Autoimmune Disease. The Cause of Serious Illness and Disease. The Dilemma of Pharmaceutical Medicine

Our immune system keeps us well, free from illness and disease. At least this is what all natural medical therapies believe, and what Conventional Medicine used to tell us. But Conventional Medicine now seems increasingly to want to distance itself from this understanding. It now seems intent to devalue our confidence in the immune system. Rob Verkerk PhD, founder, Alliance for Natural Health, described our immune system thus:

   “Our immune systems, a complex network of organs, cells and proteins, work tirelessly, every millisecond of every day, defending our bodies from infection, protecting our own cells, as well as the microbes our bodies decide are good for us. This is an incredibly complex and skilful operation that we tend to take for granted—until it stops working as it should.”

Autoimmune Disease

I awoke recently to yet another "ground-breaking medical treatment", this time for Lupus. Read about it here, in this ITV article, 'Groundbreaking trial offers new lupus treatment'. Conventional medicine prides itself in its ability to diagnose serious illnesses and diseases, like Lupus, however when it come to identifying causation it is much less confident. When I was writing my Iatrogenic Disease e-Book I discovered so many serious illnesses and diseases where Conventional Medicine states, very clearly, that the cause was "unknown" or "uncertain"; and goes on to offer either (i) no causal reason, (ii) a description of what is happening, see here for example, or more recently blames (iii) our genetics, or the failure of our immune system, and similar.

One example of this failure to distinguish between 'description' and 'causation' can be found in most conventional medical explanations of Alzheimer's Disease. This is how the British NHS website described the 'cause' of Alzheimer's Disease.

        "Alzheimer's disease is thought to be caused by the abnormal build-up of proteins in and around brain cells. One of the proteins involved is called amyloid, deposits of which form plaques around brain cells. The other protein is called tau, deposits of which form tangles within brain cells".

The formation of "plaques" and "tangles" in the chemistry of the brain is NOT the cause of the disease. The healthy brain does not have them, so the cause would describe why those "plaques" and "tangles" formed in the first place. I have written about many more examples of conventional medicine using 'description' as a 'cause' here.

This is a real problem for conventional medicine - because without knowing the cause of illness it cannot possible hope to treat it successfully.

The ITV article on lupus, above, also provided no causal explanation of lupus, just an unsupported, un-evidenced statement that it is an 'autoimmune disease'. This is what the British NHS website tells us about its cause.

        "(Lupus) is an autoimmune condition, which means it is caused by problems with the immune system. For reasons not yet understood, the immune system in people with (lupus) starts to attack and inflame healthy cells, tissue and organs".

So this is not even a description of lupus masquerading as the cause! It is an unsubstantiated statement of a cause - one which offers no explanation as to why the immune system has acted in this way; it even admits that it does not know why it has acted in this way!

Conventional medicine now routinely underestimates, or even dismisses the role of our immune system, whose job has always been to ensure that the body is functioning normally, free of illness. If it is not functioning properly, something is wrong, something is causing it!

Infection is often used as a 'cause' of illness: it's the germ, bacteria, or virus that causes the illness. Or could it be that the germ is the result of a condition, something we find, in over-abundance, in an already sick patient? If it is the cause, why has the immune system been able to recognise and deal with it? Natural medicine understands that it is a compromised immune system that causes illness. The bacteria or virus is one that usually co-exists with us, part of us, we are made up of 'germs', with whom we usually live in harmony.

Autoimmune disease goes one stage further in conventional medicine's understanding of causation. The immune system is turning in on itself, it is "too active". So why has it decided to harm rather than protect us? Conventional medicine does not have explanation. Wikipedia's explanation of autoimmune diseases demonstrates this:

        "The exact causes of autoimmune diseases remain unclear and are likely multifactorial, involving both genetic and environmental influences. While some diseases like lupus exhibit familial aggregation, suggesting a genetic predisposition, other cases have been associated with infectious triggers or exposure to environmental factors, implying a complex interplay between genes and environment in their etiology".

It is these 'genetic' explanations of autoimmune disease that has led to the the new 'ground breaking' method of treating Lupus - leading to the "genetic engineering of cells".

