Big Business and the use of Social Media Trolls

The Natural News website has recently run an article about Monsanto being caught running a 'troll farm' in order "to smear ..... anyone questioning the fake science behind GMO's". They dislike the safety of their 'Roundup' herbicide being questioned, and apparently, new court documents (arising from 50 lawsuits against the company) have revealed that "... Monsanto has a troop of trolls at its disposal who are paid to scour the internet for those speaking ill of its toxic wares and then counter their warnings with false studies that support their products."

The lawsuits are being taken by people who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma because of their exposure to Roundup, and the Monsanto has hidden the risks of the herbicide. One document is quoted in the material revealed.

               "Monsanto even started the aptly-named ‘Let Nothing Go’ program to leave nothing, not even Facebook comments, unanswered; through a series of third parties, it employs individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs." (My emphasis).

It is good that this has been revealed. Perhaps it will lead to a recognition that many large industrial and commercial conglomerates hire trolls in the same way. The pharmaceutical industry certainly does so, and also supports organisations such as 'Sense about Science', the 'Good Thinking Society' to defend their products, and to attack any medical therapy that might compromise their business, their monopoly within most national health services, and their profits. Indeed, much of what the Natural Health article says about Monsanto is applicable to the efforts of Big Pharma.

               "... internal emails showed that the evil firm enlisted staffers to ghost write studies that falsely portray its products as safe, even going so far as to pay experts like scientists to sign their names at the end to lend a false air of authenticity."

Apparently, Monsanto has an entire department devoted to discrediting scientists, and smearing journalists who dare suggest that its products are dangerous, and are causing harm to users. When, in 2015, the World Health Organizstion’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) stated that glyphosate probably causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, one of the firm's executives admitted that it had a whole department devoted to “debunking” legitimate science that made its products look bad!

Eventually, this will discredit the companies, and the industries who engage in such activity. But worse, it will also damage the reputation and credibility of science itself. Many troll organisations, like those I have mentioned above, actually claim to support science!

It indicates that large corporate bodies, that dominate the political and commercial establishments, are aware that their products cause harm to its users, but are prepared to misinform, lie, and deceive to maintain their business and their profits.

And it would appear that the trolls we hear from on social media are on their payroll!

Patient Support Charities. Not all they seem?

Learning that we have contracted a serious illness can be a testing time, a time when we look for support and guidance. This is the basis of the growth of patient support and health charities: if there is a serious illness, there is now almost certainly a health charity that focuses on it. What could be better at such a difficult time?

• People who have gone through similar experiences, to help them cope? 
• What is the best treatment?
• What treatments work? What treatments do not work?

Yet this simple equation is not as easy or as straightforward as it might appear. The Pharmaceutical companies understand their importance, and they have decided that they are a good way of investing money to promote their business interests.

I wrote about the issue in July 2013. There has now been further research into the scale of the problem.

               "Everyone's in the pay of Big Pharma, it seems, as new surveys reveal that doctors and patient advocacy group are getting payouts every year - and the only one in the dark is you, the patient".

This is the conclusion of a WDDTY article (May 2017), which refers to J Gen Intern Med, 2017; doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4012-3, and N Engl J Med, 2017, 376: 880-5. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania analyzed the finances of 104 patient support charities, and found that

• 85% admitted to getting funding from drug companies
• Of the remaining 15%, only 1 group did not receive funding from the health industry - the rest did not reveal their pharmaceutical connections!

The lead researcher, Genevieve Pham-Kanter, of Dexel university, came to this conclusion:

               "Drug companies have long known that even small gifts to physicians can be influential, and research validates the notion that they tend to induce feelings of reciprocity. But the more generous payouts are made to patient advocacy groups. Some receive up to $7.5 million in donations from Big Pharma, and a $1 million donation is not unusual".

WDDTY concluded, quite correctly, this such financial support creates a conflict of interest as many of these group advocate the use of specific drugs, or lobby regulators to get a new drug approved, whilst maintaining the fiction that it is "all for the benefit of the patient".

Of course, it is not for the benefit of patients, it is for the benefit of the drug companies, who do not spend their money unless and until they know it is a good investment! It raises an important question. How much can we trust patient support groups and health charities? The answer must be - not very much at all!

