Malaria. A 'terrifying prospect' of a parasite in SE Asia that is now resistant to drugs, and spreading rapidly

Malaria is in the news again. Apparently malarial parasites that have become resistant to key pharmaceutical drugs have spread rapidly in South East Asia, according to researchers from the UK and Thailand. The parasites have moved from Cambodia to Laos, Thailand and Vietnam, and first-choice drugs are no longer working. The researchers say that their findings raise a "terrifying prospect" that this drug-resistent parasite could spread to the African continent.

This is yet another example of the failure of conventional medicine.

It is the BBC, yet again, who are promoting this story. Their health journalists have a fascination with the disease, often shamelessly promoting the pharmaceutical drugs that are used to treat malaria. As recently as July 2018 the BBC was promoting the drug Tafenoquine as "a phenomenal achievement". Presumably the malaria parasite did not agree with this assessment!

Only a few years earlier, in October 2013, the BBC were extolling the virtues of a new vaccine for malaria. This vaccine was presented to us then as the answer to the problem of malaria. Now? Not a mention. One must ask what has happened to this wonder drug.

And  I still remember the disgracefully biased BBC Newsnight programme, broadcast on 4th January 2011, in which KirstyWark described conventional pharmaceutical drug treatment for Malaria as 'proper medicine' (which of course meant that homeopathy was not 'proper medicine'), and carried out a deeply hostile interview with a homeopath, her message, "How dare homeopathy claim that it can treat malaria?"

Malaria was the subject of one of the most popular, and most revisited pages on this blog; It was written in November 2012, entitled "The Prevention and Treatment of Malaria with Homeopathy". The reason for its popularity is, no doubt, that people are looking for safer and more effective treatment for malaria than Kirsty's 'proper medicine' can now deliver. Certainly the failure of conventional medicine to treat malaria is bad news for those people living in areas where the disease is rife, or to people who visit those areas. For them malaria is really a 'terrifying prospect'.

The good news is that homeopathy continues to work in preventing and treating malaria. There is no resistance to it. It is doing so in small schemes operating in various parts of Africa and elsewhere. The success of these schemes, tiny as they are, continues to be reassuring. When conventional medicine says that "there is no effective treatment" for malaria it really should be saying that there is no effective conventional treatment for malaria with pharmaceutical drugs (and vaccines too)!

So for anyone looking for a treatment for malaria have a look at homeopathy. First, have a look at my "Why Homeopathy?" website. Then book an appointment with a local homeopath.

Yet a work of caution. After Kirsty Wark's 'sting' on homeopathy in 2011 any homeopath you contact may seem to be rather cautious, and unforthcoming. You will need to assure him/her that you are a genuine patient, who has a genuine need for treatment for malaria.

Tafenoquine. A new pharmaceutical drug for Malaria

The BBC announced proudly this morning (23 July 2018) that there is a new pharmaceutical drug for the treatment of Malaria. 

• More good news from our public broadcaster and its health unit?
• Another wonder drug that will change our experience of another disease?
• Or just another piece of free advertising for the drug company (GSK)?

The BBC article can be seen here but the information has feature on both television and radio news too. Smitha Mundasad, a Senior Health Journalist at BBC News, wrote the article. She informs us that it is a new drug to treat malaria, it has been given the green light by USA drug regulator, the FDA, and it is specifically for treating "the recurring form of malaria caused by the parasite plasmodium vivax". She states that the condition makes 8.5 million people ill each year, and that this type of malaria is a particular challenge to get rid of as it can remain dormant in the liver for years before reawakening many times.

She goes on to say that scientists have described tafenoquine as a "phenomenal achievement" - a statement she does not question or discuss. She says that the drug can flush the parasite out of its hiding place in the liver and stop people getting it again. There is another drug that can do this, primaquine, but this has to be taken for 14 days. With tafenoquine only one dose is necessary.

BBC coverage did mention that "there are important side effects to be aware of" and mentions people with "an enzyme problem, called G6PD deficiency" who should not take the drug as it can cause severe anaemia. They also said that there are concerns that at higher doses "can be a problem for people with psychiatric illnesses".

Not much to worry about then, certainly nothing that the BBC has bothered to look into, or to let us know about. Ms Mudasad said that the drug "will help reduce the amount of vivax malaria in the world". To support this she quoted Professor Ric Price, of Oxford University

               "The ability to get rid of the parasite in the liver with a single dose of tafenoquine is a phenomenal achievement and in my mind it represents one of the most significant advances in malaria treatment in the last 60 years."

Dr Hal Barron, president of research and development at GSK, was then quoted as saying that the drug "was a significant milestone for people living with this type of relapsing malaria" and that "we believe Krintafel will be an important medicine for patients with malaria and contribute to the ongoing effort to eradicate this disease."

