Is Dementia Preventable? The Dishonest Discussion of Disease Causation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Dangerous Pharmaceutical Drugs. How long does it take the Conventional Medical Establishment to act to protect patients?

The pharmaceutical drug, isotretinoin (which also goes under the alternative names Accutane, Roaccutane, Reticutan, and Rizuderm), in a drug used by conventional medicine for Acne. It is a dangerous drug. Even a single dose is known to cause severe birth defects, or even the death of a baby. The drug is also known to cause chelitis, epistaxis, hypertriglyceridemia, pruritis, xerosis cutis, decreased hel cholesterol, increasing liver enzymes, increased serum triglycerides, musculoskeletal signs and symptoms, dry nose, xeroderma and xerostomia.

Regardless of this harm it is still being used. It would appear that no drug or vaccine is too dangerous for conventional medicine to give to patients. Isotretinoin was first used in the 1930's, although it was developed by the drug company Hoffman-La Roche in the 1980's. The impact on pregnant women was known from the early stages of its development - but it did not stop its development, or indeed its sales. Indeed, it is estimated that over 13 million patients were treated with the drug.

After some 40 years, in November 2020, the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA (the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) called "for information to be considered as part of an expert review". Presumably it had (rather belatedly) recognised the dangers of the drug.

I first heard about this drug in an article in WDDTY (What Doctors Won't Tell You) in March 2002, in which some of the drugs' long-term side effects were outlined. Then, two years later, in August 2004 WDDTY stated in another article that the drug could cause Guillain-Barre paralysis. Then, in October 2005, WDDTY wrote about the drugs 'ability' to cause birth defects. The information was taken from the journal of the AMA (the American Medical Association, 2005; 294: 1481). By this time, the ability of isotretinoin to cause birth defects had already known for over 20 years! Yet the drug was not banned, or withdrawn; but 'restrictions' and 'requirement' were put in place.

            ".. physicians who prescribe the drug to a pregnant woman must first sign a form called 'iPledge', while patients who want to take it while pregnant must sign an informed consent form and also obtain counselling about the risks of taking the drug.  Wholesalers and pharmacies must also comply with special requirements before issuing the drug."

In 2009 Roche Pharmaceuticals discontinued the manufacture and distribution of Accutane, their version of the drug. This was not because of any concern for patients, but owing to the high cost of defending personal-injury lawsuits in the USA. They were okay with harming their patients; but not if the cost of denying the harm caused became too high. This approach encapsulates the business ethics of the pharmaceutical industry.

However, generic versions of the drug, such as Roaccutane, remained in use with patients. If a drug can be sold for profit, it will be sold, quite regardless of patient harm.

So the MHRA is taking action nearly 40 years after this drug was first introduced, but even now, the drug is not being withdrawn or banned - it is merely "a call for information". 

            "This review is being undertaken by the MHRA with advice from the Commission on Human Medicines and the Isotretinoin Expert Working Group due to concerns about the possible association between isotretinoin and suspected psychiatric and sexual disorders."

Suspected psychiatric and sexual disorders? Is this new then? Does conventional medicine give patients drugs like isotretinoin for nearly 40 years blissfully unaware that they cause 'psychiatric and sexual disorders'? It would appear to be so as websites like Drugs.com and RxList, even now, do not mention anything about 'erectile dysfunction' and 'reduced libido'.

Remember - this is the history of just one drug. But this is not untypical of the hundreds of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have been withdrawn and banned over the years. And it will certainly not be untypical of the thousands of other pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines currently being prescribed today. The pharmaceutical medical establishment sells drugs, wherever and whenever it can. They are not, and never have been, deterred by evidence of patient harm.

So why should anyone believe that any pharmaceutical drug or vaccines, sold by drug companies today, are any safer or less harmful than these previously banned drugs?

Isotretinoin is just another dangerous drug.

 

Talking Therapy & Social Prescribing. What they have in common is an admission that pharmaceutical drugs just don't work

NHS England have announced that they will be employing 1,000 "social prescribing workers" within the next year. It says that these "workers are being recruited to help patients find suitable activities that are a better alternative to medication". The drugs and the vaccines have been handed out like confetti by the NHS for the last 70 years, they have not worked, and now they are looking for something that might be more effective.

Social prescribing enables doctors and other health care professionals to refer people to a range of local, non-clinical, social, recreational and sporting services. They include volunteering, educational groups, arts activities, gardening, befriending, cookery, healthy eating advice, and a variety of sports.

It is the second non-drug initiative that conventional medicine is looking towards to improve their dreadful record treating illness and disease. Antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs have proved to be little better than useless in dealing with the burgeoning mental health crisis, and have such serious side effects, they are being replaced, whenever possible, by 'talking therapies'.

They are two good initiatives. Many patients are already benefitting from talking therapies, and many more could benefit social prescribing schemes, including, it is thought, people with mild or long-term mental health problems, socially vulnerable groups, the lonely and socially isolated, and patients who regularly visit doctors with minor, and/or ongoing health issues.

Avoiding pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines is an equally important benefit!

It is good to see conventional medicine looking elsewhere - at last. It has become blindingly obvious over the last 70 years that good health does not come from a bottle or pills, or a syringe. But these initiatives will be insufficient to address the epidemics of serious chronic disease we are witnessing. For this, effective (and safe) medical therapies will be necessary.

And conventional medicine continues purposely to ignore natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, chiropractor, osteopathy and many others.

As pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines continue to fail, become increasingly expensive, and cause serious illness and disease through their 'side effects', it is to these alternatives that the NHS, and other national health services, are going to have to turn.

'The doctor who gave up drugs', and are 'too many pills are making us sick'?

The wall of silence about the harm that is being caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines is gradually being undermined. The BBC has recently broadcast two hour-long programmes entitled 'The Doctor who gave up Drugs' in which Dr Chris van Tulleken explains why there are better alternatives for children than to taking drugs. This was his second series, the first being broadcast in 2016, both series a rather meek and mild attempt to point out the limited effectiveness of the drugs, and (to a more limited extent) the harm they can cause, and evaluating alternative treatments that are both safer and more effective.

NOTE. Read this article about the contribution made to this film by Dr David Healy. Clearly Dr van Tulleken did not use all the information he had available to him. Healy says that van Tulleken "bottled out". But it seems just as likely that the BBC would not allow all the evidence to be broadcast. There is a limit to media honesty, and what the conventional medical establishment wants us to know!

Then there is a new book, James Le Fanu, a doctor and journalist, entitled "Too Many Pills: how too much medicine is endangering our health and what we can do about it", which has been described as an 'eye-opening account of the over-medicalisation of our lives'.

Yet is is quite obvious that the drug-fest continues, regardless. The number of prescriptions issued has increased by 300% over the last fifteen years. The use of painkillers have increased by 25% over the last 5 years, even though they have limited effectiveness, and do not deal with the cause of the pain. Antidepressant drugs, increasingly prescribed for young people, has increased by 50% over the last 7 years, despite van Tulleken pointing out that there is limited evidence of their effectiveness. The over-use of antibiotics will soon mean that they become completely ineffective, and there are concerns about whether conventional medicine will be able to survive without them.

