Search This Blog

Thursday 31 January 2019

The secondary costs of a failing medical system

In October 2018 I wrote about the 'secondary' costs of medical failure.

Secondary costs do not concern the building of hospitals, the employment of medical staff, or the delivery of treatment to sick patients, et al. Given the monopoly of conventional medicine in health services around the world these are certainly costly enough!

But society also has to pay the price of conventional medical failure, and particularly the creation of illness and disease by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

Several English councils have reported that they have overspent, by at least £324m, on their budgets for young adults and children with special needs during the financial year 2018-2019. BBC News said that 136 local authorities provided information, under Freedom of Information laws, and discovered that 123 have overspent on their 'high needs' budget. They were said to be at 'breaking point'. In response, the government told the BBC that it is providing an extra £250m to ease these pressures, and another £100m on new school places.

Dorset County Council, for instance, reported that since 2014 the number of under-25's on education, health and care plans has grown by more than two-thirds! Its 'high needs' budget has been overspent every year, and the council is now predicting a £13m deficit for the coming financial year. A council spokesman said that Dorset was not alone, and that "a day of reckoning will be coming very soon".

So who are these 'high needs' children?
They are children with physical or learning disability, or behavioural difficulties. Local councils, quite rightly, have a responsibility to provide services for them, and those responsibilities have grown by the decision to extend responsibility from age 18 to 25. At the same time there has been a large reduction in county council funding since 2010. Yet neither of these reasons can explain a two-thirds increase! Most of the increase is the result of increasing numbers of children growing into adulthood with physical or learning disability, and behaviour problems.

Readers of this blog, and my DIE's website, will be aware, many of these disabilities are known (although not acknowledged) to be the direct result of pharmaceutical drug and vaccine damage. I have already written about some of these, the links to my DIE's website provided listing the drugs and vaccines known to cause the condition.

All these children require special educational services for many years. Some will move on to colleges and universities, or into apprenticeships, although usually requiring additional support. They are all children, growing into adulthood, who but for dangerous drugs and vaccines they have taken, would have been independent people, living their own lives, contributing fully to society. 
  • Many will never be able to lead independent lives. 
  • Some will be totally dependent on care.

So this is not just a problem for councils, caught between their legal duties towards people with disability, and the requirement to balance their budgets. It is a problem created by a medical system that has failed, that is causing harm to our children and young people, who would all, otherwise, have become fully functioning members of society. It is a human tragedy, transforming the lives of people from net contributors to the economy to a lifetime charge upon it.


HPV VACCINE. What are the arguments against it? Nothing, if you believe the mainstream media! BBC News coverage hits a new low

Are vaccines safe?
  • Your doctor will tell you they are. After all, they prescribe them so they would not be expected to say anything else!
  • The Conventional Medical Establishment will tell you they are. After all, they have been tested, pronounced to be safe and effective, and have instructed doctors to prescribe them!
So what is all this stuff we hear about vaccine injury? Why are all these parents saying that their children have been damaged by vaccines? Why is the Vaccine Injury Compensation scheme in the USA paying out $millions every year to people who  have been vaccine damaged?

It's all nonsense, of course. Worse than nonsense too. Criticism of vaccines, we are now told, is a “global health threat” so anyone who questions the safety of vaccines can now be labeled 'dangerous” to society, stopping people from getting important medication.

And in any case, if conventional medicine was giving us pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that were harmful to our health, they would tell us. Wouldn't they? And even if our doctors didn't tell us, we can rely on the free press, our mainstream media, to do so. Can't we?

So let's examine what the mainstream media tell us about the safety of vaccines. Recently the BBC published a story about the HPV vaccine. in an article HPV vaccine: Thousands of girls did not get full dose. I pick on the BBC as it is part of our 'free press', but more than this, it is a public service broadcaster. Unlike other news organisations it does not have to 'earn a living' by selling advertising to commercial interests, it is paid for by the annual license fee. It does not have the same problem many news organisations have, where pharmaceutical company advertising can represent up to 70% of their advertising income. The BBC has no such vested interests, no requirement to protect the hand that feeds them!

Moreover, the BBC is constrained by its Editorial Guidelines, which means that, amongst other things, that they are obliged to report to us in a way that is:
  • Accurate
  • Impartial
  • Fair
So we might expect the BBC to cover the HPV vaccine story according to these principles. So how did it do? The story, in brief, was that 1 in 3 girls, in some parts of the UK, did not have their full HPV vaccination in 2017-2018 against HPV, the virus that is thought to cause cervical cancer. In this blog I will use the words of the article itself to demonstrate its coverage, adding my own comments as we move through their article.

          "While the national target of immunising 80% of girls is being met, the rate varied between local authority areas. In total 57,048 girls did not receive the two doses required for the vaccine to be effective. Public Health England (PHE) said the vaccine programme was 'stable and consistent'."

This is presumably a statement of fact, passed to the BBC by PHE. I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. To discuss the issue further the BBC brought in the charity, 'Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust' whose spokesperson is quoted as saying that "... educating parents and young people about the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine was 'essential'.

