Child Protection and Medical 'Experts'

BBC Panorama broadcast a programme called “I want my baby back” on 13th January 2014 (see the programme by clicking here).

In essence it concerned parents who have lost, or are in danger of losing their children, arising from ‘expert’ medical evidence provided to local authority social services (the lead agency in child protection work) and the family courts. The infants and young children featured had one thing in common - all were found to have multiple broken bones which could not be explained by their parents.

Cause for concern, on the face of it, and no-one (least of all myself, as I have worked in child protection for many years) will take exception to safeguarding children from serious physical harm.

The medical authorities referred the cases to the social services, and child protection procedures were initiated. The parents did not know how the injuries occurred, and did not admit liability. Care proceeding were taken, and largely on the basis of medical evidence, many parents are losing their children, and living under the threat of any newborn child being removed in a similar fashion.

The ‘expert’ medical evidence stated in these cases that the injuries had no medical cause, and therefore, could only have been done through the abuse and mistreatment by the parents. Unfortunately, this ‘expert’ medical advice was not correct. The programme outlined that most of these children had extremely low levels of Vitamin D, and that this could, and should have been put on the agenda when considering whether the children had been abused. So who was at fault here.

• The social services who acted mainly on the information given to them by medical ‘experts’? 
• The family courts who acted mainly on the information given to them by medical ‘experts’?
• The medical ‘experts’?

Even the BBC, loyal supporters of the Conventional Medical Establishment, almost brought themselves to admit that the medical evidence was wrong, and that they should have been aware of the consequences of serious Vitamin D deficiency - one of which is rickets (a disease now apparently in the process to returning to this country).

There is certainly a similar reluctance to challenge the Conventional Medical Establishment within local authority social services departments, and within the family court. Indeed, there is a reluctance throughout society to challenge conventional medical expertise!

There is, however, no such diffidence within the Conventional Medical Establishment to claiming not only expertise, but an expertise bordering on infallibility! So if a child is found to have multiple broken bones, and the ‘expert’ medics can provide no explanation for them, the parents are blamed. There can be no other explanation as doctors know, and can explain everything, about health matters.

The word of conventional doctors seems to have become the unquestioned, unchallenged ‘law’ of the land.

Has this happened before? Do you remember ‘shaken baby syndrome’, for which several mothers were imprisoned on the almost sole basis of the evidence of conventional medical ‘experts’. And that these mothers were eventually released when the medical evidence was found to be deeply flawed.

And do you recall the issues raised by many unexplained cot deaths (otherwise known as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDs)? 

The only difference with ‘shaken baby syndrome’ and SIDs is that there are medical explanations, but the explanations were not given by the conventional medical ‘experts’ involved presumably because it did not suit them to do so. In other words, SIDs has been found to be caused by the very medicine they prescribe for us!

Sudden Infant Death is known to be caused by the DPT vaccine, given routinely to all very young children.

And doctors, court experts or not, are aware (or should be aware) that the DPT vaccine does cause Sudden Infant Death.

So should these conventional medical ‘experts’ have known about the link between broken bones and Vitamin D deficiency? Should these parents have lost their babies? As the BBC Panorama programme indicated, the link between Vitamin D deficiency and Rickets has been known for over 100 years. So what this knowledge does, yet again, is to raise a vital question. 

To what extent can we trust the Conventional Medical Establishment to tell us the truth? How honest are our doctors about the dangers their drugs and vaccines cause us? And just how far will conventional medical ‘experts’ go to prevent us from knowing about the harm their medical system is doing to our health.

This is just another reason for all of us, but particularly the mainstream media, the social services, and the courts, to begin to question seriously the safety, effectiveness, and indeed the honesty of the Conventional Medical Establishment.

Hay Fever. Why Homeopathy?

This blog was first published on the "Why Homeopathy? website.

Any allergy, including Hay Fever, is a reaction to a substance that your body should routinely be able to cope with, but for some reason is failing to do so. Hay Fever is a sign of imbalance in the immune system, making us vulnerable to ‘harmless’ substances, such as pollen, grass, dust, etc. Allergic reactions like this can significantly disrupt our lives, causing sneezing, stuffy and runny noses, watery eyes, itching, headaches, and even asthma.

CONVENTIONAL MEDICAL TREATMENT.

Conventional medicine treats hay fever mainly with drugs such as Antihistamines, Steroids, or use what they call ‘desensitisation’ treatments. As a last resort, laser surgery may be used to destroy the mucus-forming nasal tissue.

Antihistamine Drugs

The NHS Choices website says that Antihistamine drugs (such as cetirizine, fexofenadine, loratadine) treat hay fever by “blocking the action of the chemical histamine, which the body releases when it thinks it is under attack from an allergen”. This, they say, “prevents the symptoms of the allergic reaction from occurring”.

NHS Choices says that Antihistamines can be used either as a preventative, or as an ‘as-required’ treatment. They are “usually effective at treating itching, sneezing and watery eyes, but they may not help with clearing a blocked nose”.

NHS Choices mentions drowsiness as an adverse reaction, but state that ‘newer’ antihistaines should not do so, but that if they do, you should avoid driving or using tools or machinery.

Yet it is known that Antihistamine drugs cause far far more side effects than this, especially in children and older people. 