All excellent stuff then. Anyone viewing, listening or reading BBC News coverage will be delighted. Another disease eradicated!

Yet this is what the BBC always does. It is keen to announce new 'wonder' drugs that will eradicate disease, and it does so with stunning regularity. And the BBC never looks beyond what they are told by the drug companies, or by academic staff who form part of the conventional medical establishment. 

In October 2013 I blogged that the BBC was promoting a GSK vaccine for malaria. I wonder whatever happened to that? This is journalism of the very worst kind, lazy journalism, inadequate journalism - fake news?

Malaria drugs are a disaster, and they have been a disaster for decades. Even a BBC journalist might be expected to know this! So I did a simple web search, something I must assume Smitha Mundasad, and the BBC, did not do.

This Science Direct website page mentions the research into the drug, and mentions some of its known side effects. The Drug.com website outlines the dreadful and serious side effects of Mefloquire (Lariam), which is apparently closely related to Tefenoquine. 

Please read these pages, and compare them to the side effects the BBC has decided to let us know about!

Then, search on, look at the Sydney Morning Herald's article (April 2016) entitled "Australian military doctors were warned about the dangers of using an experimental antimalarial drug on soldiers while in the midst of a coordinated trial under investigation by the ADF watchdog." In this article soldiers state that the drug programme "has scarred them" and that defence documents have "revealed long-held concerns about the drug". Tefenoquine, it states, remains banned in Australia and has been linked to blood cell damage and anaemia.

So the BBC is promoting a drug banned in Australia!

Then look at the Facebook page of the Australian Mefloquine and Tafeoquine Veterans, providing evidence for fraudulent medical studies, the individual stories soldiers have to tell, and the sheer anger that exists within the group towards the pharmaceutical companies that have damaged their lives.

And then move on to the Facebook page of the International Mefloquine Veterans Alliance. which talks of the "Scientific Misconduct in the Australian Army Malaria Institute’s Clinical Trials of Tafenoquine".

Then, if you are not already sufficiently horrified, reread today's BBC coverage. Is it accurate? Is it honest? Does it tell you and me what we need to know about these '...oquine' malaria drugs? 

The BBC is a public service broadcaster, but as far as health is concerned it consistently fails to provide the British public with no 'service' whatsoever - just unlimited, unchecked drug company propaganda. There can be only two excuses for the BBC in not providing us with proper, full and accurate information. Either

• they do not know about the dangerous nature and history of antimalarial drugs.
• they do know about this, but have again failed to inform us, the public.

If it is the former the BBC are negligent, asleep on duty. 

If it is the latter the BBC is guilty of gross negligence.

Now Malaria Drugs are failing!

The effectiveness of conventional medicine is suffering another blow. Today, 31st January 2017, most mainstream media sources have carried the story that malaria is becoming drug resistant. The main drugs, used  in combination, to treat patients in the UK failed for four patients who had the tropical disease on returning to Britain. Although they worked, initially, all four were readmitted to hospital when the disease returned. They had to be treated with the antimalarial drug combination of artemether and lumefantrine.

The treatment of malaria has become a highly publicised issue in recent years, not least because the conventional medical establishment (and their friends in the organisation 'Sense about Science') objected to homeopathy treating the condition. It needed, they said in the words of Kirsty Wark, to be treated with 'proper' medicine! Well, it looks as though 'proper medicine is failing. I wrote about the homeopathic prevention and treatment of malaria in 2012

There appears to be no panic within conventional medical circles at the moment. The news release clearly says that conventional medicine has lots of other alternative drug treatment. Yet if this entirely true? Wikipedia talks about resistance to antimalerial drugs (all of them, not just this combination) and comments, simply, straightforwardly, that "Antimalarial resistance is common". So are we facing yet another group of pharmaceutical drugs that are becoming useless?

Yet in addition, all antimalerial drugs come with the most dreadful side effects. This particular combination, however, is apparently the treatment of choice. So let's examine the side effects of this 'treatment of choice' (taken from the Drugs.com website)