No problem with that either. Education is vital, as long as that education is accurate, impartial and fair. But 'education' should not, of course, be confused with 'indoctrination'. In the former, all points of view are covered. In the latter there is just one point of view, and this is unquestioningly the approach taken by the BBC article. For education read "people need to be told about the importance of vaccination!".

So before proceeding through the BBC article, let's look at some other statistics about the HPV vaccine, not mentioned in it, but which might be of some importance and interest to parents, and their young daughters.

1. WDDTY reported in 2013 that it had been calculated that 1,700 young girls had been killed or suffered permanent disability after being given the HPV vaccine, and a further 19,500 had suffered 'non-serious' reactions.

2. This Vac Truth article provides VAERS (USA Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) statistics showing that the HPV vaccine has caused the following adverse reactions in the USA, up to 2013:
  • Deaths: 140
  • Disabled: 952
  • Did not recover: 6,032
  • Abnormal pap smear: 531
  • Cervical dysplasia: 214
  • Cervical cancer: 64
  • Life-threatening: 562
  • ER visit: 10,557
  • Hospitalised: 3,065
  • Extended hospital stay: 234
  • Serious: 4,091
  • Adverse events: 30,352
3. At least one country, Japan, has not been happy about the HPV vaccine. In 2013 the Japanese government withdrew its recommendation to use the HPV vaccine, citing concerns from the public about the adverse effects it caused. This Medscape article also mentioned the contrast between the promotion of the vaccine by the health authority and the concerns raised about it.

               "The announcement is in stark contrast to the pronouncement last week by health officials in the United States that vaccination rates in teenage girls should be increased after a study concluded that estimated vaccine effectiveness is 'high'."

Japan did not suspend the vaccine, but it instructed local governments that it should not be promoted whilst the concern about adverse effects, such as long-term pain and numbness, were investigated.

The BBC article mentioned none of these concerns. It did not ask any organisation that has these concerns to comment. As will be seen, the only people they asked about the vaccine were people, and organisations that are part of the conventional medical establishment!

So if the BBC felt it was not sufficientlynimportant to inform us about safety concerns, did they say anything about the effectiveness of the vaccine? Again, the BBC article is unequivocal on this matter, entirely content to rely entirely on NHS statements about the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine.

         "The NHS said the vaccine was 'effective at stopping girls from getting the types of HPV that cause most cervical cancers' but it was 'important to have both doses to be properly protected'."

That's it. Moreover, the entire article is based upon an unquestioned assumption about its effectiveness. Too many young girls are not having the vaccine, to too many women are dying of cervical cancer - and the two are linked.

          "PHE statistics showed vaccination rates ranged from about two thirds of year nine girls in some parts of London to more than nine out of 10 in other areas, such as North Yorkshire, Tameside and Portsmouth. Cervical cancer remains the most common cancer in women under 35 and kills about 850 a year."

So should the BBC have raised questions the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine. This Child Health Safety article, again published as long ago as 2013 (the information has been around for a long time), outlines some of the scientific evidence that the HPV vaccine is not only dangerous, but also wrongly promoted as capable of preventing cancer. The evidence the produced questions the inadequacy of the testing regime, which has come under serious investigation, and found it to be seriously flawed. The research reveals that the

          "... scientific and factual evidence that the data behind claims that HPV vaccines prevent cancers and save lives with no risk of serious side effects are 'optimistic' and contrary to the evidence and largely are from significant misinterpretation of available data which is 'presented to the public as factual evidence'." 

None of this evidence is mentioned by the by the NHS in its new release, or the BBC in its article reporting on the issue. The assumptions made throughout the article are three-fold, that the vaccine is:
  1. Safe
  2. Effective
  3. Anyone not having the vaccine is risking contracting cervical cancer. 
The conventional medical establishment DOES know this. This BMC article, "HPV vaccines and cancer prevention, science versus activism" says as much.

               "The rationale behind current worldwide human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination programs starts from two basic premises, 1) that HPV vaccines will prevent cervical cancers and save lives and, 2) have no risk of serious side effects. Therefore, efforts should be made to get as many pre-adolescent girls vaccinated in order to decrease the burden of cervical cancer. Careful analysis of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure data shows however that both of these premises are at odds with factual evidence and are largely derived from significant misinterpretation of available data." (My emphasis).

Clearly this does not stop the conventional medical establishment, and its vested interests, from claiming that it is safe and effective, but it should encourage the BBC to investigate the claims being made for the vaccine. It totally fails to do so.

The BBC article goes on to relate a case example which supports and highlights the message - it is important for all young girls to have the HPV vaccine, and that there should be no concerns about its safety or effectiveness. It concerns a mother who had cervical cancer, and who has explained to her daughter how the vaccine could "save her life". She says it is "the best protection" for girls, that she is keen that her daughter receives the vaccine as she knows, from personal experience, "how potentially devastating cervical cancer can be". The mother goes on to explain that talking about the vaccine may be "difficult to address with children" as it was connected with "sexual activity", and that some mothers "don't want their daughters to have it because they say it encourages 'promiscuity' but that is  "quite a naive approach to take with this vaccine."