Some of the most common side-effects caused by Antihistamines include not just sleepiness, but headaches, dizziness, blurred vision, confusion, dry mouth, constipation, and difficulty passing urine. 

But Antihistamine drugs are also known to worsen conditions, which NHS Choices fail to mention, such as glaucoma, enlarged prostate gland, difficulty in passing urine, or bowel blockage, and amazingly, their safety during pregnancy has not been established. They are also know to increase the risk of liver or kidney disease.

And, as with most conventional drugs, once the effect of the drug has passed, hay fever symptoms usually return.

Steroid Drugs

Steroids (corticosteroids) for hay fever are available as sprays, creams and tablets. The NHS Choices website says that Corticosteroid drugs can reduce the inflammation that causes Hay Fever, and so prevent the symptoms from happening. They tell us that Corticosteroid drugs are more effective than antihistamine tablets at preventing and relieving nasal symptoms, including sneezing and congestion. They can also relieve itchy, watery eyes.

As usual, NHS choices mentions just a few side effects, including irritation and dryness of the nose, nose bleed, an unpleasant taste in your mouth, and itchy skin rash around the nose. They also say that the drugs are not recommended for more than 10 days - because of the “unpleasant side effects” such as weight gain, changes in mood, and acne.

Yet, in fact, Steroid drugs cause more problems than Antihistamine drugs. They are known to cause dangerous adverse reactions, such as high blood pressure, bleeding from the bowels or stomach, reduced healing, poor muscle growth, weight gain, and electrolyte imbalances. And long term use of Steroid drugs (not recommended, but remember that once the effect of the drug wears off Hay Fever return) increases the likelihood of diabetes, glaucoma, and eye damage. They have psychological effects too - they are known to cause not only mood swings, but personality changes, agitation, nervousness, tiredness, lack of energy, and depression. 

Immunotherapy or Desensitisation Treatments

This is what NHS Choices says about Immunotherapy:

“If you have persistent hay fever symptoms which are not relieved by the above treatments, your GP may refer you for immunotherapy treatment. This involves gradually introducing you to small amounts of the allergen (the substance that you are allergic to), such as pollen, and monitoring your allergic reaction”.

This treatment is, of course, based on Homeopathy, which works on the basis of ‘Like curing Like’. So Desensitisation treatments are an example of conventional medicine unwittingly making use of homeopathic principles! Even so, NHS Choices says that their treatment can take months, or even years to work, and can be dangerous. But Homeopathy, by using much smaller amounts of allergen, and in potency, can produce faster, safer and better results!

Laser Surgery

NHS Choices says that “Laser surgery is used to vaporise the mucus membranes of the nose to inhibit the symptoms of hay fever. Care has to be taken to prevent burning of the nasal tissue. Success is variable and re-vaporisation is often needed as symptoms will often return over time.

HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT

Many people have discovered Homeopathy when conventional treatments for Hay Fever fails. Homeopathy seeks to stimulate our body’s natural self-healing processes by matching the specific symptoms of the individual patient with a known symptom picture of a variety of remedy.

Many remedies are required as Homeopathy recognises that Hay-Fever is not one, single condition. Some sufferers suffer most in Spring, others in Summer. Some sneeze regularly and violently, others do not sneeze at all. Some have runny nose, or itchy eyes. Some sufferers are worse indoors, some outdoors. And so on.

There are many remedies known to treat Hay Fever successfully, the task being to match the individual patient with a ‘similar’ remedy. Here are just a few of the most frequently used remedies for acute attacks, with simple descriptions, taken from this excellent ‘Homeopathy Plus’ website.

The article explains some sensible self-help measures that can reduce the frequency and intensity of Hay Fever symptoms, such as drinking plenty of water, knowing and avoiding what you are allergic too, and using food as medicine. But it also gives some common remedies, with simple remedy pictures for each one.

Arsenicum

This is one of the best remedies for hay fever.  Burning or itching in the nose, eyes or throat being a strong indication.  The discharges from both eyes and nose will be burning (but check to make sure that Allium cepa or Euphrasia are not better indicated – Euphrasia has the opposite symptoms). An improvement of the symptoms in the open air, although sensitive to light, is usually an indication for this remedy.

Euphrasia

A classic remedy for hay fever where, again, there is lots of sneezing with streaming eyes and nose.  If the water from the eyes burns the cheeks and the discharge from the nose is not too bad, this remedy is needed.  (Allium cepa has the opposite symptoms). The remedy is indicated if the symptoms improve in the open air – obviously away from pollen.  Sensitivity to light may be apparent in both Euphrasia and Allium cepa.

Nat Mur

Initially, there is a streaming, bland discharge from both the eyes and nose with lots of sneezing.  Later, there is nasal discharge that is thick and clear like the white of an egg with loss of taste and smell.  This is not one of the main remedies for hay fever but it can bring great relief to the type who gets easily burned, feel generally miserable, uncomfortable, blotchy and irritated in the sun.

Nux vom

This is one of the best remedies for when there is lots of sneezing, streaming from the eyes and nose, and an irritable, nasty mood.  (If they are sweet tempered, it is unlikely to help.) The symptoms are worse in dry air and relieved when the atmosphere is damp.

