Conventional Medicine and the despair of patients? Avoid breast cancer by voluntary mastectomy?

Conventional medicine is failing, and failing badly.

Okay. Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are unsafe, and often downright dangerous. Given time, most pharmaceutical drugs are either withdrawn of banned as a result. They cause serious illness and disease. They kill 10s of 1000s of people every year.

Okay, Big Pharma drugs are ineffective, most of them quite useless. Recent studies have suggested that 85% of pharmaceutical drugs just don't work.

Okay. We know that a growing number of people are refusing to take them, most notably doctors and  nurses - yes, the very people who are willing to give them to us!

But how does this medical failure show up in the behaviour of patients?

• Apparently, Doctors are now agreeing to remove healthy breasts for women who fear getting breast cancer.
• Apparently, even one Miss America contestant will have both her breasts removed - even though she does not have cancer.

Conventional Medicine appears to operate in a continual state of panic. There is usually an annual panic about flu epidemics. Or the re-emergence of diseases, like Whooping Cough. But usually in this blog I have discounted these (and other 'panics') as a ploy by Big Pharma companies to sell their drugs and vaccines to us. However, it is becoming apparent that this is not the only consequence.

The willingness of healthy women to remove their breasts is a huge vote of 'no confidence' in the only medical system they know about - ConMed.

What does this mean? Contract breast cancer, and women have no confidence that ConMed will be able to help them. But worse, doctors who agree to this surgery must also agree with this assessment - that they have no effective or safe treatment for breast cancer. Otherwise they would surely refuse to contemplate such an horrendous violation of a woman's body.

* Moreover, as the articles above suggest, the risks of the operation are probably equal to the risk of contracting breast cancer - certainly more certain!

* And Homeopathy informs us that if a disease is treated by suppressing it, or removing the part involved in the disease, the disease is likely to emerge elsewhere.

Conventional Medicine, on the surface, appears very arrogant. They regularly inform us about new 'miracle' treatments, or 'wonder' cures. They tell us they are overcoming disease. They tell us we are all living longer because of the medication. They tell us that conventional medicine is the only 'science-based' medicine.

Yet, under the surface, there appears to be little confidence in their ability to treat disease. The regular panics about disease epidemics, the willingness of conventional medicine to perform unnecessary mastectomy operations, both suggest that the conventional medical establishment recognises, and acts on the basis, that it is short of safe and effective treatments for a variety of diseases.

Health Spending brings down Governments, and bankrupts the Nation?

Spending money on health care has become a major political objective for every British government since the inauguration of the National Health Service in 1947. In every election, political parties have positioned themselves carefully so that the electorate would see them as major investors in health care.

The result has been that each successive government has sought outbid itself, and its predecessor, with little appreciable improvement in national health outcomes, but leading to a situation that has brought down governments, and spending on health is now coming close to bankrupting the nation

1951 General Election

The Labour manifesto in 1951, 4 years after the creation of the NHS, appealed to the electorate by contrasting Britain in the inter-war years with the new situation, brought about by the NHS. It spoke about the people’s dread of doctor's bills, and good healthcare costing more than most people could afford. They criticised the Tory opposition, who had consistently opposed the scheme.

"Now we have a national health scheme which is the admiration of the post-war world".

For their part, the Tories stated that "In Education and Health some of the most crying needs are not being met. For the money now being spent we will provide better services and so fulfil the high hopes we all held when we planned the improvements during the war".

Clearly, Labour were not spending enough - so they lost, and went into opposition for 13 years!

1964 General Election

Under the Conservative government, expenditure on the NHS increased, although never sufficient to satisfy the Labour opposition. The Conservatives said this in their 1964 manifesto, entitled 'A Healthy Nation'.

"The past thirteen years have seen improvements in the nation's health greater than in any comparable period. These advances we owe to medical science and the skill of the healing professions. They could only have been achieved against a background of rising living standards and continuously expanding health services such as Conservative Government is providing".

They went on to promise that every man, woman and child in the country would have access to the best treatment, and that their aim was to build or rebuild some 300 hospitals. There was also a promise to "improve and bring up to date the law controlling the safety and quality of drugs".

These promises were not sufficient. The Conservatives lost the election, and Labour returned to power.

1970 General Election

Labour lost again, despite their promises on health. They claimed to have doubled expenditure on hospital building, whilst local health and welfare expenditure "is now running at three times the level of just ten years ago". They promised a continued expansion of training on doctors, nurses and other staff, the continuation of "our great building programme", and inevitably, more changes in the administrative structure of the NHS.

Again, it was not enough, and Labour lost again.

1974 General Election

There is little or no mention of the NHS in the Conservative manifesto of this outgoing Tory administration – so perhaps it is little wonder that they lost!

In comparison, the Labour opposition made many health promises - to revise and expand the NHS, to abolish prescription charges, to introduce free family planning, to phase out private practice from the hospital service, and to transform the area health authorities into democratic bodies.

1979 General Election

After 5 years in power, the Labour Manifesto for this election was called 'A Healthier Nation'. It stated that it would gave 'priority to health', and attacked the Tory alternatives.

"We reject Tory plans to create two health services: one for the rich, financed by private insurance with a second-class service for the rest of us. Labour reaffirms its belief in a comprehensive national health service for all our people. We oppose Tory proposals for higher prescription charges and charges for seeing a doctor or being in hospital. Our aim is to abolish all charges in the NHS".