This is not new news. Nor is it news about which the mainstream media is unaware. For instance, BBC News, via the Victoria Derbyshire programme, looked into the activities of one such charity, the Hepatitis C Trust, in March 2017. It stated:

               "A charity that tried to force the NHS to buy more of an expensive hepatitis C treatment received large amounts of money from the drug's manufacturer. The Hepatitis C Trust has taken £200,000 in grant funding from US drugs giant Gilead since 2014. Last year, it unsuccessfully took NHS England to court for restricting access to the medicine on cost grounds."

Of course, the charity denied being influenced by the drugs industry, and said that it had always acted in the interests of patients.

The background to the story began in 2015 when NICE ruled it was cost-effective compared with older medicines, and NHS England set aside an extra £200m a year to pay for the drug, Sovaldi. This drug was manufactured by Gilead. It had a list price of £34,983 for a 12-week course! So the donation the drug company was making to the Hepatitis C Trust was well worth the money! 

And in addition, as far as the public was concerned, the court case had nothing to do with the pharmaceutical industry, who played no part in it. It was that 'mean' NHS, being challenged by a nice, well-intentioned charity, who only had the best interests of their patients at heart!

In such ways does the pharmaceutical industry work to generate its profits!

So what is this drug, Sovaldi. The BBC article, as usual, outlines how effective it is, straight from the drug manufacturer's publicity! It is "95% effective at curing the disease within eight weeks" we are told. If it was as effective as this the £35,000 seems a good deal! It is strange that Hepatitis C still exists, given such effectiveness! So perhaps NICE were aware of the side effects of the drug. They can be found here.

The public are being seriously misinformed about health, and the treatment of health. The conventional medical establishment is certainly not telling us the truth. The mainstream media is not telling us the whole truth. And it would appear that most patient support charities are speaking to us according to the donations they receive from the pharmaceutical industry.

The Nosebo Effect. The nonsense of medical science?

Pharmaceutical drugs do NOT cause side effects! It's just that patients think they will cause them, so they experience them!

This is the new wisdom from the conventional medical establishment, as reported in the Lancet today (3rd May 2017). Researchers at Imperial College London, undertaking research funded by several pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, found that "patients on statins are more likely to suffer side effects as a result of the ‘expectation of harm’ rather than the drugs themselves". The study follows up a 2014 review that suggested that "very few" of the side effects reported in statin users are down to the drug itself.

This is called the 'nocebo' effect - the expectation of side effects makes patients more likely to report them. The leader of the study, Professor Peter Sever, from the National Heart and Lung Institute, is quoted as saying that the nosebo effect can be very strong.

               "This is not a case of people making up symptoms, or that the symptoms are 'all in their heads'. Patients can experience very real pain as a result of the nocebo effect and the expectation that drugs will cause harm. What our study shows is that it’s precisely the expectation of harm that is likely causing the increase in muscle pain and weakness, rather than the drugs themselves causing them."

As the GP magazine, Pulse, says, this comes after one recent study found that stroke survivors were quitting their statins due to intolerable side effects. THEY ARE, OF COURSE, WRONG! They experienced 'intolerable side effects' only because they expected to experience them! Nothing to do with the drug! More to do with the Patient Information Leaflet that comes with the drug. One doctor has already asked the obvious question:

               "Should patient information inserts be removed for causing increased side effects??"

Indeed, the researchers have said that many people will have died because they stopped taking them. Statin drugs prevent strokes and heart disease by lowering cholesterol, but no mentioned was made of another recent study that has found that when the records of patients dying from strokes and heart disease were examined, it made no difference whether they were on statins or not!

There are several benefits for the conventional medical establishment arising from this research, and the idea of the nosebo effect:

• Doctors will now be able to tell patients that side effects are not caused by the drug, but by their expectations. It has been estimated that only 10% of drug side effects are reported now! After this study reporting will no doubt fall even lower, resulting in even less evidence that pharmaceutical drugs cause harm to patients.
• There will be a strong case made not to tell patients the possible side effects of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, because this is likely to cause the reporting of side effects! There will be even less information for patients, and 'informed choice' will take a back seat!
• The pharmaceutical companies will be able to sell more drugs, and doctors will be able to prescribe more of them because they will know now that they don't cause side effects, it is all part of patient expectation!

Discovering drug side effects is slow enough now. Drugs are tested, approved to be safe by drug regulators, and given to patients for many years before they are round. It will become slower now!