Pulsatilla

The main indications for this remedy are a weepy, needy, state of mind, together with discharges that are thick, bland (not acrid) and green or yellow.  Pulsatilla frequently has one side of the nose blocked or congested.

Sulphur

Watery, burning nasal discharge, or a blocked nose, when outside. Frequent sneezing. Blocking of nose on alternate sides. Burning pain in eyes. Symptoms worsened by warmth and becoming warm in bed. Better for being in open air. May be lazy, opinionated, and desire sweets, alcohol, and spicy food.

And it also describes other helpful, but less commonly indicated remedies such as:

Ambrosia artemisaefolia

Intolerable itching and watering from eyes. Burning of eyes. Sneezing and watery nasal discharge. Nose and head feel stuffy. Nose bleeds.

Arum triphyllum

Irritation or itching in the nose leading to boring, picking, rubbing. May pick at lips and face. Throat, mouth, tongue, and palate may burn, making it difficult to eat or drink despite having a thirst. People who need Arum-t may experience concurrent hoarseness and peeling or chapping of the lips.

Histaminum

Consider this remedy when either no other remedy seems accurate or if other remedies have been tried and haven’t worked.

Kali bich

Consider this remedy when thick, stringy, green or yellowish mucus from the nose or throat is present. There may also be a post-nasal or pain at the root of the nose relieved by hard pressure.

Sabadilla officinarum

Hay fever with frequent, spasmodic sneezing that exhausts the person. Sneezing from tickling inside the nose, and sneezing that causes the eyes to water. Profuse, watery nasal discharge and red and burning eyelid margins. Symptoms worse in the open air, better in a warm room. Dry mouth but little thirst.

Solidago

Burning, stinging eyes. Paroxysms of sneezing with mucus discharge from nose.One of the main remedies for people allergic to house dust mite.

Wyethia helenoides

Tremendous itching of the upper palate of the mouth causing the person to make “clucking” noises in effort to provide some relief. Itching of the nose and throat, along with a constant desire to swallow saliva to relieve the dryness may also be present.

RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TESTS

The information in this section is taken largely from this website, which states that “the homeopathic treatment of allergic rhinitis has been well documented in scientific research”.

http://homeopathyusa.org/guide-to-research/eb/allergic-rhinitis.html

A study by Taylor et al, published in the British Medical Journal in 2000, showed a statistically significant improvement in objectively measured nasal air flow for patients treated with homeopathy compared to placebo. The study was carried out by doctors at the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital who used homeopathy in 50 patients suffering from nasal allergies by giving them either a homeopathic preparation or a placebo. The study concluded that those given the homeopathic treatment were10 times more likely to be cured than those given a dummy pill. It was the fourth trial carried out by this hospital on homeopathy for allergies and all had produced similar results.

Taylor, M. A., Reilly, D., et al: Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial series. BMJ, 321: 471-476, 2000.

The four studies completed by Taylor and colleagues all looked at the effectiveness of homeopathy for allergic rhinitis treatment (Hay Fever).  A meta-analysis review of these and other studies by Jonas et al. for the Annals of Internal Medicine reported that these studies were high-quality, double-blind, placebo controlled trials significantly better than placebo on both subjective (reported) and objective (measurable) outcomes.

Jonas, W.B. et al: A Critical Overview of Homeopathy, Annals of Internal Medicine, 138:5,  393-400, 2003.

Studies testing individual homeopathic remedies for allergic rhinitis include Wiesenauer’s randomized controlled trials of Galphimia for pollinosis which were reported to show significantly more effectiveness of Galphimia than placebo when reviewed in a meta-analysis by Linde in 2001.

Wiesenauer M, Lüdtke R: A meta-analysis of the homeopathic treatment of pollinosis with Galphimia glauca,Forsch Komplementärmed, 3:230-236, 1996.

Linde, K. et al, Systematic reviews of complementary therapies – an annotated bibliography. Part 3: Homeopathy, BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 1:4, 2001.

Similarly, Nobel published a placebo controlled randomized trial of Zicam in 2000 that showed a statistically significant better result for the homeopathic treatment when compared to placebo.

Sion Nobel: Daily Application Of The Homeopathic Remedy Zicam Allergy Relief Significantly Improves The Quality Of Life And Impairment In Patients With Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: The Internet Journal of Family Practice. 1:1,2000.

So, as this article rightly concludes:

“The effect of homeopathic treatment has been demonstrated through repeated controlled trials. While homeopathic remedies were used in all of these trials, in some cases “isopathic” types of homeopathy (medicines made from the allergens) were used”. 

"First do no harm". A test Conventional Medicine regularly fails

Primum non nocere, or "First do no harm" is supposed to be a central feature of medical practice, enshrined within the Hippocratic Oath. Regular readers of this blog will know that conventional, drug/vaccine dominated medicine flouts this rule all the time, often with disastrous effects on our health and well-being.

Yet "First do no harm" is also a film made in 1997, starring Meryl Streep. It is a film about a young boy who develops epilepsy, and the efforts of his mother to seek safer and more effective treatment for him after conventional medical treatment proves to be not only ineffective, but seriously harmful, dangerous and life-threatening.

This is a well-known, and oft-repeated situation. Most people will probably have witnessed something similar with people they know after the medical treatment. 

