Autism rate rises to 1 in 44 children in USA. And we are still told the cause is 'unknown'

At the end of 2021, the CDC announced that autism rates in the USA had risen to 1 in 44 children. They published an analysis of 2018 data from nearly a dozen USA states confirming that the autism rate for 8 year old children had risen from 1 in 54 in 2016, from 1 in 150 in 2000, whilst in the 1990's prevalence estimates ranged from 1 in 2,500 to 1 in 1,000. The autism rate is also high in France, 1 in 144, in Iceland, 1 in 139, and in Austria, 1 in 138. The study said this:

            “We found autism prevalence to be 3.6% in New Jersey overall, but higher in one region (5.4%) and in multiple areas approaching 7.0%. We identified significant variation in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) prevalence by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES) and school district size. Mapping prevalence in smaller, well-specified, regions may be useful to better understand the true scope of ASD, disparities in ASD detection and the factors impacting ASD prevalence estimation.”

In July 2020 I wrote a blog on the subject of autism, referring specifically to 157 research papers that supported the Vaccine-Autism link. I put a link to this webpage on my Facebook page, who quickly tagged this as "False rating on content shared by Safe Medicine Homeopathy' and that it's been reviewed by Science Feedback. Facebook also put an article against my blog entitled "How we know vaccines do not cause autism", and threatened to reduce the distribution of my page because 'misleading content', stating:

            "Pages and websites that repeatedly publish or share misleading content will see their overall distribution reduced and their ability to monetise, advertise and register as a news Page removed. People will also be able to see if a Page has a history of sharing false news."

This is typical of Facebook, and social media generally. They have succumbed to the pressure from the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) to censor anything and everything that speaks against their business interests - selling pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. The CME already controls the mainstream media, and now want to get social media under its control.

So autism is an epidemic, and year by year it is getting worse! And the CME is doing everything it can to deny that the drugs and vaccines listed here have anything to do with it, and to stop us getting to know.

So do the 157 research papers exist? 

Yes, they do; you can see them all outlined here for yourself if you click on the link, and then read each one of the studies for yourself.

The position of the CME is that there is no autism epidemic. Denial and censorship reign. J.B Handley outlines and demolishes their position in his blog, "There is no Autism epidemic - a pernicious rumour".

I too have dealt with it too, in my "Iatrogenic Disease" and "Why Homeopath?" e-books. This is what I said in the former.

 

"The conventional medical system are in denial about the cause of Autism. Indeed, it has worked very hard to hide from the public the cause of Autism. The NHS Choices website typifies this approach when it says:

               'The exact cause of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is currently unknown. It's a complex condition and may occur as a result of genetic predisposition (a natural tendency), environmental or unknown factors.'

It goes on to talk about inherited genes that make some children more vulnerable to ASD. It speaks about 'environmental triggers', such as premature birth, and exposure to alcohol in the womb. It says there is 'no conclusive evidence' linking either pollution or maternal infections in pregnancy to the condition. 

It does say that 'certain medications' are a possible trigger, and does mentions Sodium Valproate (a pharmaceutical drug used to treat epilepsy during pregnancy, and known to cause other birth defects).

Yet the NHS goes much further in its denial of the autism epidemic, and dismisses out of hand any connection between autism and childhood vaccinations. 

    'In the past, a number of things were linked to ASD, but extensive research has found no evidence to suggest that any of these contribute to the condition.' (My emphasis).

These 'past connections' include the MMR vaccine, and thimerosol, the mercury-based compound that is used as a preservative in many vaccines. Wikipedia, always a supporter of the conventional medical establishment, goes along with these denials.

    'Many causes of autism have been proposed, but understanding of the theory of causation of autism and the other autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is incomplete. Research indicates that genetic factors predominate. The heritability of autism, however, is complex, and it is typically unclear which genes are responsible. In rare cases, autism is strongly associated with agents that cause birth defects. Many other causes have been proposed, such as childhood immunizations, but numerous epidemiological studies have shown no scientific evidence supporting any link between vaccinations and autism.'

Most sources of information about autism follow this conventional medical line, and come up with similarly unsatisfactory explanations about the causes of autism. More than any other illness there is a complete denial that vaccines have played any part in causing the autism epidemic we have witnessed in recent decades, and which continues to grow.     

     'However, one of the leading conventional medical authorities, CDC (Centers for Disease Control) were forced to admit that there was no scientific proof that vaccines do not cause autism, conceding that reassurances to parents that childhood vaccines don't cause autism was not based on any scientific evidence."

 

Although this was written several years ago nothing has changed. It would appear that however serious the autism epidemic becomes, conventional medicine will continue to deny that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines might be the cause. The CME is in complete denial, and this has serious consequences for the children of the future, and the parents who are not being told about the possible/like association.

Complete denial is a position the CME adopts when other chronic diseases, like those mentioned here, becomes epidemic.

• We don't know what causes it, but it definitely isn't us! 

As long as the CME sticks to this stance it will continue to cause an increase in autism (not to mention other chronic diseases), AND it will remain incapable of developing any relevant response or treatment. 