• Abdominal or stomach pain
• chills
• cough
• fast, irregular, pounding, or racing heartbeat or pulse
• fever
• headache
• muscle aches
• pale skin
• right upper abdominal or stomach pain and fullness
• sore throat
• stuffy or runny nose
• troubled breathing with exertion
• unusual bleeding or bruising
• unusual tiredness or weakness
• Accumulation of pus
• acid or sour stomach
• belching
• black, tarry stools
• bladder pain
• blood in the urine
• bloody or cloudy urine
• body aches or pain
• change in hearing
• chest pain
• cloudy urine
• convulsions
• cough producing mucus
• decreased urine
• diarrhea
• difficult, burning, or painful urination
• difficulty with breathing
• difficulty with swallowing
• dizziness
• dry mouth
• ear congestion
• ear drainage
• earache or pain in the ear
• frequent urge to urinate
• general feeling of discomfort or illness
• heartburn
• increased thirst
• indigestion
• joint pain
• loss of appetite
• loss of voice
• lower back or side pain
• mood changes
• muscle pain or cramps
• nasal congestion
• nausea or vomiting
• noisy breathing
• numbness or tingling in the hands, feet, or lips
• red rash with watery, yellow-colored, or pus filled blisters
• shivering
• shortness of breath
• sneezing
• sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
• stomach discomfort, upset, or pain
• sweating
• swollen glands
• swollen, red, tender area of infection
• thick yellow to honey-colored crusts
• tightness in the chest
• troubled with sleeping
• Incidence not known:
• Large, hive-like swelling on the face, eyelids, lips, tongue, throat, hands, legs, feet, or sex organs

If you examine the alternative drugs available to conventional medicine there are equally long and worrying lists of side effects to be found. In August 2013, the FDA announced that the antimalarial drug, mefloquine hydrochloride, is now known to cause "serious psychiatric and nerve side-effects". These can last for 'months to years' after taking the drug, and although the drug has not been withdrawn it now has 'Black Box' warning labels.

This is not good news for those people living in over 100 countries in Africa, Asia and Central America, or the 14 million people affected with malaria, or and 438,000 who died from it in 2015. Or, indeed, the 1,500 travellers who are diagnosed with it every year.

So the conventional medical treatment of malaria appears not only to be failing because of resistance. It is not, as Kirsty Wark would have had us believe in her notorious Newsnight programme in January 2012, "proper medicine". It is dangerous and failed medicine!

And Homeopathy, the medicine that Kirsty Wark, and the BBC attacked so vehemently, is still being used, throughout the world, still as safely and effectively as before. This should not come as a surprise. Homeopathy has been treating malaria for over 200 years, with no 'resistance' to the remedies that have been used during all that time.

To compare the homeopathic and conventional treatment of malaria, visit this 'Why Homeopathy?' webpage.

Anti-Malarial drug, Lariam. So after all this time it IS dangerous!

Lariam, or Mefloquine, or any one of the different names the conventional medical establishment has chosen to call it, has (at last) been recognised as being dangerous. It has taken a long time! The drug was developed by the USA army in the 1970's, and marketed from the mid-1980's. So it has taken over 30 years to come to this conclusion. Except, of course, that even now it is only the conclusion of the UK parliamentary defence committee - the Ministry of Defence still insists that it is a useful drug "as a last resort", the NHS remain silent, and the drug companies, predictably, continue to sell the drug to anyone foolish enough, or sufficiently ill-informed to know about its dangers. So the saga will no doubt continue for many more years to come.

Malaria is a dangerous and potentially fatal disease. Yet the prevention and treatment of Malaria does not require the use of dangerous pharmaceutical drugs like Lariam. I wrote about this in my blog "The Prevention and Treatment of Malaria with Homeopathy" in November 2012, pointing out the grave dangers of anti-malarial drugs, and the safety of homeopathy. I added a postscript to this blog in August 2013 after FDA Drug Safety Communication announced that the antimalarial drug, mefloquine hydrochloride is now known to cause "serious psychiatric and nerve side-effects" which can last for months, even years.

Yet Lariam continues to survive. It has become yet another drug that proves an important point about the pharmaceutical industry, that they produce only two types of drug:

• those drugs that are known and accepted to be dangerous, and have consequently been withdrawn or banned.
• drugs that a waiting to be withdrawn or banned because the conventional medical establishment is not prepared to recognise their dangers to patients.

The 'public service' broadcaster, BBC News, has picked up on this story, most unusually for a company that routinely perpetuates a slavishly supportive of the pharmaceutical industry, and the conventional medical 'wisdom'. It is not long ago, January 2011, that Kirsty Wark, presenting the BBC 'Newsnight' programme, attacked homeopathy for daring to say that it could prevent and treat malaria, and for diverting patients away from what she called 'real medicine'. This 'real medicine', of course, included the use of Lariam!

This is the problem for patients, anyone seeking conventional medical assistance. They are not being told the truth about pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. The prescription of these drug multiplies, whilst the dangers of doing so are hidden.

• Drug companies continue to market and profit from them.
• Doctors continue to prescribe them, and tell us they are safe, because they have nothing else to offer us.
• The NHS is dominated the the conventional medical establishment, committed to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and unable to admit that they are harming patients.
• Governments and politicians look to the pharmaceutical companies for what they consider to be important commercial investment, and employment, and the financing of their political campaigns.
• The mainstream media is beholden to the pharmaceutical companies for their advertising, and the boards of both industries are cross-fertilised, and inter-dependent on each other.
• The BBC, particularly its health and science correspondents, have been infiltrated by proponents of organisation such as 'Sense about Science'.