So millions of patients are now taking a cocktail of pharmaceutical drugs for a great variety of illnesses (and non-illnesses like blood pressure, cholesterol, et al). Le Fanu examines how the medicalisation of health now poses a major threat to our health and wellbeing. What he says, according to reviews, is in keeping with what this blog has been saying for the last decade, that the drug fest of the last 70 years is responsible for generating epidemics of drug induced chronic disease. It is, in other words, making us sick.

Yet both of these doctors are out-of-kilter with the wider medical establishment. Pharmaceutical drugs may be harmful, and this may be increasingly recognised, but most patients still find themselves pressured into taking drugs, often when they do not need them, and suffering from their adverse effects, and needing more drugs to deal with them. It is not unusual for patients now to be on 6, 8, 10, 12 and more drugs, and taking these drugs for many years without any noticeable improvement in any of their drug-induced conditions.

Watching the van Tulleken programmes it is clear that this doctor is aware of the problem of drug side effects, but not that these 'side effects' are really serious illnesses and diseases. For instance, he states that too many families are using too much Calpol (a liquid paracetamol drug for children). Yet van Tulleken then admits that he had to give his new baby some Calpol - on the evening that he had received his first vaccination. He said that he had never heard his baby cry like he did that evening, and he had a very high temperature, so he was forced to use it.

As a doctor, either he did not know, or perhaps the BBC did not allow him to say, that these two symptoms are well known, and officially recognised 'side effects' of the DPT vaccination.

I have not read the Le Fanu book, yet, but I do wonder just how much more insightful he will be. He is a doctor, so a member of the conventional medical establishment. He writes for mainstream media, the Telegraph, so he will probably not be allowed to be too critical. 

• Too many drugs? Yes, saying this is just about permissible. 
• Drugs are causing serious harm to patients? Probably not.

But Le Fanu does give us this story. In 2007, an Israeli doctor discontinued 320 drugs that were being prescribed for 100 frail nursing-home residents. In the following year, the number of deaths halved and emergency hospital admissions fell by two thirds. The doctor concluded that polypharmacy, the use of multiple drugs, was a disease “with potentially more complications than the illnesses these different drugs are prescribed for”.

I had done something similar in the late 1980's within a residential unit that I was managing at the time. Reducing the drugs round by 50% had no appreciable on the health of the residents, so the inevitable question was - why are they taking these drugs?

The dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are well known, even within the conventional medical establishment. Yet patients continue to be over-medicated, and increasingly so.

• Why have these two doctors said something controversial when what they both say is really uncontroversial?
• Why don't the multitude of doctors who are giving out harmful drugs to their patients know what is well known?

Answers on a postcard please! Or is it just that have doctors have allowed themselves to become little more than drug salesmen and women?

Is Food and Nutrition the full answer to sickness? What if our stomachs have been damaged?

As conventional medicine continues to fail, alternative medicine rises, and much emphasis is usually placed on the importance of good nutrition. Clearly, food is important to our health. Our diet is our fuel, it's what allows us to function properly at every level. Yet there is a problem, a limitation to this approach. Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines can seriously damage our stomachs, often to the extent that our digestive system is unable to make good use of even the best food.

Let's begin, however, with emphasising the importance of food, diet and nutrition to us all. The magazine, What Doctors Don't Tell You (WDDTY) published an excellent article in March 2018, in which it outlined the benefits of food to the health of all our organs and bodily functions. This is a short summary of the advice given.

• Headaches? Eat some fish, and ginger.
• Stroke? Green tea is the thing
• Eye Problems? Eat some carrots (yes your mother was right)!
• Persistent Cough? Add some red peppers to your meal.
• Breathing problems? Eat onions and tomatoes.
• Bladder infection? Drink cranberry juice (and three pints of water).
• Arthritis? Eat plenty of fatty fish.
• Forgetful? Eat some oysters, dark chocolate, olive oil, green tea and spinach.
• Can't sleep? Try honey.
• Colds? Try some garlic.
• Indigestion? Unzip a banana.
• Menopausal? Put some fennel on your plate.
• Diarrhoea? Eat an apple a day (once it's turned brown).

Without doubt nutrition is better than vaccines and drugs for maintaining good health, and for getting better when we are ill. Certainly good health does not come from a doctors prescription, and all the advice given above is sensible, sound, and to be recommended. 

Yet to benefit from good food we have to have a digestive system that is able to make use of it, to assimilate it, and to extract the goodness. In the modern world, too often, people do not have such a digestive system, not because of junk food, but because pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have damaged it. Most drugs are taken by mouth, so most of them have an affect on our stomachs - it is their first port of call!

All pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have side effects which I call DIE's - the Disease Inducing Effects. And over the last 200 years, particularly in the last 70 years, all forms of chronic disease has risen to epidemic proportions, rising almost exactly in line with our increased consumption of these drugs. All our organs and functions have suffered, not least the stomach -  from heartburn or acid reflux, bloating, indigestion, diarrhoea, constipation, 'abdominal migraine', to stomach cramps, gastritis, stomach ulcers, and ultimately to diseases like gastroenteritis, irritable bowel, inflammatory bowel disease, Crohns disease, and many other. Urinary tract infections are also known to emanate from a faulty stomach, and in recent years, even some mental and emotional problems have been linked to a damaged digestive system.

Which pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are implicated in damaging the stomach? I have written about this in my DIE's e-book, at this link. They include the following.

• Antibiotic drugs
• Antacid and Proton Pump Inhibitor drugs
• Corticosteroid drugs, and other anti-inflammatory drugs, like painkillers
• Vaccines (probably all vaccines)
• Probably many other drugs too

So whist food and nutrition are absolutely central to good health, abandoning the use of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines is also an important part of good stomach health, the ability to utilise the goodness of good food. 

No-one is going to stay well, leave alone get better, without first identifying conventional medicine as an important cause of modern ill health, and then finding alternative (that is, safer and more effective) medical strategies to replace it.

Drugs and the Health of Older People. Is it time for a change?

NHS England has announced there is to be a pharmacist-led medicine review on 180,000 care home residents. The aim is to reduce the 'over-medication' of older people in care homes, and to reduce unnecessary hospital stays. The programme will require the recruitment an additional 240 pharmacists and pharmacy technicians costing £20 million.

In the late 1980's I managed two residential homes for older people. I was amazed at how many drugs the residents were taking; and despite they never appeared to get better! By that time I had already realised that conventional medicine was dangerous, but still hadn't fully recognised how ineffective it was as well.

In announcing the review NHS England said that many residents in nursing and residential homes have "multiple long term conditions" and "take an average of seven medications daily". In order to justify spending £20 million there must indeed be a considerable amount of 'over-medication' going on, and the clear implication is that it was this medication, the drugs given to older people, that were causing the problem, and that by reducing them there will be fewer hospital admissions.

So the review recognised two things, if only tacitly. Older people have 'multiple long-term conditions' which drugs do not deal with effectively. And that the amount of drugs prescribed for older people have led to unnecessary hospital admissions.

Back in the 1980's, when I began discussing the drugging issue with staff, residents, their relatives, and doctors, several conclusions were quickly reached.