The patient starts with a simple, often trivial complaint, and they take conventional drugs to treat it (or vaccines to prevent it), and far from being a benefit, the 'side-effects' of the treatment actually causes more serious harm to health, and more serious illness. (See my ebook, Drug Induced Illness).

So it is interesting to follow the progression of this particular story, which is based on actual events.

The reason for Robbie (the child) developing epilepsy is not mentioned. Epilepsy is known to result from a simple Vitamin D deficiency. Or it can be caused by stress. But conventional pharmaceutical drugs, like cough medicines, anti-histamines, antidepressants and antibiotics, are also known to cause epilepsy!

Diagnosis

Robbie is subjected to a variety of tests - a CT scan, a lumbar puncture, and an electroencephalogram, and he is diagnosed with epilepsy.

The problems with the diagnosis of epilepsy is that is is notoriously unreliable. The British Medical Journal reported in 2003 (326: 355) that epilepsy was misdiagnosed in about one-third of cases. It is interesting to note what what the magazine, What Doctors Don't Tell (WDDTY) said about this BMJ article:

"Neither report highlighted the terrible drug regimen that follows an epilepsy diagnosis.  So powerful are the anti-epileptics that some children have died while on them. To know that their child never had epilepsy in the first place may be too much for some parents to bear.

Antiepileptic Drugs

Immediately, drugs were prescribed for Robbie, beginning with Phenobarbital. This is an 'old' anticonvulsant drug with well known  Disease-Inducing-Effects (DIEs), including cognitive impairment and behaviour problems.

When this drug failed he is moved on to Phenytoin (Dilantin), a drug known to cause decreased co-ordination, mental confusion, and many other serious DIEs. For a list of the serious DIEs caused by this drug, click here.

Then, when this drug did not work, he was given Carbamazepine (Tegretol). The DIEs of this drug are probably even worse, and a list can be found by clicking here.

It is not just that these drugs did not work. Ineffectiveness is certainly one common feature of conventional medical drugs. But causing actual bodily harm, and serious harm to health, is another. After each drug it becomes quite clear that Robbie's health is actually getting worse, and that the cause of this deterioration was his medication. His epilepsy gets worse, and he develops a serious rash, known as Stevens-Johnson syndrome. 

The parents begin to understand that their son may become a vegetable as a result of the drugs he is being given, particularly when he goes into 'status epilepticus' - a continuous convulsive seizure that had to be stopped as a medical emergency. This was done by giving Robbie increasing doses of Diazepam (Valium) even though it does no good, even when given intravenously!

Eventually he is given Paraldehyde. In the film this drug is said to have possible fatal 'side-effects', and was seen to dramatically melt a plastic cup in which it had been placed! On this website, one of the DIEs is given as convulsions!

At some point we really should be asking what this medicine is all about, and whether the doctors who are using it really know what they are doing!

The failure of drugs led the neurologist in the film to suggest that Robbie should have surgery, involving the removal of the top of his skull, and inserting electrodes on the surface of the brain - to get a more accurate location of any seizure focus. His mother is aghast.

Meryl Streep, the mother, undertakes some library study, and through this discovers another treatment - the Ketogenic Diet. She suggests this to the neurologist, who says 'there is no evidence' to support it. By this the doctor meant that there have been no Randomised, Controlled Tests (RCTs) undertaken on it. The treatment, she said, was supported only by 'anecdotal' evidence - by which she meant that although individuals have been cured by the diet the drug companies had not carried out RCTs on it, and so, for the neurologist this was not 'evidence.

Later in the film, the neurologist was reminded of the uncomfortable fact that there were no RCTs on many of the drug treatments she had already used for Danny!

There is, of course, lots of money involved in peddling pharmaceutical drugs, but few profits, if any, for cures which involve diet. So such alternatives are not favoured by the conventional medical establishment.

Robbie's mother determines to get her son to the John Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, where the Ketogenic diet was being used.

First she tried to secrete him out of the hospital, but was stopped, and warned that by doing this she could risk losing custody of her son, as the courts (heavily influenced by 'conventional medical advice' of course, might believe she is putting her son's health at risk by refusing conventional medical treatment.

However, with the help of a retired doctor, and a sympathetic nurse (far more help than would be available to the average parent) she does manage to take Robbie to Baltimore, and he is given the Ketogenic diet. The seizures begin to improve, and are eventually eliminated, and his mental faculties are restored.

Apparently the factual basis of this story arises from the experience of the film's editor, and the main question is asked was why he was not told about this treatment. He was apparently outraged that nobody had informed him of the diet, even when it was clear that the drugs were not working.

The Ketogenic diet was first develop by Russell Wilder, at the Mayo Clinic, in 1921. Although it was initially popular, it decline when new, 'effective' drugs (like Phenytoin) were discovered in the later 1930s, early 1940's  - that is, the drugs that were used in the film with Robbie! 

Wikipedia claims that, since the film, the diet is now being used in 75 epilepsy centres, in 45 countries. However, NHS Choices have a different story to tell!

"Anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) are usually the first choice of treatment. About 70% of people with epilepsy have their seizures controlled with AEDs".

So let it never be said that the NHS, our doctors, and the Conventional Medical Establishment generally, do not use drugs whenever there is an opportunity to do so! Moreover, let us observe here that even when there are safer and more effective alternatives that can be used, drugs still remain the preferred option! Indeed, diet is mentioned on NHS Choices almost as an after-thought!