And Labour tried to defend its record from Conservative claims that it was cutting NHS budgets.

 "For all the talk of cuts, the truth is that the Labour Government are spending over £600m a year more on health in real terms than the Tories. Labour will devote a higher proportion of the nation's wealth to the health service and the personal social services".

As usual, the problems of the NHS was also said to concern management rather than the medical treatment that was offered.

"We will streamline the bureaucratic and costly structure the Tories created and give a bigger say in running the NHS to the public and staff".

Needless to say, despite these promises Labour lost the election, and the Tories were destined to be in power for the next 18 years.  

1997 General Election

Despite the low priority that the 11-year Thatcher government gave to public spending, the Tory manifesto of 1997 was prepared to defend its record.

"Government spending has concentrated on priorities, not wasteful bureaucracy and over-manning. Despite tough overall public spending plans, real spending on the NHS has risen nearly 75% since 1979". The Health Service is treating over 1 million more patients each year than before our reforms. The number of people waiting over 12 months for hospital treatment has fallen from over 200,000 in 1990 to 22,000 last year. The average wait has fallen from nearly 9 months to 4 months".

The Conservative government lost the election, and Labour was in power for 13 years, embarking on the biggest increase in NHS spending ever seen.

2010 General Election

The New Labour government cannot be accused of scrimping on the NHS for the 13 years of its existence! Indeed, it virtually bankrupted itself, and the country, in an effort to make the NHS, now completely dominated by the Conventional Medical Establishment, work properly! When they were defeated in this election NHS spending had reached close to £120 billion per annum. But it did not save them! 

Nor could any political party admit at this time that NHS spending was a major factor in the nation’s financial difficulties! All the main parties campaigned to ‘ring-fence’ health spending even though it was known that massive government spending cuts would have to be enforced over the next few years.

The new Coalition Government decided to ‘ring-fence’ health spending, one of the few departments to be so privileged. And in order to do so the government is prepared to cut other departmental spending by as much as 40-50% over the life-time of the Parliament. 

Clearly, government spending on ConMed has become not just a priority. It is now a sacred cow!

This article was first published in the e-book 'The Failure of Conventional Medicine'.

The Failure of ConMed. No evidence base for this medicine?

The claim of Big Pharma companies, and the Conventional Medical Establishment, is that it supports 'Evidence-Based' Medicine (EBM). The argument here is that in making a judgement about the efficacy of medical therapies, we need less 'evidence' (especially when the evidence proves to be poor, or just wrong, in the course of time), and instead place more reliance on 'outcomes'. ConMed, of course, wants neither.

Much of the 'evidence' that supports conventional medicine is poor or unreliable evidence. This important article outlines the problems associated with EBM, and should be read by anyone who is looking for a safer, more effective medical therapy, but is not yet ready to accept that conventional medicine is failing. It begins by questioning the very concept of EBM.

          "The assumption that EBM is good science is unsound from the start. Decision science and cybernetics (the science of communication and control) highlight the disturbing consequences.EBM fosters marginally effective treatments, based on population averages rather than individual need. Its mega-trials are incapable of finding the causes of disease, even for the most diligent medical researchers, yet they swallow up research funds. Worse, EBM cannot avoid exposing patients to health risks. It is time for medical practitioners to discard EBM's tarnished gold standard, reclaim their clinical autonomy, and provide individualized treatments to patients.

And it continues by putting the individual patient at the centre of concern.

          "The key element in a truly scientific medicine would be a rational patient. This means that those who set a course of treatment would base their decision-making on the expected risks and benefits of treatment to the individual concerned. If you are sick, you want a treatment that will work for you, personally. Given the relevant information, a rational patient will choose the treatment the will be most beneficial. Of course, the patient is not in isolation but works with a competent physician, who is there to help the patient. The rational decision making unit then becomes the doctor-patient collaboration.

The continuing survival of conventional, drug based medicine can be put down to the failure of governments, national heath services, the mainstream media in telling us the truth about a form of medicine. Evidence of its failure is rife - but rarely reported. Indeed, the problems of writing this regular blog is that there is just so much information about corruption in the highest circles, the failure of Big Pharma drugs, the way these drugs create illness, the havoc they cause to individuals and families, the the epidemic rise of so many chronic diseases. So look through these internet articles - outlined only briefly here but available to anyone who wants to know why pharmaceutical drugs are not making us better, but sicker!

Let's start with the osteoporosis drug, Fosamax. This article explains how it can actually cause fractures, and brittle bones - that is, it makes worse the problem it is supposed to help! This has been known for many years; but the drug is still being used with patients who believe they are taking it to help their illness!

Simple painkillers, so many people take every day thinking they are safe, can cause death - even with the smallest doses. Here is another article, looking at Tylenol, and its DIEs.

The antipsychotic drug, Alecza, which can cause fatal lung disease.

These diabetes drugs can cause Pancreatitis, and Pancreatic Cancer.

And yet more evidence of the harm that antibiotics can cause - this time painful neurological effects.

Psychiatric drug takers are unaware of the risks to their health.

The once-upon-a-time 'entirely safe' Statin drugs - that can now cause prostate cancer!

Drug cocktails can seriously damage your health! So do you take more than one drug?

Can antibiotics taken in pregnancy really lead to autism? And if so, how long will it be before the link is seriously investigated? And how long before the ConMed Establishment admits it?