        "The therapy works by genetically modifying cells to enable the body’s own immune system to recognise and attack problem cells, offering people a possible cure".

However, yet again, the proper response should have been to ask another question - why is the immune system doing this? What has caused the immune system to malfunction? Is the genetics of cells responsible for the condition? If it is not the cause, it might not be any part of the solution!

Could it just possible be pharmaceutical drugs? The result of more "adverse drug reactions"? Are 'autoimmune diseases' really iatrogenic? Conventional medicine already knows that many of its pharmaceutical drugs cause autoimmune diseases, notably antibiotics, painkillers, anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, as wel as most vaccines. So, in order to prevent and treat autoimmune diseases, like lupus, would it not be more sensible to look at these drugs as, at least, part of the causation?

There is a group of pharmaceutical drugs called "immunosuppressants"? Their name provides a clue to the impact they have on the body. They suppress the immune system! And if the immune system is suppressed we get ill! Even conventional medicine knows this. It really is as simple as this! Most explanations of the role of these immunosuppressants drugs are similar, but this is taken from the Cleveland Clinic, and is perhaps the most honest about their usage, and the impact on the immune system.

        "Immunosuppressants are drugs that prevent your immune system from attacking healthy cells and tissues by mistake. Healthcare providers prescribe immunosuppressants to treat certain autoimmune diseases and prevent organ or stem cell transplant rejection. These medications also increase your risk of infection because your immune system isn’t working as it should".

Conventional medicine appears to be somewhat confused. It believes that the immune system is 'overactive' and attacks 'healthy cells and tissues by mistake'. It does not say why the immune system is making such mistakes! So drugs are used that suppress the immune system - they admit that this increases the risk of infection 'because your immune system isn't working as it should'. So the immune system is now suppressed, it is not overactive.

Conventional, drug-based medicine has done something that it always does - it has interfered with the normal functioning of the body.

We should note that Conventional Medicine never evidences why the immune system has become 'overactive'. Usually most websites just make a statement - that the immune system can be overactive, and that certain diseases (more than 120 of them) are caused by its inability to recognise 'the good' from 'the bad'. Statements are not evidence! At best the idea of an 'over-active immune system' is an opinion, a theory.   

This 'pain assist' website tries to inform us about the cause of an over-active immune system - but again fails to do so.

        "The exact cause of overactive immune system is not clearly understood but certain factors are known to precipitate it. Genetic changes can be one of the major reasons of autoimmune diseases. There can be various other factors such as stress, hormonal changes, infections and chemical toxic that could lead to these problems".

The Cleveland Clinic website is no more informative, and under the heading "Causes of an over-active immune system states that:

        "Doctors still don't know exactly why the immune system sometimes fails. But there are clues to how it happens. The immune system is an integrated network that’s hard-wired into your central nervous system.... so, when it’s healthy, everything works automatically. But things go haywire when the system starts to crumble. For example, if you don’t sleep well and get stressed out, your body will produce more of the stress hormone cortisol. Over time, high cortisol levels can have a degenerative effect on your body. Healthy bone and muscle break down and slow the healing process. Cortisol can interfere with digestion and metabolism, as well as adversely affecting your mental functions”.

So once again conventional medicine is making claims about disease causation, that it is a faulty immune system, but without giving us any evidence, or being able to say what is causing the fault. Is there really such a thing as an 'overactive' immune system? Or is it just an excuse, an attempt to deflect the real cause?

The cause of a malfunction immune system is most likely to be pharmaceutical drugs. Perhaps it is just too embarrassing for conventional medicine to admit this. Or perhaps the pharmaceutical industry is just so powerful within conventional medicine that our doctors dare not do so.

Is Dementia Preventable? The Dishonest Discussion of Disease Causation?

Why, when we consider the causation of serious illness and disease, is it rarely (if ever) associated with pharmaceutical drugs? Usually every other known cause (even the most unlikely suggestions) is mentioned - but never when drugs and vaccines are implicated?

The question arose for me when I read this article on the causation of dementia - "Almost 50% of Global Dementia may be Preventable". I have seen articles like this many times before, on many different diseases - articles that appear to be a comprehensive outline of all the known causes of a specific disease. What they all omit are well-documented facts - that pharmaceutical drugs are also a known cause. 