So the Autism epidemic is likely only to get progressively worse!

AUTISM. The epidemic continues to grow. Conventional medicine doesnt know the cause. But they do know it is NOT caused by pharmaceutical vaccines.

Three links about autism came into my in-tray this week. Each demonstrates that the Autism epidemic continues to grow, and that no-one appears to be interested in finding out why.

Autism Numbers in USA increase by 10%

               "According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the number of children diagnosed with autism in the United States continues to increase. In a report published on Mar. 27, 2020, the CDC estimated the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in the country is now one in 54 children - up from one in 59 reported by the agency in April 2018, for an increase of nearly 10 percent."

One in every 16 Irish boys has autism: crisis worse than COVID-19 and nobody cares

               "According to National Health data released last week, autism incidence among Irish children is now at 4.3%, an 82% rise in five years. One in 16 boys is affected."

England has 250,000 more autistics in 15 years. 1 in 21 English schoolboys in now autistic official Education Department statistics indicate.

               "Official UK statistics indicate 1 in 21 English schoolboys is now autistic.  Worse still when school leavers are included, in just 15 years the total number of new autistic school children and young adult school leavers is 258,000 according to CHS’ estimates from the official figures."

Autism is a disease that was unknown until the 1940's. It now affects millions around the world. Why is this? Conventional medicine does not know. This is what the UK's NHS clear and concise answer to this important question.

               "Nobody knows what causes autism, or if it has a cause."

So perhaps autism just 'happens', perhaps nothing causes it. It comes out of the blue, out of the air, like a virus. But the NHS continues,

"Autism is not an illness"

Not even an illness. Well, that's okay then - isn't it? Nothing to worry about? However, amidst all this bland uncertainty the NHS is perfectly clear about what does NOT cause autism. As the NHS says,

               "Autism is not caused by .....vaccines, such as the MMR vaccine...."

So parents who believe they had children who were developing normally prior to having childhood vaccines are just plain wrong. The vaccine is quite definitely NOT the cause. Even if "nobody knows the cause", or indeed "if there is a cause"

"It's not me, guv!"

So, no doubt conventional medicine can back up its certainty with scientific evidence. After all, it says that pharmaceutical medicine is 'science based'. So the question was asked of the USA's CDC (Centers for Disease Control), and they had to concede in a in Federal Court that it does NOT have any studies to support its claim that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”.

So when some 40%-70% of parents with autistic children blame vaccines, typically pointing to vaccines given during first six months of life caused the problem, conventional medicine resorts to denial - completely unsupported by evidence.

So who is looking into what is causing the autism epidemic?

• No one, it appears; sounds like doctors don 't even think it's necessary

Who cares about what is causing the autism epidemic?

• Answers on a postcard please

And by the way, should any of you parents are wondering, conventional medicine has no treatment for autism.

Autism

Just one of the many secondary costs of conventional medical failure

Coronavirus. Does Conventional Medical Establishment prefer patients to die rather than offer them Natural Medical Treatment?

Does Conventional Medicine prefer patients to die rather than admit THEY have no effective treatment, especially when natural medicine does? The coronavirus epidemic is a case in point. Doctors, and other medical 'experts' when interviewed by the media, insist there is no treatment; and that prevention is about washing our hands, voluntary isolation, and compulsory quarantine.

At the time of writing (18th March 2020) there is a reported 8,423 people who have died, worldwide, as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic. It is anticipated that this figure will rise much higher, and there seems to be general acceptance that they have died because there is 'no treatment' for the disease.

In addition, there is widespread political acceptance that as a result of there being no effective treatment, national economies have to be shut down in order to prevent the spread of the virus. A worldwide recession is now imminent as a direct result of a pandemic - for which there is no treatment.

Together, this is a huge cost to pay; yet governments around the world are demonstrating that they are quite willing to pay this cost, and that there is no alternative to doing so. And most people appear to be willing to accept what they are being told - that many will die, lose their jobs, and will face serious social disruption; that companies and whole industries will fail, and the national economy will be devastated.

Yet there is an alternative explanation for what is happening, albeit an explanation that no-one is hearing - because it is not being told.


The conventional medical establishment is huge. It is dominated by the enormously wealthy and  powerful pharmaceutical industry which uses uses its influence to control not only national medical services, but politicians, governments, and the mainstream media. Could this powerful vested interest be withholding and denying information about the alternative medical choices that are available?

Most people do not realise just how influential, dominant and powerful the conventional medical establishment is, that it is capable of denying vital information about health, and patient choice.

So what are the natural and alternative treatments for coronavirus we are not hearing about? Here are just a few of them.

1. Vitamin C, or Ascorbic Acid. This is being used widely in China, the original source of the epidemic, and in countries like Korea, which has been badly hit.

The Chinese epidemic was intense, but is now virtually stopped. This slow down has been rapid, and has been described in this article in the Jerusalem Post by Israeli Nobel Prize winner, Michael Levitt.

