HEALTH FREEDOM, PATIENT CHOICE & THE FEAR OF FREEDOM

Mandatory drugging is gaining ground, massively boosted now by the fear that has been generated over the Covid-19 pandemic. So when patients refuse to take a pharmaceutical drug or vaccine (for whatever reason) the conventional medical establishment (aided and abetted by government, and the mainstream media, MSM) wants to force them on us. They know best! We are just foolish!

• Mandatory drugging is the anathema to health freedom and patient choice.
• Enforcing medication represents the ultimate failure of conventional medicine, the inability to convince patients of the value and safety of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

So why is forced medication gaining ground? Why is it happening (mainly) within democracies? Indeed, why do the vast majority of patients quite willingly allow doctors to impose pharmaceutical drugs on them, even when there is known, well documented evidence that they cause patient harm and create illness? And why has mandatory drugging been allowed to gain ground in parts of the world (the USA, UK, Europe, Israel, et al) that can so often heard espousing their commitment to personal freedom and liberty?

Whilst at college I read a book by Erich Fromm, written in 1942, called "The Fear of Freedom". During the time of fascist and communist dictatorship it asked some basic questions about humanity, and its attitude towards freedom.

• does modern man really want freedom?
• or are we intrinsically afraid of it?
• is the fear of freedom the root of the 20th centuries predilection for totalitarianism?

Fromm's argument may provide a clue to why so many people accept conventional medical autocracy, including the long term absence of any serious debate about the almost complete dominance pharmaceutical medicine has within our national medical provision; and more recently, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the acceptance of horrendously damaging government health policies involving social distancing, lockdown, et al, which have led directly to the most serious, indeed disastrous social and economic breakdown. All with hardly a whimper! This is what Fromm said.

        "The rise of democracy, while setting men free, also created a society where man feels isolated from his fellows, where relationships are impersonal and where insecurity replaces a sense of belonging. This sense of isolation drives man to a devotion and submission to all-powerful organization from the state." 

Recently I was reminded of Fromm when I read this piece from the Off-Guardian by Tim Foyle, "On the psychology of the conspiracy denier". Foyle also begins by asking an important question.

• Why is it that intelligent, thoughtful and rationally minded people baulk at the suggestion that sociopaths are conspiring to manipulate and deceive them? 

Foyle continues by making a series of statements, all without too much danger of contradiction; and all of which can be associated with the dominance of the conventional medical establishment, and the threat to health freedom.

• that history catalogues the machinations of liars, thieves, bullies and narcissists and their devastating effects,
• that in modern times evidence of corruption and extraordinary deceptions abound,
• that politicians lie and hide their connections,
• that corporations routinely display utter contempt for moral norms
• that corruption surrounds us.
  

He goes on to talk about "revolving doors between the corporate and political spheres, the lobbying system, corrupt regulators, the media and judiciary mean that wrongdoing is practically never brought to any semblance of genuine justice."

He then reminds us that the the mainstream media (MSM) makes noise about these matters occasionally but never pursues them with true vigour. And that in the intelligence services and law enforcement wrongdoing on a breathtaking scale is commonplace and that, again, justice is never forthcoming. He says that government repeatedly ignores and/or tramples on the rights of the people, and actively abuses and mistreats the people.

Foyle states that none of this is controversial - and he is right. And he asks why most people refuse to acknowledge what is going on - in front of their eyes.

            "Why, against all the evidence, do they sneeringly and contemptuously defend the crumbling illusion that 'the great and good' are up there somewhere, have everything in hand, have only our best interests at heart, and are scrupulous, wise and sincere. The the press serves the people and truth rather than the crooks? That injustice after injustice result from mistakes and oversights, and never from that dread word: conspiracy?

Why indeed! Foyle's analysis is certainly germane to the almost non-existant health debate, notable mainly by its absence. It explains why so many people believe what they are told by the conventional medical establishment; and why apparently 'free' people allow their governments to impose dangerous drugs and vaccine on them. He goes on to ask - where does such an inadvertently destructive impulse originate? And he places it at the very beginning of human experience.

            "The infant places an innate trust in those it finds itself with - a trust which is, for the most part, essentially justified. The infant could not survive otherwise".

            "... the innate impulse to trust the mother never evolves, never encounters and engages with its counterbalance of reason (or mature faith), and remains forever on its 'default' infant setting".

So if the sociopaths are in full control of the pharmaceutical medical establishment, they are in control because we have never learnt to look after ourselves, we have never learnt to live our lives without being told (and preferring to be told) how to live our lives. The medical establishment stresses the importance of drugs and vaccines to our health; and most people go along with this. And as drugs are hugely profitable, pharmaceutical profits have enabled the industry to take complete control of medicine, at each and every level. Moreover, they have been able to subvert governments, and the MSM, who have willingly joined the medical establishment; and now the social media is going the same way.

So is the problem that we are afraid of health freedom? Would we rather be told what to do then to look at what we are being told, question it, and to make an informed choice? Do we prefer to believe that good health comes from a packet of pills, and that immunity from illness and disease comes only from a vaccine?

Natural medical therapies, such as homeopathy, have a different view. Therapists tell their patients that we are each responsible for the maintenance of our health; through good diet and nutrition; through adequate exercise; through sensible life-style choices; et al. This is right because it is right! It is the reality of life. 

The problem with this approach to health is that it puts each one of us, individually, in charge of our own health. We are, after all, responsible for making the key decisions about our health. Natural medical therapies are safe and effective. They will help us when we are sick; but ultimately it is the individual who is in charge of his/her own destiny. Sadly,  it would seem that, for too many people, this is just too much responsibility.

'V" Day. Vaccines that will save the world have arrived at last. The Pandemic is over! Perhaps.

I am not announcing 'V' Day (Vaccine Day) because I need to; it has been plastered all over the mainstream media (MSM) for months - wall-to-wall coverage providing us all with one single message, repeated over and over again, controlled tightly by the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME).

Informed choice no longer exists for anyone who gets their news from the MSM. Patient Choice has been neutralised because patients do not have access to the information they need. Health Freedom is the next target - enforced vaccines and mandated drugging is on the horizon. The CME is in control of us, and our health

Everything that has happened during the last 10 months has been leading to 'V' day. 

• A new virus emanating from China, probably engineered in a biotech lab (censored, we will never know much more about this). 
• A medical system that has no treatment, that can only watch as people die in their hospitals (openly admitted, but information aboutnother medical therapies has been censored).
• A medical system in panic, and a CME intent on passing on their fears to the entire population in order to ensure their compliance (censored, any information that questioned the need for panic and fear).
  
• A medical system that studiously ignored natural immunity, the importance of our immune system (censored, we have never been reminded, never been given strategies to support and strengthen or immunity, and protect us from the vaccine).
• Months of 'chasing the virus' with public health measures; washing hands; social distancing; test and trace; lockdown; and all the social and economic destruction that has resulted from this (the nonsense and the failure of the policies censored).
• The only hope we have been offered was the development of a vaccine, with rushed testing, and rushed approval (vital information that has still not been made available to the public).
  
• Gratuitous attacks on vaccine 'hesitancy', the condemnation of 'anti-vaxxers', with no right of reply (censored, any information used by anyone who questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccines).

Now this Orwellian narrative is going to have to be moved on by the CME. Vaccines have arrived, and they are going to save the world. The CME must make sure the message actually happens. If the world is not saved, after everyone takes the vaccines, it would be a devastating blow to the credibility of CME, for many reasons:

• The pharmaceutical drugs industry will clearly have failed, and after the hardships of the last 10 months, it will be seen to have failed - dismally. 
• The credibility of vaccines would be exposed, it would leave the COVID-19 vaccines open to serious questioned; and in turn this would mean all vaccines would have to be questioned.
• Medical science, at least a small but dominant branch of it that has controlled government policy, would be asked to justify itself; why has it got everything about the pandemic so very wrong.
  
