Antiemetic Drugs. Another Pharmaceutical Drug found to cause Strokes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 It is a matter of public record that hundreds, even thousands of approved pharmaceutical drugs have been banned or withdrawn in the last 70 years because ultimately they were 'scientifically proven' to be too dangerous to prescribe to patients.

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

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

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

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

 

Metoclopamide 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

All to prevent sickness and vomiting!

Domperidone

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

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

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

STROKE, and Epidemics of Chronic Disease. Conventional medicine refuses to admit that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are the cause

It is one of the main news stories on the BBC this morning: Average Age of First Stroke in England Falls. This gist is that the average age of people in England who have a stroke for the first time has fallen over the past decade, from 71 to 68 for men, and from 75 to 73 for women. These come from figures published by Public Health England between 2007 and 2016. Over the same period the proportion of first-time strokes suffered by 40 to 69-year-olds rose from 33% to 38%. PHE commented that the data showed strokes do not just affect older people and urged more people to be aware of the symptoms.

I have five main observations to make about these new health statistics.....

First, strokes are not the only illness or disease that is striking at an increasingly younger age. I am old enough to remember when CANCER was considered to be a disease associated with ageing! The age when DEMENTIA and ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE is striking is reducing, some people who are in their 30's and 40's. I believe statistics for HIP AND LIMB REPLACEMENT have also seen reduction in age.

Second, the reasons given by PHE for this phenomenon, with regard to STROKES, are threefold:

• obesity
• alcohol
• smoking

This suggests to me that once again the conventional medical establishment are doing what they always do - looking for reasons to justify the failure of medical treatment, and to deflect attention away from the disease inducing consequences of their pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

• Obesity is probably on the increase - but enough to explain this phenomenon?
• There has been no significant increase in alcohol consumption since 2007 to explain what is happening.
• And there has probably been a significant annual decrease in the amount of smoking since 2007.

So what about the unmentioned cause - pharmaceutical drugs? There are a host of drugs that are known to cause strokes, outline here. They include painkillers, Proton Pump Inhibitors, Beta Blocker drugs, anti-coagulants, steroids, the contraceptive pill, and chemotherapy to mention the main ones. Conventional medicine is fully aware of this, but they are (as usual) in denial. They don't want to admit their culpability; they refuse to admit that the drugs they prescribe to us might actually be a cause of strokes, and the age that first strokes are happening.

This brings me to my third observation. If the conventional medical establishment is in denial about one of the significant causes of stroke, what are its chances of doing anything about it. They might be able to reduce smoking, or alcohol consumption, or even obesity rates. But it is absolutely certain that they will not reduce strokes caused by pharmaceutical drugs! Why? Because PHE have not told anyone that there is a connection between strokes and pharmaceutical drugs!

So if you and I heard the news this morning, and wanted to avoid having a stroke, we might decide to lose weight, or reduce our smoking and alcohol consumption, but we would not stop taking our prescribed medication. After all, these have been given to us by our doctors, and we almost certainly haven't been told about any link to an increased risk of having a stroke.

The fourth point arises from this, that conventional medicine will inevitably fail to reduce the number of strokes, or the age when people have their first stroke. Their refusal to admit that pharmaceutical drugs have played a part, probably an important part in what is happening, will ensure that nothing effective will be done. Obesity, yes. Smoking, yes. Alcohol, yes. But drugs, no. We will continue to take our painkillers, our steroid inhalers, our Rennies to settle our stomach, our warfarin to thin our blood, all without realising that we are increasing our risk of having a stroke at an ever-decreasing age.

My fifth point concerns the mainstream media, and BBC News in particular. They consistently fail to  question the conventional medical establishment, leave alone challenge them. They treat conventional doctors as the experts, the people who know about illness and disease, and how to treat it. They are cravingly compliant, failing to ask searching and challenging questions about why there should be an increase in strokes at a younger age, why many illness are now running at epidemic levels, why they are making ever-increasing demands for more money and resources for the NHS, and why, at the same time, people are still getting sicker.

Homeopathy and Brain Haemorrhage. Why such an abusive skeptical response?

Recently, I read an article about the treatment of brain haemorrhage with homeopathy. It was an amazing article written in the Hpathy website by Manfred Mueller, a homeopath, who presented several cases of brain haemorrhage, or stroke. On the basis that stroke victims, and their carers, might like to know how effective homeopathic treatment can be with this condition, I decided to tweet it, without comment, on 24th December 2015.