• the drugs were NOT making the residents better,
• no-one knew, with any certainty, what was a real 'illness', and what was a 'side effect' of the drugs residents were taking,
• no-one had any idea about the potential drug interactions, and what problems they were causing

So it was agreed that each resident should have a drug review, that residents, relatives, staff and doctors would be involved, and decisions would be made about whether the drugs were necessary. Within 3 months the drug round had been reduced by over 50%. The result seemed to please everyone.

• Residents and relatives could see no real difference in their health, except that many were brighter and more engaged,
• The medical round was shorter, so staff had less work to do!
• Doctors, even those who had initially been sceptical, were relieved that they no longer faced the pressure and the expectation that they should prescribe drugs for every ill.

Before announcing its review, NHS England has trialed the policy in 37 care homes, and had seen an annual drug cost saving of £249 per patient. They also reported a 21% reduction in emergency hospital admissions, and a 30% drop in ambulance call outs. So the Chief Executive of NHS England, Simon Stevens, is reported as saying this: 

               "There’s increasing evidence that our parents and their friends - a whole generation of people in their 70s, 80s and 90s - are being over-medicated in care homes, with bad results. Let’s face it - the policy of "a pill for every ill" is often causing frail older people more health problems than it’s solving."

What no-one recognises, or perhaps what conventional medicine refuses to recognise, is what I learnt nearly 30 years ago from my little medication review - that pharmaceutical drugs did not make older people any better, and that their health suffered as a direct result of side effects of those drugs.

It was at that time that I decided to abandon conventional medicine, to refuse to take any pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and instead to discover a safer, more effective medical therapy.

As conventional medicine sinks further into abject failure, as its drug and vaccines fail, as drugging makes us sicker, and leads to epidemic levels of chronic disease, as the NHS staggers under the pressures all this produces on resources, we all need to consider doing the same thing.

Moreover, it is important that we do so before becoming too old, before we find ourselves in residential or nursing care, taking a multitude of drugs that not only don't work, but through their side effects, make us sicker, and ultimately contribute to our dependency and death.

Regular Headaches? Pharmaceutical Drugs are a massive cause, and good for repeat business!

I crashed my DIEs website at the weekend! I was writing a new page on the adverse drug reactions known to cause headaches, and migraines. First, I was amazed at how many pharmaceutical drugs caused headaches. Then I found a page on the Right Diagnosis website that produced a list of 2,796 substances that are know to cause headaches. Most of these substances were pharmaceutical drugs! So I copied these on to the page, tried to save it, and the programme crashed! Eventually I found that the page was just too long, the programme was just too long.

It was a temporary problem. The page is now up and running, with all 2,796 drugs listed!

Since beginning to write this book on DIEs (the Disease Inducing Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs), which now has over 50 illness, I have been amazed not just by the amount of damage drugs can cause to our health, but the amount of evidence there is to support the fact that they do so. In the main, this is evidence that is kept from us.

Yet writing this particular page, on headaches, it clearly demonstrated something else. What a brilliant business the pharmaceutical industry is!

When we get a headache our usual response is to reach for the painkillers. So a condition that is so often CAUSED by a pharmaceutical drug is usually treated by ANOTHER pharmaceutical drug.

So we have then taken two pharmaceutical drugs, each one providing its own side effects, and combining together to produce more!

Those side effects, which are not just 'headaches', or a 'dry mouth', but can become serious diseases like arthritis, allergy, anxiety and depression, cancer, confusion and dementia, epilepsy, heart and kidney failure, pneumonia, and much else.

And when we contract these serious illness, conventional doctors presents us with more drugs. So whilst the pharmaceutical industry gets richer, we get sicker. And as we get sicker, our National Health Service finds that it cannot cope, and year by year has to demand more money, more resources. These resources are spend on more drugs, more vaccines, making them even richer, and us even sicker, and the NHS closer to bankrupcy.

And this is then all blamed on an ageing population! People like me, I suppose, someone in my 70's, who has not received any conventional medical treatment since he was in his late 20's! It is homeopathy that helps me when I get ill. It has cured my gastric ulcers, my heart palpitations, and my migraines, and done all this WITHOUT side effects, and without making me sicker.

But then homeopathy has always been a lousy business! Instead of making people sick, and creation more business, it makes patients well, it cures them. And they no longer require us. It is a really bad business model - but great for patients!

Breast Cancer. And its links to Pharmaceutical Drugs

Data from the Office for National Statistics showed that between 1971 to 2004 the number of breast cancer cases rose by 81% to 36,939 cases - in England alone. It had become the most common form of cancer, and it was estimated that 1 in 9 women could expect to get breast cancer during their lifetime. In 1971 the incidence of the disease was 66.9 per 100,000 people. In 2004 this had risen to 120.8 per 100,000. It became, and remains, the disease most feared by women.

Nor is breast cancer a disease that only strikes older women. As with most other cancers it now affects people at any age, and an increased incidence has been recorded across all age groups. Among women aged 20 to 34, the disease increased by 50% between 1971 to 2001. Morever, several hundred men contract the disease each year now.

So why did the rates of breast cancer rise so steeply during that time? Conventional medicine has come up with a variety of explanations, mostly based on a range of 'lifestyle factors', such as diet, increased alcohol consumption, obesity, more women going out to work, earlier menstruation, reduced breast feeding, smaller families and later menopause. It has even been called the disease of prosperity!

Maybe. But 'prosperity' probably account for only a small part of the huge increase. The role of pharmaceutical drugs has to be considered. For instance, in a Guardian article, dated 8th August 2006, Sarah Boseley wrote this:

               "The daughters of the thousands of women who took an anti-miscarriage pill more than 40 years ago are at increased risk of breast cancer. The drug, known as DES (diethylstilbestrol), was commonly prescribed for pregnant women between the 1940s and 1960s if doctors thought they were at risk of miscarrying and sometimes also for morning sickness. There are no definite figures for the number of women who took it, but research suggests there may have been as many as 200,000 in the UK".

The article, written at a time when the mainstream media was prepared to be mildly critical of conventional medicine, described a study by scientists at Boston University, published in the Journal of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. It found that the daughters of women who took DES had an almost double risk of breast cancer of their peers. And the more their mothers took of this now banned drug, the greater their chance of developing the disease. Concern about the side effects of DES started in the early 1970s when first it was discovered that 1 in 1,000 girls born to women who had taken the drug were likely to develop vaginal cancer. It was then found that the women who had taken it had an increased risk of breast cancer.

DES was withdrawn in the 1970’s and is no longer used in the developed world - except for prostate cancer (men beware)!

So it is well known that pharmaceutical drugs has been a important part in the rise of breast cancer figures. And if there were sufficient research done on the adverse reaction of pharmaceutical drugs, more evidence would almost certainly be found.

Another culprit is probably chest X-rays. A Times-on-Line article, dated 27th June 2006 outlined research on 1,600 women that indicated that women under-20 who had a chest X-ray had a 2.5 times greater chance of developing breast cancer before their 40th birthday, whilst women with a family history of breast cancer were 54% more likely to suffer the disease. The findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Calls were made for further research into the link between breast cancer and X-rays. They have not been done - conventional medicine does not go out of its way looking for 'bad' news about any of its treatments!