"Sometimes, a special diet is used for children whose seizures are difficult to control and do not respond to drug treatment.

Patients seeking treatment within the Conventional Medical Establishment - beware!

Militant Skepticism and Homeopathy: what do they have to say?

"The fate of militant skepticism, whatever it may be, will drift apart from the serious business of doing science. After all, no scientific discovery was ever made by negative thinking. There has to be an open-minded curiosity and a willingness to break new ground, while the militant skeptics represent the exact opposite: they are dedicated to the suppression of curiosity and protecting rigid boundaries of 'real' science".

The rise and fall of militant skepticism. Deepak Chopra.

I have noticed that a group of 'Homeopathy Denialists', Militant Skeptics all of them, are now contacting me through my Twitter feeds about Homeopathy. It is not edifying reading, mainly abusive, certainly nothing interesting or informative, and usually not justifying a response. (See also my previous blog outling the activities of these people).

Certainly, the only reason for writing this particular blog is to highlight, through their comments, how little they have to say, how little of importance they have to contribute to the health debate! Here are just a few examples of what they say - usually to my tweeting of new information and research on medical issues!

• @stevescrutton is a blivot. Namely: 2cwt of wet manure in a 1cwt bag (Guy Chapman)
• Hilarious that @stevescrutton thinks toxicity of paracetamol is a secret! Ignorant cunt (Guy Chapman)
• DANGEOURS bullshit (Guy Chapman).
• Homeopathy = bonanza of fallacies (Edzard Ernst).
• Homeopathy Quack Medicine (Edzard Ernst).
• You do know @stevescrutton you are an idiot. Not to mention a congenital liar (Edzard Ernst)
• Scrutton should be in jail for manslaughter. Utter hogwash. ..eg, of danger of believing in homeopathy (David Colquhoun).
• What an utterly stupid and irresponsible thing to even suggest, let alone actually do (Paul Morgan)
• A clueless article! No idea whatsoever (Paul Morgan).
• Maybe you and the Health Danger should do a little research before tweeting. May make look marginally less stupid (Paul Morgan).
• Utter hogwash. Another example of the danger of believing in homeopathy (Paul Morgan).
• No, homeopathy is just placebo. Again, stupid and irresponsible treatment suggestion. Dangerous (Paul Morgan).
• Yep. homeopathy is delusion (Spelling Patrol).
• Do you believe in miracles then? It'd take a full miracle to make either do research or look less stupid (Dragon Blaze).
• Disappointed to see that @stevescrutton is still a thing (?????) (Birmingham Skeptics).
• Homeopathy is for fuckwits and rip off scammers (Cycling Mikey).

So not much enlightenment there, then, and certainly a complete paucity of useful information! Just statements of blind prejudice, expressed by people who seem more able to write abusively than take part in a proper discussion about health issues!

Who are these Homeopathy Denialists? 
They are people who take every available opportunity to attack homeopathy, and indeed any other 'alternative' medical therapies, such as Natureopathy, Acupuncture, Osteopathy, Chiropractic, and many more. Like this comment...

Homeopathy is the biggest scam next to the blood suckers that claim there is a god" (Lee Spaner).

Why do they oppose Homeopathy? 

They claim that Homeopathy does not work, that it cannot work, and that there is no evidence that it works. In order to maintain this position they ignore any evidence demonstrating that it does work, and that it has been, and continues to be responsible for curing millions of patients, throughout the world, for over 200 years now. 

Homeopathy has a long history of effective treatment with patients, with every known illness or disease. 

But homeopathy denialists dismiss any 'individual' case of successful treatment or cure as 'anecdotal'. They claim to accept only the evidence provided by ‘Randomised Controlled Testing’ (RCTs) - which they equate with 'science'. However, there are two types of RCT that they refuse to consider: 

1. They ignore all the RCT evidence that demonstrates that Homeopathy does work - and there are now over 300 that proves this very point.
2. And they ignore the fact that each and every one of the disastrous conventional drugs and vaccines, now withdrawn or banned, that are now known to have caused disease and death, have all been 'proven' by RCTs.

Indeed, homeopathy denialists deny even the future possibility of scientific evidence for homeopathy. For instance, 'Dragon Blaze' gave this response to evidence that was explaining the working mechanism of homeopathy: "Not going to happen, as there's no science that could prove homeo, especially not QM". And Bee Rational, who told me that "homeopathy is safe because it has no active, therapeutic ingredient. This is also why it doesn't work.

Are they supporters of conventional, drug based medicine? 

Clearly, homeopathy denialists support the Conventional Medical Establishment. They certainly claim to support what they call 'evidence-based medicine', and they state unequivocally that only conventional, drug-based medicine is based on 'evidence'. And they clearly don't like anyone who speaks against conventional, drug-based medicine.

"Oh dear, @stevescrutton, you're a homeopath and an anti-vaxer" (Rah).

Correct on both counts! Oh dear!! However, it is very noticeable that they rarely (if ever) defend Big Pharma drugs and vaccines when they are criticised for the harm and damage they have done to patients, and many of my blogs do.

When I blog, tweet, or use Facebook to provide evidence of the failure, and the dangerousness of drugs and vaccines, even when I highlight the fraudulent activities of Big Pharma companies over the testing, regulation, promotion of drugs and vaccines, there is total, deafening silence.