What this means is that there is little examination, little investigation into what the conventional medical establishment is doing, and why it is doing it, and the harmful consequences on patients of what they are doing. So patients remain misinformed, if not totally ignorant about the damage pharmaceutical drugs can have on their health. 

Note that this new development did not arise from investigative journalism, from the government, the NHS, the conventional medical establishment, or the drugs companies. It came from a Defence Committee, concerned about the safety of their soldiers.

Soldiers have been reporting the serious side-effects of anti-malarial drugs, including Lariam, for decades. But, of course, this is considered to be only 'circumstantial', or 'anacdotal' evidence. It is not 'scientific'. And the medical profession is keen to tell us that there is no 'science' to support the claims that these drugs, that any pharmaceutical drug or vaccine, are dangerous. 

We live in a world where medicine does not listen to patient experience, they listen to the scientists who undertake their RCT studies, in the pay of the pharmaceutical companies.

So whilst this development is being treated as a news story today (24th May 2016), it is really history that we are being told about. There is nothing new about what is being revealed about Lariam, or anti-malarial drugs generally, or pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines as a whole. The real story about 'real medicine' is that it is dangerous, it is harming patients, and because of this, it is failing.

Why, when we have been spending more and more every year on conventional health treatment are we getting sicker? Why are we facing epidemic levels of physical and mental illness? Why are national health services around the world unable to cope within the huge budgets they are given year by year? It is the use of dangerous drugs, like Lariam, that is the real explanation.

Malaria. BBC News discovers truth about Malaria treatment - after 30 years?

Malaria is a controversial disease! The conventional medical establishment believes that it can both prevent and treat it with their drugs. But it denies the claims of Homeopathy that it is a safer and more effective treatment, and has attacked homeopaths about these claims for several years.

This is one of the reasons why my blog "The Prevention and Treatment of Malaria with Homeopathy" is one of the most visited on this website! I remember still the disgracefully biased BBC Newsnight programme, broadcast on 4th January 2011, in which Kirsty Wark described conventional pharmaceutical drug treatment for Malaria as 'proper medicine'.

Well, let's have another look at the 'proper' medical treatment of Malaria!

On 17th August 2015, BBC News reported that a conservative MP, Johnny Mercer, had called for an immediate ban of a 'controversial'  malaria drug given to British soldiers.

Well, if the drug in question, Mefloquine, or Lariam, is controversial it is not because the BBC has ever told us about the controversy! Mercer is reported as saying that he has received dozens of letters from service personnel claiming they have become affected since taking it. Their article states that the side effects of Mefloquine have been linked to "severe depression and other mental illnesses". (The BBC forgot to mention other 'side effects' like adverse heart, kidney, liver, skin, reactions, seizures, insomnia, visual disturbances, tinnitis, impaired balance, and severe skin lesions. And perhaps the BBC did not have room to mention that the 'mental illnesses' included depression, acute anxiety, mania, aggression, rage, psychosis, confusion and memory loss, suicide, and brain damage.

Did I hear you say that you did not know this? Well, the BBC may not have mentioned it before, perhaps an oversight on their part (?) The drug was presumably one of Kirsty Wark's favoured 'proper' drugs! 

Yet any cursory investigation will show that the information has been around for a very long time now.

• 1991. The World Health Organisation published a paper detailing the "severe and alarming neurological and psychiatric side effects of Lariam". The paper made recommendations for future studies - which we never carried out.
• 22 Jan 1996. Times article. "Travellers to sue over effects of anti-malaria drug".
• 4 April 1998. Times article by Matthew Pariss, "I think I would rather have Malaria", describing the mental and physical adverse reactions he suffered after taking Lariam.
• 2001. RCT trials conducted 15 travel clinics in the Netherlands, Germany,Britain, Canada, and South Africa was published comparing Lariam with another anti-malarial drug (Malarone), unfavourably.
• 2003. The British Medical Journal published Swiss research comparing Lariam with three other anti-malarial drugs, unfavourably.
• July and August 2003. The WDDTY Magazine (What Doctor's Don't Tell You) article stating that the USA drug regulator, the FDA, had asked doctors to give face-to-face warnings to patients that the drug caused "serious and significant public health concerns” after several US troops returned home, killed their wives and themselves.
• May 2004. WDDTY Magazine article stating that the USA army had launched a study into the side-effects of the drug which was linked to suicides among their troops in Iraq who had taken it.

In fact, as this webpage outlines, studies reporting the serious adverse reactions caused by this drug go back to 1983, and media references to these adverse reactions go back to 1996.

Yet, when asked about the MP's call to ban the drug, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said that mefloquine's use was "based on expert advice", and that the drug was widely used by civilians and military. So it would appear that the MoD was about as 'on-the-ball' as the BBC in these respect! They have both needed over 30 years to become aware of the dangers of Lariam! During this time, many thousands soldiers will have suffered damage to their lives and health on the basis of the MoD's 'expert advice.