Shortly after reading this article I saw this "What Doctors Don't Tell You" article which does exactly the same thing. So not even WDDTY don't tell you what doctors don't tell you! That it is well known that drugs can cause dementia!

In fairness (to a magazine to which I subscribe) WDDTY did correct the situation in another article, "Dementia could be caused by Polypharmacy" in which it is said

            "Polypharmacy - taking three or more medications at the same time - could be increasing the chances of dementia. Around 82% of dementia patients are taking multiple prescription meds, say researchers from the University of Plymouth (Aging and Disease, 2022’ doi: 10.14336/AD.2022.0829). In a study of more than 33,000 dementia patients, the researchers discovered that polypharmacy was very common in the final five years before a dementia diagnosis. Around 65% of the patients were taking multiple meds for respiratory or urinary infections, rheumatism and heart disease, while a further 22% were being treated for infection, cardio-metabolic disease and depression".

It goes on to suggest that doctors "need to understand the way common drugs can impair cognition", not least as dementia cases are projected to rise to 1.6 million in the UK alone by 2040.

Yet doctors should already know that pharmaceutical drugs cause serious illness and disease as it can be seen very clearly in conventional medical literature. I have written about this before - the medical profession know full well that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines cause dementia. How? The 'Patient Information Leaflets' (PILs) that accompany every drug and vaccine packet provide warnings about the (euphemistically called) 'side effects' of drugs; and many of them are known to cause 'confusion', 'disorientation', and many other accepted symptoms of dementia.

So why is this not mentioned in the above Medscape article? And why has the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention (on which the Medscape article is based) not mentioned it either. Both these highly prestigious medical journals must be fully aware of this. The Medscape articles states:

            "Nearly half of dementia cases worldwide could theoretically be prevented or delayed by eliminating 14 modifiable risk factors during an individual's lifetime, a report from the Lancet Commission on dementia prevention, intervention, and care. The report adds two new modifiable risk factors for dementia - high cholesterol and vision loss - to the 12 risk factors identified in the 2020 Lancet Commission report, which were linked to about 40% of all dementia cases. The original Lancet Commission report, published in 2017, identified nine modifiable risk factors that were estimated to be responsible for one third of dementia cases."

So the 14 'risk factors' outlined by the Lancet Commission, and in the Medscape article, notably exclude pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. The risk factors mentioned are:

• excessive alcohol intake,
• traumatic brain injury,
• air pollution,
• not completing secondary education,
• hypertension,
• obesity,
• hearing loss,
• smoking,
• depression,
• physical inactivity,
• social isolation,
• diabetes,
• high cholesterol,
• vision loss.

So why are pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines not mentioned? Did both the Lancet and Medscape forget? Throwing the net wider, why does the mainstream media not investigate the cause of the dementia epidemic? Why is the Government not interested? Why don't more patients (and families) question the omission? As usual with the conventional medical establishment, there is absolutely no transparency or honesty.

The underlying problem is that health, and healthcare services, are controlled by powerful vested interests which I collectively call "the pharmaceutical medical establishment". This includes government, conventional healthcare organisation, national drug regulators, and the mainstream media. Together they form the main sources of information that we (patients) have about matters health issues, and they make it impossible for us to make 'informed decisions' about whether or not to take drug and vaccines. 

So there is no debate. Within the pharmaceutical medical establishment is conducting a monologue, a "Narrative" like the one to which we were subjected over the Covid-19 pandemic. It is a monologue that no-one can question because they do not have the full information. Essentially this monologue is subjecting us to pharmaceutical advertising and promotion. Moreover this is promotion of a very special nature as the drug companies are not allowed to advertise (in Britain), and they do so subliminally, via government, the NHS, and the mainstream media.

So the Medscape and Lancet omissions were probably intentional. Both these medical journals, however prestigious, knew that they were not allowed to include pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines in their (otherwise) comprehensive list of dementia risk factors. The pharmaceutical industry is just too powerful, too influential, to allow information like this to reach the public. It would consider it to be 'bad publicity' for their drugs.

