Covid-19 Vaccines. The MSM Information Blight? A complaint to our 'Public Service' broadcaster, the BBC

I refer you to my previous blog to the UK's Department of Health in which I explain how medical authorities are not informing the general public about the serious adverse reactions, and patient harm, that is being cause by the Covid-19 vaccines. 

The same applies to the mainstream media (MSM) who are failing to inform us about what is being officially reported on the Government website by the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA.

This is the preamble, taken from yesterday's blog.

    "A large, and growing proportion of the UK population has now received either one or two doses of one of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines. I suspect that the vast majority of these people did so on the basis of what they had been told about them - by the Department of Health, the NHS, and the mainstream media (MSM) - that these vaccines were effectively safe, and would not cause serious patient harm.

    "Official statistics, data coming from the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA, and published on the UK Governments website, suggest that this is not the case.

    "The evidence is that the vaccines are causing serious patient harm, with over 1 million side effects being reported by nearly 300,000 patients. This includes reactions such as severe allergic reactions, anaphylaxis, Bell's Palsy, blood clots, cerebral venous sins thrombosis (CVST), Capillary Leak Syndrome, menstrual disorders and vaginal bleeding, Myocarditis and Pericarditis (inflammation of the heart), and fatalities. Indeed the latest MHRA data shows that there have been 1,403 reported deaths of patients shortly after they have been given one of the Covid-19 vaccines.

    "The weekly MHRA review consistently discounts the seriousness of these reported 'side effects', even though its primary function as a drug regulator should be to protect patients from drug and vaccine-induced harm. It is well known that side effects reported to the drug regulator represents only a small proportion of actual side effects - research has shown this to be somewhere between 1% and 10%. So 1,403 death could actually be 14,030 deaths, or as many as 140,300 deaths.

    "I cannot think of any other walk of life where such harm could be caused, or even suspected to be caused, without a serious and immediate "Health and Safety" response. An industry that causes serious harm to its workers, or its customers, would be subject to rigorous examination and inspection. A restaurant suspected of causing food poisoning would be closed down. A road junction where there had been numerous accidents would have been subject to increased traffic regulation.

    "But this does not happen when pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines cause public harm. "All drugs cause side effects" we are told blandly by doctors and drug regulators; and it is left at that. There has been no public warning from government, from the NHS, or from the MSM. They continue to tell us that the vaccines are safe; and urge everyone to take the vaccine, without informing us about these reported side effects.

The BBC is the UK's "public service" broadcaster. It has a primary responsibility to inform the general public, who also funds it through the licence fee, about important official statistics, perhaps more so than any other mainstream media (MSM) outlet. The BBC has totally failed to mention these officially reported 'side effects' for the last 6-7 months. Consequently I have complained to the BBC and asked them to respond to the following questions.

1. Can the BBC confirm that MHRA statistics, relating to Covid-19 vaccines and published on this Government website, comes from official government source, and does not constitute "anti-vaxxer" disinformation?

2. Can the BBC confirm that, up to 23rd June 2021, the MHRA, the UK's drug regulator, has received over 1 million reports of serious side effects, including 1,403 reports of patients dying shortly after receiving one of the Covid-19 vaccines?

3. Can the BBC inform me how many deaths and/or serious adverse reactions, either caused or suspected to be caused by a pharmaceutical drug, it considers necessary before it takes action to inform the general public?

4. Can the BBC tell me when, and how it has been informing the general public of these serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines as reported by the MHRA? In particular, can the BBC provide me with the information it has given to its viewers, listeners, readers about these MHRA statistics during the last 6-7 months?

5. Can the BBC tell me how knowledge of these official statistics has modified the BBC's stance on the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines, and its decision to promote them as entirely safe to the general public?

6. How does the BBC seek to ensure that the general public, and licence fee payers, are in future provided with full information about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines before it recommends and promotes them, so that its viewers, listeners and readers are able to make a balanced and informed decision?

7. Can the BBC inform me about any action it has taken to verify and investigate these serious adverse vaccine reactions, and in particular to interview the family and friends of those people who have died shortly after the Covid-19 vaccination?

8. Can the BBC assure me that before more people receive a Covid-19 vaccine it will begin to inform the general public and licence payers about official reported adverse reactions, and in particular that 1,403 people have died shortly after after taking the vaccine?

Doubtless it will take several weeks for any response to be forthcoming from the BBC. When this is received I will immediately reproduce their response, here, in full; alongside my response to their response!

So watch this space!

14th July 2021

Thank you for watching this space! I have now received a response to my complaint from the BBC, and as promised I am reproducing it here, in full.

    "Thank you for contacting us with your concerns about BBC News coverage of Covid-19 vaccines. We have published a number of articles about the common side effects, such as the one below. The article also contains further links to earlier pieces we have written about side effects:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56901356

Another article we'd like to highlight is the one below from 3 April. On that day the MHRA published its weekly yellow card report and did not include the data on deaths. We pressed them for further information and it was only then that they revealed that seven people had died after receiving the Astra Zeneca jab and we reported this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56620646

Yellow card reports of serious side effects have to be investigated and it isn’t always possible to establish a link with vaccinations. When there is evidence that serious side effects are considered likely to have been caused by the vaccine, we have reported the risks clearly and responsibly.