And the BBC has allowed many thousands of patients have had their lives damaged by this 'proper medicine', presumably too busy attacking homeopathy to examine the evidence against it.

If homeopathy offered patients anything as dangerous as Mefloquine, or Lariam (and it hasn't), the BBC would rightly be castigating it, and asking serious questions. When will the BBC begin to question the conventional medical establishment?

BBC assume leading role in promoting new GSK malaria vaccine

There is a new vaccine about to be launched upon us. It is for Malaria. And the BBC are acting to promote it, on behalf of the drug manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

This article appeared on 8th October 2013. UK firm seeks to market world's first Malaria vaccine.

The BBC has been hyping up the benefits of this vaccine now for some years - as always, keen to provide us with 'good' news about drug and vaccine 'breakthroughs'. These are just a few of the BBC articles on the Malaria vaccine during the last two years.

In October 2011 the BBC reported that "Malaria vaccine trial results promising". 

On 8th August 2012 the BBC repeated the message, "Malaria vaccine shows early promise in clinical trials".

In January 2013, the BBC reported that there was "a faster path to a possible malaria vaccine".

So, all would appear to be well, then? Well, not really. As usual, this is a piece of BBC News reporting that does little more than parrot the 'good news' press releases of Big Pharma drug companies. The BBC seems content to act as the sales promoter of their vaccines and drugs - without the least attempt at seeking balance in their reporting.

Like everyone else, the BBC is aware that conventional drugs and vaccines have 'side-effects'. What they don't recognise is that the 'side-effects' to which they admit are actually much worse than this phrase suggests. Conventional drugs and vaccines regularly and routinely cause 'disease-inducing-effects', or DIEs.

So what about this new vaccine. Has there been any attempt at balance? Who undertook the study? Has there been any questioning of the validity of the study, or any concern about possible DIEs for the patients who will receive this vaccine? Will this vaccine be any safer, or any more effective for patients than other vaccines have proven to be?

If the 'promising' trial results are analysed there are already indications of early signs of over-hyping, and danger for patients. Heidi Stevenson did such an analysis in June 2013, and commented:

          "Before accepting claims of a vaccine’s efficacy, it’s wise to look at the study and who financed it. A new study for a malaria vaccine is a case in point. It was financed by the manufacturer and the lead researcher is a co-patent holder! It should come as no suprise that there are gaping flaws in the study, as discussed here".

So, the BBC is quite willing to report 'promising' trial results without bothering to tell us that the trials were funded and conducted by the drug company itself. A 72% efficacy rate? Wonderful. No question about it then, as far as the BBC thinks anyway. Perhaps they continue to believe that there are no 'vested interests' in such trials, and that drug companies are entirely honest in the way they conduct and interpret them! But Stevenson found much more to be concerned about, not least that the findings on the safety were 'wildly exaggerated'.

She found that many people who had received the vaccine developed a series of mild adverse reactions, including induration, pain, tenderness, swelling, erythema, hyperpigmentation, hyperemia, fever, and headache. But these were not considered to be a result of the vaccine. Stevenson asks the question - how can this exclusion be justified? A question notably not asked by the BBC.

The more serious adverse reactions identified were upper respiratory track infections, body tinea, rhinitis, vulvovaginal candidiasis, and gastrointestinal disease. The study shows that those who received the vaccine experienced more of these conditions than the control group, and this was Stevenson's analysis.

          "Apparently, the researchers didn’t consider this to be significant. However, when you consider the relatively small size of this study compared with the millions who would be vaccinated if (the vaccine)  were approved, the seriousness of these results becomes quite apparent.

          "Let’s say that one million children receive this vaccine. Then, if the adverse effects occur at the same rate, an extra 127,000 children would suffer from upper respiratory tract infections. Since the targeted population is poor, that means many would not be healthy enough to manage it, and some would likely die. Add to that the gastritis case that occurred in the trial, and you’d have more than 25,000 people who’d suffer severe gastritis.

Whether it is appropriate for a drug company, with vested interests in the commercial success of the vaccine, should be allowed to get away with this is one thing.

That a public broadcaster, like the BBC, should allow them to get away with it is quite another. 

The BBC, unlike most parts of the private media industry, does not have a vested interest in GSK, or any other drug company. But it does (or at least it should) have a vested interest in its licence payers, who are patients, and so potential users of this vaccine.