• Our government would be exposed as having lied to us, and criticised (terminally) for having put its entire strategy into the hands of conventional medical science, and ignoring all other voices.
• The MSM would be seen as having failed to properly inform us, and to ask relevant questions about government, and conventional medical strategy.
• Worst of all, certainly for the CME, is that more people would begin to look more seriously at natural health, and natural medicine. They would lose all trust in CME, and in particular, those parts of CME that should have better informed us - government and the MSM.
  

So we can confidently expect a different CME message about the pandemic - beginning from today onwards. Otherwise, the problem will soon become apparent: the vaccines will not be 95% effective, or anything like 95% effective. And patients will be damaged by the vaccines. What will this strategy be? Based on previous experience it will be the statistics, the reinterpretation of real life, that will change.

• The presentation and interpretation of COVID-19 statistics will change fundamentally. The horror of the daily death figures will change; now, if deaths are announced at all, they will be seen as  "only a small proportion of people who have contracted this deadly virus". It would  have been so much worse, if the vaccines had not saved us.
  
• The focus will change, from the number of deaths and hospitalisations to the survival rates. We will be told that so many people now survive the virus, and government and the MSM will neglect to tell us that it has always been so!
  
• Testing for COVID-19 cases will be relaxed; less tests, less cases found. The test itself will be made less 'sensitive', so there will be fewer 'positive' tests.
• The people who die will once more be dying from their 'underlying health conditions' rather than by COVID-19. The CME will ensure that doctors no longer attribute death to the virus on death certificates.
  
• As the number of COVID-19 cases decline (they always decline, they have always decline eventually, it has happened in the history of all viral infections) the reason for this will be attributed to the vaccines alone.
• People who are harmed by the new vaccines will be discounted and dismissed by medical science. Each case is an 'anecdote', it is not 'science'. These people died with 'underlying health conditions', and the vaccine was merely coincidence.
• Doctors will continue to insist that all vaccines are safe and effective. So when vaccine damaged patients suggests they have been harmed they will be told this is not possible, as vaccines do not cause harm. So doctors will not report adverse vaccine reactions, via the 'Yellow Card' system. The reporting system will be circumvented thereby allowing doctors to tell us that there is 'no evidence'  the vaccine causes harm.

So the new vaccines, and the CME, will have triumphed once again. Orwellian governments are never wrong. They cannot be proven wrong as they are in control of information. The world has been saved. We do owe our lives to medical science, and to the wonders of conventional medicine.

Until, of course, the next pandemic arises. Then, the CME will have no effective treatment. It will be a new virus so there will be no vaccine. We will chase the virus with the same ineffective public health policies. Hospitals will watch helplessly over dying patients. The government will destroy social and economic life again, in line with the recommendations of medical science. An we will wait, again, for medical science produces another vaccine.

We will have learnt nothing! The importance of the immune system, how to sustain and strengthen it, will be further forgotten. And on top of this, natural immunity will be undermined by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that undermine it, and so cause many of the 'underlying health conditions' from which people will die.

Of course, most of this is all prediction. So will it happen? 

I fall back on my old mantra - that the best predictor of the future performance is past performance. And the fact that CME has been using this same strategy, time and time again, for over 100 years.

COVID-19 VACCINES. A dereliction of duty to the patient.

The fast-tracked approval of COVID-19 vaccines is a dereliction of duty to patients by all sections of the conventional medical establishment (CME) in the UK. This comes as no surprise, but it needs to be said, and highlighted, for anyone who is concerned about he safety of taking the vaccine, and wants to make an informed decision.

The Drug Regulator.

The primary responsibility of the MHRA, the UK's drug regulator, is to protect patients. It regularly and routinely fails in this duty. MHRA has approved a multitude of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that ultimately proved to be harmful to patient health. So it's approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is different only in the speed that it has seen fit to do it. And there can be little doubt that HMRA will be happy to approve the other vaccines with similar alacrity!

Even the EMA (the European drug regulator) believes this approval has been precipitant, although its own track record of approving harmful drugs is no better than the MHRA's. The EMA has said that it has "insufficient data" to make such a decision - although it is difficult to believe the MHRA has any more data to justify its approval.

Dr Anthony Fauci, the top vaccine advocate in the USA, made critical remarks about the speed of MHRA's approval of the vaccine. It represented a rare 'breaking of ranks' in the CME's vaccine strategy, that is, "they are super effective, entirely safe, and will 'save the world'. Clearly he spoke out of turn, and was soon brought to heel, apologising for this remarks. Perhaps his investments in the USA vaccine has been compromised.

Approval of all the vaccines was always going to happen. Long before the approval process had started, long before testing had finished, all the main COVID-19 vaccines entered into mass production mode - something the drug companies would not have even considered if there had been any chance, whatsoever, of the vaccines being properly or adequately safety checked.

So one vaccine has been approved, and others will follow quickly, routinely. Only time, and probably bitter experience, will tell how effective they will be, and how much patient harm the vaccines will cause.

The Government.

The UK's government is a fully paid-up member of the CME. Over the last 70 years it has allowed pharmaceutical medicine to become the monopoly provider of health care within the NHS; and this process has happened under Conservative, Labour and Coalition governments.

As far as Coronavirus COVID-19 is concerned, the government has found itself in a gigantic hole of its own making. It has committed itself, hook-line-sinker, to a conventional medical response; the NHS could offer no treatment; so it followed the advice of (a section) of conventional medical science to introduce public health measure, like social distancing, wearing masks, test and trace, and lockdown, all of which after 10 months have failed totally. All it's 'chase the virus'  has not only been a failure, they have been a laughable failure. The anomalies of lockdown have become ever more absurd, ever more devastating to people lives and livelihoods, and ever more devastating to the national economy. No world war could have done so much damage than the government's responsive to the pandemic.

Do hopeless naive has its policies been the government has even lost its huge majority in Parliament, saved this week only by the crass stupidity and incompetence of opposition parties, who advocate even more social distancing, and even stricter lockdown. Political myopia reigns supreme, it knows no party political barriers. None of our political leaders can see beyond the conventional medical establishment; and when you back a dead horse (or at least a very incompetent, useless horse) no one is going far!

So the UK's government is a desperate government. It has welcomed the prospect of the new vaccines with open arms. The are its only hope of salvation, the only hope of a failing government. Their backing of a failing medical system has brought it to its knees.

The Mainstream Media (MSM)

Perhaps the MSM are the most culpable of all parts of the conventional medical establishment. For 10 months they have parroted the message of pharmaceutical medicine, and the government. They have allowed little or no discussion; they have failed to ask searching questions; they have interviewed no-one other than medical 'experts' who are 'on message'; they have ignored anyone who disagrees with this dominant message; they have sought to ridicule and attack anyone who dares suggest there was an alternative approach, anyone who suggested that the policies being pursued would lead to failure.

So their joy at the approval of the new vaccines has been unbounded, equalling and surpassing the relief of the government, and the enhanced profitability of the drug companies.

Vaccines will save the world!

So the new message of the CME is as constant, insistent and ridiculous as their message about washing hands, masks, social distancing, test and trace, and lockdown. The new vaccines will save the world. And they are the only thing that will save the world. There is no problem, nothing to discuss about their safety or effectiveness. The only problem is the logistical problem of getting everyone vaccinated.

Except, of course, there are other people who have the audacity to suggest that vaccines will NOT save the world. Predictably, such views are being summarily dismissed by the CME as 'disinformation', 'fake news', and 'conspiracy theory'. What is this information? What is this news? What are these theories? There is no discussion of this, there is no effort to debate opposing views. There is just an outright rejection, and the continual and insistent repetition of the information that is 'right', the news that is 'correct', and the 'theories' that are acceptable.