And how quietly the NHS has changed from the Cervarix vaccine to Gardisil! I wonder why? 

     Is it because Cervarix has been such a disaster in the UK -as demonstrated in this case? 

     Or is it because Gardisil has been more successful elsewhere? This seems unlikely!

     And Gardasil has certainly been a problem in Australia!

So, certainly, I am not alone in predicting more tragedy for British teenagers!

So, perhaps our government, the NHS, Big Pharma, and the Conventional Medical Establishment is just not aware?

Or, more likely, is it that they are just not prepared to help making us aware?

The Failure of Conventional Medicine.

The Failure of Conventional Medicine (4)

Big Pharma does not want you to know about the damage their drugs and vaccines cause to our lives. 

Instead, they want us to keep taking the medicine. regardless of the consequences. They seem intent on maintaining their profitability, regardless of the human consequences. The conventional medical establishment, including most GPs, also refuse to tell us about the dangers of the drugs and vaccines they prescribe to use

This is a must-see internet article, which includes 3 videos: it is entitled 'What Vaccines can do to normal, healthy children'.
Drugs cause disease (as well as death), and there are many well-known examples of this. But with vaccines, this evidence can be dramatically witnessed. Child Health Safety have recently published an article that features 3 videos, prepared by parents who saw their 'normal' children permanently damaged shortly after taking vaccines. How does Big Pharma, and its apologists respond. Often with silence. Often with dismissal - that these cases are 'anacdotal'. Often with denial - there is no evidence linking the drug/vaccine with the result. And often with over-emphasising the seriousness of the illness the drug/vaccine is supposed to overcome. Rarely, unless seriously cornered, is Big Pharma, or the ConMed Establishment that supports it, prepared to remove the drug/vaccine in the interests of patient safety. So watch these videos, and see whether you agree with the parents - or the medical authorities!

Children who have been vaccinated have been found to have from 2 to 5 times more diseases and ailments than unvaccinated children. I have been told that this research is 'not sound' - to which my response is -why is the ConMed Establishment not doing its own research on the impact of vaccines on the health of our children. And of course, rubbishing 'negative' research is a regular part of Big Pharma's defence when they are accused of making us sick.

But regardless of the quality of some studies on the harm caused by ConMed drugs, the suspicions remain. Not least, the link between vaccines and Autism. This article suggests that vaccinated children are 20 times more likely to become Autistic. But the article does much more than this. It looks at the evidence for an increase risk of Allergies, Asthma, Hayfever, ADHD, middle-ear infections, and Sinusitis - and in each finds that vaccinated children fare worse than unvaccinated children.

Avandia is another drug that has cause massive problems. Recently, one Big Pharma company has paid out $3 billion in settlement for the way the drug was developed and marketed. Basically, they knew that this drug caused heart disease - but did not tell anyone. Note that this is a Reuters (News Agency) report. Yet the news has gone almost unreported in the mainstream media, who apparently don't consider that the safety of patients is something that should concern them. This is not unusual. There is a steady stream of litigation in the USA courts, regularly handing out heavy fines to Big Pharma companies. And mostly, they remain unreported. ConMed is failing - but we are the last to hear about it. To quote Reuters, who outlines some of these cases:

               Since 2000 the number of industry settlements with U.S. states and the federal government has soared as authorities have taken an increasingly tough line on practices that may have put commercial goals above the interests of payers and patients, such as marketing drugs for unapproved uses.

Psychotropic drugs cause psychosis and death? This category of drug includes Prozac, Paxil, Ritalin, Haldol, Risperdal - and many more. They are known to cause heart attacks, diabetes, and sudden death, whilst on the mental side, they are known to cause insomnia and anxiety - but are also implicated in suicide, and violence - including murder amongst 'traumatized combat veterans.

Prostate cancer drugs can spur the growth of prostate cancer cells? Hearing about ConMed drugs that exacerbate the very condition they are given for is, unfortunately, not unusual. This article is, apparently, very topical at the moment - with a 'moustache growing' campaign currently in operation to develop awareness of prostate cancer. Is this a good thing? Well, not if the money raised through charitable donations go towards developing more dangerous Big Pharma drugs! Or, indeed, raising the profile of prostate cancer on the basis of a medical scare story. What is becoming clear is that prostate cancer is contracted by most men over the age of 50, and that most of them will outlive it naturally. Taking ConMed drugs, it would appear, is the way to ensure that you don't!

Another thing to beware of is that many health charities raise money to donate to Big Pharma specifically for the development of new drugs. And most of these charities get major funding from Big Pharma companies as a result. So before supporting any medical charity, first find out its connections with such powerful vested commercial interests that have profit, rather than your health, as their primary objective.

And we should not expect that the drug regulators will stand up to protect patients from dangerous Big Pharma drugs. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) are currently facing a fraud investigation. This article is taken from the appropriately named organisation "What Doctors Don't Tell You" - and of course, we are unlikely to hear about this from doctors, the NHS, the Department of Health, the government. The diabetes drug, Mediator, had been on the European market for 33 years. It was withdrawn in 2009, after being implicated in about 2,000 deaths. Yet the problems associated with the drug, it caused fatal heart problems, had been known about for over 10 years. The EMA was formed in 1995 to harmonise drug regulation in the EY. You will not be surprised that 80% of its funding comes from the Big Pharma companies.