Yet there is another problem. Statin drugs have been found to cause a wide variety of serious side effects. Many other studies have found that they cause not only muscle pain and weakness, but Parkinsons disease, diabetes, liver dysfunction, kidney failure, and cataracts. Were these diseases also caused by the nosebo effect? So are there patients masquerading around out there with Parkinsons because they expected to contract Parkinsons? Is the diabetes epidemic caused by Statin users who just feel they should have diabetes?

In addition, what has been wrong with the many 'scientific' studies that have previously linked Statins with muscle pain over recent decades? Why have they been accepted for so many years? Did they get it wrong? Why can these studies suddenly be overturned by a single (drug company financed) study? If they can be overturned so easily does this conflicting science (yet again) bring into question the validity of medical science, and in particular of randomised controlled testing?

When difficult questions arise within the conventional medical establishment we always need to follow the money! The pharmaceutical companies are in a bad way. Their credibility is at stake, and many of their most profitable drugs failing. 

• Their painkillers are now known to be too dangerous to prescribe. 
• They are running out of antibiotic drugs that work

Indeed, many other pharmaceutical drugs are now being seriously questioned, either for their effectiveness or safety. And few new blockbusting drugs are coming through to replace them. Statins are one of the most profitable pharmaceutical drugs remaining. They could not allow patients to stop taking them because of the nasty side effects. They could not deny the side effects. So pharmaceutical money has paid for the promotion of the 'nosebo effect. It is a useful concept!

So, homeopathy works because of the 'placebo' effect. Patients think they will get better, so they do. And conventional medicine does not cause side effects, it is just the 'nosebo' effect.

We patients seem to be getting everything wrong! We need to listen more carefully to what 'medical science' is telling us, although only when it is funded by the pharmaceutical companies. They know best. We not only know nothing, what we think we know is wrong! 

Just shut up, all of you, and keep taking the tablets.

Post Script November 2020 

The nocebo nonsense continues! This MIMS article says that "Most Statin side effects down to 'nocebo' effect". This means that pharmaceutical medicine wants us to believe that we can develop diabetes, dementia, liver and kidney disease (and all the other 'side effects' known to be caused by these drugs) because we THINK we might get them IF we take Statin drugs!

 

Post Script January 2022

And this is MIMS telling us that two-thirds of Covid-19 vaccines reactions are caused by the nosebo factor, quoting a USA study.

If we think this, why would we want to take them in the first place?

 

 

The Vaccine - Autism Cover-up

Science has settled the issue! There is no connection between vaccines and the rising plague of autism, a disease once unknown, but now sweeping the world since mass vaccination programmes began. Studies have proven that there is no link. So parents can go ahead and vaccinate their children without fear.

I have written several times about Dr William Thompson since he admitted, in 2014, that his 2004 study (that proved there was no connection between vaccines and autism) was actually fraudulent. (See "the MMR-Autism Controversy, and the dishonesty of Medical 'Science'")

But did you know that another 'scientific' study, that again proved there was no connection between vaccines and autism, has been found to be fraudulant.

The scientist in question, Poul Thorsen, is a fugitive from the U.S. Justice Department, living openly in Denmark. He is is a psychiatrist, who was asked by the CDC to undertake what is now known as the “Danish Study.” It was published in 2003 by the journal Pediatrics. It asserted that autism rates in Denmark rose dramatically after mercury was removed from childhood vaccines in the Netherlands, so proving that there is no association with thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines to autism!

The Danish Study became one of several major studies used by the conventional medical establishment to deny any association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Along with Thompson's study, it was part of the evidence used to silence the mainstream media. The Vaccine Insight website has explained the 'frantic efforts' by the CDC to cover up what happened.

               "Poul Thorsen was not indicted by a federal grand jury in Atlanta for his fraudulent study that 'disproves' any connection with thimerosal in vaccines to autism. That will probably never happen in our vaccine propaganda saturated culture. Thorsen, a psychiatrist, was indicted on 13 counts of wire fraud and 9 counts of money laundering involved with embezzling around $2 million of federal money, our tax dollars, while he was involved with misrepresenting studies that are offered as the final 'proof' that vaccines containing thimerasol don’t cause autism. This statement was easily blurred to include all vaccines, by the media, the public, and all governmental agencies including the WHO (World Health Organization)."