The article described several cases that Manfred Mueller had treated.

• A woman called Eleanor, aged 70, who had suffered a stroke. She was described as “semi-conscious” and unable to speak. She could only respond by making sounds and shaking or nodding her head. She had developed pneumonia with a fever, and was on three types of conventional drugs. It describes the course of homeopathic treatment she was given, and describes her almost complete recovery.
• A young girl Rachel, aged 10, who had fallen and had brain surgery for a subarachnoid haemorrhage, after which she went into a coma. It describes the homeopathic treatment he gave her, and the obstruction he received from the conventional medical staff he encountered. Treatment ended before an outcome could be followed through because Rachel’s mother was imprisoned for child abuse.
• Bill, aged 65, had fallen from a ladder hitting his head, suffering also a fractured rib, a punctured lung, and other injuries. A scan found that he had suffered a subarachnoid haemorrhage. After receiving homeopathic remedies for some time, he decided against the operation conventional doctors were recommending. He had another scan, and much to the doctors surprise the haematoma had gone!
• Claire was a 42 year old mother of two who was treating herself for a head injury. Her self treatment, and the treatment given to her by Manfred Mueller, was described, and she made a full recovery.

The response to this article from skeptics, or homeopathy denialists, was quite amazing, and I quote them here. Anyone with a delicate disposition should skip the next two paragraphs, which are direct quotes from the denialists - people who do not want you to know that homeopathy is a safe and effective medical therapy.

For instance, Liz, Queen of Bogans (??) responded on the same day.

“… you are a deluded and dangerous cunt. May you get coal in your stocking you predatory arsewipe”.

Sebastian Armstrong seems to agree with this, although apparently not knowing about the content, or even the subject of the article I had tweeted!

“… (My) targeting child cancer patients with homeopathy misrepresentation was disgusting.”

Yodaj3di sought to defend the article, and my tweet, suggesting that such abuse cannot be justified. Paul Derbyshire, Sebastian Armstrong came back defending their abuse.

“… choice is not important unless informed by the truth not #homeopathy lies.”
“… homeopathy is fraud. Proven bullshit. Embarrassed for you.”
“… if you actually believe in homeopathy then you are logically corrupt.”
“… just to let you know homeopathy is fraud.”

Note. For anyone interested, I have left a longer version of this rather pointless, and endless ‘debate’ at the end of this blog.

This kind of response is typical of skeptics, or homeopathy denialists. Yodaj3di tried to engage them in a conversation, to get them to accept that such abuse was inappropriate, that anyone who wanted to know about homeopathy should be allowed to hear about it. Sandra Courtney expressed her disgust, and reported the abuse to Twitter. Neither is likely to be effective in discouraging skeptics from abusing homeopathy! I have reported on skeptic abuse on several occasions on this blog.

‘Quack’! Just another personal attack from a homeopathy denialist.
Skeptics insist Homeopathy doesn't work. So what do they have to say?

There are several points to be considered about skeptics, or homeopathy denialists, in order to understand what they say, and why they are saying it.

Bad language and abuse usually comes from people who have no arguments. Certainly it usually comes from people who are unable to argue their case with reason and logic - in other words, scientifically!

Skeptics are in chronic denial. In particular they are unwilling to accept that there are people with serious (and indeed non serious) illnesses who have been cured by homeopathy, and that this has been happening every day, throughout the world, for the last 220 years.

Ignoring or denying this evidence is deeply ‘unscientific’. Science involves (or should involve) observing what is happening in the world, not denying it. Science should then seek an explanation for what has been observed. Skeptics, to the contrary, say that there is no explanation for homeopathy, therefore it cannot happen, it is just trickery or fraud!

Actually, in recent years great strides have been made in identifying the working mechanism(s) of homeopathy, diluted substances can be scientifically identified, and about 200 trials have proven that homeopathy does work. Again, skeptics merely deny this, and continue to say ‘there is no evidence’ quite regardless of the evidence!

Instead, skeptics (who claim to love science) place their faith in the ‘science’ of RCT’s, or ‘randomised controlled tests’, that they describe as the ‘gold standard’ of proof. Yet skeptics not only ignore (or deny) the RCT evidence supporting the fact that homeopathy works, they also ignore the fact that people are being harmed, damaged and killed by conventional pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have been ‘scientifically’ tested and approved as safe, presumably to their satisfaction.