This piece outlines that it isn’t always easy to establish if a serious illness is coincidence or caused by a vaccine: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55216047

As we have imported, a member of BBC staff is suspected of dying from vaccine-related causes:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-57267169

You might also be interested in these articles:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-57677606

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57584775

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57173286

We do value your feedback about this. All complaints are sent to senior management and we’ve included your points in our overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the company and ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future content.

 

So they thanked me for 'sharing my views'. So as I also promised I will now respond to their response! You will see that the BBC Complaints unit has not answered most of my questions.

Q1. The BBC did not confirm that the MHRA statistics came from an official government source, and did not constitute "anti-vaxxer" disinformation.

Q2. The BBC did not confirm that that the MHRA has received over 1 million reports of serious side effects, including 1,403 reports of patients dying shortly after receiving one of the Covid-19 vaccines. They say they knew of 7 deaths in April 2021: but by then the MHRA had reported many, many more than 7 deaths.

Q3. The BBC did not inform me about how many reported deaths and/or serious adverse reactions were necessary before it took action to inform the general public. It appears that they are content that they reported on 7 of the 1,403 deaths.

Q4. The BBC's response outlines what they have done to to inform the general public about these serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines. It is clearly inadequate. They referred to 7 published articles which I hope you will take the time to read: not because of the information they contain, but the lack of information, the lack of any understanding of how serious the problems are, and how they constantly discount the seriousness of the data - always content to use the arguments of the conventional medical establishment (CME). The BBC has clearly NEVER the accumulating MHRA statistics on deaths and serious adverse vaccine reactionsthat have been available to them during the last 6-7 months.

• They reported on a BBC staff member who died following a Covid vaccine: please note that they stated in this article (May 2021) that her death would be 'probed': two months later there has been no evidence of any probe!
  
• They have reported on just one death in Northern Ireland.
• They reported on just three deaths in Scotland.
• For each of these the BBC articles have argued that (i) there was no proven link to the vaccine, (ii) the benefits outweigh the risks; (iii) it was still important that people got the vaccine -  and of course they have continued to support and promote the vaccines on behalf of the drug companies.
  
• They continue to discount the seriousness of the potential link between the vaccines and patient harm, content to accept and repeat at face value the usual arguments of the CHE.
  

Q5. The BBC did not respond to whether MHRA's official statistics had modified the BBC's stance on the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines, or its decision to promote them as entirely safe to the general public. So it quite clearly has not done so. According to the BBC the Covid-19 vaccines are safe, and MHRA data does not change their opinion on this.

Q6. Nor did the BBC response say how it sought to ensure that the general public were in future provided with full information about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines before continuing to recommend and promote them so that people were more able to make a more balanced and informed decision.

• The BBC's response suggests that they believe these 7 articles, published over a period of 8 months, have been sufficient to inform the general public about 1,403 deaths, and over 1 million reports of side effects.
  
• Indeed, the BBC seems content to discount any patient harm caused by the vaccines, and regardless of MHRA data, to continue urging everyone to take the vaccine.

Q7. The BBC did not inform me about any action they had taken to verify and investigate the serious adverse vaccine reactions revealed by the MHRA statistics. Even in the 7 articles they referred to the main focus was clearly to heavily discount even the few deaths, and adverse reactions they have mentioned. Each one of these 'statistics' is a human tragedy, but they have not seen fit to verify, publicise, or investigate the trauma 'side effects' cause; they have made no attempt to interview grieving families, or the friends of the people who have died following vaccination.

Q8. The BBC's response has failed to assure me that it will begin to inform the general public about officially reported adverse reactions - before more people suffer from them.

• When I wrote my complaint 1,403 people had been reported as dying shortly after after taking the vaccine. Since then this figure has risen to 1,440 - with another report due to be made in two days time. So 37 more people have died unaware that the official data that the BBC refuses to publicise.
  
• The BBC is still informing us, each and  every day, about deaths caused by the virus (or more accurately deaths that follow within 28 days after a positive Covid-19 test). They do not discount this figure - no suggestion that most of these deaths are people who had serious underlying health conditions - no caveat linking these deaths to the virus.
  

There is nothing in these 7 BBC articles that constitutes an adequate warning to the general public that 1,440 people have been reported as dying shortly after the vaccination, that far from the vaccine being safe 'death' was a possible side effect. And no mention either that it is well known that only 1% of adverse drug/vaccine reactions are ever reported!

There is nothing in the BBC's response to my complaint that suggests they are aware, or even want to be aware, of the seriousness of this situation. The response is disinterested. It defends their stance without any attempt at justifying it. The BBC are clearly satisfied with the dismissive explanations of the CHE.