Yet even though this happened in 2012 Poul Thorsen continues to live in Amsterdam, openly carrying on his medical research. He has not been extradited, even though there is an extradition treaty between the United States and Denmark. Vaccine Insight considers many reasons why this should be, outlining a dark network of self-interest and vested interests with the USA Department of Justice, Pharmaceutical Companies, and the mainstream media.

• The pharmaceutical industry is a heavy political donor.
• The mainstream media depends heavily on advertising money from the pharmaceutical industry.
• Many top media executives have major stock holdings in the pharmaceutical industry. 
• The CDC actually owns several patents wholly or partially.

As Vaccine Insight says, "if any public criminal hearings were to occur with Poul Thorsen, that could become the one card to collapse the whole house. That’s why it won’t happen".

Vaccine Insight goes on to talk about the secret Simpsonwood meeting in 2000 of several key CDC members, some WHO members, and representatives from major vaccine makers to discuss how to deal with the frightening findings discovered by Dr. Tom Verstraeten, a CDC epidemiologist. He had used the CDC’s internal and vast 'Vaccine Safety Datalink database' that contains virtually all medical records involving vaccinated children. Dr. Verstraeten discovered a lot of statistical inconvenient facts implicating thimerosal (mercury) induced neurological damage, including autism. So those at the meeting hatched a plan to tweak his studies, and Dr. Verstraeten went along with it, to make it seem inconclusive and demand the usual “further studies” clause. Dr. Verstraeten, apparently, was rewarded with a lucrative position at vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

This is how the conventional medical establishment works. It is an intrigue, a conspiracy, based on a profitable industry that sells dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that cause serious harm to patients. 

• It has little interest in medical safety (that is, your safety and mine). 
• If it sells a drug or vaccine that is unsafe it can hide this from us, and even (perhaps) from the doctors who prescribe them to us. 
• It has little interest in science. Medical science is something that it can buy with its enormous profits. 
• Any scientist who stands by their science, like Andrew Wakefield, can have their careers destroyed. 
• Any scientist caught lying, like Thomson, Thorsen and Verstraeten can be protected from, and even richly rewarded for, their lies and deceit. 
• It has little to fear from the mainstream media organisations, which can be infiltrated, taken over and bought by pharmaceutical advertising budgets. 
• It does not have to worry about patient safety as it has effectively taken over all the drug regulatory agencies throughout the western world that have been tasked with ensuring patient safety.

The vaccine-autism link is the fraud that receives the most attention. Yet, as this blog regularly outlines, it is by no means the only one. Conventional medicine is a lie, a deceit, it masquerades as a safe and effective medical discipline, but it is nothing of the sort. It is built on a house of cards, which at any time can fall down. As I said in a blog published last month, "Medical Failure and Denial. Who will be first to break cover?", it is a question of which card, which holds up all the others, will fall first, and we witness the destruction of the entire edifice. The sooner the better!

Sinusitis. A painful weekend!

My Easter weekend was rather ruined by a bout of Sinusitus. I am not ill often, but initially I sensed that I was showing cold or flu symptoms. I took the remedy 'Aconite', always a good suggestion if anyone is feeling they are 'going down' with something. It usually works, warding off the symptoms, but I was probably tardy in taking the first remedy. I am always better treating other people. After all, I never get ill!

But then I began to realise it was more than just a cold. I was feeling some facial pain, and I felt congested. I took a combination remedy, AGE, a mixture of Arsenicum, Gelsemium and Euphrasia, that would usually ward off flu, but I really would have to take this more seriously in the morning.

Yet by the morning, after not sleeping much, I was in no frame of mind for 'intellectual' activity - being the homeopath, working on the symptoms, doing a repertory (linking symptoms with remedies), and narrowing down the best remedy for me. I had no energy. My eyes were sore, and they were running. Ahh! I knew a remedy for that one, Euphrasia. I will take a stronger Euphrasia! But as with the Aconite and the AGE it did little good. The condition, whatever it was, was gaining a hold over me.

               "You've got Sinusitis" said Carole, my wife. I am not a good patient, to say the least. I was annoyed about being ill. I hate being ill. "Will you take a painkiller?"

               "No, I will not take a damned painkiller!"