There are just three possible responses to this failure to discuss the COVID-19 pandemic. 

1. The majority will listen to what they are told, they will hear only one side of the argument, and (like the MSN) accept that what they are being told must be correct. They know no better. When asked to do so they will go to the vaccination point, and get vaccinated. They will believe themselves to have been 'saved'. This is, of course, if CME's message is correct. If it isn't they will think they are safe but in fact continue to be susceptible to the disease. And some will suffer the all-too-frequent patient harm that has been caused by vaccines for the last 70 years.
   
2. A sizeable and growing minority of people will listen to the standard CME message and know, based on the information and/or personal experience they have, that it is wrong. They may have knowledge and training in health. They may have an understanding of natural, as opposed to vaccine immunity. They may have personal knowledge of the harm caused to friends and family by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Some may be aware of natural medical therapies, and might even be using it for their protection from, and treatment of the virus. Others may have knowledge of the fraud and corruption that has been so prominent within the pharmaceutical industry in recent decades. And all these people, like me, will feel angry that they are ignored, ridiculed and attacked by the CME.
   
3. Then there will be people, who do not fit into either of the above categories, who notice that the COVID-19 discussion has been entirely one-dimensional, and question why this single message been been repeated, ad nauseam, for so long. They will take the time to research the situation for themselves to discover whether there a different viewpoint? What is the Barrington Declaration, and why has it not been discussed? Who are this group of medical staff in Belgium, what are they saying, and why have their views not been aired? Why is natural immunity not being discussed, and why are we not being told about how to support and strengthen our immune system to protect ourselves? Why are some countries using Homeopathy, and other natural medical therapies, in their response to the pandemic? Why are homeopaths in this country working to prevent and treat COVID-19 - and we are not being told about it?

This latter group is important, because they are destined to move from the first to the second group. They will do so in their response to the pandemic, but also to health issues more generally. And, like me, they will understand that if they can no longer believe what the MSM is saying about health, why should they believe anything we are told by MSM on any other subject?

In the long-term this will be a positive thing for natural medicine, and also for the development of personal liberty and democracy.

Yet in the short-term it is a threat. It opens up the vision of an Orwellian nightmare - a medical system dominated by financial interests that want to force treatment on us - a threat to health freedom and patient choice - a paternalistic government that is not prepared to allow us to make our own decisions about the way we want to lead our lives.

The central issue concerning these new Covid-19 vaccines is greater than their safety and effectiveness, important as these are. More important is how we, as a society, want to live. At the moment we are being manipulated by a powerful medical establishment that controls our government and the MSN. The threat is real, and we will have an important decision to make - whether we are prepared to lose of freedoms, or if we are going to fight for them.

Health Freedom? Another USA hospital refuses to treat unvaccinated children. Mandatory vaccination in the 'land of freedom''?

Health freedom, and patient choice, are under threat throughout the world, or at least in countries where conventional medicine has become totally dominant.

A headline in the magazine "What Doctors Don't Tell You" (WDDTY), March 2019, stated that "Hospital refuses to treat unvaccinated children". This is the policy of the Paediatric and Adolescent Medicine Clinic at John Hopkins All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida, USA, which

          "....... has given parents a 90-day notice to get their children fully vaccinated or find a different doctor. The clinic says it won't recognise the usual religious exemptions, even though it's an exclusion that is permitted under Florida state law".

Sadly, it is not the only hospital to do so, especially in the USA. The USA has always prided itself as being 'the land of freedom' so how can doctors at this hospital, or any other, justify mandatory vaccination? The medical director is quoted as saying this.

          "Our practice believes that vaccinating children and young adults is a crucial step to promoting healthy lives and futures".

That's fine. In the 'land of freedom' she is quite at liberty to hold that opinion. But she is going much further than that. She is seeking to force parents to vaccinate their children, regardless of their opinions, regardless of whether they believe that vaccines promote healthy lives and futures, or not.

This is not an isolated example of conventional medicine trying to force its will on patients. Some national governments are trying to do it. Conventional health services are doing it whenever and wherever they can. Some schools and nurseries are trying to do it too.

It is important to realise that within health services around the world these vaccinations are either free, as they are in Britain, or free through medical insurance, as in many other countries. 

• So we have here a situation where conventional medicine cannot give away free drugs and vaccines!
• A situation where parents cannot be persuaded to accept blanket medical propaganda about the safety and effectiveness of these free pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines!

The problem that conventional medicine has is that some parents, who are sufficiently bright or engaged, are obtaining information from sources that are not under the control of the government, national health services (dominated as they are by conventional medicine), or the mainstream media (which depends heavily on pharmaceutical advertising). Many people, for instance, are now reading about the USA's vaccine court that is regularly paying out $billions to vaccine damaged families - the same vaccines that conventional doctors tell us are safe and want to force on us - the same vaccines that the pharmaceutical industry takes no responsibility for the damage they cause - this comes from government, taxpayers money!

So there is a growing number of people who now recognise the lies and deceit that are being used to convince us that vaccination is safe. The hospital director states that 'vaccines have been "thoroughly tested" for their safety and effectiveness'.

          "Unvaccinated children are a higher risk for becoming ill with a host of preventable diseases that can have serious and sometimes devastating consequences. In addition, unvaccinated children can potentially spread a preventable disease to another child who may be too young to be vaccinated or who is immune compromised"

Most of this is untrue, certainly not a single statement is unchallengeable, using good supporting evidence. Vaccines have not been thoroughly tested. Unvaccinated children at not at higher risk They are not more likely to spread disease. The 'preventable' diseases rarely, very rarely have serious or devastating consequences. Indeed, there are many studies that have shown that it is vaccinated children that become less well, that pick up the diseases that have been vaccinated against, and who spread disease.

Conventional doctors can, of course, get away with providing this deceitful and dishonest information. Conventional medicine, and particularly the pharmaceutical industry, have been practising deceitfully, dishonestly, and fraudulently for decades. As a result doctors know that they can say that their drugs are safe, in the knowledge that they will never be seriously challenged.

Yet the debate about vaccines will not go away. It is just that the debate is banned by government, not heard within national health services, and censored by the mainstream media. We are not supposed to know about it. But thankfully an increasing number of us DO know!

Yet there is another point about vaccination. There is NO illness or disease, for which children and young people can be vaccinated, that cannot be more easily, safely and effectively treated by natural medicine. Homeopathy, for instance can treat all the illnesses covered by the DPT vaccine (Dipththeria, Pertussin, Tenanus) and the MMR vaccine (Measles, Mumps, Rubella). And it can do so for any other illness for which there is a vaccination.

But this is also censored information, don't expect to hear it from your doctor, or the health service, or government, or the mainstream media. If you want to know about it click on the links to each of the diseases mentioned above, and compare conventional and homeopathic treatment.

But you are not forced to! Nor will you be forced by anyone to use natural therapy. We just don't do that. We just provide information, not propaganda. It is (or should be) up to every individual to make his or her own INFORMED choice.

And the final benefit? Once you know that conventional medicine does not have a monopoly in treatment you won't be too upset when your local hospital withholds conventional treatment from you and your children. The threat will be an empty one. They will cease to have control over you because you will be happy to use alternative medical treatment!

Medulloblastoma, Proton Beam Therapy, and Patient Choice

Medulloblastoma is a cancer, an invasive, rapidly growing cancer, the most common type of brain cancer in children. It is the disease Ashya King was diagnosed with in 2014 - a case I blogged about in September that year.