Another regulatory agency, in the USA, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been found to have deliberately manipulated and covered up the relationship between Thimerosal in vaccines and Autism. In 2003, the journal Pediatrics, published a study from Denmark that observed a significant decline in autism rates following the elimination of Thimerosal in vaccines. "But thanks to the CDCs corrupting influece, the published version of the study ....  actually claimed the opposite, and alleged that removal of Thimerosal brought about an increase in autism rates". It would appear that anything is possible within the world of Big Pharma drugs and vaccines, and that the only casualty are the patients who take these drugs without having full information about them.

But this is not the only problem facing the CDC at the moment. There is an investigation into how this government backed organisation is spending US taxpayers money. "Although the CDC's main mission is supposed to be to prevent disease, a shocking investigation from Congress claims the profiteering agency has been squandering hundreds of millions of your tax dollars on Hollywood scripts, posh fitness clubs and amenities, parties and more".

And the former head of CDC, Julie Berberding (2002-2009), who was removed from her $250,000 post by President Obama, moved straight into a post with the Big Pharma giant, Merck, on a salary of $2,500,000. This article from Tim Bolen states that Berberding re-organised the CDC to help promote vaccines. If so, it appears to have been a profitable move for her. Berberding's other claim to fame, apparently, was that she refused to respond with full disclosure following a Freedom of Information request - which apparently would have revealed that the CDC knew about the dangers of vaccines many years ago.

Given all this, it is perhaps little wonder that it can take decades before the dangers of the drugs and vaccines we are offered are fully known. For instance, Amalgam contains mercury, and dentists have been putting this most-toxic of all poisons in our mouths for many decades now. How many of you have amalgam fillings in your mouth? Probably, most of us, especially if we visited the dentist during the 1970's and 1980's, when dentist were paid according to how many fillings they gave us! So whilst it is good to hear that there are signs that in the USA, amalgam fillings may soon be banned. Amalgam has been around for over 3 decades - and whilst moves may be afoot to ban its use in the the USA, in the UK there appears to be no such movement.

So how can the patient ensure that he or she is is safe, and not taking dangerous Big Pharma drugs? The answer becomes clear with just a little thought. Are we likely to be told by Government, the Department of Health, the NHS, or our own GP? Are drug regulators actively regulating drugs in the interests of patients?Are we likely to be warned about dangers of drugs and vaccines by the mainstream media? Are the drugs we are being prescribed today likely to be any better than the drugs we were taking 10 years ago, and which are now banned?

The answer, of course, is an emphatic 'No' to all this. Which can lead us to only one proper conclusion. We are all better off refusing to take any Big Pharma's drugs and vaccines, and instead, to look for safer alternatives.

The e-book, 'Failure of Conventional Medicine'.

The Failure of Conventional Medicine (3)

The dishonesty of the Conventional Medical Establishment is not widely appreciated or understood. Doctors (GPs) are usually found to be one of the most trusted professions, surely they would not intentionally give us drugs that cause disease and death - would they?

Indeed, most would not, but unfortunately they are at the very end of a long trail of corruption, deceit, and dishonesty that can be found in the following internet articles - although, of course, the mainstream media refuse to report them to us.

How the medical monopoly hides inconvenient vaccines truths is a good place to start.
What is not reported in the media is as important as what is reported. And what has become clear to me over the last few years is that the mainstream media is not interested in providing us with any evidence that runs counter to what conventional medicine wants us to know.

     Media control is highly valued by Big Pharma and other monopolistic cartels. Since the 1970s, centralized media ownership, CIA intervention, and federally sanctioned pharmaceutical advertising have made owning the media easier for Big Pharma.


As Dr Mercola says in this article, for over a century Big Pharma have created and enjoyed a lucrative monopoly in health care. And they have done it by forming alliances with doctors, politicians, and scientists both within and outside government. So it is not just a medical monopoly we fight - it is a government sponsored monopoly. So what happens when people begin to refuse to 'take the medicine'? Government seeks to force them on us. And in doing so, they take our medical liberties away from us, and force medication on us.

The Media speaks for Big Pharma. Well, it certainly does not speak up for patients. Statin drugs are now known to cause many disease-inducing-effects (DIEs), yet the Media not only refuses to tell us about this, they continue to tell us how good they are - now, apparently, they protect us from Prostate Cancer! The mainstream media have become publicists for BigPharma - propagandists who are willing to publish ConMed news releases without comment or criticism - and fearful of printing the truth.

The reason for the silence of Government and the Media is that Big Pharma is very profitable.  The huge profits made from selling drugs are used to ensure that little of nothing is known about the dangers of these drugs. We, and patients throughout the world, are meant to be no more than consumers.

The 'Occupy' movements throughout the world, including at St Paul's in London, are campaigning against the power of Big Corporations, and the influence they have on our daily lives. This video explains why Big Pharma companies are probably the most dangerous of these big corporate groups - threatening not only our health, but increasingly, our health liberties. Whilst banking may be the focus of media attention, it is Big Pharma that has control of our government, and is making enforced medication an ever-increasing possibility.

And Big Pharma does not just want to sell their drugs to you - they want to stop you having access to homeopathy (and any other alternative medical therapy) too. Just look at this article, from the GP magazine, to see how Boots in being attacked by ConMed apologists! The movement to stop us getting access to vitamins and supplements is now operational throughout the world. The monopoly wishes to extend its monopoly.