               “The rate of infection of the virus in the Hubei province increased by 30% each day - that is a scary statistic. I am not an influenza expert but I can analyze numbers and that is exponential growth. Had the growth continued at that rate, the whole world would have become infected within 90 days." But as Levitt continued to process the numbers, the pattern changed. On February 1, when he first looked at the statistics, Hubei Province had 1,800 new cases a day. By February 6, that number had reached 4,700 new cases a day. But on February 7, something changed. “The number of new infections started to drop linearly and did not stop. "A week later, the same happened with the number of the deaths.

So what has caused this slow down? Allow the Chinese government (with all its many faults in the eyes of the western world) to tell us. It has announced its official recommentation that COVID-19 should be treated with high amounts of intravenous vitamin C.

          "On the afternoon of February 20, 2020, another 4 patients with severe new coronaviral pneumonia recovered from the C10 West Ward of Tongji Hospital. In the past 8 patients have been discharged from hospital. . . High-dose vitamin C achieved good results in clinical applications. We believe that for patients with severe neonatal pneumonia and critically ill patients, vitamin C treatment should be initiated as soon as possible after admission. . . Early application of large doses of vitamin C can have a strong antioxidant effect, reduce inflammatory responses, and improve endothelial function. . . Numerous studies have shown that the dose of vitamin C has a lot to do with the effect of treatment. . . High-dose vitamin C can not only improve antiviral levels, but more importantly, can prevent and treat acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress."

So why have we not been told about this? Why are we, in the 'advanced' west, not being encouraged to use vitamin C? Why are people being allowed to die with any mention, any use, or even any examination into these claims?

2. Homeopathy is being used within the Indian medical system, and in other countries too, such as Cuba

India is a huge country. In the eyes of many people in the western world, India is not an 'advanced' country, with an 'advanced' medical system. Indeed, it is too often denigrated as being poor and backward. So if the coronavirus death toll in China is 3,122, in Italy 2,503, in Iran 1,335, in Spain 623, in the UK 71, the death rate in India must be huge. Well, actually it is just 3.

So why have we not been told? Why are we, in the 'advanced' west, not using homeopathy? Why are people being allowed to die without any mention, any use, any examination into the value of homeopathy, and its claims for the effectiveness of many remedies that are known to be able to both prevent, and treat these viral epidemics?

Moreover, the use of homeopathy is simple, inexpensive and effective. There are many detailed articles on the internet at the moment about the homeopathic treatment of this coronavirus pandemic. For example, this one focuses on prevention; this one on treatment. Local homeopaths throughout the world will advise on remedies that will be helpful to you.

3. Hair Dryers and Hot Water
There are, however, many other treatments that are being discussed, outside the confines of the conventional medical establishment. I have selected this one, the use of Hair Dryers. Heat kills viruses, and today I saw this message from a homeopath, Chuck Solomon (who has asked that everyone passes it on).

               "The Coronavirus and many other pathogens are easily KILLED BY WARM AIR from your hair dryer. The virus simply falls apart from exposure to a little heat. These viruses start a colony and live only in the cooler areas just inside your nose and the fore part of your sinus. Your breathing keeps these area's cooler, as the virus prefers, rather than deeper area's of the body.

               "So here's what to do: cool your face and outside of your nose with a spray or splash of water. Select the lowest warm temperature on your hair dryer and carefully blow some warm air into your nose and breathe it in. Do this for about 5 minutes, occasionally moving the hair dryer aside if it gets too hot. Air temperature of 133 degrees Fahrenheit (56 degrees Celsius), or warmer, will cause the virus cell-wall to break down so the virus dies. Use the air temp as warm as you can comfortably tolerate it. Repeat the heat treatment a couple of times a day to prevent infection by coronavirus, many other viruses and colds. If you start to feel like you are catching something, repeat the treatment 5 times per day.

There has been wall-to-wall coverage of coronvirus for weeks now. So why have we not been told about these treatments? Do they work? Why are people being allowed to die with any mention, any use, any examination of its value in treating viral outbreaks?

When I mentioned this to a homeopath-colleague she said that this is what our mothers and grandmothers did, getting a flu sufferer to breathe over a bowl of steaming hot water, with a towel covering the head. I had not made the connection, but this is exactly what my mother did for me.

Perhaps it is too much of an "old wives tale", lacking the imagination, wizardry and sophistication of modern pharmaceutical medicine. Except that it has shown no imagination, wizardry or sophistication in the treatment of this pandemic? Instead, perhaps, it signifies just how far we have regressed in medical know-how during the last 100 years of conventional medicine's domination.

The Body Healing Itself - Conventional Medicine stopping it
A fever is the body's natural means of killing viruses. Even conventional doctors occasionally acknowledge this. A fever is what our body does to overcome a viral attack.

So what does conventional medicine do? It seeks to reduce or stop fever, it works to prevent the body's natural response to viral attacks. Doing so is known to be seriously counter-productive. Even parts of the conventional medical establishment realise this. The World Health Organization has backed calls to avoid ibuprofen for coronavirus. Yet there are other parts of the conventional medical establishment that disagrees. And conventional doctors, it seems, have had to be reminded that it is "sensible to avoid ibuprofen for coronavirus" presumably because many of them did not know.