I return to the story because today (23rd January 2019) the NHS has proudly announced a new £125 million facility dedicated to Proton Beam Therapy at Manchester's Christie hospital.

               "The specialist radiotherapy targets cancers without damaging tissues around the tumours. This is good for children who are at risk of lasting damage to organs that are still growing but it is available in only a handful of countries around the world."

In today's press coverage (which as usual merely parrots the NHS press release) there is little or no mention of Ashya King. Indeed, the NHS say that proton beam therapy has been funded since 2008, but that patients had to travel overseas to receive it.

Given Ashya's 2014 story, outlined and discussed in my blog, this is a surprising claim. The facts of what happened to him and his parents can be quickly related.

• Ashya was diagnosed with medulloblastoma.
• Doctors recommended brain surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
• The parents disagreed, and wanted their son to have Proton Beam therapy.
• The NHS refused; they thought the treatment was 'too aggressive'.
• The parents took Ashya to Europe to seek treatment, eventually arriving in Spain.
• The NHS triggered an international alert.
• The family was found, and the parents were imprisoned!
• A request for their extradition from Spain was denied.
• Spanish doctors found that Ashya's condition was not as serious as British doctors had said.
• The case went to the High Court in August 2014, which ruled that the parents could take Ashya to Prague for Proton Beam therapy.
• The treatment was successful, and later it was announced that Ashya's cancer was in remission.

My 2014 blog raised the important questions this raised about patient choice. In this case, the choice of Ashya's parents for a treatment that was denied by the NHS, which went to enormous lengths to prevent them exercising it, and punishing them for failing to do what they were told. More than many other similar examples that could be quoted, this situation highlighted the extreme arrogance of doctors, not only in their uncompromising and (apparently) unchallengeable clinical judgement, but the drastic legal action they took against the parents who had dared to challenge them.

If Ashya had died, either before or after Proton Beam therapy, I can only imagine what the NHS (and their friends and allies in the media) would have said and done about it.

This specific case, and indeed most other consultations that take place between conventional doctors and patients, highlights the problem. 

• Conventional doctors to not discuss treatment with patients. They impose it upon them - on the simple basis that they know best. 
• Informed choice is something that seems quite alien to our doctors. Rarely to they discuss treatment options with patients, many time not even inform patients that there are alternative treatments, and the relative benefits and drawbacks of each available treatment.

This new NHS unit proves that the consultants who denied Ashya treatment is 2014 were WRONG, and that their arrogant actions were UNJUSTIFIED.

It demonstrates that Health Freedom and Patient Choice are NOT alive and well within the NHS today! The doctors rule. Patients are expected to obey.

The NHS emphasises another point, that this new treatment is safer and more effective than existing treatments. The obvious retort to this claim is that it could hardly be more harmful! The BBC article, referred to above, talks of the 'catastrophic complications' of operations, and states that the new treatment does 'less damage' to surrounding tissue and organs.

Note.
The media is allowed to criticise older conventional medical treatments - although only when there is a new treatment available!

So what about this new treatment. Is it safe? Is it more effective than existing treatments? Two years ago, in January 2016, the Independent newspaper outlined the results of a study published in the Lancet Oncology Journal. This found that radiotherapy and proton beam treatment "had similar survival rates for medulloblastoma". 

Similar! Not better! So what about safety?

               “Our findings suggest that proton radiotherapy seems to result in an acceptable degree of toxicity and had similar survival outcomes to those achieved with photon-based radiotherapy."

'An acceptable degree of toxicity'! Any study of conventional medicine will show that it is extremely accepting of high levels of toxicity and patient harm! The study found that Proton Beam Therapy had less side effects, but still had an impact on hearing, endocrine, and neurocognitive outcomes, particularly in younger patients.

This less than striking endorsement does not seem to have been mentioned in today's news, in which nothing has been said to moderate or question this new medical triumph. As usual with new treatments this will probably only come in the years to come.

So what should the news have been today? What should conventional medicine be doing about the ever-increasing numbers of people who now contract cancer, not least those who are now contracting it in childhood?

It is important to remember that the treatment cancer comes only at the END of a long process. The patient has already contracted the disease. Something has caused the cancer - but conventional medicine does not seem to know much about cancer causation. 

• Look at the Wikipedia article on Medulloblastoma. Cause is not even mentioned! 
• Look at the NHS Choices webpage on malignant brain tumours. Cause is not mentioned here either!

I wonder why? Is it because cancer rates have demonstrably increased alongside, and in exact parallel with, the rise in drug consumption (including vaccination) in recent decades? Could pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, with their known, published side effects, be the major cause? 

See here, these drugs are all known to cause cancer.

How do we know that pharmaceutical drugs cause cancer? The evidence is reported in the doctor's drug bibles', like MIMS and BNF, which list their side effects. So when considering causation why is this not mentioned in NHS Choices, or Wikipedia, or indeed in most other sources of information readily available to patients? Why are patients not routinely warned that taking pharmaceutical drugs could lead to them contracting cancer?

The answer is disarmingly simple. It is not in the interests of doctors, or the conventional medical establishment generally, to make such an admission. There are vested interests at stake. Informing patients that drugs and vaccines cause cancer would reduce confidence in conventional medicine, it would shrink their business. So patients cannot be allowed to know the truth about the drugs they are prescribed, and the vaccines they have been given. Much better they (that's you and me) remain ignorant!

Much better too to treat the side effects of drugs and vaccines, to diagnose them as an illness or disease, and then to come up with new treatments (marginally more effective, a little less unsafe, and always ruinously expensive) that expands rather than shrinks the conventional medical empire!

So patients should not rejoice at this new medical breakthrough. Instead they should avoid all conventional medical treatment by avoiding one of the most important causes of illness and disease. Patients should be encouraged to say 'No' to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. And to find a safer, more effective, less expensive natural therapy to maintain health.

The NHS abandons Patient Choice. We pay for treatment. But we can only have what THEY want to give us. What does this mean for patients like Anne?

The NHS no longer wants to spend money on Homeopathy. This is not a surprise. The NHS has long been a bastion of conventional medicine, a creature of the pharmaceutical companies. If patients want treatment the NHS is set up to give it to us, and to adopt the old motor car adage, you can have any treatment you want - as long as it involves pharmaceutical drugs!

The NHS is now almost totally a pharmaceutical monopoly. Want to buy a Ford car? No, sorry, you can't do that. We don't sell them. WE (a public body funded by people like yourself) have decided that you no longer have that choice. This is the only car we sell now. Take it. Or leave it.

And that is the situation that patients who want homeopathic treatment are now faced with. We may be entitled to treatment because we are UK citizens, but the this public body, the NHS, will no longer fund the treatment of their choice.

• It's a political matter - it is about Health Freedom.
• It's a health matter - it is about Patient Choice.

But it is also a personal matter. Some people have been having homeopathic treatment for their illnesses, and if and when this treatment is stopped they will be in serious difficulty. I have been talking to several people in this situation in recent weeks, usually patients who have tried every conventional treatment available to them without any of them working. Then they discover homeopathy. It works. And a few people were fortunate enough to persuade a reluctant NHS to pay for their treatment. But now those patients are worried their treatment, the only treatment that has worked for them, will now be stopped.

Take the case of Anne - not her real name. She has talked to me about her situation. She has been using homeopathy -since she became paraplegic - for over 40 years

She initially discovered homeopathy following a bout of pneumonia when she was 31, with 3 small children. She was given antibiotics, galore, and it took her ages to recover. Eventually she consulted a homeopath, and has been having homeopathic treatment ever since. She has also had osteopathic treatment, and used herbal remedies. Despite her many health issues she does not take any pharmaceutical drugs, and she is determined that she does not want to do so.