I knew that wasn't a kind thing to say, but I was bad-tempered, I felt bearish. So perhaps the remedy I needed was the one that had cured my heart palpitations, alongside them my regular migraines. So I took Bryonia. It's the remedy for bad tempered, bearish people who hated being ill, and weren't very nice to their nurses! At least it seemed to fit my increasing mental state. But Bryonia did nothing. The condition got worse, much worse.

               "Damn it", I thought, "I wish those damnable medical fundamentalists, the homeopathy deniers, were right, that homeopathy was a placebo, that all I had to do was to believe the remedy would work! If only it was that easy!"

At one point during the evening the pain in my right temple became unbearable. I did not know what to do with the pain. I paced the house, from one room to another. Carole got out her favourite homeopathy text, 'The Prescriber' by John H Clarke. She looked up 'pain', 'right temple'. It suggested Cuprum. So I took Cuprum. Within 5 minutes the excruciating pain had gone. So I was left now just with the constant gnawing pain around the eyes and face.

               "You've got Sinusitis". I should have listened to what Carole said several hours earlier. Of course it was sinusitis! Normally, a few remedies might have come to mind, but not to my mind, not in that constant pain. So I checked my 'Sinusitis' page on my "Why Homeopathy?" website.

Kali Bich? I did not have that much mucous.
Mercurius. Not really my remedy.

Several more followed, none of them registering with what was happening to me, until I got to Hepar Sulph:

               "Sinusitis with obstructive and thick nasal and post-nasal discharge after every exposure to cold or uncovering the head. Offensive discharges, odour like old cheese. Exquisitely painful inflammation of the sinuses."

So for the next 12 hours, during the night, I dosed myself with Hepar Sulph. I could feel the pain lifting after 10 to 15 minutes. I got no sleep, but by the morning I was feeling over the worse. By the afternoon I thought I had cracked it. But during late evening the symptoms returned, less painful now. So I started taking the remedy again. So not much sleep again, but by the morning I was okay. Well, perhaps as okay as someone who'd just spent 15 rounds with Mohammed Ali! But okay.

So after another couple of days doing not very much, today I have spent some time looking at my Sinusitis page, and I have rewritten it. The homeopathy section has stayed the same (homeopathy works so it never needs to change), but the conventional medical treatment section had to be changed because they no longer use some of the drugs they used when I first wrote the page. The usual thing - either they didn't work, or they were too dangerous.

I am glad I rewrote the page. It made me pleased that I knew about homeopathy. I was even more delighted that I did not have to rely on conventional medicine for treatment. These are some of the phrases used on the current NHS Choices website about the treatment of Sinusitis.

               "Most people with sinusitis don't need to see their GP. The condition is normally caused by a viral infection that clears up on its own. Your symptoms will usually pass within two or three weeks (acute sinusitis) and you can look after yourself at home."

Well, that's okay then, I would only have the best part of two weeks to carry on suffering by this time! During that time, NHS Choices say, I could have looked after myself at home!

          "If your symptoms are mild and have lasted less than a week or so, you can usually take care of yourself without seeing your GP. The following tips may help you feel better until you recover:

                    "Take over-the-counter painkillers such as paracetamol and ibuprofen to relieve a high temperature and pain – check the leaflet that comes with your medication first to check it's suitable, and never give aspirin to children under 16 years of age."

Painkillers? These do not treat sinusitis, they don't even to pretend to treat the condition! And the dangerous of painkillers are well known. What else?

                    "Use over-the-counter decongestant nasal sprays or drops to help unblock your nose and allow you to breathe more easily – these shouldn't be used for more than a week at a time. 

Again, these drugs don't treat the condition! Doesn't conventional medicine have ANYTHING to offer people suffering from sinusitis?

                    "Apply warm packs to your face to soothe your pain and help mucus drain from your sinuses."

                    "Regularly clean the inside of your nose with a salt water solution to help unblock your nose and reduce nasal discharge."

Obviously not! If were not for Hepar Sulph (and Carole) I would still be in pain, incapacitated, and being horribly bearish and irritable towards anyone who dared come near me, and for several weeks more, too! Or perhaps even longer than that!

          "If the condition is severe, gets worse, or doesn't improve (chronic sinusitis), you may need additional treatment from your GP or a hospital specialist. This can be difficult to treat and it may be several months before you're feeling better."

