe allergic reaction has risen every year for the past five years. NHS figures show 1,746 children were treated for anaphylactic shock in 2018-19, up from 1,015 in 2013-14"

  • So what has caused this near doubling of anaphylaxis in five years?
As usual, mainstream media coverage is vague about this, perhaps not surprisingly as all the accounts I have read clearly come from a single (conventional medical) source which has been meekly and obligingly regurgitated. So we are told

              "Scientists say environmental factors could be to blame for more allergies."

The accounts do not go further into this 'scientific' explanation. They do not, for instance, tell us what environmental factors have increased so much in the last 5 years to cause this near doubling of allergy, and anaphylaxis. They do, however, go on to talk about "the most common causes of severe allergic reactions" which they describe as foods such as nuts, fish and shellfish, and factors such as "wasp and bee stings, drugs and dairy products, among others".

Unfortunately, all except one of these do not cause allergy, they are merely triggers. These are the things we become allergic to, and they are all things that our body should be able routinly to cope with.

Yet did you notice that single word that was slipped into the BBC News article - "drugs"? So do pharmaceutical drugs really cause allergy, and anaphylaxis? Absolutely they do! Where is the evidence? It is contained within the literature of the conventional medical establishment itself!

I have written about the link between allergy, anaphylaxis and pharmaceutical drugs elsewhere, and I have listed the drugs that are most implicated in the allergy epidemic. They include
  • painkilling drugs
  • sleeping drugs
  • antibiotic drugs
  • anticonvulsant drugs
  • insulin
  • drugs that interfere with our immune system
But, most of all, it is the vaccines that conventional medicine is busy pumping into us, not least into our children, that are creating and extending the allergy epidemic.

In my article I outlined the case against vaccines, and their connection with the allergy epidemic. It is irrefutable. But it is a case conventional medicine, and their friends in the mainstream media, deny. They don't want us to hear. about it. Hence the single word reference. Which, in fact, is one word more than the media usually uses when pointing to the culpability of the pharmaceutical industry!

One recent USA study, which compared the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children, has said this about the link between serious illness and vaccines.

               "vaccinated children were 4.2 times more likely to be diagnosed on the autism spectrum or with attention deficit and hyperactivity. Learning disabilities are 5.2 times more prevalent in vaccinated children. Eczema was 2.9 times more likely. The most shocking problem facing the vaccinated children was allergic rhinitis. The study documented a 3,000% increase of allergic rhinitis in vaccinated children compared to the unvaccinated group." (My emphasis).

Which all goes to prove - we are in the midst of an allergy crisis - a crisis which is getting worse - and we are not being told what is causing it - not by our doctors - not by the NHS - not by the Department of Health - and certainly not by the mainstream media!

We are on our own out here.

If we want to stay well and keep our children safe

we are going to have to learn this for ourselves.

Friday 15 November 2019

HOW EFFECTIVE IS CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE? Why are there no pharmaceutical drugs that can cope with chronic disease?

Chronic disease is now rife throughout the so-called 'developed' world. These diseases are all running at unprecedented levels. They have become epidemics. And conventional medicine has no effective treatment, notably pharmaceutical drugs, to deal with them. So how effective is conventional medicine?

To find the answer to this important question we do not have to look beyond the published literature of the conventional medical establishment itself.

Whilst researching and writing my 'Why Homeopathy?' E-Book I was amazed how many times, and for how many illnesses, conventional medicine had to admit that it had little or no effective treatment. I gathered my information on conventional medical treatment from the UK's NHS website, surely a reliable source, which states that the website is "Your complete guide to conditions, symptoms and treatments...". Here is a sample of statements taken from this website about the way it treats these serious illnesses, all now running at epidemic levels.

Alzheimers Disease          "There's currently no cure for Alzheimer's disease. But there is medication available that can temporarily reduce the symptoms. Support is also available to help someone with the condition, and their family, cope with everyday life'.

Vascular Dementia
          "Treatment can help prevent further damage to the brain in people with vascular dementia and may slow down its progression. But there's currently no cure for the condition or a way to reverse the damage that's already occurred.

Frontotemporal Dementia
          "There's currently no cure for frontotemporal dementia, but there are treatments that can help manage some of the symptoms."

          "There's no cure for osteoarthritis, but the condition does not necessarily get any worse over time."

Rheumatoid Arthritis
          "Although there's no cure for rheumatoid arthritis, early treatment and support (including medicine, lifestyle changes, supportive treatments and surgery) can reduce the risk of joint damage and limit the impact of the condition."

          "There's currently no cure for asthma, but treatment can help control the symptoms so you're able to live a normal, active life."

ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder)
          "Treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can help relieve the symptoms and make the condition much less of a problem in day-to-day life."