Stevenson's study also looks at the claimed efficacy rate of 72%, and finds that such claims, based on this study, cannot be substantiated. She comes to this conclusion:

"It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the following flaws exist:

• Efficacy, the primary point being hyped, was not the primary end-point of the study.
• The primary end-point, adverse effects, were significant, likely resulting in a very large percentage of subject developing serious health effects. Though the authors of the study toss off a claim that they were not related to the vaccine, looking at the numbers makes that claim appear quite doubtful.
• The section of the trial that that utilized children as test subjects failed to test them for prior exposure to malaria. This seems highly questionable and may be part of the reason that the efficacy results seem so good.
• The other reason for apparently good efficacy results may be that the post-trial study used a control group that was chosen at a different time than the rest of the subjects. Looking at the results would tend to suggest that this is the most significant factor in apparently good efficacy.

It is notable that the BBC failed to pick up any of this, or even sought to do so. The close link between this public broadcaster and Big Pharma companies appears to be more about the views and allegiences of their science and health correspondents, who seem to be willing to proclaim positive, pro-drug, pro-vaccine news; whilst at the same time discounting any negative evidence that these drugs and vaccines are actually doing harm to patients, and causing disease. 

Yet 'rogue employees' are no excuse. The BBC is responsible for the news it broadcasts, and how it is broadcasted. Its editorial guidelines are supposed to be committed to 'balance' and 'impartiality'. However, with regard to most matters relating to health it repeatedly, and consistently shows a disregard for both. It shows absolutely no interest in informing its licence holders of the potential damage conventional drugs and vaccines are known to cause.

The 'new malaria vaccine' is a developing story. Most conventional drugs and vaccines come to the market with similar fanfares about its efficacy and safety - only to be withdrawn and banned a few years later because of the damage they cause to patients. There is no reason to assume that this new vaccine will be any different, or that it will be any more successful in the prevention and treatment of Malaria than current conventional treatments - which have totally failed.

So I will keep a watching brief on this one, and report on the issue as they develops. My prediction?

• The testing has probably been done: it will not be seriously questioned. 
• Approval by the drug regulator will be the next step: and they usually rubber-stamp any new drug or vaccine, controlled as they are by Big Pharma placemen. 
• And then it will be our turn - we will be encouraged to receive the wonderful new vaccine by Government, the NHS and even our doctors. 
• When subsequently there are signs of serious DIEs the conventional medical establishment will deny them, or play them down.
• When the DIEs become undeniable, the vaccine will continue to be prescribed, but restricted in some minor way.
• Eventually, but usually not until there is another (if questionable) replacement drug or vaccine, the vaccine will be withdrawn or banned. But not until thousands, if not millions, are harmed by it.

My advice? As with any conventional drug or vaccine - just say - "No thanks" - and look into what Homeopathy, and other safer and more effective alternative therapies can offer.

POSTSCRIPT 2019
This blog was written in 2013. In the intervening years has anyone noticed any reduction in the incidence of malaria arising from the malaria vaccine, and/or the BBC's promotion of it?

As usual, the promotion of conventional medicine is more positive than its actual performance! 

The Prevention and Treatment of Malaria with Homeopathy

The treatment and prevention of Malaria by Homeopathy has become a highly controversial subject, largely due to the nefarious activities of 'Sense about Science', a so-called 'charity' funded largely by large pharmaceutical companies. BBC News, who always meekly and cravenly support conventional, drug-based medicine, have broadcast several programmes attacking homeopathy for 'daring' to treat the disease! As a Homeopath (who incidentally has never been asked to treat malaria) I decided to look into the subject in order to compare what homeopathy and ConMed can offer the patient.

The first thing to say is that Homeopathy has been treating Malaria for a very long time. Sue Young has done research into this in her blog "A Homeopathic History of Malaria". Indeed, as she explains, it was Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of Homeopathy, who first looked into it. So it was Hahnemann

          "During the translation of a book by William Cullen, the leading physiologist of that time, Samuel Hahnemann noted that William Cullen asserted that Peruvian bark was an effective drug for malaria because of its bitter and astringent properties."

          "Samuel Hahnemann thought this a peculiar statement because he knew other bitter and astringent medicines that provided no benefit in the treatment of malaria. He then conducted an experiment upon himself, taking this herb twice a day until he developed symptoms of its toxicology, and here he discovered that it created a fever with chills as well as other symptoms that mimicked malaria".

So it was Hahnemann, in the very early days of homeopathy, who proposed that Peruvian Bark (which contains quinine) might be effective for treating people with Malaria. He did so, of course, on the bias of the principle tenet of Homeopathy - that "Like cures Like".

Sue Young's blog goes on to list a series of recorded events in which homeopathy was used to treat Malaria, including many individual cures, and its use in outbreaks in various parts of the world. It also traces the work of Homeopaths who developed the homeopathic treatment of Malaria from 1826 to the present day.