               "It actually terrifies me to end up at the mercy of the NHS because most general hospitals don’t understand spinal cord injury.... Every day is a battle to keep skin healthy, bladder operating to the best of my ability and bowels moving at their scheduled time. It all pulls a lot out of my system and at 66 I need to focus on keeping mentally robust too."

But Anne is a determined and intelligent lady. She has obviously done a lot of work, researching her condition, and the treatments available to her. She told me that she wants to learn as much as she can about using homeopathy in order to to stay well. She has recently cured an ear infection with homeopathic remedies. As a paraplegic she has regular urinary tract infections (UTI's) but thanks to homeopathy she no longer has to use antibiotics for these. So she is delighted. She despairs when she sees her friends in the SCI (spinal cord injury) community having intravenous antibiotics for sepsis and UTI's, and spending months in bed with pressure sores, et al.

So whilst Anne is usually confident about staying well with homeopathy, alongside other natural therapies, she has some trepidation about what the future holds for her. Like all of us she is not in control of her destiny. And she worries that if she does have to go into hospital she knows she will struggle to get the treatment she wants for herself. She will be routinely denied her patient choice.

When the NHS was inaugurated in 1948 its intention was to offer the best available medicine, free at the point of need. Anne knows that any NHS treatment will be free.

• But it will not the treatment she wants. 
• It will not be the treatment she has found, from experience, to be best for her.

The NHS is now a monopoly supplier of one kind of medicine. It is dominated by pharmaceutical drug treatment. Anne does not want this, and has spent her life trying to avoid it. The NHS has now taken a decision that money should not be spent on homeopathy because (it says) there is "no evidence' that homeopathy works.

Anne is the evidence, one piece of evidence in many millions, who knows that it does.

So for Anne it is not a political matter, health freedom. It is not just a medical matter, patient choice. It is a deeply personal matter concerning her health, her future, and the treatment she receives for her condition. Ultimately it will be about how she dies.

Yet Anne is not alone in this. Anyone who goes into hospital, today or tomorrow, because of an accident, or emergency, or an acute illness, is faced with the same dilemma she is grappling with. We talk a lot about our human rights, but surely this right, health freedom, is the most important right of all.

It is Anne's right to choose the treatment she receives. Her treatment should not be dictated to her by conventional doctors who think they know best, and know everything. But unfortunately that appears to be the direction in which the NHS is going.

Homeopathy, the NHS, and Patient Choice

The conventional medical establishment is moving to ban all homeopathy from the NHS in England. They are doing so NOT because homeopathy is a danger to patients, like pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines; NOT because homeopathy cannot make patients better; NOT because patients do not want to use homeopathy for their illnesses. It is doing so purely and simply because the NHS, and the conventional medical establishment that controls it, has been captured by the pharmaceutical industry. They want to kill patient choice and health freedom.

To allow homeopathy on the NHS could lead to comparisons which conventional medicine has always found awkward. Why don't their drug treatments work? Why is the NHS in constant crisis? Why do homeopathic 'sugar pills' have such a wonderful effect? Why do patients continue to see homeopaths when they have to pay for the treatment?

It's not that homeopathy costs much, or that the NHS spends a lot of money on homeopathy. In a previous blog, Banning Homeopathy on the NHS, I calculated that homeopathy constituted just 0.001257% of the total NHS drugs budget.

This blog, written on 24th July 2017, outlined what the NHS were doing. It mentioned a petition to the government in support of homeopathy. In the blog I questioned whether homeopathy needed a place within the NHS. After all, it is not where most homeopathy is practiced in Britain. But the petition to government was well supported, and now the Department of Health has responded to it. I am reproducing that response here, commenting on what it says, and the government's position.

               "It is for local NHS organisations to decide on the commissioning and funding of these healthcare treatments. NHS England’s consultation on low value prescription items includes homeopathic treatments."

It would seem that Pontius Pilate rules within the Department of Health! It's nothing to do with us, guv'! We wash our hands of the whole thing! But can they do this without abandoning a key element of the government's policy on health? Read on.....

               "Information from NHS England (NHSE) shows that in 2015, the cost for all prescriptions dispensed in primary care, not including any dispensing costs or fees, was £9.27 billion, a 4.7% increase on the previous year. Due to the increasing cost, NHSE is leading a review of medicines which can be considered as being of low clinical value and develop new guidance for Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). "

Yes, yes. The pharmaceutical drugs bill IS enormous, and the government does need to control it. But that has nothing to do with homeopathy, and the 0.001257% of that budget spent on homeopathy will not have gone up!

               "On 21 July, NHSE launched a three month consultation on the draft guidance on low value prescription items which is based on the latest clinical evidence, including that from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Careful consideration has been given to ensure that particular groups of people are not disproportionately affected, and that principles of best practice on clinical prescribing are adhered to." 

The NHS regularly conducts these 'consultation' exercises when they are proposing to close down homeopathic treatment within the NHS. They did one prior to closing the homeopathy hospital in Lothian in 2014. A large number of patients, and former patients, spoke highly of the facility, and wanted it to continue. But NHS consultation is not about patients, it is about the vested interests of the conventional medical establishment, and their masters, the pharmaceutical industry! It was closed.

               "The commissioning guidance, upon which NHSE is consulting, will be addressed to CCGs to support them to fulfil their duties around the appropriate use of prescribing resources. This will need to be taken into account by CCGs in adopting or amending their own local guidance to their clinicians in primary care."

Most CCG's (Clinical Commissioning Groups) do not spend money on homeopathy, they have long since 'banned' it from the services they offer to patients in their area. This consultation is about preventing the remaining few CCG's from spending money on homeopathy.

               "The aim of this consultation is to provide individuals with information about the proposed national guidance and to seek people’s views about the proposals. NHSE welcomes the views of the public, patients, clinicians, commissioners and providers through this consultation process to help inform the final guidance. The consultation ends on 21 October. Links to the consultation can be found here: https://www.england.nhs.uk/2017/07/medicine-consultation/ and 
https://www.engage.england.nhs.uk/consultation/items-routinely-prescribed/

I am delighted that the Department of Health welcomes people's views! It is a question about whether minority views will be listened to, or whether instead the NHS will go further down the road of mono-medicine, that is, a 'one size fits all' health service, on the basis that if pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are good enough for most people, they are good enough for everyone.

               "It is the responsibility of local NHS organisations to make decisions on the commissioning and funding of any healthcare treatments for NHS patients, such as homeopathy, taking account of issues to do with safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness and the availability of suitably qualified and regulated practitioners. "

Okay, well homeopathy complies with all that.

• Homeopathy is safe (indeed, it is demonstrably safer than the conventional treatments that currently dominate the NHS). 
• Homeopathy has been part of part of the clinical practice of the NHS since 1948, and to my knowledge its clinical practice has never been brought into question.
• Homeopathy is cost-effective, consisting of a modest consultation fee, and the modest cost of homeopathic remedies.
• Homeopaths, suitably qualified and regulated, are available throughout England, and the rest of the country (see the 'Find A Homeopath' website).

               "Complementary and alternative medicine (CAMs) treatments can, in principle, feature in a range of services offered by local NHS organisations. A treating clinician would take into account an individual’s circumstances and medical history in deciding what would be the most appropriate treatment for their condition. CCGs will have specific policies on the commissioning and funding of CAMs, and may have also developed local policies on priorities with regards to the funding of treatments. A GP would have to work within such policies in providing any treatments on the NHS."

Now, this is where government policy comes in, something that this Department of Health response seems to totally ignore. Note in the above response that treatments available to the patient are to be determined by the 'treating physician, who will decide "what would be the most appropriate treatment for their condition". Then cast you mind back to 2010, and the new government's White Paper. It made an important policy decision, easily reproduced here.