The NHS does not mention treatment, and refuses to accept that this condition is an illness (so therefore does not need treatment)!
          "Being autistic does not mean you have an illness or disease. It means your brain works in a different way from other people.It's something you're born with or first appears when you're very young.If you're autistic, you're autistic your whole life. Autism is not a medical condition with treatments or a "cure". But some people need support to help them with certain things.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome / ME
          Treatments for CFS/ME aim to help relieve your symptoms...CFS/ME can last a long time, but most people's symptoms will improve with time."

COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease)
          "There's currently no cure for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but treatment can help slow the progression of the condition and control the symptoms.

Irritable Bowel
          "It's usually a lifelong problem. It can be very frustrating to live with and can have a big impact on your everyday life.There's no cure, but diet changes and medicines can often help control the symptoms."

Crohn's Disease
          "There's currently no cure for Crohn's disease, but treatment can control or reduce the symptoms and help stop them coming back.

MS (Multiple Sclerosis)
          "There's currently no cure for multiple sclerosis (MS), but it's possible to treat the symptoms with medicines and other treatments."

And so it continues...... There are many, many more serious illnesses for which the NHS makes similar admissions on its website. Conventional medicine has no treatment for them - and this is admitted from within their own literature.

In addition, there are many other illnesses that are currently being treated with antibiotic drugs, and when resistance to these drugs becomes total this means that these too will become 'untreatable'.

And, of course, illnesses which are treatable are treated with pharmaceutical drugs that have dreadful side effects which leads to the creation of more serious illness.

So when the NHS, and other conventional health services throughout the developed world, are in constant and serious financial trouble, it is entirely predictable. Conventional medicine has no effective treatment available to them to treat the diseases that have become epidemic.
  • If the conventional medical establishment were more honest about their ineffectiveness, less arrogant about the medical claims, this might be more acceptable.
  • If the conventional medical establishment was more humble, and look beyond its myopic obsession with pharmaceutical drugs, it might be able to look towards natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, which do have effective treatments for these chronic diseases.
  • If medicine, and medical organisations like the NHS, was willing to be more co-operative, if it was able to take the best available treatments from every medical therapy, and offer them to patients, we would all benefit.
But this would seriously undermine the ascendancy, the dominance, the control and the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry. So for medical institutions like the NHS it remains a long way off.

But it is just a short distance for the individual patient!

Wednesday 13 November 2019

Cannabis-Based Drugs for MS & Epilepsy. Now under control of Pharmaceutical Industry. So it's okay for NHS to prescribe them. What is the back story?

Two new Cannabis-based drugs, to treat epilepsy and MS, have been introduced by NICE and they will now be available on the UK's NHS. As usual, the introduction of these new drugs has been heralded by the mainstream media, charities and patient groups as 'long-overdue'.

Epidyolex is for children with two types of severe epilepsy, Lennox Gastaut syndrome, and Dravet syndrome. Both syndromes feature multiple seizures on a daily basis.

Sativex is a mouth spray that has been approved for treating muscle stiffness and spasms (spasticity) in MS (multiple sclerosis).

As usual, the two drugs were described by the media in glowing terms. Epidyolex, we were told, can reduce the number of seizures by up to 40% in some children, and this was confirmed by many parents who have been fighting for the drugs to be made available on the NHS. However, certain aspects of the story were not told, and perhaps will never be told if we rely on conventional medicine, and the mainstream media.

1. The Side Effects of the Drugs
The known side effects of the drugs were not mentioned. This is not unusual, of course. Introducing new 'wonder' drugs, and denying the harm they cause, is the strategy which maintains our faith in conventional medicine. But they are a matter of record in conventional medical literature.
So as usual the dangers of these drugs will not become known to non-doctors until a few more years down the line, when prescription will be increasingly restricted because of the harm they cause.

2. Why are the Drugs needed?
Conventional medicine undoubtedly needs the drugs. The number of children with life-threatening epilepsy syndromes is growing rapidly, as is MS. Both now affect unprecedented number of people. Both have become modern epidemics. And, as usual, conventional medicine has no effective or safe treatment for either.

So why do we have this need to treat so many new diseases? Why do so many people now suffer from these conditions? The problem with these "Why?" questions is that conventional medicine does not want to ask them. It's a disease; people are sick; and doctors have to provide treatment. It's that simple! Unfortunately it isn't!
So doctors need these cannabis-based drugs for treating conditions they caused in the first place. These are iatrogenic diseases, another example of conventional medicine CAUSING disease with its drugs, and then coming up with new drugs to treat the sickness it caused in the first place.

3. The Cost of Drugs
This is, of course, a great business plan. Produce and sell a drug that causes disease; and then another drug that treats this iatrogenic disease, drugs which in turn cause more illness and disease. And pharmaceutical companies can charge incredible, mind-boggling sums for their drugs. Epidyolex, for instance, was approved for use in Europe in September 2019, but NICE initially said the drug was not good value for money as it cost between £5,000 and £10,000 per patient each year.