Skeptic denial serves only one purpose. The skeptic community is a small, but particularly nasty part of a massive conspiracy that seeks to prevent a real debate on health and medical treatment in our society, dominated as it is by huge economic, financial and commercial interests, not least of which is the pharmaceutical industry. The conventional medical establishment is now so rich, so powerful, so pervasive and dominant in our social life, that it has gained complete control of governments, politicians, national health services, and the mainstream press and media organisations.

Most people believe that drugs and vaccines are the best route to health because this is all they have been told for many decades.

What this means is that the internet is the only vehicle available to alternative medical therapies, such as homeopathy, to inform people that this is not so, that there are alternatives, and that these alternatives are both safer and more effective.

However, there is another reason why a real health debate is important, and urgently needed. Conventional medicine is failing.

• Conventional hospital are full to overflowing. Doctors surgeries cannot cope with the health demands of patients. 
• Many forms of chronic disease, arthritis, autism, cancer, dementia, diabetes, heart disease, et al, are all now at unprecedented levels. 
• One of the main reasons, perhaps the main reason for this sickness epidemic, is that conventional pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are not only ineffective, they are also a primary cause of these diseases.

So when homeopaths deal with illnesses, such as brain haemorrhage, and do it successfully, the skeptics go into denial, they get annoyed because their medicine has nothing to offer, they get abusive when homeopathy does have something amazing to offer patients. And as they have no rational or ‘scientific’ argument to fall back on, they resort to abuse and obfuscation. It is all they have!

It is a tough, unrewarding, and ultimately a hopeless cause they pursue!

A Record of Skeptic Abuse
24th to 26th December 2015

My Tweet.
Homeopathic treatment of brain haemorrhage.
http://hpathy.com/clinical-cases/homeopathic-treatment-brain-hemorrhage-several-cases/

Liz, Queen of bogans
… you are a deluded and dangerous cunt. May you get coal in your stocking you predatory arsewipe

Sandra Courtney
This potty mouth tweet is disgusting. Homeopathy supporters should report. I plan to.

Sebastian Armstrong
… targeting child cancer patients with #homeopathy misrepresentation was disgusting.

Yodaj3di
That reason can't justify verbal abuse. You know that.

Sebastian Armstrong
… come off it the vile exploitation via lies is accurately described

Yodaj3di
There's no exploitation when there's a choice. & verbal violence isn't a solution.

Sebastian Armstrong
… choice is not important unless informed by the truth not homeopathy lies

Yodaj3di
… er, what lies? I only see a link to clinical cases.

Paul, Derbyshire
… homeopathy is fraud. Proven bullshit. Embarrassed for you

Yodaj3di
Don't be embarrassed for me. why for? That's just projection.

Paul, Derbyshire
… if you actually believe in homeopathy then you are logically corrupt

Yodaj3di
… that’s a crazy conclusion from the statement ... how did logic take you there?

Paul, Derbyshire
… explain dilution science...

Yodaj3di
Since it's what you do, I expect you know the science of it. It isn't what I do.

Paul, Derbyshire
… so you put your head in the sand huh

Yodaj3di
It doesn't bother me not knowing everything. I'm grateful to know at least something.

Paul, Derbyshire
… just to let you know homeopathy is fraud

Yodaj3di
It isn't, that's my point. It is a healing system, different from allopathy. That's all.

Yodaj3di
The real difference to me is: we know the limits of allopathy & don't of #homeopathy. They both work.

Yodaj3di
And you are full of fears and anxieties.

Simon
Another piece of guesswork you've got wrong? This is becoming such a habit eh?

Simon
I don't guess much. Arguing is my addictive habit. And yours, apparently. Good holiday?

Paul, Derbyshire
... but your facts and thus your argument are totally false. Therefore you lose a lot

Yodaj3di
Go and be amazed by homeopathy, dude. Live a little!

And it does go on, but it is all trivial stuff, as arguing trying to discuss health skeptics is a pointless and unenlightening task! Which is why I never take part in it!

BBC News whitewashes Statin Drugs!

BBC News is always doing Big Pharma's advertising for them - free of charge. On BBCs 'Today' programme (17th May 2012) it was reported that even healthy (low-risk) people should be taking Statin drugs, and that by doing so, 1000s of heart attacks and strokes could be prevented. They quote evidence published in the Lancet.