There is nothing wrong with relating personal experiences, including a mother with a strong personal interest and opinion on the matter. But once again the BBC fails to offer any balance. Where are the stories of healthy young girls whose lives have been compromised by the HPV vaccine? There are plenty of them. I wrote this in a previous blog, "The HPV Vaccine. We need to protect our daughters from this."

               "There are now, on the internet, hundreds of articles outlining the personal and family tragedy that this vaccine has caused, and continues to cause. It can be likened to a game of Russian Roulette. You may, or you may not be damaged. But dangerous drugs and vaccines should not be regarded as a statistical matter. They represent human and family tragedy, all of them hard to read about. But here are a selection of these tragedies, about people who lost the game, and taken from the internet.
If the BBC had wanted to write an article that was accurate, impartial and fair similar stories could also have been used. The BBC could also have referred to an increasing amount of court litigation, both in the USA and India, but chose not to do so. For instance,
Instead, the BBC continued on its partial journey, bringing in other members of the conventional medical establishment to reinforce their totally one-sided message, and to give their reasons for the low up-take in certain parts of the country.
  • A school administrator is quoted saying that girls needed to know the vaccine would protect them in the future. Parents, she said, should not be "frightened" of a "safe vaccine" or having conversations about it with their children.
  • The chief executive of Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust said there was "wide variation" across England, and although up-take was generally high, authorities should not become "complacent". He said that there were "cultural barriers and myths" about HPV and the vaccine that could contribute to areas having lower up-take rates. He said that concerns over the safety of the vaccine can have "a very damaging impact".
  • NHS teams in Brent and Hammersmith and Fulham said that language barriers and religious reasons were among reasons for a lower up-take rate than in other parts of England.
  • A spokesman for Central and North West NHS Foundation Trust said the areas had a large population of "non-white residents who have different cultural and religious beliefs" and there were "more refusals in these groups of parents".
  • The clinical lead of childhood immunisations for North Yorkshire and York said that some concern was "normal" from parents, that her health teams asked for consent by post, using online forms and by speaking directly with girls eligible for the vaccine.
  • The head of immunisations at PHE is quoted as saying that "Girls who missed either of their HPV vaccines should speak to their school nurse or GP and arrange to get the vaccine as soon as possible as they remain eligible until their 18th birthday."
But not one word about the safety or the effectiveness of the vaccine. Vaccine scepticism is censored on the BBC. The public are not supposed to know what 'anti-vaxxers' have to say, their voice is not heard.

So the BBC blames the social media for such views. The article refers to another one of its articles, Parents' vaccine side effects fear 'fuelled by social media', published in January 2019. This article is equally inaccurate, partial and unfair.

So has the reason for low uptake been missed? Could the real reason for low uptake be none of the things the BBC chose to mention? Could it not be that some people have become aware that vaccines (nor least the HPV vaccine) are not safe, or effective, and that scare stories (have the vaccine or risk cancer) no longer hold sway over their decision-making?

If the public had access to ALL the information about vaccines there would probably be many more people opting out of vaccination. If the BBC understood that informed patient choice was important - if they realised that their journalism was failing adequately to inform the public - that merely parroting the message of the conventional medicine is not good journalism - if the BBC offered its license payers more comprehensive, more accurate, more impartial, and fairer information on health issues more people would be able to make an informed choice, and there would undoubtedly be many more people refusing to accept vaccination.

Monday 28 January 2019

The Deadly Grapefruit! Why are they such a health hazard?

I have eaten, and enjoyed eating grapefruit for as long as I can remember. And I have no intention of not doing so in the future!


Grapefruits are a hybrid fruit, developed in the 18th century, a cross between an orange and a pummelo. They contain less carbohydrate, sugar and fat than most other fruits. They are naturally sweet, a rich source of vitamin A and C, and much else. As a result grapefruit is a healthy fruit which has been shown to reduce the risk of prostate cancer, and control cholesterol levels. They also have  anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombogenic, anti-diabetic, anticancer, and neuro-protective qualities.

Yet according to the conventional medical establishment the grapefruit is deadly, and patients will often tell their patients that they should not eat them.


This is the explanation of the British National Health Service website, Prescription drugs and grapefruit a 'deadly mix'. It reports on a 2012 article in the Daily Mail, that stated “A breakfast of grapefruit and marmalade on toast could be lethal for people taking medication”. The NHS says that the news is based on a review which highlighted that grapefruit-medication interactions can cause serious side effects. Grapefruits, apparently, contain a group of chemicals, furanocoumarins, that can affect drug metabolism, that is, the amount of time it takes for a pharmaceutical drug to be broken down by the body.

If the drug takes longer to break down the drug builds up in the body - there can be more ‘active’ drug present than was intended with the given dose, triggering, it says, "unpleasant, and sometimes serious, side effects".