There are a few, rather pathetic exceptions to this general rule. Paul Morgan attempted to defend Paracetamol.

"Oh dear! Paracetamol OD has been popular suicide attempt method for years! Unbelievably ignorant if you think this is news".

What Paul forgot was the article was not about overdosing - it was taking this dangerous painkiller in normal doses! Click here to see original blog.

Why Denialism is such a strange activity? 

Most people will support the causes they believe in, and the stronger their belief, the stronger their support - quite rightly. The peculiarity of Denialism is that their enthusiasm shows that they are 'against' something rather than 'for' something.

What do Denialists have to say? 

When their activity is analysed it becomes clear that they have only one, very simple message - Homeopathy does not work. Yet even when you examine the evidence they use to support their beliefs (they claim to be interested in science) - there just isn't any!

• They use humour (which I admit is sometimes quite funny, if a little pointless, and ill-informed). Alan Henness is particularly inspired by laughter!
• Hilarious drivel
• LOL!
• Here is a list of diseases that can be safely and effectively treated by homeopathy……………………………………………... That is all.
• And this from Antonio Johnson: "Homeopathy is the second most used healthcare system? You mean after medicine?
• And this response from Clay Jones. If homeopathy qualifies as system of healthcare then so is prayer or crossing your fingers.
• Well, I guess we all need to get our water and sugar from somewhere (Mark Chatterly).
• How Homeopathy helps our family to lose money on over-priced sugar (Edzard Ernst).

All clever, perhaps even amusing stuff - but totally devoid of any semblance of argument or enlightenment!

• Convinced that homeopathy does not work, they proceed to say that anyone who says that Homeopathy does work is making 'dangerous' and 'misleading' statements, which, of course, would be correct (and if they had any evidence to support the initial premise - which they fail to provide).
• No, it isn't. Homeopathy = a failure to act. DANGER (Carnum Marcus-Page).
• have you read the page on whooping cough? dangerous nonsense (Jonathan Mason).
• Whooping Cough. Homeopathy more effective than conventional medical treatment << DANGEOURS bullshit (Guy Chapman).
• Autism and Homeopathy - should not be mentioned in the same sentence (Edzard Ernst).

This is particularly so if mention is made of the treatment of cancer. The law of the land, of course, says that no-one can advertise the fact that they can treat cancer. However, what the law cannot do is to ignore the fact that increasing numbers of people are moving to alternative treatment, including homeopathy, to treat their cancers - and that many people have been successfully treated. See (1), (2), (3), (4), (5).

• Homeopathy and cancer: stupid, malicious or criminal? Edzard Ernst.
• What?! How dare any homeopath quack go near a breast cancer sufferer or any ill person for that matter (Vix+ Comquat).
• I beat breast cancer. I'd like to say Thank you to medical science & a big Fuck you to (Amy Sloman). I know many people who have survived cancer via homeopathy; they would not dream of making such a nasty and abusive comment about conventional medicine, or conventional medics.
• I know of two active prosecutions for Cancer Act. Now is not a good time to push your luck (Guy Chapman).

Yes, there are always plenty of threats too - especially from Guy!

And Malaria is another disease that gets the homeopathy denialist going! This is the blog that caused the problem for the denialists!

• You're off message. Even @SOHhomeoapthy admits homeopathy can't prevent malaria. Mendacious quack! (Guy Chapman)
• Anti-malaria drug. Liar. It's just not recommended for oral use any more. Do you even read your own nonsense? (Mark McAndrew).
• No dear chap, it's because doctors don't want people to die from the ignorance and lies - unlike you. How's your malaria? (Mark McAndrew).

• In all this, homeopathy denialists always make an implicit assumption - that conventional medical treatments are both safe and effective, and that therefore, to suggest any other form of treatment diverts or prevents patients from seeking it. Of course, what this denies is that increasingly people are turning away from conventional drugs and vaccines, and looking for safer, more effective treatments.

• Whilst all this would suggest that Denialists are making an argument in favour of conventional medical treatment. Yet, as I have already said, they never respond to any criticism that Conventional Medical treatment is at best ineffective, and at worst, highly dangerous to our health.

• And Homeopathy denialists always seem to want to engage in argument at a 'Pantomime' level. So if, for example, I say that "Homeopathy works": they respond with"Oh! No it doesn't!.

And by contacting me directly through Twitter I must assume they want me to continue the argument by saying "Oh! Yes it does!" I always refrain from doing so!

Who funds the activities of the Denialists? 

The truth is that I don't know (and really, I must admit, I don't care) who funds these people. Much of their activity, and the views and opinions they express, run in parallel to the aims and objectives of the organisation "Sense about Science" (SaS), which itself is  largely funded by Big Pharma money, and which supports both the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines industry, and the GMO food industry.

Yet would the Pharmaceutical industry really want to fund the rather absurd and cretinous activity of Homeopathy Denialists? 

If they do it would suggest that Big Pharma is becoming more desperate then they really need to be. In matters relating to health, Big Pharma interests (the Conventional Medical Establishment) already exercises virtually total control over the Government, the Department of Health, and the NHS, as well as the regulatory agencies such as the MHRA, and NICE. 