The BBC regularly and exclusively interviews and quotes members of the conventional medical profession - the "experts". Yet these "experts" are the very same people who support these vaccines; who encourage people to get vaccinated; who are culpable of telling us that the vaccines are "safe". What, then, is the likelihood of any of these "experts" performing a volte face, agreeing that the vaccines they said were safe are not safe, that they have serious side effects they have not told us about, that 1,440 people have been reported as dying from these 'safe' vaccines?

There is a further concern about the BBC's handling of the pandemic - their feeble acceptance of CME excuses for not informing the general public about official MHRA data. In what other walk of life would the BBC be aware that 1,440 people have died, and many others have suffered serious harm, without looking beyond the explanations given by those who are closely implicated to the situation? There appears to be one rule for the CME, and another for every other industry.

This BBC response to my complaint  is confirmation that it has become the mouthpiece of the CME, the willing promoter of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Conventional medicine can kill, it can cause serious illness and disease; but the BBC meekly accepts any explanation/excuse the CME comes up with. It does not question. It has failed to ask members of the CME who have an alternative (more critical) view. It declines to interview the victims, or their families. It just carries on justify and promote harmful/lethal medical treatments.

I will respond to the BBC's response, but without any expectation that this 'public service' broadcaster will change its mind, and accept its responsibility to the general public. After all, this would mean they would not have to do the same thing as our doctors - admit they have been promoting unsafe, experimental vaccines, that they were wrong, that people have suffered, many have died. And that this has happened as a direct consequence of the BBC's failure to tell us what we needed to know.

Covid-19. BBC News continues to peddle propaganda rather than journalism. The Mainstream Media has failed us completely.

Several homeopathic colleagues awoke recently to a BBC news item on "Fake Covid-19 videos" that "will cost lives". It made us question the quality, and the purpose of journalism in Britain's 'public broadcaster. If you want to hear a short 6-minute piece of rank-bad journalism it is worth a listen. It arose who this.

               "The Royal College of Physicians is urging people not to share and "copycat" "dangerous" videos claiming steam inhalation can prevent Covid-19. The BBC has found that alternative coronavirus treatments are being sent on chat apps like WhatsApp, as well as being widely available on social media."

The video was 'dangerous', apparently, because it did not comply with government policy, or NHS treatment, for Covid-19, or the BBC's editorial policy of not allowing anything to be said or done that does not conform with either.

In truth it was typical of mainstream journalism throughout the Covid-19 crisis, which has been rather like reading/listening/watching the news on Russian newspapers, Izvestia or Pravda whilst growing up in the 1950's. Actually, I never read either paper but I do remember what the BBC, and the rest of the British journalism, said about those news agencies at the time. They were propaganda sheets, controlled by the Russian government, and the Communist party that controlled the government. They were allowed to say only what they were allowed to say. They could not report on anything critical, or question the competence of the government. The Russian people, the BBC said, were not being properly informed. Their journalism was controlled, completely different to 'free press' journalism in Britain.

The news item concerned a video circulating on social media about the treatment of Covid-19. The Royal College said was 'dangerous' because it was stopping black and minority ethic (BAME) communities from taking the new Covid-19 vaccines. This is a perfectly acceptable opinion about the video that suggested breathing in steam was an appropriate treatment. And it is, of course, an opinion shared by the British government, the conventional medical establishment (CME), and (quite clearly) BBC News too.

So how did the bastion of our "free media" deal with the subject? Was this an open and balanced debate? A courteous discussion about a doctor who was suggesting an alternative medical approach to the treatment of Covid-19? Remember (if you need to be reminded) that conventional medicine has had to admit that it had no effective treatment to offer anyone for the last 12 months, during which time over 113,000 people have died.

The piece was nothing of the sort, it was junk journalism, at its very worst. First, the journalist involved, Sima Kotecha, took up a firm and decisive position. It is a stance that has become typical of BBC health reporting: support the side of the dominant player; and attack the side the dominant player disagrees with. So although I am focusing on this one, short, 6 minute piece this is what BBC journalism has been doing for over a year, dealing with Covid-19, and for at least 20 years when dealing with medical issues.

First, the full frontal attack. A video of the doctor was played which showed him advising the inhalation of plain water steam. Immediately alarm bells sounded (literally), and warnings appeared on the screen about 'fake news'. The usual BBC impartiality!

Sima Kotecha then talked to her mother. "You don't believe it, do you?" No, she didn't, but apparently so many other people had received the message. She talked to someone who had tried steam as a treatment, and he thought that it worked. Sima wanted nothing to do with this, and she referred to doctors "around the world" who said steam inhalation was not a preventative measure. He thought that it worked, but he was wrong!

Sima Kotecha then asked three conventional doctors to confirm her view, which of course they did. One opined that such people should be arrested for spreading false news, and false hope. Another said that such messages should be removed from social media. And Sima proudly announced that Facebook had now removed the post, after she had alerted them to it.

So Sima Kotecha spoke to the offending doctor, asking him a loaded question. "Why was he spreading false information?" He tried to explain, but Sima told him that what he was saying was a lie - according to the doctors with whom she had sided, who also told her that he is "doing more harm than good".