"No decision about me without me" 

Just a few simple words, but with massive meaning. They do NOT mean that the 'treating physician' will decide on 'the most appropriate treatment'. It puts the patient at the centre of treatment decisions. And many patients, including myself, will always choose homeopathic treatment rather than the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines routinely handed out by the 'treating physicians' of the NHS.

So the government, and the Department of Health in particular, needs to decide what it's policy is, and if it seeks to place the patient at the centre of decision-making, central government cannot wash its hands of decisions that will only reduce and restrict patient choice. Not, at least, without admitting that it no longer believes in patient choice; or without making 'patient choice' part of the 'proposed national guidelines' which will inform CCG's in coming to their decision.

               "The Department of Health supports an approach to evidence-based prescribing which does not support the commissioning of services which are not clinically and cost effective. We are not aware of any evidence that demonstrates the therapeutic effectiveness of homeopathic products. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) does not currently recommend that homeopathy should be used in the treatment of any health condition, whilst primary care prescribing data shows that there has been a significant decline in the prescribing of homeopathic products over the last 10 years. Furthermore, a good number of NHS organisations are reviewing their funding of homeopathic treatments and some have already stopped funding such treatment altogether.

Here, at last, is the real position of the Department of Health.

• It supports 'evidence based' prescribing. This evidence base is the one that, in the past, has approved of the use of one damaging pharmaceutical drug and vaccine after another, only for them to be withdrawn or banned when they have been found to harm patients, cause disease, and kill patients. This is the evidence base that continues to approve of a wide variety of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines where the evidence of serious harm caused to patients is already overwhelming but which doctors are still prescribing to patients.
• It states that it is 'not aware' of any evidence that demonstrates the therapeutic effectiveness of homeopathy. There are none so blind as those who do not want to see! Or those who are not allowed to see because they are under the total control of the conventional medical establishment! Homeopathy has been curing patients in clinical settings for over 220 years. There is a growing list of scientific studies, over 400, confirming the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. Moreover, I am sure that the Homeopathic Research Institute would be delighted to talk to the Department of Health about the evidence that supports 'the therapeutic effectiveness of homeopathic products', always assuming, of course, on there is someone in the with department the ears to hear!
• NICE are, of course, part of the conventional medical establishment, and populated in the main by people  busy using the 'revolving door'  between NICE and pharmaceutical drug companies. So, if only for this reason, the Department of Health is correct - they would probably not recommend using homeopathy, any more than a Ford salesman would sell a Vauxhall!
• Homeopathy in decline? As the pharmaceutical industry has tightened its grip on the NHS over the last 10 years, this is certainly true - but only within the NHS.

Yet, look closely at all these people and organisations brought in by the Department of Health to decide what patients can, and cannot have in terms of medical treatment within the NHS.

• the treating physician
• CCG's
• the evidence base of medical science
• NICE

So is the patient in this brave new world of NHS reform? Are we moving, ever closer, towards "No decision about me without me"? Or is patient choice dead? Is the concept of health freedom something quite foreign to the Department of Health?

This response only reinforces my belief that patients are going to need an alternative health service, one that is populated by homeopaths, naturopaths, herbalists, acupuncturists, reflexologists, and other alternative therapists, one that is quite separate and distinct from the NHS. Why?

Conventional medicine is failing - fast. Doctors can no longer prescribe painkillers safely. There is an 'Antibiotic Apocalypse' on the way, according to the Chief Medical Officer. Benzodiazepine drugs are an ongoing disaster. Antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs are no better. So many pharmaceutical drugs are on the way to being withdrawn and no new drugs are coming through the pharmaceutical pipeline. The NHS is in constant crisis. It cannot recruit enough doctors, who cannot afford to pay their indemnity insurance for the damage their treatments cause to patients. And, on the other side, an ever-increasing number of patients are realising that the drugs and vaccines the NHS are handing out are harmful - patients are becoming resistant to them, and this will only get worse.

So let the NHS go. Let conventional medicine monopolise it, and allow it to fail alongside the pharmaceutical drugs industry. This particular patient may shed a quiet tear, the end of a socialist dream, making the best medicine freely available to all. But the NHS is no longer about patients, or patient choice, or health freedom, the things I care about. It operates for the drug companies that control it. So good riddance, and long live the medical therapies of the future.

Patient Right to refuse medical treatment (in England)

Yesterday (1st December 2015) the English Court of Protection gave a judgement about a patients right to refuse medical treatment.

The case concerned a woman of 50 years old, who had been receiving kidney dialysis following a failed suicide attempt. The woman no longer wanted to have the treatment. Kings College Hospital, in London, challenged her right to refuse the treatment. In other words, they wanted the enforce treatment, regardless of whether the patient wanted it.

On BBC's Today programme this morning, Clive Coleman, their legal correspondent, quoted part of Justice McDonald's judgement. It is as follows:

          "An individual with mental capacity is entitled to decide whether or not to accept medical treatment. The right to refuse treatment extends to declining treatment that would, if administered, save the life of the patient."

Clive Coleman said that Justice McDonald went to to quote from another judgement on this matter, which is even clearer on the matter.

          "This right of choice is not limited to decisions which others might regard as sensible. It exists notwithstanding that the reasons for making the choice are rational, irrational, unknown, or even non-existent".

So the law in England appears to be absolutely clear. Conventional medicine cannot force treatment on patients. Treatments cannot be mandatory.

The arrogance of the conventional medical establishment is not restricted to Kings College Hospital. I have raised the issue on several occasions before, not least with moves that have been made (and are being made, especially in the USA and Australia) to make certain vaccinations mandatory. I also mentioned it when discussing the case of Ashya King.

• The conventional medical establishment wants to impose their treatments on patients.
• They do not recognise patients who refuse conventional treatment because they believe them to be ineffective and dangerous.
• Regardless of the evidence, they continue to refuse to accept that their treatment can be ineffective and dangerous, and that there are safer, more effective alternatives to what they have to offer.

So we need to be aware of English law in this matter, which is absolutely clear. We must make sure that conventional doctors, in their arrogance, do not assume that they have any rights over our bodies, our health, or the treatment we wish to have for any illness we have, or might have.

And equally important, we must be aware of any plan or attempt the conventional medical establishment, and their supporters, might have to change the law on patient choice, and health freedom.

Those living in the USA, Australia, and the other countries that are facing mandatory treatment should work towards ensuring that their law provides people with similar safeguards.

Health Monopoly means patients suffer, and even die

Where there is effective competition, in any sphere of life, customers or consumers are usually given choice. They can see what is available to them, and decide which product most meets their needs and requirements.

• For instance, if we were to visit a car showroom today to purchase a car, and were told that they could not sell us one with windows, or a roof, we would take ourselves to another showroom. 
• If the salesman told us that all their cars could only be started by a turning handle, operated from the front of the car, we might want to look at other options.
• If we were shown a car that could only travel at 30mph, or that only achieved 5 miles per gallon of petrol, we might decide to look for more effective and economical vehicles.

Indeed, such a showroom, such a car manufacturer, would soon find themselves out of business, as most of their prospective customers would want something that worked a little better.

These might sound like strange and excessive scenarios, perhaps as there are many car manufacturers, each seeking to respond to consumer requirements.

Yet, in the provision of health services, there is no such competition. Visit your doctor, or your local hospital, and you will be offered conventional medical treatment, most of which is based on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. If you want some other form of medical therapy you will not only be in the wrong place, no-one at the surgery, or the hospital, will bother to tell you about alternatives.

If conventional medicine was offering something that was safe and effective this might not represent a problem. We would be ill, receive the treatment, and get better. But this is seldom the deal offered to us by our doctors.

Arthritis. 