What this demonstrates is that pharmaceutical medicine is all over the place. It does not know what it's doing. During the Spanish flu outbreak in 1918 it did not know what it was doing, and many accounts are clear - it was the pharmaceutical drugs used then that probably killed more people then the flu itself. 100 years on it still has little to offer, except panic.

Yet conventional medicine does NOT want us to know that there are other ways of preventing and treating this coronavirus epidemic.

There are many other means of preventing and treating epidemics like Coronavirus COVID-19, some of them are very simple indeed, simplistic even. This article, for instance, At-Home Wellness Guide to Staying Healthy During COVID-19, describes just 5 of them - keeping it simple, eating healthy, drinking water, taking a walk, getting enough sleep.

So for weeks now the mainstream media has talked of little else other than the coronavirus pandemic, in panic mood. Yet it has done little to support these simple treatments, leave alone suggest that vitamins, and natural medicine might be able to help.

• Should they be tried?
• Should we meekly accept what conventional medicine tells us - that there is 'no alternative'?
• Should they be discussed?
• Should we get to know about them?
• Should they be subject to trials and studies?
• Should we have the right to choose how we are treated, based on full and proper information?

Certainly, when we are told that there is no treatment it means nothing more than that there is no CONVENTIONAL medical treatment. The treatments that are available are not profitable. And if they work they will inform too many people - that pharmaceutical medicine does not work, has not answers - but nutrition, natural health therapies, and even "old wives tales" are more helpful.

So people are dying in their thousands around the world - without any knowledge of vitamin C, or homeopathy, hair dryers, or inhaling steaming hot water. National economies are being jeopardised.

And conventional medicine would prefer this to admitting that there are non-conventional treatments. They are they scared that people might realise just how bare their medical cupboard is, and discover that other cupboards exist that are full of potentially effective treatments.

In other words, they would rather we died!

Measles. A threat to our health?

Run for cover! The conventional medical establishment is busy warning us about the threat of a new measles epidemic. The headline says it all!

Measles admissions increase by two-thirds in the last year.

Such an increase must be serious. The nurses say so. The doctors say so. And the figures comes from NHS Digital, in their 'Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity Report'. So it must be true. Run for cover!

The WHO has announced that Britain can no longer considered 'measles free'. And our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has highlighted the action needed to halt the spread of the disease - to promote vaccination. UNICEF figures, we are told, has found that 527,000 children missed the first dose of the MMR vaccine between 2010 and 2017. Dreadful!

So it's unvaccinated children that are the problem, even though we are not told what percentage of the cases were vaccinated and unvaccinated. This is just an assumption, an implication, that the problem lays with unvaccinated children - but no facts, no figures. Yet there is sufficient evidence that this assumption is just not true. Check the following links, all of which indicate that it is NOT just unvaccinated children who have been contracting measles in recent 'epidemics'.

Survey: Vaccinated children five times more prone to disease than unvaccinated children

The Marvellous Health of Unvaccinated Children | International Medical Council on Vaccination

Latest research shows vaccinated children more chronically ill than non-vaccinated

Study: Unvaccinated children far less prone to allergies and disease than vaccinated children

Serious Chicken Pox Outbreak in Indiana is Among Vaccinated Children | Health Impact News

Unvaccinated Children Suffer Fewer Infectious Diseases: StudyGaia Health

What the NHS figures do reveal, however, is the numbers who are involved in this 'epidemic' 66% rise. The base figure was taken from 2017/2018, where the total was 198 cases!

YES! JUST 198 CASES

Compare this figure with some real and ongoing epidemics of chronic disease which we face. I have outlined some of them here, describing their unprecedented, and ongoing rise - epidemics involving millions of people, not hundreds!

               * Autoimmune disease,
               * Allergy
               * Alzheimer's disease / dementia
               * Arthritis
               * Asthma
               * ADHD
               * Autism
               * Birth defects
               * Cancer
               * Heart disease
               * Chronic Fatigue / MS
               * COPD (Bronchitis)
               * Diabetes
               * Irritable Bowel, Crohn's disease, Ulcerative Colitis
               * Mental Health
               * MS
               * Osteoporosis
               * and others

So why this attention on measles? Is it justified? Or is it a means of deflecting attention away from these real disease epidemics that are making the lives of millions of people uncomfortable, unpleasant, and intolerable?

So should we be running from the treat of a measles epidemic?

• For one thing, measles is easily, effectively and safely treated with homeopathy.
• For another, measles is not a serious illness. The British Medical Journal recognised this as long ago as 1959 (7th February, p354) where they spoke to doctors about the cases recorded in England and Wales, concluding

               ".... that measles is nowadays normally a mild infection, and they rarely have occasion to give prophylactic gamma globulin".