Moreover, medical journals (indeed the entire pharmaceutical medical establishment) are reluctant to admit that the drugs and vaccines they have hitherto regularly recommended can actually cause serious patient harm. The admission, for them, would presumably be too embarrassing.

After all, if 'pharmaceutical drugs' had been added to the risk factor list it would be yet another 'preventable' cause of dementia that would increase significantly the 50% of 'preventable' risk factors mentioned. The problem for drug companies is that preventing this particular cause of dementia would be particularly easy - patients could just stop taking the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

And the drug companies would certainly not want us to do this!

Postscript January 2025: This article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, "Manufactured Chemicals and Children's Health - The Need for New Law", repeats the offence of ascribing disease causation with anything and everything - except pharmaceutical drugs. This prestigious medical journal is able to point its finger at the chemical industry - but not the pharmaceutical industry. It even specifically excludes the industry.

        “Unlike pharmaceuticals, synthetic chemicals are brought to market with little prior assessment of their health impacts and almost no post-marketing surveillance for longer-term adverse health effects. …

That is undoubtedly true, whilst omitting to comment on the honesty and integrity of these "prior assessment of their health impacts" and the "post-marketing surveillance for longer-term health effects" of pharmaceutical drugs. It neither admits that conventional medical literature admits and charts the links between disease and pharmaceutical drugs, or mentions the plethora of drugs withdrawn and banned over the years because of the dishonesty and lack of integrity of drug testing and surveillance.

Antiemetic Drugs. Another Pharmaceutical Drug found to cause Strokes

A study published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) on 23 March 2022 has made link between Antiemetic drugs (used for sickness, nausea and vomiting) and strokes.

The study is discussed here in MIMS, specifically mentioning two of these antiemetic drugs, domperidone and metoclopamide.

Fairly routine stuff perhaps - unless you think more deeply about what we are being told, and the unfortunate 'belatedness' of the timing of this information. 

Antiemetic drugs have been with us for a long time, and many millions of people have been prescribed them with no knowledge of their potential danger. Metoclopamide was 'discovered' in the early 1960's, and widely prescribed since the late 1970's. Domperidone has been marketed since 1979. 

And herein lays the problem with conventional medicine, and whether anyone can, or should, place their trust in any of their pharmaceutical drugs.

Why has it taken medical science so long to ascertain that antiemetic drugs can cause strokes? We are told that pharmaceutical drugs are all scientifically tested, and only approved once they are proven to be both safe and effective. And an drug that can cause strokes is, by any definition, not safe! 

Yet these two drugs have been given to many millions of patients, for many decades. The question arises - how many of these unfortunate patients have suffered a stroke as a direct result of taking antiemetic drugs. I have checked; stroke is not mentioned as a 'side effect' of these drugs

Yet this is not a new phenomina. It is a matter of public record that hundreds, even thousands of approved pharmaceutical drugs have been banned or withdrawn in the last 70 years because ultimately they were 'scientifically proven' to be too dangerous to prescribe to patients.

Most patients take pharmaceutical drugs because doctors have assured them they are 'safe'. However, the UK's NHS website informs us that strokes are caused by many factors, such as smoking, high blood pressure, obesity, high cholesterol levels, diabetes, and excessive alcohol intake. But nowhere does the NHS mention that strokes can be caused by pharmaceutical drugs.As I have written elsewhere, many pharmaceutical drugs, PPI drugs, contraceptive pills, beta blockers, common painkillers, steroid drugs, anti-coagulant drugs, and many others are known to do so - to which, it appears, we can now add antiemetic drugs.

It would seem that conventional medicine would prefer we did not know that the drugs they prescribe to patients have become one of the major reasons for strokes. So it seems unlikely that the general public will ever be told about the link between strokes and antiemetic drug link. They know now - but we won't be told!

This tells us a lot about the pharmaceutical drugs that are still being prescribed and routinely described by doctors as being 'safe'? How many of these drugs will prove to be harmful to our health, either because the adverse drug reactions remain unknown to medical science, or conventional medicine prefers to keep its patients uninformed? Just how dangerous are the drugs we are taking today?

Domperidone and metoclopamide are not safe drugs. Moreover, they were not safe even before the link with strokes was discovered. They are known to cause many other serious adverse reactions, most of them listed on the Drugs.com website. 