I note that the authors of the review stated that "there is a general lack of knowledge about this interaction in the healthcare community, despite the fact that an interaction between grapefruit and certain medications was discovered more than 20 years ago". This is typical of conventional medicine - the use of dangerous drugs without knowing their full impact on patients. So the NHS says that the number of drugs that "could potentially interact" with grapefruit has been increasing. The researchers (in 2012) found 85 prescription drugs that could cause serious side effects if taken alongside grapefruit (or grapefruit juice).

Moreover, the NHS says that it is not just grapefruit that is hazardous to our health. It lists a number of citrus fruits, including Seville oranges, limes and pomelos. It recommends similar abstinence from these too! So, given this information, we all have a choice to make.

  1. Don't eat grapefruit
  2. Don't take pharmaceutical drugs

No prizes offered here about what the NHS, and conventional medicine generally, recommends! Indeed, it does not offer the latter choice. Pharmaceutical drugs are so important to our health that we must continue to take them, and we are told that we should stop eating citrus fruit. 

More, the researchers said that "it is better to err on the side of caution and never have any grapefruit (or other citrus fruit containing furanocoumarins) when taking drugs known to interact with these types of fruit". It is complete abstinence.

This is certainly not my recommendation. Health-giving fruit should always take priority to illness/disease creating pharmaceutical drugs. Of course, the NHS does not suggest this. It is another piece of extraordinary nonsense promoted by the conventional medical establishment. Wellness comes from a bottle of pills - not from the quality, and health-giving properties of the food that we eat!

So, if the two conflict, conventional medicine says that the pills must take priority!

Government plan to combat an "Urgent Global Threat. The failure of Antibiotics & the creation of Superbugs leads to the pharmaceutical industry being rewarded for a problem it has caused

The UK government has announced a 5-year plan, and 20-year 'vision', aimed at overcoming antimicrobial resistance, the British government's response to the growing problem of drug resistant bacteria, viruses, parasites infections, and infectious diseases. The Health Secretary, Matt Hancock has said that the situation is so serious that even a simple graze could be deadly:

               "Antimicrobial resistance is as big a danger to humanity as climate change or warfare."

This is the depth to which conventional medicine is failing. This dreadful new world, without effective antibiotic drugs, has previously been described by the government's Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, as 'an antibiotic apocalypse' in June 2015. Yet both the contents of the plan, its urgency, and the reasoning that underlays it, needs to be carefully examined.

We have been told for many years that the overuse of antibiotics is making infections harder to treat, with many thousands of deaths every year being caused by drug-resistant superbugs. And it has been pointed out elsewhere, including in this blog, that this problem is one exclusively for the conventional medical establishment.

The 'threat' is a threat to the conventional medicine, not to medicine. It is NOT a problem for natural medicine, including homeopathy. The government plan fails to recognise this. It makes the usual assumption that conventional medicine = medicine - the whole of medicine, medicine in its entirety, that there is not alternative to it.

The government plan also continues to attempt to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use, by 15% for humans in 5 years, and by 25% for animals over the next year. The problem is that drug companies do not like the idea of selling fewer drugs, and this is one of the main reasons they have decided not to develop new antibiotics. They are in the health business for profit, not for our good!

To counteract this problem the plan proposes to change how it funds pharmaceutical drug companies - to encourage them to develop new drugs, new antibiotics, to deal with conventional medicine's crisis.

The plan asks the drugs advisory body, NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) and NHS England to trial a new payment arrangement which ensure that drug companies are paid for drugs on the basis of how valuable the drugs are rather than by the quantity sold. The government believes that paying drug companies for the amount of antibiotics sold has led to this "market failure". The new new payment method will encourage companies to invest in the development of new antibiotics.

For the drug companies it means the guarantee of a hugely increased price for selling fewer drugs. It is, in other words, a reward for failure. 

So although it is widely accepted that antibiotic drugs have caused the problem of superbugs, and the distress, illness and death they have cause, the plan's solution to the problem produce more, presumably more powerful antibiotics. Conventional medicine never learns!

The mainstream media should be (but aren't) asking an important question. Is the conventional medical establishment (of which the government and the NHS is an important part) able to recognise what has CAUSED the problem of antibiotic resistance, and the CREATION of superbugs?

More of the same failed medicine is NOT a new policy, nor is it a policy likely to have a different outcome, namely more drug resistance, more superbugs, more medical panic, more pharmaceutical profits.

Nor does the plan recognise that antibiotic drugs are now known to cause serious health problems for people who have taken them, often in large quantities over their lifetime. The plan fails to recognise that antibiotic drugs have caused significant patient harm over the 70 years of their existence. Antibiotic drugs are indiscriminate killers of bacteria that over the years have devastated the gut and its micro biome. As a result they are implicated in the rise of obesity, diarrhoea, constipation, asthma, eczema, diabetes, liver damage, heart disease and breast cancer. They are part of the reason for the increase, and even the creation of 'new' diseases like irritable bowel, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and much more.

But apparently none of this matters! None of this is ever mentioned by our doctors, the NHS, or the mainstream media. We are going to get more antibiotics, and drug companies are going to be rewarded for providing them, whether it is good for us or not!