So, given such a news item, whose side would you be on? There is, of course, only one answer. The Indian doctor is a charlatan, he is telling lies, and spreading false information. Sima doctors were, of course, speaking the truth, the only truth. 

Was the doctor's approach to breathing steam tested? Was it adequately discussed? Of course not. This was not a news item intended to develop our knowledge, and understanding of the treatment of Covid-19. Sima's doctors, who admit they have no treatment, and have watched on, helplessly, as 113,000 people have died in their hospitals, were correct. There was no treatment, and anyone who said otherwise was spreading misinformation.

And let us not be too critical. Just as with journalists who worked for Pravda and Izvestia, it is not Sima Kotecha's fault. Nor is it Nick Robinson's fault, who hosted the programme. They were both pursuing BBC health policy: support the government: support the conventional medical establishment: and attack anything that might suggest there is an alternative.

• Vaccines are good, and it's important that everyone is vaccinated, including the BAME community who are refusing the vaccine in large numbers,
  
• If there is an alternative treatment it must be dismissed as it might encourage vaccine 'hesitancy', which cannot be supported, and must be attacked.
  

So, unlike the BBC, let's ask a question. Is inhaling steam such a crazy idea? As a young boy my mother would always get me to inhale steam whenever I seemed to be contracting a cold or cough. I think she would put Vic (?) into the water. And are we not aware that Covid-19 virus function better in the cold, and less well in warmth? And that Covid affects mainly our ability to breath?

Another question.... Is steam dangerous? Certainly not in itself! Certainly it is no more dangerous than washing our hands, and less emotionally, socially, and economically dangerous than social distancing and lockdown.

One more..... Why is the BAME community reluctant to accept the Covid-19 vaccines? Is it really thoughtlessness, ignorance, the inability to make up their mind because of the influence on social media videos? Or has it something to do with the failure of conventional medicine to deliver treatment without it causing harm, and more harm to BAME communities?

And yet another. Is there any science to support steam inhalation? Conventional medicine likes to consider itself to be 'scientific'. And medical science is, allegedly, at the heart of BBC's unbounded support for conventional medicine. So where is the science? Has any been done? And if not, why not? Why is the BBC not challenging medical science to do the science? 

And finally, why slag off an Indian doctor who stated that he is only trying to help his patients, perhaps in contradistinction to more conventional doctors who appear content to watch them die, whilst wringing their hands in despair because they have no effective treatment? And is his claim that none of his patients, or his team, has suffered seriously from Covid-19 not worth some consideration?

The role of good journalism is not to support one side of any argument. This is propaganda rather than journalism, particularly when it sides with government and/or the dominant medical establishment. Good journalism is open-mined, it asks questions of both sides, it delves deeper, it investigates, it informs. Unfortunately the BBC, as with Pravda and Izvestia in Soviet Union times, do not appear to be prepared to do this - at least not as far as health issues are concerned.

This is why our mainstream media have failed us over Covid-19. They have not been prepared to question the dominant narrative presented by government and conventional medicine. Instead they have preferred to constantly and unquestioningly repeat their rather hopeless and forlorn message. 

• Why has natural immunity been almost totally neglected? 
• Why has supporting and strengthening our immune system not been central to the advice we have been given to protect ourselves? 
• Why have natural therapists been working in isolation, locked down with the rest of us? 
• What results have they been having with their patients?

The BBC, and the mainstream media generally, have never asked these, and a host of other important and relevant questions. They have sided with a failed, often shambolic government policy, based as it is on a failed medical science, and a dominant medical elite that has always admitted it has no treatment to offer.

BBC News. The subliminal advertising of vaccines, free vaccine promotion, measles scaremongering, and mandatory drugging

The BBC is the most ardent and effective promotors of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

The BBC's promotion of vaccines and measles scaremongering reached new heights of dishonesty and notoriety yesterday (25 April 2019). The story was covered in much of the British mainstream media, but not with the wall-to-wall coverage made possible by the BBC's continual news and current affairs coverage throughout the entire day. It left their editorial guidelines (accuracy, impartiality, not causing harm or offence, fairness, and independence from external interests) in tatters.

The story the BBC told us throughout the day is simple. It is the tale of the powerful Conventional Medical Establishment, including the NHS, medical science, politicians and government. I do not intend here to go into detail of yesterday's BBC's coverage - beyond outlining these highlights (or lowlights) of the case the BBC made.

• There are epidemics of measles occurring around the world
• Measles is a terrible killer disease
• Measles has been controlled by vaccines since the 1960's
• Too many children are now not being vaccinated
• It is unvaccinated children who are now contracting measles
• Parents who don't vaccinate their children are misguided and misinformed
• Vaccines are entirely safe, medical science has proven this
• No child has ever been hurt of damaged by vaccines
• Anti-vaccine websites are largely to blame for low vaccine take-up (and should be shut down)
• The nonsense 'herd immunity' theory was promulgated
• Homeopathy was attacked, several times, without the right to reply
• Vaccines should be made mandatory

Those who put forward these arguments were exclusively a selection of politicians, government spokespersons, senior NHS officials, conventional doctors, and a parent of a child who had allegedly suffered from measles. They all of whom supported the BBC's position.