So let's now have a look at some of the articles about what we are not being told about the health services offered to us by Big Pharma, ConMed, the NHS - and our doctors.

On blood pressure, or hypertension drugs? Then look at this video.

Did you know that overdosing on painkilling drugs have tripled in 10 years?

Has anyone told you that Contraceptive pills are linked to breast cancer?

Recently, we have had 'breast cancer awareness week' - but this article tells you of a darker side. And a more positive side which you are less likely to hear about. Guess which side Big Pharma prescription drugs lay on!

And Antibiotics? Contrary to what we have been told for over 50 years, antibiotics are not all they have said to be (and this is a fairly mild critique)

And has anyone told you that routine hospital treatments can cause heart attacks?

And if you have heart disease, it seems best to steer clear of drugs ConMed gives you to treat it. Especially, it would seem, if you are a dog!

The evidence against vaccines is growing by the day, although you won't realise this if you obtain your information from the mainstream media. The Greater Good is a long video that seeks to take a 'balanced' view of vaccination. If you are thinking of taking, or allowing your children to take any form of vaccines, please, please look at this first!


And so it goes on, a medical monopoly, out of control, but in control of governments and politicians, a monopoly that has little or nothing to do with good health. We are not well-served by this medical monopoly, or its complacent allies in Government and the mainstream Media.

If you are concerned about this situation, ensure you see next weeks edition of this newsletter, when more evidence from the internet will be brought together and revealed. Better still, why not subscribe to this blog, and get an email each week to let you know when it has been published.

The Failure of Conventional Medicine

The Failure of Conventional Medicine

Conventional medicine is failing because it is both ineffective and highly dangerous for patients. 

Yet, the public are not being given the evidence of this catastrophic failure. Governments, National Health Services throughout the world, doctors, and perhaps most alarmingly of all, the mainstream media, are failing to tell us about the gross failings of the ConMed Establishment, and of Big Pharma drugs in particular.

Each week, this blog will collect together a series of articles from the internet that demonstrate this failure, and the underlying reason for an increasing number of people looking for non-drug medical therapies that are both safer and more effective.

Big Pharma drugs - the new epidemic sweeping across America (and Europe too)?
Did you know, for instance, that Big Pharma prescription drugs now kill more people than illegal drugs? Indeed, pharmaceutical drugs have become the biggest single cause of death in the USA.

Fresh doubts over flu vaccines
Click on this link if you did not know about the increasing doubts about the safety and effectiveness of flu vaccine we are all being exorted to take. No such doubts have been seen in the mainstream media - we have just been told of the benefits of the vaccine? Did you know, for example, that whilst doctor's might be recommending you to have the vaccine, doctor's themselves, in huge numbers, are refusing to have one?

Show us the evidence for the flu jab.
In fact, doctors are even asking the government, who are criticising them, to provide them with the evidence that the flu vaccine is effective.

Flu vaccines effective in 1.5% cases - not 60% as we have been told
The concern about the effectiveness of the flu vaccine is shown in this 'shock vaccine study'! A shock, of course, only if you have not discovered the truth about ConMed, and the length's Big Pharma will go to sell their drugs.

Flu? There is a better defence
And why aren't we all being told that there are better, safer, more effective alternatives to flu vaccines?

20 Vaccine 'Trivia' Facts
Of course, vaccines have never been safe. No vaccine. Is this right? Have a look at this article from Vactruth, which outlines just 20 examples when vaccines have proven to be either useless, dangerous, or both. Vactruth is one of the foremost websites investigating the dangers of vaccines, and seeking to educate a misinformed public.

US Government Agency has known all along how dangerous vaccines are
Or perhaps look at this, from Tim Bolen's website, frightening evidence that government agencies know about the dangers of vaccines, but haven't been prepared to tell us.

Vaccines and the increasing rate of Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Cancer
This sort of negative evidence about vaccines, though, is coming out all the time though - so we don't have to look at the history of vaccine cover-ups in order to know that they are linked with patient harm, and the increasing rate of diseases of all kinds.

Healthy babies given dangerous and unnecessary drugs
Or, how often are we told about Big Pharma giving us drugs when we do not need them? And it would appear that not even healthy babies are not safe.

ADHD Drugs are a common source of drug reaction.
Of course, children are more susceptible to the disease-inducing-effects of drugs, and this link states that ADHD medication cause substantial adverse reactions in children.

NHS Breast Screening programme under review
And it is not just drugs that are a problem. What about useless tests that lead to taking toxic drugs - unnecessarily? Well, the BBC did report on this (26th October 2011). But the point it not just that the test is 'being questioned' but that lot's of women, who did not need treatment for breast cancer, received it - despite its toxicity and dangers.  Of course, in their reporting, the BBC did not focus on this, or inform us about the dangers (and sheer nastiness) of ConMed cancer treatment.

Pfizer pays $14.5 million to settle Detrol off-label suit
So do Big Pharma tell us that their drugs are dangerous? Of course not, they are in business to make money by selling drugs. Big Pharma companies are regularly paying out $millions of dollars in compensation for the dangerous drugs they provide for patients. In some parts of the more litigious world, they abound. And if you want more - here is another example (there are many, many more). My question is - shouldn't patients be told before they are harmed by such drugs?  But again, we rarely, if ever, hear about these dangers.