This was, however, before the MMR vaccine was introduced! Doctors now have a vaccine to sell for the pharmaceutical industry. So suddenly measles has become anything but a mild infection! It is a threat to hundreds (sic) of children; alongside the unwarranted assumption that those in danger are children who have not been vaccinated!

So rather than running, in desperation, re-read a blog that I wrote in April 2013 about the measles outbreak in Swansea that year. It's the same old scare story! I concluded the blog by saying this - a statement well worth repeating in 2019.

               "..... the Swansea episode has been another example of a health scare, a panic created in order to sell more drugs and vaccines. If so, the Department of Health, the NHS, our GP's, and our national media, have all been complicit in yet another marketing exercise in favour of the Big Pharma drug companies."

ALLERGY. A Tragic Death. It's in the news and is being widely discussed. Yet no-one asks what is causing the allergy epidemic

The death of Natasha Ednan-Laperouse was undoubtedly a tragedy. Her story can be simply retold. She had a nut allergy, and ate an artichoke, olive and tapenade baguette at Heathrow Airport in July 2016, believing that it did not contain nuts. On the flight she went into cardiac arrest, and despite having two EpiPen injections (adrenaline) she died the same day. The baguette contained sesame seeds, an ingredient apparently not listed on the packaging.

At the recent inquest into Natasha's death the court focussed on food labelling. Pret A Manger did not label its baguettes as containing sesame seeds even though there had been six allergic reaction cases in the previous year. So the family is now campaigning for a change in food labelling laws.

An allergy is simply explained. "An allergy occurs when our immune system overreacts to what is normally a harmless substance, and triggers what, for the healthy human body, is an inappropriate and unnecessary response."

To eat a few sesame seeds, and die as a result, is most certainly "an inappropriate and unnecessary response", so whilst it is appropriate to look at food labelling, it is surely more important to discuss why Natasha's immune system, designed to defend and protect itself from attack from foreign substances, should react to a food it should have been able to eat in complete safety.

Allergy has become an epidemic in recent years. I have written about this in 'Epidemic of Chronic Disease', and in this blog from October 2012.

               "According to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's report, published in July 2007, "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 hay fever and eczema are similar."

The 2004 report showed the scale of the "allergy epidemic" - 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. Yet since then the allergy epidemic has continued to grow!

AND NO-ONE APPEARS TO WANT TO ASK THE OBVIOUS QUESTION - WHY?

In the current debate about Natasha, no one seems to want to ask why she had this allergy in the first place. The cause of her death was her allergy - it was not a sandwich containing sesame seed, this was just the trigger. After all, we should all be able to eat sesame seeds without such a reaction!

The answer is agonisingly simple. One of the main causes of the allergy epidemic, if not the main cause, are pharmaceutical drugs. This link lists the drugs known to cause allergy - including painkilling drugs, antibiotic drugs, sleeping pills, and in particular, childhood vaccinations and the plethora of drugs that 'work' by interfering with our immune system.

Does conventional medicine know about this? Apparently not, although perhaps more pertinent questions might be "does it want to know", and "does it want us to know?" This is what the NHS Choices website tell us about the cause of allergies.

               "Allergies occur when the body's immune system reacts to a particular substance as though it's harmful. It's not clear why this happens.....

               "The number of people with allergies is increasing every year. The reasons for this are not understood....."

So conventional medicine claims not to know - even when its medical textbooks, the doctors bibles like the British National Formulary and MIMS, very clearly provides the evidence for the link with pharmaceutical drugs!

There is a fundamental problem with this. If conventional medicine refuses to acknowledge the serious side effects of pharmaceutical drugs, if doctors won't tell patients about the harm they can cause, if our mainstream media decides not to ask important questions about iatrogenic disease, there will be no solution to this problem, or any other health problem. 

The campaign being waged by Natasha's parents will be doomed to failure because it does not address the most important question of all. Why was Natasha body allergic to what should be a harmless food?

Before it is possible to reach a solution for any problem it is first necessary to know what is causing the problem. Identify the wrong cause and a solution is not possible.

Allergy Treatment

And there is another problem. Where should parents be looking for safe and effective treatment for allergy? Natasha's father used two EpiPen injections, and they failed. I have written about the conventional treatment of allergy - the antihistamine drugs, the steroids, the decongestants, the 'Leukotriene receptor antagonists', and of course immunotherapy (playing around with our immune system). In the same link I have written about the homeopathic treatment of allergy, which is altogether more effective, free of serious adverse drug reactions, and safer.

Indeed, conventional medicine has proven that homeopathy is an effective treatment for allergy, and nut allergy in particular. In January 1914 the mainstream media heralded a new and successful treatment for peanut allergy. This from a BBC article.

               "Doctors say a potential treatment for peanut allergy has transformed the lives of children taking part in a large clinical trial. The 85 children had to eat peanut protein every day - initially in small doses, but ramped up during the study. The finding, published in the Lancet, suggest 84% of allergic children could eat the equivalent of five peanuts a day after six months".