Yet for many years, the massive use of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) during the previous decades had been the drug most implicated in the rise and rise of breast cancer. So what happens when the prescription of a pharmaceutical drug, implicated in causing disease, is significantly reduced? If HRT was a significant cause of breast cancer, perhaps the increased incidence of the disease would also start to fall.

And this is exactly what has happened!

In July 2002, research indicated that HRT can increase the risk of breast cancer (and heart disease too), and the tests were halted as a result. Many thousands of women came off the drug as a result, at least 50%. In 2003 the University of Texas recorded a 7% drop in breast cancer rates, and a 12% drop in women aged 50 to 69. This was reported in USA Today, 14 December 2006; and New York Times, 15 December 2006). According to a BBC News report, 15th December 2006, UK researches also measured a drop in breast cancer cases. Professor Valerie Beral, director of Cancer Research UK's Cancer Epidemiology Unit, was reported as saying that there had also been a drop in breast cancer incidence in women aged 50-64 between 2003 and 2004.

So here is a very clear link between disease, breast cancer in this instance, and pharmaceutical drug treatment. Yet what happened following the virtual withdrawal of HRT, and the reduction in breast cancer rates, defies belief!

The conventional medical establishment put this evidence of reduced breast cancer as a victory! Our doctors told us that it indicated that conventional medicine was beginning to win the battle with cancer generally, and breast cancer was put forward to justify the claim! This was a brilliant piece of marketing!

• First, conventional medicine causes a disease. 
• Second, it withdraws the drug that has caused the disease. 
• Third, it claims the credit for reducing the disease, even though it caused it in the first place!

Good marketing perhaps, but little to do with the reality, and even less to do with honesty! And unfortunately what happened afterwards has little to do with patient safety. Conventional medicine has tried to rehabilitate HRT, which means that more women are taking the drug, and many of them will contract breast cancer as a result. I have written about this rehabilitation in two blogs.

Menopause Issues and NICE guidelines? HRT might cause cancer, heart problems and dementia, but what the hell, women should take it anyway!

HRT treatment causes cancer. Old news, but new news!

There is only one lesson that can be learnt from this sequence of events - conventional medicine cannot be trusted with our health. It creates illness with its drugs. It creates profit from our illness. And then our doctors do not tell us truth.

So one of the best ways to avoid breast cancer is to avoid pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines - at any cost!

The failure of pharmaceutical drugs, but patients are kept in the dark.

The failure of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines should have been quite apparent to everyone now: except, of course, for the equally disgraceful failure of the conventional news media to report on the evidence for it! Evidence about the ineffectiveness of drugs, and their dangers, emerge regularly. Doctors and the conventional medical establishment does not tell us. And they are rarely publicised in the national media.

Three recent studies demonstrate how patients are being kept in the dark. All three point to the ineffectiveness and dangerousness of prescription drugs, all three have largely been published without patients being given to opportunity to know about them.

Useless Medicine
The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has published an article that discussed the issue of 'useless' conventional medical treatment. It is called "Choosing Wisely in the UK: the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges’ initiative to reduce the harms of too much medicine". BMJ 2015;350:h2308.

The article indicates that it is not just the effectiveness of pharmaceutical drugs that is being discussed, but also the cost and the value to patients of the treatment, and its dangers. However, the conclusion it reaches is, to say the least, a mild one, merely that we are being offered too much of it! The article says that dozens of common medical treatments and procedures, routinely given to patients by doctors, are effectively pointless". The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC) says that "scores of treatments which can be given to patients for various ailments ranging from grazes to cancer frequently do little more or the same as doing nothing at all, while also potentially incurring side effects".

It has been estimated that in Britain alone, the NHS is spending £2 billion on what are, in effect, "useless or harmful treatment”.

Harmful Medicine
Another study, published in May 2017 by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2017; doi: 10.1001, has been reported by WDDTY. It looked at what has happened to FDA approved drugs since their approval. Remarkably, it found that one third of all FDA approved drugs subsequently turned out to have serious safety problems!

               "The dangers of the new drugs often don't come to light until four years after they have been licensed, which means that many thousands of patients may have been affected. But in every case, doctors and patients believed the drugs were safe because they had passed all the usual tests for safety and effectiveness."

So much for the ability of drug regulators to keep us all free from unsafe and dangerous medical drugs and vaccines!

NSAID Painkillers
Yet the situation is actually far worse even than this! It can take much more than 4 years for the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs to become known, and then accepted - a a lot longer for patients to be told!

For instance, conventional medicine has been feeding us painkilling drugs, in huge quantities, for over 100 years now. Ibuprofen is one of the 'younger' ones, and has become one of the stawlwarts of conventional medicine. It has been known about since the 1950's, its history summarised here and taken from the Prezi website.

     1958 First clinical trial of ibupeofen - it was found to be no better than aspirin!

     1961 A patent is filed for ibuprofen, and in 1964 Ibuprofen is selected for further development.

     1966 Clinical trials of ibuprofen take place at the Northern General Hospital in Edinburgh and show its anti-inflammatory effect in patients.

     1969 Ibuprofen launched in the UK on prescription only.

     1983 Because of its safety record, ibuprofen is made available without prescription.

So after such a long period of time, it might have been expected the conventional medicine were fully aware of the dangers of this type of painkiller. But this is not so!

A recent analysis, by a team at Bern University, evaluated 31 studies, involving over 116,000 patient,s who had taken the painkillers regularly, mostly for arthritis pain. Its findings were published in the British Medical Journal. As well as ibuprofen, naproxen, diclofenac, celecoxib, etoricoxib, rofecoxib or Vioxx, and lumiracoxib were also implicated in the findings.

               "It was found that compared with placebo, rofecoxib and lumiracoxib were associated with twice the risk of heart attack, while ibuprofen was associated with more than three times the risk of stroke. Etoricoxib and diclofenac were associated a fourfold risk of death from a heart attack or stroke."

Indeed, the study found that these painkillers could significantly increase the chances of having a heart attack within a week or a month, especially if high doses were taken. The research team found that more than 90% of all painkillers assessed were tied to a significant increased risk of heart attack.

Will Patients be told?
Yet it is unlikely that patients will be told about any of this, either by their doctors, or by the mainstream media. The ineffectiveness and dangers of conventional drugs have been frequently discovered in studies, but the information never seems to reach anyone outside a small group of academics. Certainly, the dangers of painkillers has been known about for decades. There are considerable constraints placed on doctors prescribing painkillers because of their known dangers. But patients are not told.

If doctors told patients about these dangers, if the mainstream media were prepared to publicise the dangers, patients would make their own decisions, an informed choice, about taking them and risking the serious dangers.

But patients are not told. Studies about the ineffectiveness of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines come and go without any impact on what doctors prescribe to to. Ask people about painkillers, and what they know about the dangers, and most would declare that they are fairly safe! After all, their doctors can prescribe them; anyone can buy them, openly, over-the-counter, without a doctor's prescription. And taking painkillers is something they, and their parents and grand-parents have done for years.