No-one who might have challenged any of the above arguments or assertions (all highly challengeable) were asked to give their views. Nobody who disagreed with any of the BBC's arguments were interviewed, but they were abused in their absence.

Worse, without any exception, BBC journalists and presenters vehemently supported these arguments, often pushing the people interviewed to express themselves more aggressively. On the early morning Today programme, one spokesperson from NHS England was criticised by Nick Robinson because she contradicted Simon Stephens, CEO of the NHS, who had earlier emphasised how serious the situation was. She did not believe it was quite as serious as he had suggested. Nick Robinson was clearly in total exasperation with this contradictory idea. He was clearly not looking for discussion, and just asked her to give 'her view' about how important vaccination was for children. She complied, and a little later the Secretary of State for Health was asked to comment on this 'difference of view'. He came down firmly on Nick Robinson's side. It was indeed a deadly serious situation, he confirmed.

This is typical BBC journalism. I have commented on the BBC's refusal to take part in a real health debate many times (do a search on 'BBC' above to find all my previous blogs on the BBC's coverage of health issues), and so I no longer expect any objectivity or fairness in their news coverage.

The main point I wish to make here is that the BBC (a public services broadcaster which is not supposed to involve itself in advertising) is providing the pharmaceutical industry with many hours of free and uncritical advertising.

Moreover, it is subliminal advertising. Most people would not have recognised or understood what they were hearing to be advertising, yet it would still have had a strong and powerful influence on peoples views on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

We are used to advertising. We know when a car, or a washing machine, or a washing-up liquid, (or anything else) is being advertised. We can recognise that what we are being told is promotional, part of selling a product. But not in this situation. No-one from any pharmaceutical company had to say a word. The companies who manufacture and profit from the MMR vaccine were not interviewed, and did not have to pay a penny in order to promote it!

This was all done for them, by BBC journalists, by conventional doctors, by the NHS, by government and politicians.

So to many people this was not advertising - at least not as most people know and recognise it! This is not a car maker, or washing machine manufacturer, or a detergent company selling its wares. The promotion was being done by independent people with no obvious connection with drug companies. This was a news story, and there was no obvious promotion of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

These 'independent' people were telling us that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are good, necessary for us all, essential for good health. There were no obvious vested interests - so surely what we are being told must be right. 

Moreover, no-one was arguing against anything that the BBC was saying. Anyone who might have put forward a different view were not interviewed, whilst at the same time, in their absence, their reputation was being routinely undermined!

The primary purpose of this particular day of subliminal advertising soon became obvious. If people could not be persuaded about the rightness of vaccination, if parents continued to refuse to have their children vaccinated, they would have to be forced to do so.

• Mandatory vaccination. 
• Forced medication. 
• The end of any pretence of health freedom, or patient choice 

And perhaps another casualty - any idea that 'press freedom' is alive and well in this country, that indoctrination is a thing of the past, that the public is being properly informed, and that patients have all the information they need to make an informed choice about the medicine they want to use for themselves, or their children.

AUTISM & HOMEOPATHY. Does conventional medicine cause autism?

The BBC’s gratuitous attack on the homeopathic treatment of autism, inaccurate, partial, and unfair as it was, is a diversion, a refusal to admit that their allies in the conventional medical establishment have been instrumental in causing the problem of autism, and having no treatment for it. 

It is often said that attack is the best form of defence. And it is known that a cornered animal, especially when its life is threatened, can be ferocious when it has to defend itself. Perhaps this is what is happening in this situation.

We live within a society that has a strong health and safety ethos. This is not a bad thing. Throughout human history people have lost their lives working on projects, in industries, and in many other settings, because of the inherent dangers of their working and living circumstances, and the carelessness of their masters. Whether it was Pharaohs building their pyramids, or 19th century industrialists profiting from unsafe working practises, millions of people have been killed for the greater glory of their superiors.

Health and safety practises now dominate all spheres of life. Sometimes safety is taken to ridiculous lengths. Playing conkers, for instance, has been deemed to be unsafe! And as I write, trees are being felled in the wood opposite my house because they have been deemed 'unsafe', alleged to be diseased, a risk as they might fall on me as I pass under them. It is a nature reserve, and wildlife habitat is being destroyed in the name of health and safety.

So in most walks of life health and safety now rules - except for one important area - conventional medicine and health.

"First do no harm" is a principle developed by Hippocrates, who lived in the 5th century bce Greece. Conventional medicine has adopted it, but has always ignored it. They accept that their drugs cause 'side effects' and 'adverse reactions' but however serious these are found to be doctors continue to prescribe the drugs to their patients. We are told that the 'benefits' outweigh the 'risks', although patients are never told about the detail of these risk assessments.

Samuel Hahnemann was a 18th century doctor who decided that he could no longer involve himself in the patient harm caused by the drugs of his time, mostly based on mercury and opium, and practises such as bloodletting, blistering, and the use of leaches. He set himself the task of developing a safer form of medicine, and over 220 years ago he came up with homeopathy. The conventional doctors of the day derided and attacked him, and conventional doctors continue to do so today - fully supported by the mainstream media.