As I said at the time, this is a treatment based on the principle of 'like (in small quantities) curing like'. It is, in other words, based on the principles of homeopathy! Whilst Homeopathy prefers to use peanuts in potency (in high dilution), these researchers used minute doses of peanut itself. This is probably not as safe as homeopathy, and probably produces results more slowly, but it is nonetheless homeopathy!

Yet in the years since that research was heralded as a breakthrough treatment conventional medicine  is still not using. So perhaps we should all be asking why!

But then, in matters of health, the right questions are rarely asked. This is why the allergy epidemic continues to grow, year by year, and why so many more 'Natasha's' are likely to die. Her mother was quoted as saying that "nobody else should ever have to suffer such a needless death". No-one is likely to disagree. Hopefully the food industry will eventually get its labelling right.

I am less optimistic that conventional medicine will ever admit that pharmaceutical drugs are a significant cause of allergy. And it is this that will be the basis of future tragedies.

Diabetes. Is it caused by pharmaceutical drugs?

Diabetes UK, via their website, have warned us that the number of people living with diabetes in Britain has soared by nearly 60% in the past decade. Extracting the statistics from NHS data, they say that more than 3.3 million people now have some form of diabetes compared with 2.1 million in 2005. They remind us that the inability to control blood sugar levels can lead to nerve damage, loss of vision, organ damage, and limbs amputations.

Barbara Young, Chief Executive of Diabetes UK. draws our attention to the cost this epidemic on the NHS budget in Britain.

     “Diabetes already costs the NHS nearly £10 billion a year, and 80 per cent of this is spent on managing avoidable complications. So there is huge potential to save money and reduce pressure on NHS hospitals and services through providing better care to prevent people with diabetes from developing devastating and costly complications?.

The BBC informs us that the NHS are aware of this issue when they quoted Dr Martin McShane, NHS England's Director for Long Term Conditions, saying:

     "These figures are a stark warning and reveal the increasing cost of diabetes. We've said it before and we'll say it again, it's time to get serious about lifestyle change."

There is a similar pattern throughout the world, particularly in Europe, the USA, Canada and Australia. Anywhere, in fact, where Big Food dominates our diet, and Big Pharma dominates our medical care.

Nor is this a new problem for the conventional medical establishment. The Independent newspaper, on 24th February 2009, told us that the problem of diabetes was getting so big, it is "threatening to overwhelm the NHS".  So it would appear that little to nothing has been done to reverse the situation for the last 6.5 years!

Whenever diabetes is discussed, the reason for the epidemic appears to be universally agreed. It is about our diet. As the BBC says, "the explanation for the soaring cases of type 2 are being placed squarely on the nation's ballooning waistline".

And certainly, it is undeniable that the food processing industry causes a large part of the diabetes epidemic, not least as a result of its long-standing love affair with the profits it makes by feeding us with sugar, and sugar substitutes. 

Yet there are other important factors giving rise to the diabetes epidemic, not the least of which are the pharmaceutical drugs used routinely by the conventional medical establishment for the treatment of other medical conditions.

Statin drugs 

Statins are being prescribed to increasing numbers of people to lower cholesterol, as well as to people who have type-2 diabetes. Yet even the USA drug regulator, the Food and Drug Administration, has admitted there is a risk of developing diabetes when taking statin drugs. Indeed, they now place warnings about the risk of diabetes on the labels of all statin drugs distributed in the USA. However, this warning is not required in Britain, and in many other countries, the reason for this lack of caution being rather uncertain, but probably having something to do with being told for decades that these drugs were 'entirely safe'!

The Daily Mail confirmed this in an article dated 5th March 2012 - over 4 years ago.

     "So while popular brands ... (of Statins)... will need to include a new warning on their labels in the US they will not have to on the same products in the UK.

So the conventional medical establishment is dishing out Stating drugs to millions of people, fully aware that they cause diabetes, and then bemoaning the fact that there is an epidemic rise in the numbers suffering from Type-2 diabetes!

• Is this link mentioned by the pharmaceutical industry?
• Is this link mentioned by Diabetes UK?
• Is this link mentioned by NHS spokesmen?
• Is this link mentioned by the BBC, and other media outlets?

Of course it is not. Patients suffer from a conspiracy of silence. We are not supposed to know that the drugs doctors give us cause diabetes. It might upset the profitability of a major industry! So it can all be blamed on the food we eat. Big Food, after all, is less powerful than Big Pharma!

Yet Statin drugs are not the only pharmaceutical culprits linked to the creation of the diabetes epidemic.

Beta Blocker and Diuretic Drugs

In 2006, the Daily mail reported that Beta Blockers drugs have been found to increase the risk of diabetes by 50%. It was quoting a study conducted at Imperial College, London, by Professor Neil Poulter. The study looked at 14,000 patients in the UK, Ireland and Scandinavia. Yet, instead of focusing on the dangers of these drugs, the study sought to compare the risk of the "old style" combination of a beta blocker and a diuretic, and to highlight that 'new' drugs were better! And we are told that "the benefits outweigh the risk", without any real or substantial corroberation about what the benefits are, and just how substantial the risks are!