And as far as the dissemination of information is concerned, Pharmaceutical interests still have a large measure of influence and control over the mainstream media, and what they say about health issues, as well as many other influential organisations, including the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

Indeed, the ASA is one of the latest vehicles being used to attack homeopathy ASA is currently seeking to control what Homeopaths can say about what homeopathy can offer to patients. As far as health issues are concerned, the ASA appears to be actively supporting a restraint of trade - certainly as far as the practice of medicine is concerned!

Homeopathy Denialists are making much about the fact that the ASA has recently said that my own personal website breaks their advertising rules. ASA's stance is that they do not believe there is any evidence supporting Homeopathy (mirroring the views of SaS, and the Denialists), and that as a result homeopaths cannot make any claim for 'treating' illness, or 'curing' disease - despite the fact that this is the only thing homeopathy does! 

ASA does not accept the evidence of successfully treated, or cured patients (mirroring the views of SaS and Denialists). And ASA does not accept the RCTs that demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy (mirroring the views of SaS and the Denialists). So these are just some of the comments coming my way!

• Still peddling that mendacious nonsense, Steve? How's the ASA viewing it?" (Guy Chapman)
• You are breathtakingly stupid. Trading Standards are now ASA's legal backstop and they CAN AND WILL prosecute Cancer Act (Guy Chapman).
• Yes. ASA need to initiate prosecutions against @stevescrutton for repeated breaches of  CAP (Paul Morgan).
• I second @SceptiGuy assertion that you are dim indeed. #Homeopathy is #bunk AND the ASA WILL prosecute (CaPPsiE).

So have I broken the rules of ASA? In terms of the way ASA are currently interpreting their rules in relation to Homeopathy, and other alternative medical therapies, I most certainly am, and will continue to do so. Why?

I will do so in the interests of defending Health Freedom, and promoting Informed Patient Choice.

Homeopathy denialists wish to continue the health monopoly currently enjoyed by the conventional medical establishment. I am opposed to it. Too many people are suffering from drugs and vaccines that are largely ineffective, and certainly dangerous - indeed, drugs and vaccines that our conventional doctors know to be dangerous. 

The public has a right to know. And so I will not be silenced by militant skeptics.

Health Freedom. Patient Choice. What would happen to the NHS if this became a reality?

[So] long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.                                                               Voltarine de Cleyre

A different National Health Service

The political and financial principles underlying the National Health Service are worth maintaining. A free health service for all, regardless of the ability to pay, and offering the best health care therapies available, is a worthy objective for a civilised and caring society.

However, the drug-based medicine currently offered by the NHS is best avoided, except perhaps in dire emergency, and alternatives should always be offered.

An increasing number of people are beginning to realise this. They are slowly turning back to traditional, more natural medicine. There is a growing realisation that if we want to receive effective and safe medial care we have, at the moment at least, to go outside the NHS/Big Pharma monopoly.

This means that for large numbers of people, who are turning their back on the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs, and looking for drug-free therapies, no longer have a 'free at the point of need' medical service. For those able to pay privately for their medical care this is possible. However, for those who cannot afford to pay twice have just two options 

*** to accept an ineffective and dangerous form of medicine, and just hope that they do not suffer from the DIEs they bring with them.

*** or to struggle on with illness, without treatment.

For this reason alone the current position of the NHS, as a monopoly provider of drug-based treatment, has to be ended.

The main argument for fundamental change within the NHS is to facilitate patient choice. To achieve effective patient choice, however, patients will have to be given more open and honest information about their health, and the treatments available to them. The NHS should be a clearing house for patients, diagnosing their medical condition, and giving them information about a wide variety of medical therapies. The NHS Bureaucracy, dominated as it is now by conventional medical practitioners who seek to deny patients access to any other form of medicine within the NHS, will have to be challenged, and where necessary replaced by people willing to facilitate real Patient Choice.

At present the NHS in firmly in the hands of those who wish to maintain the ConMed monopoly. This monopoly must be ended. In providing health care to the nation, the NHS must recognise that every patient should have a choice of all the medical therapies available.

The Patient Choice Agenda

1.      Every individual should have the right to the medical treatment of his or her informed choice.

2.      The National Health Service, as an organisation, should not favour, promote or dispense any one medical therapy over and above any other.

3.      The NHS should not seek to impose any one form of medical treatment without reference to the informed choice of the individual. There should be no expectation, or pressure on any individual to accept any kind of medical treatment they do not wish to have.

4.      Informed choice is obtained by providing patients with good quality information. The NHS should commit itself to providing good quality information about every medical therapy available.

5.      This information should be full, honest and openly available to all patients. The information should include evidence about the effectiveness and safety, as well as the dangers, of each treatment.

6.      When an individual becomes ill, he or she should expect to have access to comprehensive information about the treatments available from each medical therapy. Patients should be able to discuss their treatment with any local medical practitioner, within or outside the NHS.

7.      Health funding for each individual should be based on a medical assessment of need, based on the severity of their illness. This assessment should provide an 'indicative level of funding', within which patients should have access to any form of medical treatment they prefer.

9.      The role of the NHS should be to facilitate, to provide access to, and to fund the individual's choice of medical treatment.

10.  The decision to fund, or not to fund particular medical therapies should be removed entirely from the NHS bureaucracy. 