 

Metoclopamide 

 

The first information given by the Drugs.com webpage gives use about Metoclopamide is a black box warning!

 

    "Metoclopramide can cause tardive dyskinesia, increaseda serious movement disorder that is often irreversible..."

 

But it goes on to list a whole host of other adverse drug reactions    , including:

•  difficulty breathing, speaking and swallowing,
  
• fast/irregulat heartbeat,
  
• severe continuing headache,
  
• increased blood pressure,
• inability to move eyes,
• loss of balance,
• loss of bladder control,
• seizures,
• neusea and vomiting (the symptoms they are supposed to treat),
• and much more.

All to prevent sickness and vomiting!

Domperidone

Domperidone does no less harm to the patient. The Patient Information Leaflet gives a long list of people who should not take the drug, and an array of warnings and precautions. It says that the drug can cause the following adverse reactions:

• allergies, such as breathing difficulties, itching, wheezing, loss of consciousness, etc.,
• heart disorders, such as heart rhythm disorders, palpitations, heart attacks, 
• Intestinal cramps and diarrhoea,
• recuced sex drive,
• sore breast of menstrual problems,
• and much more.
  

And it is to be guessed how many patients taking these antiemetic drugs were told about any of this prior to taking them. And now, strokes will have to be added to the list of adverse reactions doctors will need to keep from their patients. Describing them as "safe" is so much simpler, and quicker!

Pharmaceutical drugs withdrawn because they contained cancer-causing ingredients! When will we recognise that pharmaceutical drugs are a significant cause of the cancer epidemic?

As if pharmaceutical drugs were not sufficiently dangerous in themselves, what is now becoming clear is that there these same drugs are being withdrawn because of the way they are being manufactured.

Many drugs are now made in chemical plants in China and India, where safety controls are less rigorous and effective. Drugs that are 'out-of-patent' are made in these countries for one simple reason. To reduce the cost of production.

But in successfully reducing their costs (and increasing their profitability) the pharmaceutical companies are increasing levels of patient harm. WDDTY have recently announced that more than 50 prescription drugs have been contaminated with cancer causing chemicals.

               "The prescription drug you're taking could contain high levels of a carcinogen, or cancer-causing agent. Most drugs are manufactured in China and India, where there are no safety controls, and America's drug regulators, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has recalled more than 50 drugs so far because of their health risks".

Conventional medicine has never placed protecting patients from harm very high on their list of priorities. If it had most of the drugs and vaccines doctors are currently prescribing would have been banned already - because of their inherent dangers.

Yet if the serious side effects of pharmaceutical drugs were not bad enough, now patient safety is threatened by the way these drugs are manufactured.

Some frequently prescribed drugs are involved in the 50 drugs the FDA has recalled. One is the blood pressure drug, valsartan (marketed as Diovan). It was found to have lethal levels of a cancer-causing chemical. Two other drugs withdrawn were irbesartan and losartan.

Moreover, WDDTY added that most pharmaceutical drugs manufactured in India and China are not being tested for contaminants, that the FDA checks only 1% of pharmaceutical drugs used in the USA - this according to an investigation undertaken by Bloomberg Business Week. In Europe the situation is unlikely to be any different.

Yet there is another consideration arising from this revelation.

These drugs, and undoubtedly many others, will have been prescribed to patients who subsequently develop cancer. So cancer rates will rise, just as they have been rising during the last 70-100 years. Yet what will the explanation be for this trend? Indeed, what is the explanation for the current epidemic levels of cancer?

Many explanations may offered by conventional medicine. But certainly pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines will not be amongst them. If there is a further increase in cancer rates caused by these drugs, conventional medicine may continue to strive to find a cure, with the usual lack of success. But identifying their drugs as a cause will not be mentioned, by anyone, anywhere, at any time. That by stopping taking pharmaceutical drugs might remove a major cause of cancer will never be mentioned. After all, it makes no business sense!

Many pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are known to cause cancer. I have listed some of them here. And these drugs cause cancer even when they are manufactured properly, without cancer-causing ingredients, in India, China, or anywhere else. Doctors know this. Conventional medicine knows this. Governments know this. One major cure for cancer is within our reach, but kept out of our reach.