Provision for health care is now dominated by conventional medicine, and this is itself dominated by the prescription of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. It is a system of medicine that remains inherently unsafe, just as it was in Hahnemann's time.

How do we know this? Do we have evidence of the harm it causes? For instance, does conventional medicine cause autism, is it the reason for the current epidemic levels of autism, a disease entirely unknown 70 years ago? One this is certain, the conventional medical establishment says that it does not know the cause of autism.

               "The exact cause of autism is currently unknown. Autism is a complex neurodevelopmental condition. The causes are still being investigated. Current evidence suggests that autism may be caused by many factors that affect the way the brain develops. These include genetics and environmental triggers."

But it does know that it does not cause autism, the MMR vaccine does not cause autism, the MMR vaccines is entirely safe. Anyone who says otherwise is an 'antivaxxer', a danger to our health according to the World Health Organisation. Yet look at this patient information leaflet, taken from the MMR vaccine given to children in Britain, which can be accessed through this website.

               "After the marketing of Priorix, the following side effects have been reported:

     • infection or inflammation of the brain, spinal cord and peripheral nerves resulting in temporary difficulty when walking (unsteadiness) and/or temporary loss of control of bodily movements, inflammation of some nerves, possibly with pins and needles or loss of feeling or normal movement (Guillain-Barré syndrome)"

Not autism perhaps, but evidence that the MMR vaccine can cause serious 'side effects' to the brain. So is this vaccines 'entirely safe'? The information leaflets also list other serious side effects, including high fever, rash, upper respiratory tract infection, infection of the middle ear, swollen lymph glands, abnormal crying, insomnia, bronchitis, swollen parotid glands, diarrhoea, vomiting, convulsions, joint and muscle pain, sudden life-threatening allergic reactions, narrowing or blockage of blood vessels, and measles and mumps like symptoms.

This is not my information. It is information that comes in the package with the MMR vaccine. Doctors know about this, yet they are still prepared to call this vaccine "safe".

When I wrote my DIE’s website (the disease inducing effects of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines) I was surprised how often conventional medicine claimed that it did not know the cause of so many serious illnesses. Everyone is aware that pharmaceutical drugs cause side effects, often so serious the drug (or vaccine) has to be banned. So I started to look for evidence that these so-called 'side effects' were (at least in part) the cause of these mystery, unexplained diseases. What I discovered was not only evidence that they do, but that much of that evidence is contained within the books and journals of conventional medicine itself.

Conventional doctors may insist that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are safe, even 'entirely' safe, but within their own literature there is clear evidence that they are not!

Autism is a disease unknown before the 1940’s, prior to mass vaccination campaigns. Since then it has risen, exponentially. And it has done so in exact parallel to the increased use of vaccines. The CDC website (a pillar of the conventional medical establishment) gives the following statistics about the rise and rise of autism in the USA.

          2000          1 in 150 children
          2002          1 in 150 children
          2004          1 in 125 children
          2006          1 in 110 children
          2008          1 in 88 children
          2010          1 in 68 children
          2012          1 in 59 children

A more recent 'Age of Autism' estimate suggests that the figure could now be 1 in 45 children!

The autism epidemic is not confined to America. It is now raging throughout the world, especially in countries with the health system is dominated by conventional medicine based on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. The National Autistic Society in Britain says that whilst there is no register, or direct count kept, autism is much more common than many people think.

               "There are around 700,000 people in the UK living with autism - that's more than 1 in 1001. If you include their families, autism touches the lives of 2.8 million people every day."


The NHS Choices website, in 2016, agreed with this estimate, stating that 1 in every 100 people in Britain now has autism.

Even so, as far as conventional medicine is concerned, the cause of autism remains 'unknown'! How can this be so? Is this a cover-up? Is the cause known but denied? 

My DIE's website looked into the evidence that pharmaceutical vaccines and drugs has caused the epidemic of autism. It implicates not only the MMR and other vaccines, but also the vaccination of pregnant mothers, paracetamol (the main ingredient of Calpol), and mums taking antidepressant drugs. And all of them are implicated in causing autism.

And equally, all of these links are routinely ignored, and/or denied by the conventional medical establishment!

This direct evidence that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines cause autism is supported by what might be called 'reverse' proof of causation. Homeopathic CEASE therapy works by detoxifying the body, and homeopaths have found that one of the main toxins that has to be removed are childhood vaccines.

So CEASE therapy is effective, as in the many actual cases outlined in a previous blog, because it antidotes the harm that has been caused by childhood vaccines.

Even so, the BBC programme had the audacity, and the gall to claim that homeopathy harmed children. And in doing so it ignored the real harm caused to children by pharmaceutical vaccines and drugs.

So the debate will continue. Just because the conventional medical establishment, the pharmaceutical industry, drug regulators, politicians and governments, and the mainstream media seek to hide and deny the debate that is going on about autism, its causes and treatment, it does not mean that the worries and concerns of parents will go away.