Medical science is a game without outcome, without consequence. Pharmaceutical drugs may be useless. They may be dangerous. If might not even be known how useless or dangerous they are! But patients are told only about the 'positive' science: the new 'wonder' drugs. The negative stuff remains an insiders secret, something doctors dare not tell us, and the mainstream will not tell us!

Pharmaceutical drugs cause illness and disease

I have called my new E-book, "DIE's. The Disease Inducing Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs. It is now live, with new illnesses being added every week. I hope it will be a book that many readers of this blog will visit regularly. This blog concerns the writing of each section, and some of the things I have found.

1. The Nature of Side Effects
We are persuaded to take pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines on the basis that they will all have 'side effects'. The term has almost a benign effect! Perhaps they will give us a mild headache, a dry mouth, or perhaps some redness around the injection site of a vaccine. Nothing to worry about!

Yet there is plenty to worry about! "These so-called 'side effects' of pharmaceutical drugs are much more serious than the term implies. Even the term 'adverse drug effects' is not sufficient to describe the damage drugs can do to our health. No pharmaceutical drug or vaccine in safe, and most have proven to be harmful to both human and animal health."

This weeks task is 'Birth Defects'. It has taken me much longer than I had imagined! Indeed, I have not completed it at the time of writing, as there are so many drugs that cause damage to the foetus in the womb. And it is sometimes difficult to find the evidence of the harm they do. Lots of information on the benefits of a drug, not so much on the harm they cause!

2. There is no gain without pain
If a drug does not have a side effect, if it does not have an 'active ingredient' conventional medicine considers it to be useless. It will have no effect. Therefore, if we want to treat any illness or disease we have to go through the game of 'Russian Roulette' with drug side effects, and just hope we do not get the loaded cartridge!

**** Most alternative medical therapies do not have significant side effects, but most conventional doctors will not tell patients about treatment alternatives!

3. Weighing the 'Benefits' with the 'Risk'
We will often hear doctors telling us that a particular drug constitutes a 'risk', but that the benefits outweigh the risk involved. Who undertakes this risk analysis? It is done by the drug companies, and drug regulatory agencies who are under the direct control of the drug companies. And so the analysis is done on the basis of
               (a) hyping or exaggerating the benefits of the drug or vaccine, and
               (b) discounting the importance or seriousness of the side effect.

**** The resulting advice is to take the drug - the 'risk analysis', we are told, is that the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks.

4. The Under-Reporting of DIEs, or side effects
It has been estimated, several times, in several different times, that only 10% of drug and vaccine side effects are ever reported to drug regulators. Were you aware that doctors have a responsibility to report any drug side effect we report to them? Usually they don't. They say that the side effect had nothing to do with the drug, or they just change the drug. Yet it should not be the doctor who decides on the link between a drug and a side effect. They should be routinely reported so that the drug regulator can decide whether this is an isolated link, or whether there are sufficient to warrant further investigation.

**** What this means is that every pharmaceutical drug is 10 times more dangerous the conventional medical establishment knows or accepts!

5. Informed Choice
When conventional medicine asks us to take a drug or vaccine we take them on the basis of trust. Our doctor would not ask us to take a dangerous drug, we would be informed of any 'side effect'! Surely? Well, actually, no. We are not usually told, not fully, not completely, not honestly. We are not told about them if the side effect is still disputed, if it has not been 'proven' by medical science. There is usually a long wait from the time a side effect is first noticed to when drug companies admit it, and acknowledge it in PILs - the patient information leaflets. They work on the basis that 'there is no evidence',  meaning there has been no RCT's (randomised controlled testing) done on the issue. Our reports are just dismissed as 'anecdotal'. There is no proven correlation between the drug and the illness or disease it causes!

**** When we are not told about the possibility of serious side effects, or DIEs, no patient can make an informed choice. We just

6. The Result - Disease
Yet the most amazing discoveries I have made writing 'DIEs' for the last few months concerns just how culpable pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are in causing almost any illness and disease. There are often other causes too, of course, but where there is an illness or disease there are usually several prescription drugs that are known to cause the illness. On most pages I have provided this description.

               "Do you suffer from (disease name)? What caused it? Is it just chance, or bad luck? Pharmaceutical drug and vaccine 'side effects' are actually illnesses and serious disease. Could this be the cause?

**** Yet most people would not believe that they have become ill, often seriously ill, as a result of the drugs their doctor have prescribed to them over the years.

7. The 'new' disease is worse!
When a pharmaceutical drug is taken to treat an illness, the disease the drug causes as a 'side effect' is usually far worse, more serious than the original illness. Soon, we discover we are in a downward spiral - ill, more illness, more serious illness - more drugs to treat the illnesses, more side effects, and more illness.

**** It is not an ageing population that is putting conventional health services under severe strain. It is not bad management of resources that is bankrupting national health services. It is the reliance we have placed on conventional, drug-based medicine that have made us increasingly sick.

8. What to look for
So what diseases should we be particularly aware are caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines? Well, every disease really. The website already covers articles ranging from from Allergy to Violence, from a lack of libido to dementia, from depression to cancer. But in particular these tell-tale signs are indications that drugs could be the cause of the disease!

**** Illnesses where conventional medicine says there is 'no known cause'.

**** Illnesses where, instead of a cause being given, there is a description of what is happening to the body; such descriptions are not what causes the body to behave in this way.

**** Diseases described as a 'syndrome'.

**** Diseases that were unknown prior to about 1950, when taking drugs became more widespread, and often supported by government-backed national health service schemes.

**** Diseases that have always been with us, but which we now experience at unprecedented and epidemic levels.

8. Abstinence. A cure for lots of illness and disease!
Good diet, and exercise is good general advice for staying well, and disease free. But there is another essential rule to maintaining good health through into older age.

Abstain from taking ANY pharmaceutical drug or vaccine!

And instead look for safer, more effective medical therapies to use when you feel unwell.

How effective is conventional medicine? Do Big Pharma drugs work?

Conventional medicine does not defend itself when it is accused of causing disease and death through the pharmaceutical drugs it promotes and prescribes!

Conventional medicine is unable to defend itself when it is accused of being the most expensive form of medical therapy!

So how effective is conventional medical, and the drugs it promotes? In constructing my new website, "Why Homeopathy?" I have regularly been amazed at how doctors are quite aware about the ineffectiveness of the drugs they prescribe, and it has led to to ask many questions.

• Does conventional medicine cure illness and disease, or does it just ameliorate? 
• Does conventional medicine treat conditions so that they go away, or does it just deal with symptoms?
• Does conventional medicine offer sick people a long term answer, or just temporary amelioration on a long-term basis?
• Does conventional medicine just allow illnesses to run their course.

So let's allow NHS Choices to inform us. I have used only their words, directly from their website. The British NHS is, after all, a leading exponent of conventional medicine, and it is led, and indeed dominated by conventional medics - so they should know!

ADHD (Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder)
          "Treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can help relieve the symptoms and make the condition much less of a problem in day-to-day life."

Ankylosing Spondylitis
          "There's no cure for ankylosing spondylitis (AS), but treatment is available to help relieve the symptoms."