Conventional and Traditional Medicine - comparisons

When Conventional and Traditional Medicine begin to be used on an equal footing within the NHS some important comparisons can then be made about the relative effectiveness and safety of different medical therapies. These will not be comparisons on the basis of 'randomised double blind scientific trials', which has led to so many medical disasters, but instead, on the basis of 'patient outcome' - in other words, does the patient get better on particular medical therapies, or not.

Actually, this is all patients ever want - to get better - and to get better safely.

Will conventional, drug-based medicine prove itself to be safer and more effective than other, more traditional or natural therapies? Will drugs and vaccines be able to prove their worth to patients when compared on a level playing fields with therapies conventional medicine has sought to undermine and ridicule for centuries? It is perhaps unlikely but it will be interesting to see!

Yet ultimately with Patient Choice the answer to this question does not matter. What matters is that people are informed about the health choices they have, and that they are able to decide which kind of treatment they prefer. This ability to choose will provide the NHS with useful insights and comparisons. For instance, if people find that homeopathy is safe and effective, they will use it, and tell their friends. If it is not, people will choose something else, or perhaps stick with ConMed.

However, the conventional medical establishment will find it difficult within a genuine ‘Patient Choice’  agenda. For the last 60 years people have accepted Big Pharma drugs because they have been readily and freely available, heralded by great claims for their efficacy and safety. Will patients take these drugs if homeopathy, herbalism, osteopathy, acupuncture, et al, are also readily and freely available to them? It will depend on what forms of medical therapy they see to be safer, more effective, and produce better outcomes. For Conventional Medicine, cosy within its present monopoly, this is seen as a threat!

The conventional medical establishment will not welcome the challenge of open, fair competition with traditional therapies like Homeopathy. They will prefer to hide behind the so-called 'science’ they claim for their drugs, seek to retain control of the NHS, and continue to disseminate misinformation about homeopathy and other natural therapies. 

Big Pharma, of course, will continue to threaten politicians and governments with moving their factories, and their research centres elsewhere, unless their monopoly is maintained. And they will continue to support people and organisations who are willing to attack homeopathy, and other traditional therapies. So the struggle is likely to be long and fierce. 

What will patients choose?

Patients will choose what they want to choose! That is the nature of choice! Do they prefer a Ford to a Vauxhall, the Telegraph to the Guardian? Initially, without any doubt, most people will continue to use ConMed drugs. It is what they know, what they currently use, and what they understand. But gradually, people will begin to make comparisons, and consider the merits of other medical therapies.

** They will do so when they discover that ConMed is not working with their illnesses, even after years of treatment.

** They will do so when they are told they will have to be on ConMed medication, with potentially dangerous DIEs, for the rest of their lives.

** They will decide when friends tell them that homeopathy does, in fact, work, and that it works, and they will want to try it for themselves.

When this situation emerges, entering a GP surgery, or an NHS hospital, will become a different experience. Visits will be more about seeking information about the choices open to them, and making personal decisions about the treatment they want. It will no longer be a matter of being told

          "Here you are, this is our diagnosis, this is what we have got for you, and so this is what we are going to give to you".

Health will no longer be about what emanates from a bottle of pills. Traditional medicine will gradually move the focus to a wider, more holistic understanding of health, to life-style choices, to supporting the body in maintaining its health, and eventually, when illness does strike, using gentle therapies that helps the body heal itself.

Patients will select their treatment from different therapies. They will discuss their experiences with their friends and family. They will teach each other what works, what is safe, and what is not. The 'word of mouth' route that works for homeopaths and traditional therapists now will begin to work in favour of 'the best' medical therapies, the one's that suit patients, the one's that work, the one’s patients prefer. No-one will feel obliged to take Big Pharma drugs. And no-one preferring natural treatment will have to pay twice for their medical treatment.

The Health Marketplace

Initially, the NHS Establishment, dominated as it is by conventional medical practitioners, will protest that they cannot afford to spend even more money, certainly not on traditional therapies! The costs of providing health care, they will complain, are already exorbitant (as indeed they are). But they will soon discover something they have never considered in their present monopoly position.

Patients will receive treatment, they will get better, and go away.

Gradually, the NHS will find that less people will pass through their doors. They will discover that Homeopathic remedies and Acupuncture needles will not generate more illness, treatment will not lead to yet more disease, and so increase demands on resources. Costs within the NHS may even begin to stabilise. And demands for ever more resources will begin to reduce.

Moreover, the cost of Big Pharma drugs will cease to rise to astronomic levels. Big Pharma will soon have to recognise that they are operating within a competitive health marketplace. Their drugs will have to stand comparison in terms of cost-effectiveness with Homeopathic remedies (which cost very little to produce). Perhaps the Pharmaceutical industry will even feel obliged to test their drugs more vigorously in order to ensure they are safe! They will certainly have to do more than just tell patients they are 'wonder' drugs, and rely on their NHS monopoly to distribute them on their behalf.

Patient Choice in health will make the NHS a more dynamic, pluralistic and interesting institution. Patients will re-assume a larger measure of responsibility for their own health. And health practitioners, of every persuasion, will be expected to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of what they do in terms of the outcomes they produce.

This piece was first published in the E-book "The Failure of Conventional Medicine".