Medicine does not have to be harmful to patients. Homeopathy is not harmful - but our health system, dominated as it is by conventional medicine, is dangerous to patients. Therefore, homeopathy will continue to oppose drugs and vaccines that cause patient harm, and we will continue to treat children with autism in order that they might once again lead full lives. Even if our children are not allowed to attend nurseries, or schools, and visit pubic spaces in town centres, homeopathy will continue to fight the battle for patient choice, and health freedom.

This is the last of 4 blogs on the subject of Autism and Homeopathy.

• the first blog, which described the hostile attitude of conventional medicine and the BBC towards homeopathy, can be found here.
• the second makes reference to some of the many cases of autistic children who have been treated successfully with homeopathy
• the third blog looked at the scientific evidence that shows that homeopathy can treat autism effectively.

If conventional medicine does not wish to find a cure for Autism, Homeopathy certainly will continue to do so.

CEASE therapists can be found on the internet here.

http://www.cease-therapy.com/make-appointment/all-certified-practitioners/

AUTISM & HOMEOPATHY. Another BBC attack on homeopathy that breaks its Editorial Guidelines

Conventional medicine has no treatment for the epidemic of Autism, as the NHS website (surely an authority on the subject) confirms.

               "There's no 'cure' for autism, but there are ways to support autistic people, their families, carers and friends......Autism is a lifelong condition that affects how people communicate and interact with others."

Moreover, conventional medicine does not know what causes Autism, again the NHS website confirms this when it states that

               "The exact cause of autism is currently unknown. Autism is a complex neurodevelopmental condition. The causes are still being investigated. Current evidence suggests that autism may be caused by many factors that affect the way the brain develops. These include genetics and environmental triggers."

What conventional medicine does know, indeed is absolutely adamant about, is that it is NOT caused by childhood vaccines, like DPT and MMR. Vaccines are entirely safe, quite regardless of what is said on the vaccine package inserts.

And the BBC knows all this too, as they demonstrated on 22nd March 2019 in their 'You and Yours' (Y&Y) programme. Please can I ask everyone to listen to this programme, it is available here.  The programme is a scurrilous (and almost a laughable) attack on homeopathy. The problem is that homeopathy believes that it IS possible to treat autism, successfully, using a therapy known as CEASE. Moreover, many homeopaths (including myself) suspect that childhood vaccines, such as DPT and MMR are strongly implicated as a cause. So clearly there is an issue here, an important difference of view.

• conventional medicine says that the cause of autism is unknown, and there is no treatment
• homeopathy believes that the cause of autism is known, and there there is treatment available that can cure it.

Yet before you listen to the programme, let us consider on what basis we might judge this short Y&Y’s piece (it lasts 6-7 minutes). I suggest that the BBC’s own ‘Editorial Guidelines’ might provide an acceptable set of standards to ascertain the quality of the organisation’s own journalism? A cursory look at these guidelines show that these are the principles that should underlay what our ‘public service broadcaster’ should do when such issues is covered, including, these:

1. Accuracy.
2. Impartiality.
3. (Cause no) Harm or Offence.
4. Fairness.
5. Editorial Integrity and Independence from External Interests.

This Y&Y’s piece has confirmed once again, that the BBC gives total allegiance to conventional medicine, that it is unwilling to discuss the fact that there is an alterative view, and by doing so it fails to comply with the principles of its own Editorial Guidelines. Here are a few 'quotes' from the Y&Y programme

"... a stark warning to homeopaths who offer treatment they CLAIM can cure autism..."

"... there needs to be legislation brought in to stop these 'snake oil' salesmen taking advantage of parents and making autistic children ill..."

Remember, homeopathy is the second most widely used medical therapy in the world, and insults like this are generously strewn throughout the programme! There was absolutely NO attempt made by the BBC to ensure that this piece was accurate, impartial, or fair.

The Y&Y programme emanated from the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) who are seeking to ban advertisements that claim homeopathy can cure autism. ASA informed the programme that it had served 'enforcement notices' on 150 homeopaths who offered "so-called" CEASE therapy, telling them to "stop misleading people". He said that five homeopaths could be prosecuted under consumer protection laws.

ASA is not an ‘authority’. It has no legal status. It is a private limited company. It makes its money through companies who advertise. One of the biggest advertisers in Britain is the pharmaceutical industry - which means that ASA makes most of its money through drug companies. It has a vested interest. The ASA has been attacking homeopathy for many years, including myself. Their position is simple. Conventional medicine has told them that there is no evidence supporting homeopathy, so any evidence presented to them by homeopaths just cannot be correct; and in any case, they are not sufficiently expert to make a judgement on such evidence!

The programme also used the expert opinion of the National Autistic Society (NAS). This charity has an annual budget of almost £1 billion, and it’s an organisation funded to a significant degree by the pharmaceutical industry. Certainly, this exchange between Dr Vernon Coleman and NAS in 2007 confirms that this was the situation at that time, and I can find no evidence that this situation has changed since then.