This focus is typical of medical research. It has the ability to identify a problem, but not to highlight it. So Beta Blocker drugs ar a problem, but they are no longer a problem because there are 'newer' drugs that can be used instead. 

Yet Beta Blocker drugs continue to be prescribed in huge amounts to large numbers of patients.

So despite the risks, little or nothing is done to protect patients. The assumption is made that the drug is safe - until proven otherwise. So Beta Blockers continue to be prescribed to patients. At the same time diabetes continues to rise, exponentially. And we are not told about the link between the two.

Antihypertensive drugs

So what about other hypertensive drugs? WDDTY March 2007 (reporting the Lancet 2007; 369:201-7) said that "it's been suspected for nearly 50 years that antihypertensive drugs provoke diabetes because they lower a patient's glucose tolerance levels". But a 'definitive statement' has been hard to come by because (we are told) many patients with raised blood pressure are simply more likely to develop diabetes in any event. But the article states that researchers from the Rush Medical College in Chicago arrived at these conclusion after re-examining 22 clinical trials involving more than 143,000 patients who did not have diabetes when they started taking an antihypertensive drug to control their blood pressure.

A study entitled 'New-onset diabetes and antihypertensive treatment' in 2010 adds to the picture.

      "Numerous analyses have demonstrated that antihypertensive therapies promote the development of type-2-diabetes mellitus".

Again, the study suggest that using angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor-blockers (ARB) leads to less new-onset diabetes compared to beta-blockers, diuretics and placebo. Note the wording here. It does not say that ACE inhibitors and ARB drugs do not cause diabetes. It says that they cause less diabetes! How much less? We are not told. The conclusion is:

     "Antihypertensive treatment has a significant influence on the incidence of diabetes mellitus, whereas the incidence is higher for patients treated with diuretics or beta-blockers than for patients treated with calcium-channel-blockers, ACE inhibitors and ARB. 

Xyprexa

This antipsychotic drug is used in the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It is not only known to cause diabetes, it is also known that the drug company sought to hide this from patients. In a story published in the New York Times and Yahoo News (17 December 17 2006) and Consumer Affairs (18 December 2006) evidence had been obtained by an attorney representing patients in a lawsuit suggested that Eli Lilly covered up concerns about the drug. Although the company denied this, the documents suggested that the company withheld important information about the drug's links to obesity and increased blood sugar levels for the 10 years it was being marketed. 

So this is yet another  drug implicated in causing diabetes, and this one shows the lengths that drug companies, and the conventional medical establishment, will go to prevent us knowing about the full enormity of the side effects that they cause.

So one of the results of taking these, and no doubt other pharmaceutical drugs, is that patients, in ever-increasing numbers, are contracting diabetes. Common pharmaceutical drugs are an unmentioned and unacknowledged cause of diabetes. The conventional medical establishments calls this a 'side effect' but of course it is not. Diabetes is a disease. Drugs are causing disease!

And as a result of the diabetes epidemic health resources are required to deal with it. It has been estimated that diabetes medication now accounts for 10% of the entire NHS drugs bill, amounting to nearly £1 billion! These diabetes drugs, in turn, go on to cause of side effects (that is, other diseases) for which other drugs are required. 

Yet although we (as tax payers) are required to continue paying for the drugs, and (as patients) take them, and suffer the consequences, we are not told the real consequences of doing so.

Swine Flu - a crisis engineered by Big Pharma?

This blog is based on the 'Daily Health Alert' from Agora Health, dated 13th November 2013.

What did happen though is that Big Pharma managed to push drugs like Tamiflu and dangerous fast-tracked and untested vaccines by the millions, raking in billions of pounds.

It's despicable and very disturbing. Not only because the medical authorities, experts and doctors who we are supposed to trust blatantly lied to us, but also because these side effect ridden drugs and vaccines have left many people with permanent health problems.

A new study reveals that doctors and researchers with connections to pharmaceutical companies inflated the dangers of the 2009 Swine Flu 'pandemic' to help promote the drugs and vaccines developed by Big Pharma.

At the time, the mainstream and their Big Pharma cronies accused those (like us) who warned the public that Swine Flu was nothing more than a health crisis created by Big Pharma to sell their snake oil, of scaremongering and conspiracy theories.

The study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, shows that between April and July 2009, 35 of the 74 danger evaluations made by academics in the media originated from specialists who had strong connections to Big Pharma.

In 2009, the government even stockpiled Tamiflu when it was feared the H1N1 Swine Flu virus might clear the planet. According to the research findings, those advertising the use of antiviral pills, like Tamiflu, were eight times more likely to have ties with pharmaceutical companies, compared to those who did not encourage the use of these drugs.

The researchers raised concerns about the links of experts with drug companies who, were also on scientific advisory committees, including the World Health Organisation's (WHO) Emergency Committee... No wonder the WHO was so quick to declare the H1N1 Swine Flu outbreak a public health emergency... with many mainstreamers, like Prof Oxford, a virologist at Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, hysterically warning the world that up to 750,000 people would die of Swine Flu.