So why the cover-up? By government? By government health agencies? By the NHS? By our doctors? And above all, by the mainstream media? Why do we not hear about these compensation payments? And, indeed, who pays to set up these cover-up's?

On BBC Radio, on 25th October 2011, I heard a programme discussing the cost of treatment for Macular Degeneration. One treatment, they said, was cheaper, but it had 'side-effects'. However, not once did the programme tell the listeners what the 'side-effects' of this drug (Avastin) were!

The BBC, like most of the mainstream media, does this all the time - it salutes new wonder drugs - but never tells us about the damage drugs do to us. The question is - why? Who is controlling the BBC? Here are a couple of articles on the subject that the BBC certainly did not use.

Can using Avastin for Macular Degeneration cause blindness?
So Avastin can cause blindness? Yes, a drug used for a condition that can cause blindness is actually being treated by a drug that causes blindness! Somehow, this does not seem to be a good deal - at any price! This is especially so as Avastin has also been associated with causing fatal brain inflammation!

Macular Degeneration affects nearly 15 million Americans leading patients to seek alternative healthcare solutions
Nor, of course, did the BBC say anything about alternative treatments. This article states that there are 15 million people with Macular Degeneration in the USA alone - and that many people are seeking alternative therapy. The article focuses on Acupuncture - but homeopathy, and many other therapies, are a safer alternative to Avastin.

Parents call for ban on family of antibiotics

I bet most of you thought that antibiotics were entirely safe! Well they are not (several antibiotics have been withdrawn or banned in the past because they have been found to be dangerous. This blog is taken from the aptly named magazine, "What Doctors Don't Tell You". This is a valuable source of information on what we, as patients, are never told by the ConMed Establishment, and I certainly recommend that you take out a subscription for this magazine.

          "Patients are pressing for a complete ban on a family of antibiotics that can kill or cause blindness and heart disaese. Yet, despite these alarming - and well-known - reactions doctors continue to prescribe them every day.


          Fluoroquinolones or quinolones - which include antibiotics such as Cipro, Legaquin, Avelox, Tequin, Trovan and Raxar - arre the most toxic and dangerous drugs on the market today, says David Fuller, who runs a website to support others who, like himself, have been harmed by these drugs. He was been left with partial vision and permanent damage to his joints after taking one of the antibiotics for pneumonia in 1986.


          Fuller says that no one is recoding the numbers of deaths and serious adverse reactions caused by the drugs, and he believes the problem is far worse than regulators are admittin. So far, five fluoroquinolones have been taken off the market after they were found to cause fatal heart problems.
www.fqresearch.org

Please go to the website for more horrifying details on what Big Pharma, and Conventional Medicine is doing to us - and not telling us!

For more information about the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and the Failure of ConMed, click here.

Violence and Pharmaceutical Drugs

Antidepressants are not the only drugs known to cause violence. The anti-smoking drug Chantix, or Champix (depending on where you live) has also been linked to more than 100 reports of suicide, and 400 reports of violence. 

The drug users were associated with 18 times the number of cases of violence than an average person. Because of these reports, the FDA obliged the manufacturer, Pfizer, to put a 'black box' warning on the drug. This is what the FDA said about the drug.

          “Chantix has been linked to serious neuro-psychiatric problems including changes in behaviour, agitation, depressed moods, suicidal ideation and suicide. The drug can cause an existing psychiatric illness to worsen or an old psychiatric illness to recur and the symptoms can recur even after the drug is discontinued.”

ASH, the anti-smoking organisation, with links to Big Pharma, recently recommended smokers to use this drug, and the Big Brother Watch website has brought my attention to this situation.

http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/2011/04/anti-smoking-lobby-recommends-drug-linked-to-numerous-deaths.html

Rising reports of bad reactions to pharmaceutical drugs

This new study confirms my impression that conventional medicine, and Big Pharma drugs, are getting more dangerous. The study states that official reports of 'negative reactions' to prescription drugs have increased dramatically over the last decade.
http://whtc.com/news/articles/2011/mar/28/rising-reports-of-bad-reactions-to-drugs/

          "Between 2000 and 2010, the number of reports coming in grew steadily by more than 11 percent every year. By 2010, they added up to 2.2 million reports - 55 percent of the entire database total".

The study looked at official FDA figures, but what has to be remembered is that it is estimated that only 10% of adverse reactions (DIEs) are reported to these regulatory agencies, not least because conventional mEDICAL practitioners spend a great deal of their time denying that the drugs they have prescribed could possibly have caused any problems!

I suspect the conventional medical establishment will respond to this in the normal way! More people are taking the drugs! More people are reporting side effects (or DIEs)! But one way or another, conventional medicine is just a very dangerous form of medicine.

The Failure of the NHS

Why has the NHS failed? Why does it spend over £100 billion annually, and still struggle to meet the level of patient demand in the UK? Why is chronic disease (almost any chronic disease you wish to mention) at record, epidemic levels? Why is there constant managerial and structural changes to the NHS?

These questions have never been answered with any clarity or certainty. Do we need to spend more? Do we need to change the management structure again?

No! We need to stop spending money on a medical system that has failed, has always been a failure, and which will continue to fail. For those who want to look more deeply into this, go to the following website.

The Failure of Conventional Medicine

Pharmaceutical Drugs. The news that the mainstream media won't tell you!