So perhaps unsurprisingly, NAS confirmed the view of conventional medicine that autism is a 'life-long condition’, and a "part of who people are", that it was "wrong and appalling that anyone to claim that bogus and potentially harmful therapies such as CEASE cure autism".

A parent was then introduced, selected presumably from the hundred’s of parents who have autistic children and have tried homeopathy, and one of the many thousands who have autistic children. She described how desperate she was after she was told she had an autistic child, how she was “ready to try anything". Actually the parent does describe how the paediatrician was able to offer nothing, but criticising conventional medicine was not the purpose of the BBC. She described herself as "a bit lost, a bit stupid" - so she went to a CEASE therapist. She actually suggested that she did see some changes, but encouraged by the investigator she went on to deny this.

               "No, because it is 'drops of water', but I think I desperately wanted (to see changes)”.

The investigator then commented that this parent spent several months going to this treatment, and spent several hundred pounds on it. She was then asked "is there any scientific evidence to support what these CEASE therapists are claiming?". The investigator stated, unequivocally, that homeopathy was based on claims that toxins in the environment and vaccines may have caused Autism but that "and these claims have been found to be false". Moreover, she stated that some experts had actually said that this treatment may actually be harmful.

Then an expert was brought in, Professor Nicola Martin, London South Bank University, who had advised on 'harmful interventions into autism”. 

               "It's something that is based on no scientific foundation, which talks about curing Autism, and autism is not a disease, it's not something that needs to be cured, and I would describe it as one of those 'quack' cures. Psychologically it is really harmful to give parents the idea that the way to love and nurture their autistic child is to try to cure their autism."

A campaigner for greater regulation of homeopathy was then brought in to continue with the monologue. This is what she had to say.

               "As an autistic adult it disgusts me that these charlatans are taking advantage of parents. I have been campaigning for five years for legislation against fake cures for autism.... There are a lot of vulnerable patients out there that are desperately seeking help for their children and they believe that this will help. These people are very professional, they have a nice website.... there should be legislation brought in to stop these 'snake oil' salesmen taking advantage of parents and making innocent children ill."

It was never explained how homeopathy was ‘harmful’ to children, or made ‘innocent children ill’ but then the whole Y&Y's piece was littered with inaccuracies from start to finish

So where was the accuracy, the impartiality, the fairness? Did the BBC seek to offer balance by bringing in people from the other viewpoint? There was a brief mention of the Society of Homeopaths (SoH), who were fleetingly quoted as saying that the term CEASE was "problematic and misleading”. But nothing else! Was this really all that SoH had to say? Or was the rest just ignored? 

The investigator also said that homeopathy is ‘unregulated’, although the SoH run courses for practitioners - inaccurate information - but never mind, no lack of accuracy must stand in the way of BBC's attack on homeopathy!

I have talked about BBC Editorial Guidelines before on this blog, emphasising how the BBC persistently disregards them when dealing with health issues, and particularly when it wishes to attack homeopathy. 

The BBC has become an echo chambers for the pharmaceutical industry, and for conventional medicine. 

Whenever health issues are covered, the BBC shows no ‘editorial integrity’ that is, in any way, shape or form, ‘independent from external interests’. Nor will the BBC allow a 'right of reply' even though homeopaths were accused of being 'snake oil salesmen' and ‘charlatans’, or for trotting out the totally inaccurate mantra that ‘there is no evidence for homeopathy’.

Perhaps the BBC does not consider that these articles cause ‘harm and offence’ to the homeopathy profession. It certainly does not care if it does. In any other circumstance, in any other sphere, if someone tries to attack and abuse someone else, when they are not present to defend themselves, they are stopped from doing so. Does the BBC believe that homeopaths the only people that should be denied such courtesy?

Yet in fact this is such bad journalism it is almost laughable. Perhaps this is why, to my knowledge, there has been no official response from the homeopathic community, and perhaps this is right. Homeopathy is either useless, just water and sugar pills (this was also mentioned in the programme). Or it harms people, makes them sick! Does anyone really want to engage in this level of thinking or discussion?

Except perhaps that once again the BBC has broken, ridden a coach and horses, through its Editorial Guidelines. It has made yet another gratuitous attack on homeopathy. So I am going to make a formal complaint to the BBC. And I would encourage anyone else, after listening to this desperately awful programme, to do likewise.

Go to this website, and click on 'make a complaint'. Don't spend too much time on it though, the BBC will not take it seriously. They never do. But I will blog their response when I receive it.

This will be the first of 4 blogs on the subject of Autism and Homeopathy. 

• the second makes reference to some of the many cases of autistic children who have been treated successfully with homeopathy.
• the third concerns the scientific studies that shows the relevance of homeopathy in the treatment of autism.
• the fourth concerns the evidence that conventional medicine not only has no treatment, but is a major cause of autism.

If the BBC will not deal with the subject of Autism and Homeopathy accurately, impartially and fairly, at least this blog will do so.

CEASE therapists can be found on the internet here.

http://www.cease-therapy.com/make-appointment/all-certified-practitioners/