Sativex is reported to cost about £2,000 a year, per patient. It was licenced in 2014, and NICE said at this time that it was not cost effective. Now, it would seem, it is quite acceptable. For conventional medicine, of course, to have a drug is preferable to identifying the cause of an iatrogenic disease, at its source, and thereby eliminating it. There is no profit in that!

Remember these are drugs based on cannabis, basically a weed that costs very little to grow - but more of this later.
But the NHS has renegotiated these prices, so they are no longer deemed to be expensive. Quite how 'inexpensive' they have become remains unclear. We are not told. But it is a common business practice, in all industries, to ask for silly, exorbitant sums for a product, then to reduce the price so making it seem like a bargain.

4. The 'Active' Ingredients
These drugs are cannabis-based; they are not cannabis. Pharmaceutical companies have always isolated the 'active' ingredients of plants. Epidyolex, for instance, does not contain the main psychoactive component of cannabis, THC. Many parents of children with extreme epilepsy are paying many thousands of pounds each month for imported drugs that contain both THC, and another active ingredient, CBD. They have reduced the number and severity of seizures and they are furious that NICE has failed to approve cannabis-based medicines that contain both ingredients.

The reason for isolating the 'active' ingredient, especially of a plant-based drug, is that it gives the drug company control - over its production - and over its cost. If the active ingredient can be patented so much the better, they can charge even more. We are not dealing with herbalism here, we are dealing with a very Big Business - the pharmaceutical industry!

 5. Pharmaceutical Control

 Drug companies have a virtual monopoly within the NHS, as it does in most national health services throughout the world. And they fight to preserve their dominance. There have been a number of cases that demonstrate this, and I wrote about this one in 2014, and again in 2019.
  • The parents of Ashya King fought to have their son, who suffered from cancer (probably caused by pharmaceutical drugs), treated with Proton Beam therapy, and were imprisoned and prosecuted because they removed him from a hospital in England. They disobeyed the conventional medical authorities, and paid the price.
The time that it has taken for cannabis-based drugs to be approved mirrors this situation. The drugs were unacceptable until such time that the conventional medical establishment were certain they were able to control the treatment. It's all about control, maintaining their dominant position. It is not about medical treatment, certainly not safe or effective medical treatment.

This is, of course, the same reason why the NHS hates homeopathy, and other natural medical therapies. They are not in control! Natural therapies will never be accepted within the NHS - because they may prove to be safer, and more effective than what they have to offer. And that would never do!

Tuesday 12 November 2019

HEALTH & THE POLITICS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION (2019). The 'Why?' question that is never asked.

As I predicted (in August 2019) health is becoming a major issue in the General Election. It was easy enough to predict! Health has been a major, if not the issue, in every General Election since 1945. The reason? I have made the argument many times.
In this link I outline the financial costs of spending ever-increasing amounts of money on a system of medicine that is palpably failing to deliver good health. It is a system of medicinem based oh pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, that is NOT making us better. It's actually making us SICKER - year by year. This is why the UK's National Health Service (NHS) is in continual crisis, always demanding more money. It has created a vicious circularity.

The more money we spend on conventional health services  >> the sicker we become >> the more money is needed >> the greater the demand for more resources >> politicians agree to provide more money >>> so we get sicker >> and so on, election after election.

Yet this election is bringing up many other huge spending commitments, by all parties. These are secondary health issues, issues that have arisen because of the ongoing failure of conventional medicine. I will focus on the two main areas.
As an electorate, and a society, we are too willing to look at the current situation, and respond to it. There lots of children with special education needs - so why do we not cope with their needs better? There are lots of older people who cannot look after themselves, and need high levels of care - so why do we not cope better with their needs? In some respects, thank goodness that we do - we live in a society that does demand better for our children and older people. Thank goodness we do live in society that cares.

But there is a question that is never asked, and therefore never answered. The result is that no real political solutions are never found for these problems. It is to ask the question - 'WHY?'
  • Why are there increasing numbers of young people who need more government funding and support?
  • Why are there more older people who need more government support and funding?
When there are attempts to ask 'Why?' the political and medical answers are grossly inadequate, and ultimately futile. They focus on non-problems.
  • Children with special needs have always existed.  Yes, but never in such numbers! 
  • There is an ageing population. Yes, but the proportion of older people requiring care has never been higher than it is now.
These are the secondary costs of the failure of conventional medicine. I wrote about this in October 2018, and again in January 2019. It is no longer about increasing NHS funding. It is about picking up the pieces of a failed medical system. And this General Election is highlighting how the NHS, and the dominance of the pharmaceutical treatments, has created the election agenda that is going to be ruinously expensive.

And the sad fact is that most patients, all our politicians and political parties, plus our meek, unquestioning mainstream media, are still failing to ask the correct question.