The mainstream media does not tell you the truth. Certainly not the whole truth. There are a plethora of new stories, week after week, that do not hit the headlines; or even get a mention. These are just some that have come to light recently.

1. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/01/18/pfizer-accused-of-massive-corruption-in-killing-african-children.asp


U.S. diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks show that drugmaker Pfizer hired investigators to find evidence of corruption against Nigeria's attorney general, in an effort to convince him to drop legal action against the company.

2. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/01/18/sixty-minutes-exposes-why-you-cant-trust-drug-companies.aspx

Drug company whistle-blower Cheryl Eckard talks about her experience trying to fix problems at GlaxoSmithKline.  Her discoveries about the dangerous practices of the company made her a key figure in a federal lawsuit.

3. http://gaia-health.com/articles351/000385-multaq-fda-approved-killing-people.shtml       Multaq, A Fraudulently Approved Heart Drug, Is Killing People.  Another drug is killing people. There's no reason for surprise, though. The testing process showed what was wrong. The dangers were predictable.

4. http://www.stclairrecord.com/news/232617-pfizer-and-others-named-in-st.-clair-county-suit-over-dilantin 

Pfizer and others named in St. Clair County suit over Dilantin. Residents of St. Clair County, New York and Louisiana joined to file a suit against the makers of drugs used to treat epilepsy, saying it caused them or their deceased relatives to develop a severe and potentially deadly skin disease.

The media has its advertising revenues to protect, and advertising drugs and related chemicals is a big part of that revenue. It would appear that drug companies can be found to be involved in corrupt practices, selling drugs that cause disease and death, and much else - and yet it is of little concern or interest to the mainstream media, certainly in the UK.

Anyone who is taking ConMed drugs, and does not know about this kind of news, which unfortunately applies to most people taking Big Pharma drugs in the UK, should research for themselves what is happening in the world of ConMed health. Sadly, the information is usually only available on the internet. These incidents are not one-off, isolated incidents; they are not errors or mistakes.

The drug industry has an established culture of selling drugs that pays little regard to human health, and often has disastrous consequences to our health.

Fluorine is a poison, and it's in your drugs!

It is well known that Fluorine is a poison 'that has no place in any living metabolism'. So what does Big Pharma do? They put it in their drugs. You don't believe me? Well look at this article.

http://gaia-health.com/articles351/000365-fluorine-poison-rampant-pharmaceuticals.shtml

The primary purpose of Big Pharma is to make money, big money. It is not to make you better. In fact, if they can persuade you to take their drugs, and you get ill, that is more profitable - because they can give you more of their toxic drugs for the new illness.

If you and your family want safe medicine, the first thing you need to do is to stop taking the pharmaceutical drugs, and stop believing what ConMed is telling you about your health.

Rubbing Out Homeopathy

There are two fundamental questions about the health debate during the last few years.

First, why is Conventional Medicine so bad, so dangerous? Why is it allowed to kill so many people every year without there being any reaction, by governments, by National Health Services, by Medics, and little or no action to do anything about it? And why is the mainstream media, throughout the world, so quiet about the inherent dangers of Conventional Medicine?

Second, why has homeopathy been under such attack during the last 5-6 years? It has never harmed anyone. In previous decades it had operated quietly, and unostentatiously for people who wanted to use a safer and more effective form of medicine. Why have brigades of homeopathy denialists sprung up, making such loud noises, without making any sense or addressing the real health issues, and having no positive message to give themselves? And who is paying the denialists to take part in such negative activity?

John Benneths blog, 'Rubbing Out Homeopathy', is an important one in this respect, and I urge you to read it. You can find it at:

http://johnbenneth.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/rubbing-out-homeopathy/

I am not usually a supporter of 'conspiracy' theories, but John has unveiled evidence, through WikiLeaks, that suggests people in high places have been convinced of the need to reduce world population, may be thinking of using the uselessness and dangerousness of Conventional Medicine to assist them, and don't want homeopathy to get in the way of their plans.

Dirty Medicine and Martin J Walker

Martin J Walker's book, Dirty Medicine, first awakened me to the full horrors of Conventional Medicine. It was first published in 1993. Since that time, Martin has published many more books that delve into the indescribably dirty world of conventional medicine.

If you want fully to open your eyes to the lengths Conventional Medicine will go to deceive governments, national health services, and millions of patients, Martin's books should be your first port of call. It took me months to find a copy of Dirty Medicine. Fortunately, they are now more easily available through Martin's website, where his books are listed. Go to:

http://www.slingshotpublications.com/books1.html

Higher US drug spending has not improved health

This should be no surprise. ConMed drugs actually cause illness and disease, so the more spent on them, the unhealthier a nation is likely to become. It is the same in the UK. Drugs are the cause of the epidemic of chronic disease in the last 60 years, or so, during which time ConMed drug consumption has increased rapidly.

US healthcare spending is higher than that of most other developed nations - totaling roughly $7,290 per person according to Natural News.

http://www.NaturalNews.com/z030324_drug_spending_health.html


But this has not translated into better health, according to two new studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which found that higher spending on drugs can actually spur doctors to over-prescribe drugs to patients who do not need them.


The question is, perhaps, who does need them!
Yuting Zhang and her colleagues from the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health did not observe a connection between higher spending on drugs and improved care. As she said, 

"Higher spending can be justified if it's for drugs that are necessary and appropriate and improve patients' health." But much of the time, higher spending actually causes more problems.