Theresa Partington, in her article in Homeopathy in Practice, Spring 2006, outlined some of the current projects that are using homeopathy to both prevent and treat malaria. One conclusion she reached, after speaking with several Homeopaths, involved in the practical, face to face treatment of malaria in coutries were the disease is rife, was as follows:

          "All our practitioners found that malaria responds well in the acute phase, the chronic state proving more difficult, often being complicated by other diseases, poor living conditions, reinfection etc. All will use support remedies for the liver and the spleen (generally recommending Chelidonium and Cean). Of the non-homeopathic treatments for prophylaxis and treatment of acute and chronic states, Neem tea was strongly recommended by the two Kenya practitioners.

Homeopathy is a practical rather than a theoretical medical therapy. It seeks to treat people suffering from disease on the basis of identifying a 'similar' remedy to the symptoms of an individual suffering from the disease, and then observing whether it is effective. Theresa's article demonstrates this well. Homeopaths are active in many parts of the world where Malaria is common, and its benefits are clear to those who can see what is happening on the ground. 

I am aware of several projects, doing practical work with people who live in parts of the world that has a high incidence of Malaria. One such project as asked that their work is not highlighted, fearing attack from Homeopathy Denialists, BBC News, the Guardian, and other supporters of conventional medical treatment, and Big Pharma drugs. The conclusion this project has reached, after working many years with Malaria, is simple:

          "Homeopathy does indeed work for malaria. Homeopaths should not be afraid of this disease, nor prevented from treating it".

This kind of practical, no nonsense treatment of disease is anathema to the opponents of Homeopathy, and the supporters of Big Pharma. In their craven support of ConMed treatment the Conventional Medial Establishment, and its Media allies, appear willing to summarily dismiss, without the least thought or consideration, any evidence that Homeopathy may work with sick people! This is particularly indefensible as there has also been research done into the homeopathic treatment of malaria too - which is usually studiously ignored!

"Effects of homeopathic medications Eupatorium perfoliatum and Arsenicum album on parasitemia of Plasmodium berghei-infected mice" was a study undertaken in 2006. It reached the following conclusion:

          "We found significant inhibitory effect on parasite multiplication with both medications with a level of 60% for Eupatorium perfoliatum at a 30 CH potency. Arsenicum album 0/6 gave 70% inhibition but this was less stable than Eupatorium perfoliatum. The number of schizonts was higher in animals treated with homeopathic medications.

Another 'open study' and 'double blind randomised clinical trial' was undertaken in Ghana in 1993, using just three homeopathic remedies, Arsenicum Album, Natrum Mur and Pulsatilla. I am not sure why the study was restricted to these three remedies. The conclusion was that the results obtained  were at least as good as the main conventional drug used, and probably better.

          "The only conclusion that can be drawn is that homeopathy has an effect, comparable with and slightly (non-significantly) better than chloroquine. The effect of chloroquine might be difficult to calibrate as the level of resistance against chloroquine is not known in the population studied". 

Another study was undertaken in Tanzania (after 2004, date unclear) using a single remedy made from the Neen tree, which was apparently known by local tradition in the area to be an effective treatment for Malaria. The conclusion of this study was as follows: 

          "The homeopathic neem preparation has shown to be effective for the reduction of malaria attacks in a highly endemic area for plasmodium falciparum. The treatment is safe in the short term and the low cost of manufacturing renders this treatment especially attractive for developing countries as the purchase cost is well within the range of an average household budget.

The success of homeopathy is treating Malaria is recognised in many parts of the world, less under the perverse influence of the Big Pharma companies. Earlier this year (2012), the Madhya Pradesh announced that it was initiating a major campaign to prevent Malaria. The Times of India announced the practical evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy in the prevention of Malaria.

Under the campaign launched by the state government, homoeopathic medicines will be administered door-to-door. The decision to distribute homeopathic was taken as it has provided effective in prevention of malaria. (My emphasis).

So whilst I am aware that this evidence will be summarily dismissed by Homeopathy Denialists, and their colleagues at BBC News (and, indeed, the mainstream media generally), Homeopaths must insist that this evidence is taken into consideration before routinely condemning homeopathy. 

BBC News's unbalanced and biased coverage of anything to do with homeopathy is well known. This particular subject was dealt with in the now infamous Newsnight programme, broadcast on 4th January 2011. It began with someone approaching a Homeopath to ask what she recommended for travelling to a part of the world where Malaria was rife. It went on to attack the homeopathic treatment of Malaria because (they claimed) there was 'no evidence' of its effectiveness, and to drive home the point, BBC News asked a series of ConMed trained 'experts' to support the attack on homeopathy.

What the programme failed to ask was why people should want to ask a Homeopath about Malaria treatment - especially when they could access conventional advice, and get conventional drugs, free of charge from their NHS doctor.