So the millions listening to BBC News this morning will be left with the understanding that there are no problems taking Statin drugs.
* No mention of adverse reactions.
* No mention of Disease-Inducing-Effects (DIEs).
* No mention that Statins are now known to cause Diabetes.
* No mention of serious structural muscle damage.
* No mention of serious skin diseases.
* No mention of Prostate Cancer.
* No mention of heart disease.
* No mention of Arthritis.

It seems pointless to BBC News why they continue to remain quite ignorant about all this evidence? Or indeed to suggest they might like to look at this website - and indeed so many other websites from organisations that, unlike the BBC, are prepared to fully inform their readers and listeners. Or is the BBC merely content to propagandise for Big Pharma drug companies? Or is it just that your health correspondents are not doing their job properly?

Yet, look at the BBC News website. The same news is put forward here, that is, the benefits of taking Statins. But this also mentions at least some of the downsides of Statins. So BBC News is aware! I have to assume, therefore, that it is just not prepared to tell its listeners (and viewers?)

I wonder if the BBC has an explanation for this? Is it because BBC News is aware that their Radio and Television News broadcasts are listened to by millions, whilst their website is seen only by thousands. Does honesty at the BBC News, certainly in their health reporting, only stretch so far.

I notice this research has been published on the GP website, Pulse; with no mention of adverse reactions, other than the usual 'the benefits outweigh the disadvantages' argument. But there are some interesting comments. First, that "nearly all the trials and authors are subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Industry", and second, that "after more than two decades of statin use, heart disease appears to still be prevalent and statins are not having any noticeable effect on cardiovascular disease incidence rates".

But it is unlikely that BBC News will be very interested in such matters! But there is a further matter, why is BBC News, and other mainstream Media outlets, not putting forward other medical research that does not involve advertising for drug companies? If they are genuinely concerned about lowering blood pressure, cholesterol, and preventing heart attacks and strokes, this new research might be of interest. It was reported by the WDDTY magazine today.

"High-dose vitamin C lowers blood pressure, prevents stroke. Taking 0.5g of vitamin C – the equivalent of drinking six glasses of orange juice – every day lowers your blood pressure and reduces the risk of stroke.

The amount, which is around five times the recommended daily allowance, is especially effective in people already diagnosed with high blood pressure, or hypertension.

The vitamin can lower blood pressure by 5 millimetres of mercury, which is half as good as an ACE inhibitor or diuretic (water pill), in people with hypertension.  The immediate impact is a 3 millimetres fall, enough to reduce significantly the number of people who suffer a stroke, say researchers from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

The researchers think the vitamin works in a similar way to a diuretic, allowing the kidneys to remove more sodium and water from the body, and helping relax blood vessel walls.

The process suggests that vitamin C doesn’t directly reduce rates of cardiovascular disease, they caution.

Vitamin C is found in fruit and vegetables, and can also be taken as supplements.

(Source: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2012; 95: 1079-88).

It is becoming increasingly clear that Big Pharma drugs are dangerous. It is also becoming increasingly clear that diet, exercise, and other medical therapies, such as Homeopathy, are far safer, and more effective than conventional medical treatment. So perhaps the solution to many health problems can be a little simpler than taking pharmaceutical drugs.

But from this mornings evidence, we cannot rely on the BBC telling us this. Indeed, they don't seem to be in the least interested!

Warfarin and heart patients - find something safer!

Researchers at the University of Cincinanati say that heart patients should not be taking the drug Warfarin. It is taken to prevent stroke, but the new research suggests that most patients are getting no benefit, and could be at risk of excessive bleeding.

It is good that this has been discovered. After all, Warfarin has been given to rats as a poison for a long time, and it kills them by causing - excessive bleeding!

The researchers say that a safer drug should be found. But they don't say what drug, or whether there is a safer one! Anyone who looks at the life-history of all pharmaceutical drugs will probably conclude there isn't one!

People with atrial fibrillation and who have had a stroke might be better looking for a safer health therapy, like homeopathy!


(Source: Circulation, 2010; doi: 10.1161/circoutcomes.110.958108)


Thanks to WDDTY for the story: http://www.wddty.com/most-heart-patients-shouldn-t-be-taking-warfarin.html