Wednesday 23 January 2019

Medulloblastoma, Proton Beam Therapy, and Patient Choice

Medulloblastoma is a cancer, an invasive, rapidly growing cancer, the most common type of brain cancer in children. It is the disease Ashya King was diagnosed with in 2014 - a case I blogged about in September that year.

I return to the story because today (23rd January 2019) the NHS has proudly announced a new £125 million facility dedicated to Proton Beam Therapy at Manchester's Christie hospital.

               "The specialist radiotherapy targets cancers without damaging tissues around the tumours. This is good for children who are at risk of lasting damage to organs that are still growing but it is available in only a handful of countries around the world."

In today's press coverage (which as usual merely parrots the NHS press release) there is little or no mention of Ashya King. Indeed, the NHS say that proton beam therapy has been funded since 2008, but that patients had to travel overseas to receive it.

Given Ashya's 2014 story, outlined and discussed in my blog, this is a surprising claim. The facts of what happened to him and his parents can be quickly related.
  • Ashya was diagnosed with medulloblastoma.
  • Doctors recommended brain surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
  • The parents disagreed, and wanted their son to have Proton Beam therapy.
  • The NHS refused; they thought the treatment was 'too aggressive'.
  • The parents took Ashya to Europe to seek treatment, eventually arriving in Spain.
  • The NHS triggered an international alert.
  • The family was found, and the parents were imprisoned!
  • A request for their extradition from Spain was denied.
  • Spanish doctors found that Ashya's condition was not as serious as British doctors had said.
  • The case went to the High Court in August 2014, which ruled that the parents could take Ashya to Prague for Proton Beam therapy.
  • The treatment was successful, and later it was announced that Ashya's cancer was in remission.
My 2014 blog raised the important questions this raised about patient choice. In this case, the choice of Ashya's parents for a treatment that was denied by the NHS, which went to enormous lengths to prevent them exercising it, and punishing them for failing to do what they were told. More than many other similar examples that could be quoted, this situation highlighted the extreme arrogance of doctors, not only in their uncompromising and (apparently) unchallengeable clinical judgement, but the drastic legal action they took against the parents who had dared to challenge them.

If Ashya had died, either before or after Proton Beam therapy, I can only imagine what the NHS (and their friends and allies in the media) would have said and done about it.

This specific case, and indeed most other consultations that take place between conventional doctors and patients, highlights the problem. 
  • Conventional doctors to not discuss treatment with patients. They impose it upon them - on the simple basis that they know best
  • Informed choice is something that seems quite alien to our doctors. Rarely to they discuss treatment options with patients, many time not even inform patients that there are alternative treatments, and the relative benefits and drawbacks of each available treatment.
This new NHS unit proves that the consultants who denied Ashya treatment is 2014 were WRONG, and that their arrogant actions were UNJUSTIFIED.

It demonstrates that Health Freedom and Patient Choice are NOT alive and well within the NHS today! The doctors rule. Patients are expected to obey.

The NHS emphasises another point, that this new treatment is safer and more effective than existing treatments. The obvious retort to this claim is that it could hardly be more harmful! The BBC article, referred to above, talks of the 'catastrophic complications' of operations, and states that the new treatment does 'less damage' to surrounding tissue and organs.

The media is allowed to criticise older conventional medical treatments - although only when there is a new treatment available!

So what about this new treatment. Is it safe? Is it more effective than existing treatments? Two years ago, in January 2016, the Independent newspaper outlined the results of a study published in the Lancet Oncology Journal. This found that radiotherapy and proton beam treatment "had similar survival rates for medulloblastoma". 

Similar! Not better! So what about safety?

               “Our findings suggest that proton radiotherapy seems to result in an acceptable degree of toxicity and had similar survival outcomes to those achieved with photon-based radiotherapy."

'An acceptable degree of toxicity'! Any study of conventional medicine will show that it is extremely accepting of high levels of toxicity and patient harm! The study found that Proton Beam Therapy had less side effects, but still had an impact on hearing, endocrine, and neurocognitive outcomes, particularly in younger patients.

This less than striking endorsement does not seem to have been mentioned in today's news, in which nothing has been said to moderate or question this new medical triumph. As usual with new treatments this will probably only come in the years to come.

So what should the news have been today? What should conventional medicine be doing about the ever-increasing numbers of people who now contract cancer, not least those who are now contracting it in childhood?

It is important to remember that the treatment cancer comes only at the END of a long process. The patient has already contracted the disease. Something has caused the cancer - but conventional medicine does not seem to know much about cancer causation. 
  • Look at the Wikipedia article on Medulloblastoma. Cause is not even mentioned! 
  • Look at the NHS Choices webpage on malignant brain tumours. Cause is not mentioned here either!
I wonder why? Is it because cancer rates have demonstrably increased alongside, and in exact parallel with, the rise in drug consumption (including vaccination) in recent decades? Could pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, with their known, published side effects, be the major cause? 