Arthritis (Rheumatoid)
          "Treatment for rheumatoid arthritis can help reduce inflammation in the joints, relieve pain, prevent or slow joint damage, reduce disability and enable you to live as active a life as possible."

          "Although there's no cure for rheumatoid arthritis, early treatment and support – including lifestyle changes, medication, supportive treatments and surgery – can reduce the risk of joint damage and limit the impact of the condition."

Arthritis (Osteo)
          'There's no cure for osteoarthritis, but the condition doesn’t necessarily get any worse over time and a number of treatments are available to help relieve the symptoms."

Asthma
          "There's currently no cure for asthma, but treatment can help control the symptoms so you're able to live a normal, active life."

Alzheimer's Disease
          "There's currently no cure for Alzheimer's disease, although medication is available that can temporarily reduce some symptoms or slow down the progression of the condition in some people."

Autism
          "There's no 'cure' for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, a range of specialist educational and behavioural programmes can help children with ASD."

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
          "Treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) aim to help relieve the symptoms."

Dementia (Vascular)
          "There's currently no cure for vascular dementia and no way to reverse the damage to the brain that's already occurred, but treatments can help prevent further damage and may help slow down its progression."

Haemorrhoids (Piles)
          "Haemorrhoids (piles) often clear up by themselves after a few days. However, there are many treatments that can reduce itching and discomfort."

Eczema
          "There is no cure for atopic eczema, but treatments can ease the symptoms. Many children find their symptoms naturally improve as they get older."

Fibromyalgia
          "Treatment for fibromyalgia tries to ease some of your symptoms and improve quality of life, but there's currently no cure.

Gout
          "Treatment for gout includes pain relief to help you cope with a gout attack, as well as medication and lifestyle changes to prevent further attacks.

Osteoporosis
          "Treating osteoporosis involves treating and preventing fractures and using medication to strengthen bones. An important objective for health services across England is to try to prevent falls and fractures, particularly in people with osteoporosis and those with risk factors for osteoporosis."

Parkinson's Disease
          "There's currently no cure for Parkinson's disease, but treatments are available to help relieve the symptoms and maintain your quality of life."

PMT (Pre-Menstrual Tension)
          "Treatments for premenstrual syndrome (PMS) may help you manage your symptoms so they don't interfere with your daily life.

Prostatitis
          "Treatment for chronic prostatitis usually aims to control the symptoms. Painkillers such as paracetamol or ibuprofen may help relieve your pain."

Psoriasis
          "Treatment for psoriasis usually helps to keep the condition under control."

Sciatica
          "Treatment for sciatica isn't always necessary, as the condition often improves naturally within around six weeks..... However, it's not clear exactly how effective many of these treatments are at treating sciatica."

Shingles
          "Treatment for shingles can help ease your symptoms until the condition improves. In many cases shingles gets better within around two to four weeks.

News about new wonder drugs
The news media brings us news, on a regular basis, about new pharmaceutical drugs that will soon be able to treat disease - wonder drugs, magic bullets, treatments that will a 'game changers' in the treatment of disease. Apparently, these are all about the future, they are not currently available for sick people. Perhaps next year. Perhaps in 5 or 10 years time.

Or perhaps never!

If pharmaceutical drugs are so ineffective, whilst at the same time causing so many serious side effects (which are really new illnesses and diseases), it is little wonder that conventional medical systems throughout the world are in serious financial trouble. Conventional medicine depends hugely on Big Pharma drugs, which means it is relying on next to nothing. Or, perhaps more accurately, something that it worse than nothing.

Why Homeopathy? If you are ill conventional medicine has so little to offer!

When I started to write my e-book, 'Why Homeopathy?', which involves comparing the conventional and homeopathic treatment of a variety of illnesses and diseases, I had to decide the best way of ascertaining what conventional medicine has to offer patients. I decided that the NHS website, 'NHS Choices' was the best way of doing so.

Why Homeopathy? now covers over 75 illness, from Acne to Whooping Cough, and the number of conditions is growing regularly. When writing each of these articles I have been astonished at the paucity of treatments available to conventional doctors. Indeed, there appears to be 4 main conventional medical responses to illness.

• The illness is not important, and there is no need for treatment

In these illnesses, it is often clear that conventional medicine has no treatment to offer, and the importance of the condition is usually downplayed. There may be good life style advice, but no actual treatment. They are not life-threatening conditions, and it is often said, quite correctly, that they will normally go away within a few days, or a few weeks. Yet for patients they can be annoying and/or disruptive conditions for the patient - and conventional medicine has nothing to offer!

• There is no treatment for the condition, but the condition can be ameliorated.

I have been surprised how NHS Choices often admits that there is no treatment available for particular conditions, and then offers drugs that can ''ameliorate' it. Often this 'amelioration' is provided by pain killing drugs, which does nothing to treat the condition that is causing the pain! Usually they are conditions that will last only a few weeks, or a few months, but during this time they can be debilitating and distressing for the patient. Yet conventional medicine has nothing to offer the patient.

• The illness is treated with pharmaceutical drugs

The main response of conventional medicine to most illnesses is to offer pharmaceutical drugs. Often NHS Choices will outline the side effects of these drugs, although usually only the milder, less serious ones, and rarely do they give a full list of the known side effects. And usually the seriousness of the adverse drug reactions are downplayed. We are told that not many people get them, they go away once the drug is stopped, and (of course) the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

• Operations

Most conventional treatment for most illnesses ends up on the operating table. Surgery is the 'when all else fails'  option for conventional medicine.

Never, in any of these four responses, is there any mention of alternative medical therapies, even for those conditions where it is admitted openly that there is no effective conventional treatment available.

The NHS is Britain's national health service, established in 1947 to offer the best treatment available to all patients. What it actually offers patients is just one type of medicine,. It has created a monopoly. If the monopoly medicine it offered was able to offer us effective and safe treatments for illness that might just be acceptable. But conventional medicine does no such thing.  The NHS Choices website shows that can offer four levels of treatment. Nothing. Next to nothing. Or something that is known to be potentially harmful to patients. Then it can offer surgical operations, largely as the treatment that has proceeded it has been ineffective.

Please do not take my word for this. It is my assessment. So look at my 'Why Homeopathy?' website. Or, regardless of where you live in the world, look at the NHS Choices website.

In Britain we spend over £100 billion annually on conventional medicine, that represents nearly 10% of all government spending. And yet the NHS, the monopoly supplier of conventional medicine, is on its knees, and demanding yet again a vast increase of resources.

• No wonder it is difficult to get an appointment with a doctor! 
• No wonder Accident and Emergency departments cannot cope with the demand! 
• No wonder there is a shortage of hospital beds! 
• No wonder waiting times for operations are increasing!

Conventional drug-based medicine has so little to offer us.

Cancer? Bad luck? Or dangerous drugs?

It's all over the mainstream media! The BBC Today programme heralded the news to me this morning as I awoke! Read the BBC version of this wonderful new 'scientific' evidence here.

Cancer is just bad luck!

The research was published in the journal 'Science' and this is part of the abstract...