Of course, none of this happened. Yes, sadly there were deaths but not even close to the numbers predicted by so-called 'health experts'. In fact, a year later, in June 2010, the worldwide H1N1 death toll stood at 17,853. Compared to the annual death toll of ordinary seasonal flu (between 250,000 to 500,000), the H1N1 deaths made up a measly 5 per cent of that amount… Hardly the pandemic the mainstream expected!

A recent major study of four-to-18-year-olds by the Health Protection Agency, found that around one in every 55,000 of the Pandemrix Swine Flu vaccines was associated with narcolepsy. A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline, the makers of Pandemrix, said it had details of around 900 people from 14 countries who had narcolepsy and were vaccinated.

This is a shining example of why you need to join our Campaign For Safer Medicine. 

And this is another reason I wanted to blog this - I would like everyone who has concerns about the harm and damage caused to patients by Big Pharma drugs and vaccines to sign this petition

PETITION FOR SAFER MEDICINE 

According to the FDA’s own figures, prescription drugs seriously injured 471,291 Americans in 2010 alone, of which 82,724 were killed outright…

The situation is no better in the UK, or anywhere else that is dominated by conventional, drug-based medicine.

So please register your personal disgust at the sleazy practices of the pharmaceutical industry. By signing the petition you'll also be instrumental in forcing governments to sit up, take notice, and change the law relating to drugs trials and full disclosure of information.

Health Mis-information and the Media; the Swansea Measles Outbreak

What has happened to the measles epidemic in Swansea? Well, basically, it never happened, except in the minds, and in the misinformation given to us by the BBC, and other mainstream media outlets!

I wrote about the nonsense, and the  'moral panic' of this measles epidemic in April. I said that the numbers did not justify the panic, the disease did not justify the panic, and that only impact the media coverage was having was to panic people to get the MMR vaccine, which was too dangerous.

NSNBC International has researched this 'epidemic' and has found that the suppositions I was making in these blogs were correct. NSNBC International was founded in January 2013, committed to journalistic principles that the BBC, and others, have long forgotten when it comes to issues of health. It commits itself to being independent of political parties, governments, organisations or corporations (like the Big Pharma companies). On its website it says:

          "NSNBC's journalistic ethics oppose many, if not most mainstream media's bias, the uncriticial repetition and dissemination of mis- or disinformation to justify war or aggression and other violations of good ethics in journalism".

It has certainly done a good job in looking at the Swansea Measles outbreak. In this article, BBC News removes false news claims about measles epidemic 'after being busted' it takes the BBC to task for its coverage, and argues:

• that Welsh health officials were caught out initially when it emerged that the measles cases were only reported cases, which were massively over-reported by doctors. It is now estimated that as many as 73 in 74 cases were NOT measles.
• that the BBC removed their online article claiming that prior to 1988 (and the MMR vaccine) there were 'millions' of measles cases in the UK, with 100  child deaths every year. It also said that there were 'death risks' in the outbreak, and this reported comment "we are not in any way judgemental about why their children missed the MMR in the past, the important thing is to get the jab now". No pro-ConMed bias there, then! Certainly no information about the known and accepted dangers of the MMR vaccination.
• that the media, particularly BBC News were acting like a 'self-styled Pravda for the British Government (I personally disagree with this - they act for the Pharmaceutical interests, and the Conventional Medical Establishment rather than the government).
• that it is deeply troubling that the BBC publishes such 'fake' news, and then tries to 'airbrush' this from history. Indeed, there has been no retraction, no apology from the BBC. As far as anyone knows, there WAS as epidemic, measles IS a dangerous disease, and that one person was killed by measles.
• that 'scam' claims, for instance, that 1 in 1000 would die from measles were completely false; that since 1992, there have been more than 80,000 cases of measles and no deaths in healthy individuals during that time. Official Data Confirms – 20th Century Measles Deaths Would Fall Exponentially – And Regardless of Measles Or MMR Vaccine.
•  that the 1 in 1000 figure was taken from Bulgarian statistics, and then over-hyped (perhaps we should all ask "why?")
• The claims of a 25 year old man having died from measles has also turned out to be a scam. He had been in hospital with severe asthma, was discharged, and then not re-admitted when he reported that he had a rash. The rash was never diagnosed as measles.
• Additionally, the man's family reported that he had been 'fully immunised' against measles as a child. This makes it difficult to understand how the BBC (and other mainstream media) were prepared to collate this case with their calls for un0immunised people to get the vaccine.
• It has also emerged that the man was treated with Steroid drugs; but, of course, there was never any suggestion that his health may have been jeopardised by these drugs.

NSNBC International go on to ask pertinent questions about why this misinformation was being provided by the Welsh Health authorities, why the BBC so meekly went along with it, and why neither has sought to correct it, in an open and honest manner. They go on to suggest that we should all complain to the BBC Trust, and repost the article to Facebook, to blogs (which I am doing here), to Twitter, and circulate to friends and family.

It is vitally important that anyone who does not want to be scammed by ConMed Heath officials, and the media, that we all do this!

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'