So thanks, homeopathy. I have had a bad few days, but not "several months" of pain. So I hope my experience is a lesson for everyone. We all need alternatives to conventional medicine and not just for sinusitis! We all need to have access to a medicine that actually works, that has something to offer when we need it most.

And please do note, the NHS Choices website, whilst not having much to offer itself, fails to offer any 'alternative' treatment - no mention of homeopathy certainly.

So over the next few days I will be writing some more chapters on my "Why Homeopathy?" website - just in case anyone needs to have them by their side!

BBC News. A statement on vaccine policy.

BBC News covered the Vaccine-Autism link this morning (11th April) on 'its Today' programme, and no doubt thereafter on news bulletins for the rest of the day. It started this morning by an unequivocal statement from Nick Robinson.

               "Doctors in the US say they are worried about the number of families in some communities who are choosing not to vaccinate their children. The World Health Organisation has already warned that measles is spreading through parts of Europe because of falling immunisation rates."

Nothing wrong with that, Robinson was merely informing us about the views of conventional doctors, and the WHO view about falling immunisation rates. But then a 'Global Health Correspondent', Tulip Mazumdar was introduced, and she gave us her views in no uncertain terms, presumably views reflecting the views of the BBC. I am repeating her words in full, but the emphasis highlight the opinions she was allowed to enunciate, completely unchallenged.

               "When Donald Trump was a candidate in the US presidential campaign he wrongly suggested that there was a link between vaccines and autism, a theory that has long been debunked. The American Society of Paediatrics said it is alarmed by suggestions that President Trump is to set up a vaccine safety committee headed by a prominent vaccine skeptic. Vaccination rates across the US are high but there are pockets where rates are well below the 95% recommended to best protect communities against potentially deadly viruses. There are currently large measles outbreaks in Europe (Italy and Rumania) mainly because immunisation coverage there has dropped".

So here we have a BBC correspondent who is not reporting 'news', but giving us her opinion and presenting it as news.

• Trump was 'wrong' to suggest a link between vaccines and autism? It is not something that should be discussed an debated? The vaccine skeptics are just wrong?

• The 'theory' linking vaccines and autism has been 'debunked'. Really? Where? And is the BBC not forgetting that they themselves are ignoring key evidence in this debate?

• Clearly Tulip and the BBC also supports the (absurd?) theory of 'herd immunity', where the vaccinated are not protected by the vaccine - unless 95% of other people are also vaccinated.

• And they also support the theory that vaccines protect us from 'potentially deadly viruses' when most of them in the modern world are no longer 'deadly'!

None of this was up for discussion. Nor was it discussed in a later piece, where the issues could have been discussed, but instead continued to outline the BBC's full and uncompromising support for the conventional medical establishment. Tulip Mazumdar visited a part of the US, Baffin Island, near Seattle, where vaccination rates "were at their lowest". Two mums were allowed to mention that their objections to vaccination were that, too often, 'profit' is put before health, that it was about 'listening to mums experiences', and that 'there was a huge amount of evidence that vaccines were harmful, even if we weren't able to scientifically prove it'. Tulip immediately sprang to the defence of vaccines.

               "The concerns you raise ..... these things have been looked into, and we know vaccines save lives, not just your own children, but children in the community" (again, my emphasis).

The mum was allowed one more comment, that she did not know whether anyone can trust what has been put into vaccines. This was the end of any discussion, as far as Tulip was concerned.

               "The scientific consensus is clear. They are safe, effective and saved lives. Like any medication they can cause mild, and in a very few cases, serious side effects, but before big vaccination campaigns, measles, for example, killed hundreds of people a year in the US, and unvaccinated communities are still as risk of deadly outbreaks".

Several points to mention about this sentence. The 'scientific consensus' is clear only if evidence to the contrary is ignored. The parents who say that they had normal children until a vaccination... The $millions paid out in compensation to parents of vaccine damaged children by the US Vaccine courts... The fact that science has produced little of no evidence that vaccines are safe...

Tulip's statement stands only if the statistics show that measles has killed any more than a handful of children in the US in recent decades, and that where measles outbreaks have occurred, vaccinated children have been found to  be more at risk of serious infection than unvaccinated children.

The assertion that it was 'big vaccination programmes' that reduced the incidence of measles, or any other infection, can only be made if the evidence is ignored that these infections were reducing, rapidly, long before vaccines were introduced, and that after their introduction, the graph of reduced incidence shows little or no change!