AVOID CANCER

STOP TAKING PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS/VACCINES

AUTISM & HOMEOPATHY. Does conventional medicine cause autism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CEASE therapists can be found on the internet here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. That we need to call a halt to a medical system that declares war on the body whenever it becomes sick with harmful and dangerous drugs and vaccines, and 
2. To recognise that an important cause of cancer, probably one of the most important causes, is the pharmaceutical drugs we are being given to treat other illnesses.

Certainly, one important way we all have to prevent contracting cancer is to say 'No' to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Which ones? I have listed some of them here, although the drugs mentioned probably only scratch the surface of the real problem.

The Allergy Epidemic. Caused by Pharmaceutical Drugs?

Our immune system defends and protects us from attack from foreign substances, such as viruses and bacteria. It produces antibodies that seek and destroy intruders, and thereafter protects us from future attacks. An allergy occurs when the immune system overreacts to a normally harmless substance, and triggers what, for the healthy human body, is an inappropriate and unnecessary response.

Substances that trigger allergic reactions are called allergens, and these include such things as house dust mites, pollen, cat and dog fur, bee and wasp stings, feathers and a variety of foods.

The antibodies produced by the immune system can cause the release of some irritating substances, such as histamine, which produce redness, heat and swelling, leading to symptoms such as sneezing, wheezing, shortness of breath, a runny or blocked up nose, watery and bloodshot eyes, rash, itchiness, diarrhoea, and vomiting.

Food intolerance is a related but less serious condition than an allergy. The symptoms after eating the food can include headaches, muscle and joint pains, and tiredness, so whilst less serious, it remains an inappropriate response for a healthy body. The body is not responding normally, or as it should do.

Anaphylaxis, or anaphylactic shock, is a severe, potentially fatal, allergic reaction to an allergen, where there can be a sudden drop in blood pressure and the narrowing of the airways. It can be triggered by foods such as peanuts, nuts, sesame seeds, fish, shellfish, dairy products, eggs and strawberries, or by an allergic reaction to wasp or bee stings.

Allergies include a wide range of medical conditions such as Rhinitis, Hay Fever, Ezcema and Asthma. Allergy in the UK has reached epidemic proportions - according to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. Its report, published in July 2007, found that: 

          "the prevalence and incidence of allergic disease have markedly increased over the past 50 years", and that evidence presented to the Committee showed that "an increasing prevalence of asthma was first noted in studies of Birmingham school children, starting in the mid 1950s," and that since then "the prevalence of asthma and wheezing appears to have doubled "approximately every 14 years" until the mid 1990s. It added that the trends for other disorders such as hayfever and eczema are similar".

The report estimated that in 2004 the scale of the "allergy epidemic" showed that 39% of children and 30% of adults had been diagnosed with one or more of asthma, eczema and hayfever; and 38% of children and 45% of adults had experienced symptoms of these disorders during the preceding 12 months. The committee commented that the treatment of allergic disorders costs the NHS a considerable amount of money each year.

Clearly, this describes the development of another epidemic that began shortly after Big Pharma drugs became freely available through the NHS. It is known and even admitted that anaphylaxis can be triggered by certain drugs, such as penicillin. And the increase in conditions described as 'auto-immune' disease, suggests that the culpability of pharmaceutical drugs is far greater than is currently recognised.

The link between allergy and drugs is admitted and discussed in many websites, including these:

Drug Reactions and Drug Allergies.

Drug Allergies.

Allergic reactions to drugs - a common problem.

In this webpage, the implicated drugs include: antibiotics, painkillers, including aspirin, anti-inflammatory drugs, such as NSAIDs, and anti-seizure drugs.

So the issue is not whether pharmaceutical drugs cause allergies, they do. The important issues are:

1. To what extent has the Conventional Medical Establishment admitted it culpability?
2. To what extent it is the major cause of the allergy epidemic in recent decades?

Certainly, drugs are known to be causative for two of the main, and most serious allergic disease, Asthma and Ezcema.

This blog was first published as part of the author's e-book, 'Drug-Induced Illness'