NHS Choices tells us that "osteoarthritis cannot be cured, but treatment can ease your symptoms and prevent them from affecting your everyday life”. The main conventional treatment for 'easing the symptoms' of arthritis are painkilling drugs. Yet these painkilling drugs are dangerous. And doctors know they are dangerous! But will they direct you to an alternative medical therapy, like homeopathy, which can cure arthritis safely and effective?

They will not. One has to suppose they prefer their patients to suffer - even when they admit that they have no cure.

Fibromyalgia (Chronic Fatigue)

This condition can be a very painful, but once again, NHS Choices confirms that: “there is no (conventional) cure for fibromyalgia, but treatment can ease some of your symptoms and improve quality of life”. So patients might be sent to specialists, such as rheumatologies, neurologists or psychologists, who will use painkillers and other drugs, but not to alternative practitioners who can actually treat the disease successfully.

Again, the NHS admits that conventional medicine has nothing to offer, but they refuse to refer patients on for more effective or safer treatment.

And there are many other diseases that conventional medicine has no safe or effective treatment. Indeed, in writing my new ebook, "Why Homeopathy?", which compares conventional medicine with homeopathy in the treatment of a variety of illnesses, I have been surprised at the number of times the conventional medical establishment freely and openly admits it has no effective treatment.

So a car with no windows, with no starter motor, and offering only a dreadful motoring experience is not either strange or excessive. It is what routinely happens which sick people visit conventional medical practitioners. There are many other diseases that conventional medicine admits it cannot treat, yet refuses to refer patients on to those who can.

Moreover, conventional medical practitioners also know, and admit, that their drugs cause side effects, and that these side effects can themselves be serious illness and diseases, including liver, kidney and heart disease, diabetes, confusion (dementia) and much else.

The analogy here might be that the car salesman cannot guarantee that travellers will not be poisoned by exhaust fumes, or crash randomly into obsticles at any time!

Death
Nor is the prospect of death an obstacle to the conventional medical establishment. The monopoly they hold within the NHS is to precious to put at risk by suggesting that there may be other treatments that might help patients.

I remember some years ago listening to news story about the man in Dundee who contracted Rabies from a bat. He was treated in hospital, presumably using conventional medical treatment. It was reported that 'there was no cure' for this condition, but they were making him as comfortable as possible.

I wrote to the Department of Health asking whether anyone within the health service in Dundee had bothered to see whether there was any traditional therapy for the condition, and in particular, whether they had contacted a homeopath in the area. I pointed out that Homeopathy treats 'like with like' using substances in high dilution/potency, and that the remedy 'Lyssinum' was made from the saliva of a rabid dog. I said that if asked, any homeopath could have tried this remedy, or indeed several others used by homeopaths for the treatment of this disease, to try to save this man's life.

The response I received was that was a matter of patient confidentiality, and the could not give me the information I required. The man’s death was announced a few days later.

Homeopathy is regularly used to treat rabies in eastern Europe, and elsewhere. The only assumption that can be drawn from this situation is that when people have illnesses that conventional medicine cannot cure, no effort is made by conventional medical practitioners to check whether alternative  medical therapies  might help – even when, as in this case, death was the outcome.

There are many other medical conditions (dementia, Ebola, et al) that lead to death, for which there is no conventional treatment. Whilst the conventional medical establishment will often conduct vastly expensive research into new drug or vaccine development, a simple referral to a homeopath, or indeed research into alternative treatments, is never suggested.

The NHS, and indeed many national health services throughout the world, are monopoly suppliers of conventional drug/vaccine medicine. Regretfully, they are more interested in protecting their monopoly than offering patients a real choice of medical therapy - even when they have nothing safe, or effective to offer us.

Health Freedom in Britain. Mary Kidson

The threat to our basic human freedoms is most pronounced in the sphere of health, where the conventional medical establishment is trying to impose their drugs and vaccines on everyone, regardless of whether they want them or not. I wrote about it only a few days ago in a blog entitled "Health Freedom, Patient Choice. Why does our media not discuss this issue?

This article demonstrated that the threat to Health Freedom was a world-wide phenomina, but that concern focused particularly on what was happening in the USA. Yet the case of Mary Kidson demonstrates that conventional medicine is quite willing to ride rough-shod of our freedoms in this country.

Mary's story can be simply stated, and what has happened to her and her daughter can be found via a web search. There was an excellent feature on her case on Channel 4 News last night (18th February 2015) by Ciaran Jenkins.

• Mary felt that her teenage daughter had a health issue. Although 14 years old she had not reached puberty, and she was constantly and chronically tired.
• Her doctors disagreed, and told her that there was nothing wrong with her.
• Mary disagreed, and did an internet search, where she found a Belgium doctor, who thought she had Chronic Fatigue, and recommended hormonal treatments.
• The doctors accused Mary of inventing her daughter's problems, and told her that she did not need hormonal treatment, and was poisoning her. She was charged on 3 counts of 'unlawfully and maliciously administering drugs, endangering life, and inflicting grievous bodily harm'.
• The Belgium doctor, Dr Thierry Hertoghe, who appeared on the Channel 4 feature, said that he was quite amazed that the matter was escalated, and the matter reached the courts. He said that in Europe "this could only happen in the UK". At the time he described the situation as a mess, and urged reform to give people the right to choose their doctor without fear of prosecution.
• On 5th March 2013, Mary's daughter was removed from her, and placed in local authority foster care.
• When Mary sought to keep in touch with her she was arrested and spent the next 6 months in prison. 
• Mary Kidson was tried, and cleared by a jury after a three-week trial at Worcester Crown Court in October 2014.
• Despite this, her daughter, now 16 years old, remains in local authority care!

Although there has been media coverage, both at local and national level on this situation, the Health Freedom aspects of the case have not been sufficiently highlighted. What we have here is a mother who is concerned about her daughter's health, who sought other opinions when her local NHS doctors told her there was not problem.

Was Mary Kidson expected just to accept this?

Was disagreeing with the opinions of NHS doctors, and eliciting a second opinion, sufficient grounds for removing her daughter from her care? Was it sufficient to insist that she had no contact with her daughter? Was it sufficient to throw the mother into prison?

The conventional medical establishment in Britain clearly thought that it was! In their arrogance, they insisted not only that they were right, and that the mother was wrong, but that solely based on their interpretation of the evidence, the daughter should be moved from her care, and the mother placed on remand in prison.

This situation is not unprecedented in Britain. I have commented, in another blog, about the case of Ashya King, whose parents found themselves at the centre of an international manhunt when they  removed him from Southampton General Hospital because they believed NHS treatment would have left the five-year-old deaf, blind and brain damaged. I said this in my blog about Ashya's case.

          "So this situation can and will happen again, unless and until we begin challenge the arrogance of the conventional medical profession, and the monopolistic ambitions of the Big Pharma drug companies. We can be certain that they will continue to insist that we all take their dangerous drugs and vaccines."

The medical profession appears to be alone amongst professions in believing that they have a monopoly of understanding and insight into the issues that affect our lives. Teachers don't do it. The police don't do it. Social work staff don't do it. But our doctors do, regularly, and there appears to be a reluctance to challenge their 'expertise'. Certainly, the mainstream media generally conforms to conventional medical opinions. So, in these cases, did social workers, the police, and the courts.

Even 'Liberty' turns a blind eye to this medical arrogance, which some people have described as 'medical fascism'! The organisation claims to champion our human rights. On their website, Shami Shakrabarti is quoted as saying, 

          "Liberty campaigns for civil liberties and human rights in the UK. Our members have been holding the powerful to account, changing the law and making the news for 80 years

But not, it would appear, if our civil liberties, and human rights, concerns our ability to choose our own medical treatment, and to refuse treatments the NHS tells us that we need!