I would only disagree with the first sentence, not the second. I put forward this idea, quite tentatively in my ebook, The Failure of Conventional Medicine. 

But there is now so much evidence that being 'tentative' is no longer necessary. Big Pharma drugs cause illness and disease. So spending money to increase consumption is bound to make us less healthy.

The threat of homeopathy to the Conventional Medical Establishment

I have long since argued that homeopathy was under attack because it was effective, and therefore constituted a threat to Conventional Medicine, and Big Pharma companies in particular. What is being demonstrated day-after-day is that Conventional Medicine is in crisis. They are not only useless, in most cases, they are positively dangerous. And as people realise this, they look for safer, and more effective medical therapies. Homeopathy is the most prominent of these therapies.

I have argued this in my e-book, and should you want to see the whole argument, this is available (free of charge) at The Failure of Conventional Medicine.

For a shorter, but equally powerful version of the argument, do look at John Benneth's blog, which can be found at http://johnbenneth.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/the-threat-of-homeopathy/

Statins; useless for over 80's!

ConMed have told us for years that these drugs were so effective (and safe) everyone should take them. Now, the truth begins to emerge! ConMed drugs have little or nothing to offer anyone!

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=4127555&cid=Latest_headlines_2_011110&sp_rid=NDE0NjI1MDQzMgS2&sp_mid=35938648

Radiation Therapy. Is it safe?

My blog often highlights ConMed drugs because they cause disease and kill. But what about other ConMed 'therapies'? Radiation therapy is increasing, for a variety of testing and treatments. Are they safe? I have recently come across this - from the New York Times, giving access to a variety of articles examining the issues that are arising from the increasing use of medical radiation, and the technologies that deliver it. It makes frightening reading. 


http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/us/series/radiation_boom/index.html?ref=health

Topics include:
After stroke scans, patients face serious new health risks
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/health/01radiation.html?_r=1&ref=radiation_boom
Radiation faces new cures, and new way to harm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html?ref=radiation_boom
As technology surges, radiation safeguards lag
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/27radiation.html?ref=radiation_boom

To support these growing concerns, and to show that they are not new, this is an extract from Kevin Morris's book, called "It's only a disease; how I fought terminal cancer and won" which features the history of the treatment of cancer with radiotherapy.

"The story of radiotherapy's rise to prominence as a cancer treatment is 
a fascinating one. James Douglas of the Phelps-Dodge copper mining 
company, set up the National Radium Institute in 1913. At the same time, 
he made a massive, one hundred thousand- dollar gift to Memorial 
Hospital in the United States. As the hospital was in serious financial 
difficulties, Douglas' gift was most welcome, but it came with several 
strings attached. He insisted that the hospital only treat cancer 
patients, that it routinely offer radium treatment, and he also 
installed his friend as chief pathologist and later as medical director. 
The Memorial went on to become one of the main cancer research and 
treatment centres in the States and radiation treatment was on offer 
there from the beginning. Douglas' shrewd moves placed the Memorial 
Hospital in the position of being a distribution centre for the radium 
produced by his mining interests.

In 1902, the first incidence of a human cancer brought about by 
X-radiation was noted and in 1906 it was suggested that exposure to 
radiation from radium could cause leukaemia. By 1911, 94 cases of 
radiation induced cancer had been reported, more than half of them in 
doctors or technicians. In 1911, 94 cases of cancer caused by radiation 
had been noted. Despite these serious cautions, doctors appeared to be 
swayed into using it by the profit motive. In 1914, one doctor told the 
New York Times that,

"Something is created which kills many patients. I cannot tell, nobody 
can tell, for four or five years just what the results will be. I simply 
feel that I've shoved these patients over a little quicker." /The sting 
in the tail came in the doctor's comment that '/I can double my money in 
a year while charging 4 cents per milligram per hour.' New York Times, 
January 27 1914.


What Kevin suggests here is that the concerns about radiation have been around for a long time - and that ConMed does not seem to learn from its many, regular mistakes that put patients at risk.

Death by Medicine

What is wrong with Conventional Medicine? Sometimes, you come across an article on the web that so concisely and comprehensively explains something you wonder why you need to write anything else. "Death by Medicine" covers the whole subject so well it is a must read for anyone who is looking for safe medicine.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm

Do have a look.

Why the constant attacks on homeopathy?

The simple, and most obvious answer is that homeopathy is coming under attack because it is successful, and ConMed and Big Pharma does not like it. Think the reverse, if it was not successful, no-one would bother to attack it (and it would have died out years ago).

This article is one of the best I have seen, not only outlining the reasons for the hostility homeopathy generates, but going over the attacks it has suffered now for over two centuries.

You can find it at:
http://www.homeopathyheals.me.uk/site/featured/565-why-the-constant-attacks-on-homeopathy

Here is a short extract.

"In 1854 there was a cholera epidemic in London but when the House of Commons asked to see a report about the methods of treatment, patients who had received homeopathic treatment at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, were not included. The House of Lords then demanded an explanation and it was later shown that under conventional medical care the death rate was 59.2 per cent but for patients under homeopathic care, only 9 per cent!"

The  history of homeopathy is littered with such examples of prejudice by the ConMed profession, which cannot stand the fact that homeopathy is, and always has been, more successful in treating patients successfully.