These results suggest that only a third of the variation in cancer risk among tissues is attributable to environmental factors or inherited predispositions. The majority is due to “bad luck,” that is, random mutations arising during DNA replication in normal, noncancerous stem cells. This is important not only for understanding the disease but also for designing strategies to limit the mortality it causes.

And it is important for us to understand this rather than understand one of the major causes in the epidemic rise of all kinds of cancers during recent times.

Pharmaceutical drugs!

For anyone who relies on the BBC, or the mainstream media for health information, or who believe that their doctors and the NHS would tell them if were true, that might come as something of a surprise! It would be unbelievable. Big Pharma drugs that cause cancer? Surely not!

The idea that the drugs our doctors and the NHS give us, and which our mainstream media never questions, should cause cancer should not really be such a surprise. any scientists now believe that our DNA is the basis of the genetic code that gives orders to all cells, and that cancer can be caused by chemicals, radiation, and viruses these cells come into contact with. There can be little doubt that many of these 'chemicals' and much of this 'radiation' have been introduced to our bodies via conventional medical drugs. And it is well known that many ConMed drugs cause cancer.

HRT
Hormone Replacement Therapy is perhaps the best known. HRT was once prescribed for many millions of women throughout the developed world for menopausal symptoms until it was proven, without reasonable doubt, that it caused both breast and uterine cancer. And remember, HRT is still not banned despite this, and is still prescribed to some women, quite regardless of the risks.

Tamoxifen
Many women are given drugs for the treatment of breast cancer, particularly Tamoxifen, without being told about the evidence that the drug is known to be carcinogenic, and indeed that it causes a much more virulent form of breast cancer.

          "Many of the drugs used to treat breast cancer today are probable or known cancer-causing agents. Tamoxifen, for instance, is classified by the World Health Organization as a "human carcinogen"...

It is also known to cause uterine cancer too. (International Journal of Gynaecological Cancer 2007).

Statin Drugs
Cholesterol-lowering drugs, notably Statins, are also implicated in causing cancer. The Journal of the American Medical Association (3 January1996) warned that these drugs can cause cancer in rodents.

Exubera
This 'safe' drug, used for Diabetes, was approved in 2006, and withdrawn in 2007 because it was found to dramatically increase the chances of lung cancer. In clinical trials, carried out by the drug company, six of the 4,740 patients taking Exubera developed lung cancer compared to just one out of 4,292 people who were not taking the drug.  After the trial finished, another Exubera patient also developed lung cancer. (Source:  FDA website)

Omeprazole (Philosec)
This heartburn drug has been found to cause abnormal cell growth and stomach tumors in rats, although it appears that no one is certain (yet) whether it does the same for humans!

Spironolactone (Aldactazide, Aldactone)
This is a blood pressure medicine, also prescribed for hormonal imbalances and facial hair growth in women, is also know to cause tumors in rats.

Elidel cream and Protopic ointment
These topical skin treatments, used for ezcema, are now associated with lymphoma and skin cancer. The FDA has warned against using them in children under age 2, and has admitted that the long-term safety of of these ointments are "unknown".

There are many, many more pharmaceutical drugs, currently being prescribed to patients, that are known to cause cancer. These few examples are just the tip of a very large iceberg. There is little doubt that Conventional Medicine plays a large role in the epidemic levels of all types of cancers. Indeed, the rise and rise of cancer in recent decades mirrors very closely the rise and rise in the consumption of Pharmaceutical Drugs. This is NOT a coincidence.

But the Conventional Medical Establishment would prefer that we did not know that their drugs were a known cause of cancer. They prefer us to think that it is just 'Bad Luck'! 

Advance Notice of a new E-Book - DIEs

The year 2015 will see me engaged in a massive project to demonstrate how most, if not all chronic illness and disease, can be caused by the conventional drug we are being given to treat more minor conditions.

I call this the 'disease-inducing-effects' or DIEs of pharmaceutical drugs

The purpose of this new ebook will be to demonstrate that the many modern epidemics of chronic disease and illness are not merely the result of 'bad luck', as this study suggests. They are the result of misadventure - the disastrous misadventure associated with the Conventional Medical Establishment during the last 100 years and more.

BBC News highlights its own inadequacies in health reporting. Statin Drugs.

The mainstream media does not report the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs, and this includes BBC News, a public service broadcaster that has repeatedly refuses to inform its viewers and listeners of the harm Big Pharma drugs can cause.

It was therefore a surprise to hear this morning (11th June 2014) that the Today programme reported that certain senior doctors have asked NICE to re-look at its advice to prescribe Statin drugs to healthy people. Perhaps they did not realise that they were giving an opportunity for these doctors to state that Statin drugs cause serious adverse reactions, including kidney and liver damage, muscle damage, and diabetes (dementia was not mentioned).

The BBC, and most of the mainstream media, have never reported these disease-causing-effects of Statin drugs before - and the question needs to be asked - Why not?

(Incidentally, the 'epidemic' rise of diabetes was featured by the Today programme the previous day, 10th June 2014. No connection was made to this, or the fact that many conventional drugs are known to cause diabetes).

What astute listeners would  have realised is that BBC News have never announced these adverse reactions, and have always been happy to parrot the conventional medical establishment's view that these drugs were 'entirely safe', and that 'everyone should take them'.

The report also demonstrated that NICE make their recommendations without access to all the evidence known to Big Pharma companies about the adverse reactions of drugs. 

John Humphries seemed genuinely surprised about this 'revelation'. Perhaps we should ask where he has been during the last ten years and more!

It also seemed to come as a surprise that NICE was dominated by people who had close links with Big Pharma companies.

For a moment I thought that the BBC had changed their policy on health issues - a sudden conversion to open and honest and impartial reporting. However, it is more likely that they stumbled on this evidence. Whether they pursue such concerns in future remains to be seen. But by past performance, they will continue to believe everything the conventional medical establishment tells them, and assume that the only people who know anything about health are conventionally trained doctors.

Patients are badly served by the BBC, and by the mainstream media generally. This is one of the main reasons for this, and similar blogs - to inform people about the dangers of conventional medicine - to inform people that the NHS, NICE, the MHRC, et al, are part of a monopoly that is causing harm to our health.

Mums, Pregnancy and Homeopathy

One of the main reasons for families starting to use homeopathy is during pregnancy. Conventional  Medical drugs have been consistently damaging pregnant women since Thalidomide, and they continue to do so. Big Pharma don't appear to give a damn, and sadly, GPs continue to prescribe drugs either in ignorance that they can do harm, or not bothering to find out.

As WDDTY have said recently, there is no such thing as a safe drug for a pregnant woman, and virtually every prescription drug could cause birth defects. Yet as they go on to say, doctors are prescribing an ever-increasing number of drugs to women, often ignoring official warnings. This is according to a recently published survey that discovered many women were taking up to 4 different drugs. The survey found that 80% of pregnant women were taking some form of drug, an increase of 60% over the past 30 years.

Clearly, the drug companies, GPs, and the entire Conventional Health Establishment has learnt little since Thalidomide!

The study was done by researchers from Boston University Stone Epidemiology Centre, after reviewing a survey of 30,000 women. (Source: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2011; doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.02.029).