All of us have a responsibility to stand firm against the conventional medical establishment. If we do not do so, and soon, mandatory vaccines and drugs will soon be part of our reality. And many of us will find ourselves incarcerated because we believe we have a right to 'Patient Choice'.

Incidentally, all the major political parties in Britain support the concept of 'Patient Choice' in medicine. Perhaps they all need to make it a reality in this country!

Health Freedom, Patient Choice. Why does our media not discuss this issue?

Thomas Jefferson once wrote this about Health Freedom. 

          "If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny".

So did he foresee, over 200 years ago, what is now happening today, throughout the world?

Did he foresee the pharmaceutical medical establishment set on imposing drugs and vaccines on us, whether we want them or not?

Most people will assume that, as patients, we are able to freely choose what treatment we accept, and what treatment we decline?

Most people may assume that the conventional medical establishment respects our rights to Health Freedom, and to Patient Choice, and are interested only in our health and well-being.

But is health freedom actually and seriously under threat? And is it under threat, most of all, in the USA, the land of freedom, the country Thomas Jefferson did so much to establish?

Below I am attaching a number of articles about Health Freedom, 

and the threats that now exist to Patient Choice.
These are not isolated examples of forced medication.
It is happening throughout the world.

Medical Mafia calling for gunpoint quarantines of citizens who refuse vaccinations.

Parent get $800k over warrantless search and removal of homeschool kids who were not vaccinated.

National media wages psychological terror campaign against Americans to set stage for government destruction of medical choice.

You won't believe which big-name groups are opposed to flu vaccine mandates

Is mandatory pediatric chemo institutionalized child abuse?

Forcing chemo on a 17-year old is deadly, research reveals.

Doctors who question vaccination are being forced out of medicine.

Vaccine pusher trying to revoke all religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccination.

Back to school vaccine. Know the risks and failures

Changes need for US vaccine policy to protect human and civil rights

Canadian parents outraged after school official vaccinate their children without consent.

New petition announced to close 2 loopholes allowing forced medication and quarantine.

Australia. Health Freedom outlawed. Health Fascism warning. A taste of future for citizens of other nations?

New South Wales government seeks unprecedented power to censor and punish health activists and practitioners.

Bloomberg unleashes mandatory vaccination of children.

HPV Vaccine debate. Don't ask! Don't tell!

Children in danger as an easy target for forced medication

Children taken away from parents to receive forced vaccinations.

And there are many, many more articles on the internet outlining the attempt of the conventional medical establishment, led by the Pharmaceutical industry, to force us to accept their treatments.

Yet, our mainstream media, quick enough to protect their own freedom, is steadfastly refusing to engage in this important health debate. 

They would rather, it would seem, allow conventional medicine to have an exclusive right to our bodies, and dominate the medical debate. And because conventional doctors believe that 'they know best' what is 'right for us', they insist that all drugs and vaccines are safe, and that we should all be taking them.

The silence of the so-called 'Free Press' demonstrates not only that they have been siding with the powerful conventional medical establishment, but also willing to stand to one side whilst our health freedoms are taken away from us.

SO MUCH FOR THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS!

Ashya King and Patient Choice

It is likely that this story will soon diminish and dwindle into obscurity, and most people will consider that there has been a 'happy' ending, with the family re-united, and Ashya getting the treatment his parents wanted for him.

Yet to consider the story in this way is to ignore the bigger implications of what has been allowed to happen. The trials of Ashya's family have been about Health Freedom and Patient Choice.

What did his parents do to get themselves arrested and imprisoned? What did they do to deserve having their son made a Ward of Court by the English judicial system?

Quite simple, they ignored medical advice! Note well that word - advice: A ‘recommendation about action’, ‘somebody’s opinion about what another person should do’ - then consider the consequences for anyone who does not conform to conventional medical advice!

• The Police and the Crown Prosecution Service acted upon this advice, without question, and without reservation.

• The local authority act upon this advice, without question, and without reservation.

• And our courts of law acted upon this advice, without question, and without reservation.

So the result for Ashya’s parents not following medical ‘advice’ was to end up in prison, their very sick young child denied access to his family, and legal control of Ashya taken away from them, and given to the state.

So what was the quality of this ‘advice'? 

It transpires that the parents did not place their child in danger. They were unhappy about the treatment the medical 'experts' were giving him. They identified another form of treatment that had been denied to him. And they were told this treatment would not be beneficial for their son.

In other words, they questioned the medical 'expertise' of the medical experts, and had been denied their patient choice. This was a denial of health freedom/

And, true to form, our mainstream media presented the story exactly as the conventional medical establishment presented it to them. The only questions they bothered to ask was directed to other ‘experts’ within the conventional medical establishment'.

A nice cosy story for the media to run with, then? 

Well, not for long. Soon the enormity of the actions initiated by the medical authorities began to quickly unravel. Soon we were told that there as no evidence to support the European Arrest Warrant. So after several days the parents were released. The police and prosecution services have said that they would 'review' the quality of the evidence given to them by the medical authorities (although I suspect we are unlikely to hear any more about this). And the 'alternative' treatment asked for by the family is now to be provided for the family, at a reduced rates, with public offers of funding the treatment became available.

Public sympathy was quick to develop in this case, regardless of the attitude of the conventional medical system, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the mainstream media.

The 'Medical Mafia', as more and more people are describing the conventional medical establishment, had overstepped the mark. They had miscalculated. So much so, the rest the the Establishment could not save them - although no doubt they will seek to reduce the impact of their gross error of judgement in future weeks.

The fact is that the conventional medical establishment wants to develop a complete and total monopoly of health provision within the NHS. And they are almost there! Go to any GP surgery, or any NHS hospital, and you will be offered one type of treatment, usually based on pharmaceutical drugs that are known to be largely ineffective, and usually harmful to our health. The NHS is not set up now to do anything else. Anyone who asks for something different to what is offered faces opposition from an NHS bureaucracy largely opposed the concept of patient choice.

Am I exaggerating to situation? 

• If you think so, go to see your GP, and ask him/her for a non-conventional medical treatment! I did this several years ago and had an 11 month battle with the GP surgery, the then local PCT, and went through the entire complaints system before I was given the homeopathic treatment I asked for. 
• Listen to the voices of those so convinced of the benefits of vaccines (and so closed to any suggestion that they may cause harm), and be aware that they want to stop non-vaccinated children attending pre-school and nursery provision.
• Anyone over 50, or considered at risk of heart disease, are now supposed to be taking Statin drugs, regardless of their wishes or reservations, regardless of whether they are told about the serious harm this drug can cause.
• The NHS is seeking to close the few Homeopathic Hospitals in this country.
• And if you have a dog, try getting it into a kennel without proof of vaccination!

That is what caused the problems for Ashya's parents. They had the audacity to question medical orthodoxy. They dared to suggest that the treatment treatment their son was receiving was dangerous. They did not like what they were being offered. They asked for another form of treatment, and were even willing to pay for it themselves, but they were denied.

Patient Choice and Health Freedom is not alive within the NHS.

So this situation can and will happen again, unless and until we begin challenge the arrogance of the conventional medical profession, and the monopolistic ambitions of the pharmaceutical drug companies. We can be certain that they will continue to insist that we all take their dangerous drugs and vaccines. 

So whilst I am happy that things now seem to be working out for the King family, the real issues of Patient Choice and Health Freedom, central to this situation, are being ignored, and so the lessons are not being learnt.

Post Script (March 2015)
Today, 24th March 2015, the media has announced that Ashya is now free of cancer. So the family were put through this ordeal for not good reason, other than the arrogance of the conventional medical establishment, who always seem to think they know what is best for us!

Well done, the King family. A tremendous victory for Health Freedom.