How do we know that pharmaceutical drugs cause cancer? The evidence is reported in the doctor's drug bibles', like MIMS and BNF, which list their side effects. So when considering causation why is this not mentioned in NHS Choices, or Wikipedia, or indeed in most other sources of information readily available to patients? Why are patients not routinely warned that taking pharmaceutical drugs could lead to them contracting cancer?

The answer is disarmingly simple. It is not in the interests of doctors, or the conventional medical establishment generally, to make such an admission. There are vested interests at stake. Informing patients that drugs and vaccines cause cancer would reduce confidence in conventional medicine, it would shrink their business. So patients cannot be allowed to know the truth about the drugs they are prescribed, and the vaccines they have been given. Much better they (that's you and me) remain ignorant!

Much better too to treat the side effects of drugs and vaccines, to diagnose them as an illness or disease, and then to come up with new treatments (marginally more effective, a little less unsafe, and always ruinously expensive) that expands rather than shrinks the conventional medical empire!
So patients should not rejoice at this new medical breakthrough. Instead they should avoid all conventional medical treatment by avoiding one of the most important causes of illness and disease. Patients should be encouraged to say 'No' to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. And to find a safer, more effective, less expensive natural therapy to maintain health.

Monday 21 January 2019

Tourette's Syndrome. No known cause (???) Now running at epidemic levels. The condition is 'misunderstood' There is no conventional treatment available. No NICE guidelines

Tourette's Syndrome is described as "a condition that causes a person to make involuntary sounds and movements called tics. It usually starts during childhood ..... There's no cure for Tourette's syndrome ...... The cause is unknown" .. People ... may also have obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or learning difficulties." (NHS Choices).

As regular readers of this blog will know, I am always suspicious about (i) 'new' illnesses that are described as (ii) 'syndromes', and illnesses that (iii) 'start during childhood', that (iv) have 'no cure', and where (v) the issue of causation is "unknown", especially when discussion about the cause is studiously avoided!

The patient support charity, Tourettes Action, has conducted a survey, and published evidence about a the disease. BBC Radio 5 Live broadcast a programme about Tourette's Syndrome yesterday (20th January 2019) which further raised my suspicions, and today BBC News published this article on the condition. All highlighted the unpleasant nature of Tourette's, and the plight of the 300,000 adults and children who suffer from it. And I noticed that all of the 5 issues highlighted above were raised by Tourettes Syndrome.

So let's have a look at Tourettes, and in particular some aspects of the disease that have NOT been dealt with by either Tourettes Action, the BBC, or the conventional medical staff who were interviewed.

A new disease? 
Georges Gilles de la Tourette lived between 1857 and 1904, and published an account of 9 patients (just 9) with the condition in 1885. So if Tourettes is not entirely a 'new' disease it is a disease that has expanded, exponentially, over the last 130 years, and particularly over the last 70 years. This is entirely typical of the many diseases that have been caused by conventional medicine, and pharmaceutical drugs.

Conventional medicine has no explanation for Tourettes, beyond pointing the finger at inheritance and genetics, and some vague comments about environmental agents. Yet conventional medicine knows full well (or they should know) that some of the drugs and vaccines they use have been implicated as a cause of Tourettes.

I have listed, and written about some of these drugs on my website, 'the Disease-Inducing-Affects of Pharmaceutical Drugs'. There are no doubt many more drugs being prescribed by doctors today that cause Tourettes, but which remain, as yet, unknown.

It is vaccines that are perhaps the drugs most implicated in Tourettes, which would explain not only the increased incidence of the disease, but the fact that it develops in childhood, with children who had hitherto developed normally and naturally.

If conventional medicine has not yet recognised the link between its drugs and Tourettes, lawyers certainly have. Many law firms in the USA are now advertising, offering to represent anyone with Tourettes when their condition developed shortly after receiving a vaccination!

The BBC radio programme was aghast that NICE (the National Institute for Clinical Excellence) has provided no guidelines for doctors about the treatment of Tourettes Syndrome. But the reason for this apparent neglect seems abundantly clear. Conventional medicine has no treatment for Tourettes! So perhaps it is somewhat unreasonable to expect them to provide guidance!

Yet Homeopathy does have treatment for Tourettes Syndrome. I have written about this in my 'Why Homeopathy?' website. Of course, the BBC, Tourettes Action, and conventional medicine has not heard about this. Or if they have they decided not to mention it!

So Tourettes sufferers do have somewhere to go. My advice on this blog is usually the same, with any condition. Homeopathy provides treatment options for every illness and disease, treatments that are safe, and invariably more effective than anything offered by conventional medicine. And in conditions like Tourettes, when conventional medicine has nothing to offer, patients have little to lose! And much to gain.

Wednesday 16 January 2019

Breast Cancer. New predictive tool will be another 'game changer'! Or does it miss the most obvious cause of breast cancer?

Conventional medicine is always keen to announce new 'medical breakthroughs' that will be a 'game changer' in the way that one disease or another is dealt with, and the mainstream media is keen to publicise them. I have regularly reported on them in previous blogs.