People come to Homeopaths for treatment, including treatment related to Malaria, because they want an alternative to conventional, drug-based medicine. Indeed, when we examine what ConMed, and Big Pharma drugs, have to offer to people looking for Malaria protection (and what they will 'miss out' on if they choose Homeopathy) is quite awful, and does not make easy reading.

First, there is growing resistance to the Big Pharma drugs. In other words, they are no longer working as effectively as once they did (and how well they have ever worked is certainly highly debatable).

Second, the drugs give rise to quite horrendous adverse reactions. Conventional medication includes quinine based drugs, such as Chloroquine, and Artemisia-based drugs, such as Lariam. These produce severe adverse reactions, ranging from skin symptoms to organ failure. As I have said many time before elsewhere, the impact of these drugs are not 'side-effects' - the are fully blown, life-threatening diseases!


Lariam, for example, perhaps the most well-known Malaria drug, is known to cause adverse heart, kidney, liver, skin, and central nervous system problems, as well as causing serious psychiatric issues. Lariam was investigated by the FDA as long ago as 2003 when some returning US troops, who had received the drug, committed suicide or murder. In other words, Lariam shows the same kind of disease-inducing effects that are associated with most, if not all ConMed medication. In the same year, 2003, the magazine WDDTY said that Lariam "poses a serious and public health concern", and this, perhaps, is a good summary of most conventional Malarial drugs. 

Nor are any new Big Pharma treatments appearing on the horizon. WDDTY reported in August 2012 that two new Malaria vaccines, "medicine's great hope in combating the disease" have been found to make the disease worse. It reported that tests, undertaken at Pennsylvania State University, discovered that the Malaria parasite "changes rapidly to resist the vaccine - making the vaccine itself ineffective within days and encouraging the spread of an even deadlier forms of the disease". (Source given: PLoS Biology, 2012; doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001368).

The personal experience of people using these Big Pharma drugs can also be catastrophic. In an article published in The Times, on 22nd January 1996, it was reported that a group of travellers were seeking compensation over an anti-malaria drug "that produces serious psychological problems in some people,  and other side-effects , in almost a quarter of users". The article reported that a solicitor in Bristol was planning a 'group action' against the manufacturer, pointing out that not only were the DIEs serious, they were also long-lasting. He stated:

          "We have people who have serious psychiatric disorders because of Lariam. For some people the problems persist long after they have stopped taking the drug."

In another Times article, written by the well-known journalist Matthew Parris on 4th April 1998, entitled "I think I'd rather have Malaria", he described the mental and physical reactions he had to Lariam:

          "As soon as I began the course two weeks before leaving Britain my night-time dreams turned weird. Strange, grotesque dreams, often with a horrific edge. Monstrous hideous faces would loom at me waking me in the night."

Matthew Parris went on to describe the mental reactions he had to the drug, which included hallucinations, and the physical reactions that for him included itching skin and an odd taste in his mouth.

           "I think the chemical composition of my saliva must have altered. My mouth just tasted different. Some food seemed to taste strange too. Tea, in particular (and to a lesser extent coffee), took on a faint but discernibly bitter edge.

And for Matthew Parris too, the symptoms of these conventional Malaria drugs continued for a long time:

          "That was three months ago and only now is it beginning to fade. It was as though some small but discernible chemical change had occurred to the internal balances within my body. Amputation I can face, but this sort of thing really scares me".

So there is good reason for people looking for alternative medical treatment. And, contrary to the opinions BBC News and the Media generally wishes to impose on us, I believe that it is important that people know that about the possible disease-inducing effects ((DIEs) of conventional Malaria treatment, and are informed that there are alternative treatments, like Homeopathy, certainly safer, and probably more effective, available to them.

So what should be done for people wishing to protect themselves from Malaria? As Karin Mont, Chair, Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, stated when advising Homeopaths, following the BBC Newsnight programme, patients should seek the fullest possible advice.

          "..... ARH would encourage our members to ensure their patients are given all information available, so that they can make an informed choice. This would also be appropriate behaviour for all healthcare practitioners, including medical doctors. Perhaps we can encourage patients to start insisting that their doctors explain all potential adverse reactions of the drugs they prescribe (in easily comprehensible terms!), rather than relying on a slip of paper in minute font to do the job for them!

Postscript, August 2013
In an FDA Drug Safety Communication, it has been announced that the antimalarial drug, mefloquine hydrochloride is now known to cause "serious psychiatric and nerve side-effects". These can last for 'months to years' after taking the drug. The drug is not being withdrawn (of course) but the warning labels are to be strengthened! It is now going to have a 'Black Box' warning. Wow!

Patients and carers are asked to 'watch for these side effects' but 'should not stop taking' it before discussing symptoms with health care professional.

I wonder if the BBC will bother to tell us about this? Perhaps it will just have another go at Homeopathy instead. It is important that they try to stop all those foolish people who are looking for prevention and treatment that is safer!