The WDDTY feature is at 
http://www.wddty.com/doctors-giving-drugs-to-half-of-all-pregnant-women-despite-the-warnings.html
and it is interesting to see their previous articles on this subject. They include articles on antibiotics causing birth defects, Prozac babies have birth defects, Antidepressant drugs cause birth defects, Fertility drugs and birth defects. And one that comes to this conclusion:


          "Women who are very young or pregnant are two population groups who should almost never be prescribed general pharmaceuticals.

WDDTY are doing a great service in warning us all about the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs at this critical time. But rather than worrying, mums should relax, and get in touch with a local homeopath to make sure she has safe treatment available to her should she need medical treatment.

Pharmaceutical Drugs cause Disease!

The idea that pharmaceutical drugs cause disease is fast growing in acceptance. I have written extensively about this in my e-book, ‘The Failure of Conventional Medicine’.

What pharmaceutical drugs do is not to cause ‘side-effects’, or even ‘adverse reactions’. These terms are quite inadequate to describe what they do. Drugs cause diseases, which is why I have used the term, DIEs, or ‘Disease Inducing Effects’ to replace these two wholly inadequate descriptions. The ‘D’ can, of course, stand for either ‘Disease’ or ‘Death’ so the term is doubly relevant, and aptly descriptive.

So it is not a surprise to read this in the e-magazine, Natural News.

               A recent U.S. News & World Report piece highlights new studies that point to serious problems down the road for the over-medicated population. According to reports, more than 60 percent of American adults now take at least one drug every day for a chronic health problem, and more than half of seniors take at least three medications every day. But the end result is more diseases like diabetes, heart disease, obesity, arthritis and cancer.

http://www.naturalnews.com/032016_pharmas_disease.html#ixzz1JEGUeLH1

Just how dangerous are pharmaceutical drugs?

Routinely modern conventional pharmaceutical drugs do harm to patients through their side-effects and adverse reactions?

Even more routinely, such evidence is ignored by the mainstream media, the NHS and the Government.

So just how dangerous are pharmaceutical drugs? Have a look at these websites.

http://dangerousprescriptiondrugs.weebly.com/index.html

DIE's. The disease-inducing effects of pharmaceutical drugs.

 

Banned and withdrawn pharmaceutical drugs.

Dangerous Pharmaceutical Drugs

More proof about the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs, the one's dispensed by the NHS to patients each and every day, continues to come through thick and fast. Rarely are these reported in the mainstream media, or come to the attention of the majority of people. Rarely are the disease- and death-inducing effects (DIEs) predicted in advance by medical science. The randomised controlled tests that very drug is put through prior to being given to patients seem to be entirely useless. It is only when patients are subjected to these drugs (on the basis that they will help them) that it is found they are harmful, and dangerous.

So here are just a few, the merest handful, of reports that have appeared on the internet over the last week or so about ConMed drugs.

* Huge rise in MRSA linked to childhood antibiotics.

* Seven (common) drugs that can kill children with a single pill (reported in the Dr Mercola website, and in ABC News 18 March 2010).

* HRT drugs shown to cause asthma (reported in Guardian blog, 8 February 2010, and in Natural News, 5 April 2010).

* Ibuprofen and other NSAIDs kill 2,500 a year in the UK (Natural News, quoting research published in Times On Line as long ago as 28 September 2006).

* Prostate cancer drug boosts heart disease risk (Natural News, 6 April 2010).

No wonder an increasing number of people are questioning whether taking pharmaceutical drugs is a sensible thing to do, and are looking for safer alternative therapies.

The bigger problem, though, is that despite the growing amount of evidence for the damage caused by conventional drugs, the NHS, and the wider health establishment, continues to deny the level of disease and death they are causing. Indeed, most patients do not understand the dangers and full implications of taking pharmaceutical drugs - because they are so often, and so frequently denied by the Department of Health, the NHS, the MHRA, and other conventional medical spokespersons.

This is why it is so absurd for the medical establishment (and the denialists who regularly contribute to this blog) to suggest that homeopathy, and other CAM therapies, are dangerous. At the moment, only those people who can afford to pay for homeopathy can get access to it. Those who cannot have to rely on conventional medicine, and they are paying a heavy price for it - through their health.

Why is Homeopathy under attack?

There is a new attack on homeopathy on the way. This is nothing new, perhaps, but it does raise the question 'Why?'.

The answer is relatively simple. So-called 'Quackbusters', and organisations like 'Sense about Science' speak for so-called 'scientific' medicine, based on Pharmaceutical drugs. They support hugely powerful vested interests, and they do so in the name of 'science'.

However, how scientific are they? Let us use an analogy to describe what they do. It is well known in the game of cricket that bowlers can get the cricket ball to 'swing' after it is bowled. Every cricketer knows this.

Good swing bowlers have learnt how to swing the ball, both ways, and use the technique to get batsmen out. A bad swing bowler would be someone who observed the swing, but stated that there was no scientific evidence to suggest why this should happen, and refuses to believe it could happen.

Good batsmen know that swing bowlers can swing the ball, and take this into account when playing the ball. A bad batsman would know that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the ball will swing, and does not allow for it.

In a similar way, a good scientist is someone who observes the world, notices that for over 200 years people have got better after homeopathic treatment, and seeks to explain why this should be. A bad scientist, the denialists, like those in Sense and Science, just dismisses the evidence before their eyes.

Science, say the denialists, has no explanation that suggests homeopathy can work; therefore it cannot work, and does not work. Homeopathy is no more than placebo (even when animals are treated). Anyone who says that homeopathy has has worked for them are dismissed as deluded, or mad, or both.

Even when these denialists are presented with scientific evidence (and there is plenty of it), they dismiss it as 'inadequate' in some way. They ignore it. And they continue to repeat, ad nauseum - homeopathy does not work, because it cannot work.

Just ask the question. What if Newton, or Galileo, or Einstein had said this? We would have much less understanding of our world today. Good, perhaps, for the Pharmaceutical companies; bad for patients.

The Vicious Circle of Illness

My e-book, freely available by clicking on this link, talks about the 'vicious circle' of conventional medical failure. By this I mean that the more money spent on the NHS during the last 60 years, principally on Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, the sicker we have become as a nation.

And yet we do live longer! This greater longevity is more apparent than real, more to do with less poverty, improved diet than medicine - and more a statistical device. Take a base figure in the mid 1850's, when large numbers of people died every year in new, industrial and insanitary towns, where people lived in poverty and squalor, longevity was bound to improve during the last 150 years alongside improved public health measures, improved diet, better housing, and so on. But NHS-ConMed has expropriated the credit for this trend. It consistently leads us to believe that our increased life-expectancy was the result of their drugs.

So what about the generation, now in their 60's, who have lived all their lives under the NHS, and have taken more pharmaceutical drugs, earlier in life, than any other generation in history?

New recent evidence from the USA suggests that this generation is actually sicker than previous generations, and that longevity is beginning to level out, and is beginning to reverse. This is just what could be expected - the more pharmaceutical drugs we consume, the sicker we become. Perhaps over the next few years, we will longevity trends falling back.