The most recent is in this BBC article (15 January 2019) stating "Breast cancer risk test 'game changer". The article, which quotes Cancer Research UK (a major promoter of the drugs industry, and largely funded by it) states that experts have developed a potentially "game-changing" test to predict a woman's risk of breast cancer which combines all the known risk factors, such as family history, hundreds of genetic markers, and other factors, such as weight, to give the most comprehensive assessment possible.

The factors used in this new 'game changing' test are discussed in the Nature journal website, and outlined in more detail here. Other factors include age, height, body mass index, age at first birth, menarche and menopause, alcohol intake, and much more.

So what about the many pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that are known to cause cancer? Use of the contraceptive pill, and HRT (hormone replacement therapy) are mentioned. It would have been hard to ignore these two drugs, but nothing else was included.

The Right Diagnosis website provides a long list of pharmaceutical drugs, and combinations of pharmaceutical drugs, that are known to cause breast cancer. None of these drugs have found their way into the new test! And Right Diagnosis confirms that 'this is not a complete list' - as usual, no-one, certainly not doctors or medical scientists, are totally clear about just how carcinogenic ANY of their drugs are.

And remember, this is just a test for breast cancer. It is not a treatment. But conventional medicine's new mantra is that the earlier cancer is detected, the more chance there is of treating it. However, also remember that all conventional medicine's 'treatments' are known to be harmful and unpleasant.

But conventional medicine knows that it is important for them to keep in patient's minds the hope that they are winning the 'battle' against disease. So the publication of these stories are important to them. They want the mainstream media to carry these stories about future medical breakthroughs. And, as in this case, the media is very willing to comply - meekly, unquestioningly. The Sky News coverage is very similar to that of the BBC. And a simple web search reveals at least 20 similar reports, and as far as I can see not one of them questions whether the factors used in the test are comprehensive.

As usual, it is all just slavish reporting of information supplied by the conventional medical establishment. And conventional medicine does not want to to know about the link with drugs!

This is why the war on cancer, all cancers, has been lost, and why the incidence of cancer is increasing, year on year.

          * In the 1940's only 1 in 20 people got cancer.
          * In 1970s this figure has increased to 1 in 16.
          * In 1990s it had grown to 1 in 10.

The latest figure I have seen is that 1 in 3 people can now expect to get cancer during their lifetime. So two lessons need to be learnt.

  1. That we need to call a halt to a medical system that declares war on the body whenever it becomes sick with harmful and dangerous drugs and vaccines, and 
  2. To recognise that an important cause of cancer, probably one of the most important causes, is the pharmaceutical drugs we are being given to treat other illnesses.
Certainly, one important way we all have to prevent contracting cancer is to say 'No' to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Which ones? I have listed some of them here, although the drugs mentioned probably only scratch the surface of the real problem.

Wednesday 9 January 2019

Recent medical news indicating that conventional medicine is dangerous. So why is the public never told about any of it?

The history of conventional medicine is full of failures, horrors and patient disasters. In the 19th century it used techniques like blood letting and blistering, and drugs now recognised to be dangerous, like Laudanum, Calomel and Antimony. Many more pharmaceutical drugs followed during the 20th century, passing through Thalidomide, Fen-Phen, Baycol, Tysabri, Effexor, Avandia, Vioxx, and many, many more, listed on this link, but too numerous to mention here.

Past performance is always the best predictor of future performance.

So are today's drugs, the one's doctors are giving us now, any better? Regular readers of this blog will know that they are not. They are causing side effects, adverse reactions, that are generating the rapid increase of serious chronic illness and disease. Conventional medicine is well aware of this but in their pursuit of profit they are prepared to continue prescribing these dangerous drugs up to the point that doctors can no longer keep the truth from us.

The problem is that the harm being caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are never publicised. Our doctors, our national health services, our politicians and governments, and the mainstream media organisations, just don't bother to tell us.

So whilst we may be aware of some of the drugs and vaccines that have been banned and withdrawn in the past, few people are aware of the harm present day 'medications' are causing. To demonstrate this, I thought that I would bring together some of the recent news stories, since the recent holiday period, about the dangers that conventional medicine, and pharmaceutical drugs particularly, present to our health, THAT WE ARE JUST NOT TOLD ABOUT.

This article states that there have been hundreds of articles in medical journals that have found stray viruses, aluminum, mercury, etc., in vaccines, and asks whether this happens in error, or is a regular occurrence. It refers to Italian and French researchers who looked at 44 vaccines, and found inorganic contaminants IN EVERY SINGLE ONE!

You will not find this reported anywhere in the mainstream media!

Leaked to the press? Perhaps, but you will not find this reported in the mainstream media either!

Drug manufacturers & regulators accused of concealing harm done to young girls by vaccine, including death permanent injury, and life threatening reactions

Reported just over a year ago, but hidden, dismissed and minimised
by medical science - and, of course, censored by the mainstream media.

The Dr Mercola website has reported this month that Fluoroquinolone antibiotics, prescribed for upper respiratory and urinary tract infections, have been found to increase the risk of aortic dissection, which can lead to death. The article states that these antibiotics have long been associated with 'adverse events' that include psychiatric effects, kidney stones or failure, tendon rupture and retinal detachment leading to blindness.

If you think we might want to know about these dangerous side effects, 
the mainstream media does not agree. They have never mentioned the new evidence.

These are just some of the articles I have come across since the holiday period. I could provide you with many more (check my Tweets (@stevescrutton), my Facebook page, or my Linkedin page, regularly for these. But the main point is that no-one should ever assume that the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that our doctors are giving us today are safe.

If we are not aware of the dangers of today's drugs it is because we are never told about them - until after hundreds, thousands, millions of patients have been seriously harmed by them!

Monday 7 January 2019

THE NHS. Even more money, allied to the promise of a new plan. A brave new dawn? Or just more of the same?

  • The NHS has a new plan that focuses on the prevention and early detection of disease. 
  • And it has been given an extra £4 billion more to spend every year.
  • Together, the NHS claims, they could save 500,000 lives.

A brave new dawn?
Or just more of the same?

The NHS plan will mean that GPs, mental health and community care will be awarded the biggest funding increases, even though 1 in 11 posts are currently vacant, and there are no explanations about where the new staff is coming from. The plan's aim is to reduce the reliance on hospitals, even though some senior hospital doctors are already warning that they face "a near-on impossible task." The president of the Society of Acute Medicine, Dr Nick Scriven, has said that he is "staggered" by the plan - given the problems facing hospitals, according to a BBC News report.

The NHS, as usual, is struggling. In terms of patient care it is missing all three key waiting time targets (A&E, cancer care and routine operations) - hence the reason for throwing more money at the problem, and coming up with a new plan. 

Financially the NHS is also overspending. Indeed, the media is already being told that the huge increase in funding is sufficient only to plug (i) inflation, and (ii) the yawning gaps that already exist in the NHS's health care provision. So even an additional £4 billion, to add to the £120 billion already being spend, is already spent, and is insufficient to keep up with patient demands!

This sets the agenda for new spending demands by the NHS, demands that will no doubt increase this year, next year, as more patients come through the door. These demands will be met, as always. More money will be found. But never enough to satisfy the bottomless of pit of the conventional medical system.

So perhaps the new plan will help! Unfortunately the new plan is just that, another 'new' plan. It is designed to overcome the inherent problems of the NHS. Whenever there is a new crisis (which is now a regular occurrence) new money is demanded and given, and a new NHS plan arises to justify the new spending, and to explain why it will work - this time.

Regular readers of this blog will know my explanation of this circuitous, never-ending NHS problem. It applies to every national health care service in the world that is dominated by conventional medicine. 
  • The NHS is dominated by conventional medicine, which itself is dominated by the use of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. 
  • Drugs and vaccines do not work, and they have never worked. The best they have ever done is to ameliorate illness, and this does not decrease the number of patients walking through the door of the NHS.
  • Indeed, drugs and vaccines make matters worse, through their side effect and adverse reactions. The illness and disease caused by drugs only increase the number of patients walking through the door of the NHS
  • So the more money spent on the same kind of medical intervention will only increase patient demand for yet more treatment.
So is the new NHS 'prevention' plan likely to work?

Let's look closely at what conventional doctors (GP's) are likely do in their new (?) and enhanced preventative role. How are they going to spend the new resources being made available to them.
  • When a patient is in pain (s)he will be given painkillers. These may temporarily reduce pain but without doing anything to relieve the source of the pain.
  • When a patient has an infection (s)he will be given antibiotic drugs, if there any that still work in killing bacteria - both 'good' and so-called 'bad' bacteria.
  • When a patient is found to have high blood pressure (s)he will be given an antihypertensive drugs.
  • When a patient is thought to have a risk of heart disease, or stroke, (s)he will be given Statin drugs.
  • When a patient is depressed (s)he will be given antidepressant, and antipsychotic drugs.
  • And to prevent deadly (?) diseases like Mumps, Measles, Rubella, and most anything else, our children will be vaccinated, .
In other words, the plan will ensure, and the additional money will enable, more to be spent on the same old, failed treatments. After all, conventional medicine has nothing else to offer. If it had anything safer or more effective it would be offering it to patients now! And the drugs mentioned above are just a few of the drugs that are causing serious patient harm, through their side effects that are really serious new illnesses and diseases.
  • So the new NHS money is being spent to hide medical failure. It will further increase sickness levels, and patient demand for more health care. It will fuel more demands for more government spending on the NHS.
  • The new NHS plan will give conventional doctors responsibility for preventing illness and disease, but the only tools they will have at their disposal are the same tools that have caused the crisis.
I will be writing about these new and increased demands for more NHS spending in a few years time, when this prediction is fulfilled, as all my others have been!

Unless, of course, between now and then, there is a 'eureka' moment - that conventional medicine is failing - and that spending more on it will prove to be no more a self-fulfilling, guaranteed route to more failure. That we need to start looking for alternatives to this non-ending saga.