The evidence that Tulip presented this morning as 'fact' exactly mirrors the evidence of the conventional medical establishment, and the propaganda of the pharmaceutical industry. The BBC shows itself regularly to be entirely happy with doing so, to the extent that it will allow no debate on the vaccine-autism issue, or indeed the vaccine-paralysis argument, and every other argument about that harm that vaccines are known to cause. Big Pharma policy is BBC policy!

Immediately, the discussion was moved to two children, twins, receiving their vaccinations, and talking to the children's mother. Nothing wrong with this - balance even! Then a doctor was asked to give his views on 'vaccine hesitancy', which of course, he did in favour of vaccines, emphasising 'the great dangers' we faced without them. Tulip then repeated her charges against those who are skeptical, or opposed to vaccines.

               "Donald Trump has WRONGLY suggested a link between immunisation and autism in the past...."

               "The DEBUNKED THEORY came from a British doctor, Andrew Wakefield, who was struck off after HIS FRAUDULENT STUDY linking the MMR vaccine with autism...."

Yet another conventional doctor was brought in to offer more support for vaccines, and to oppose Donald Trump's proposal to investigate the safety of vaccine. The investigation seemed to be a matter of concern for the BBC, not least because a 'vaccine skeptic' had been asked to lead it. For some reason, this skeptic was not named. It is Robert Kennedy, Jn!

Tulip continued, talking about the "well established science of vaccines", and the threat of "deterring family's from accepting vaccines", all of which is, of course, a statement of opinion not news, and a statement that failed to present the debate about vaccine safety in a fair, balanced and unbiased way. She finishes with an emotionally-charged statement.

               "Communities are best protected against outbreaks of diseases if everyone who can be vaccinated is vaccinated. So, despite their sore arms, the twins have done their bit to keep themselves,  and their communities, from potentially damaging viruses".

Yet the BBC were not finished there. Nick Robinson introduced Professor Adam Finn, Consultant in Paediatric Immunology, to comment on what he had heard. It is what the BBC always does when dealing with health issues. If there is an issue, like vaccine safety, bring in someone from the conventional medical establishment to provide their expertise. Is this, Robinson asked him, the same period of anxiety in the US that Britain went through in the late 1990's? An open invitation for Finn to talk about the 'complacency' and 'misinformation' that existed about vaccines,  and 'more and more vulnerable children', and 'getting to a place when there might be serious outbreaks!

Robinson then presented evidence that 1 in 10 people in the USA felt that vaccines were unsafe. This was not an issue he raised about why so many people felt like this, but whether more attention should not be paid to how the message (that vaccines were effective and safe) was communicated, and "how parents trust was gained"! No chance, then, that the concerns of 10% of the population were genuine, the result of an informed decision or choice. No possibility that the views of the minority, the 10%, might be fairly and impartially presented to us by the BBC!

Finn is then allowed to talk about 'false news' and 'false information' about vaccines, and how to combat it, the implication being that this 'false' information consists of anything that is not being put forward by the conventional medical establishment! Robinson was quite happy about this, and sought to feed him another open goal.

               "You get this anacdotalism, don't you (sic), Donald Trump was quoted on Fox News in 2012, about a child getting a 'monster shot', did you ever see the size of it, he said, its like they are pumping it in, its terrible, he says, and goes on... Somehow you have to counter that with hard facts, don't you, but with an equal emotional appeal to keeping children alive".

Clearly, this is not so much an 'interview' as a party political broadcast on behalf of the conventional medical establishment! Robinson clearly had no questions for Finn that in any way represented the views of the 10%. And certainly, there was no-one, no expert, to put forward the case against vaccines. There was no balance, and no attempt at balance, whatsoever!

I am disappointed with Robinson. I expected better of him, As the former BBC's Economics Editor I always felt he showed good balance in putting forward the views of different sides of an economic issue. Clearly, he is unable or unwilling to provide the same measure of balance to the important vaccine-autism debate - which is alive and growing, and will not go away, regardless of the BBC lack of balance and objectivity.

In 2016 I complained to the BBC about their failure to share the important news that the 2004 'scientific' study (that had 'proven' there was no link between vaccines and autism) was a fraudulent study. I have written about it here.

               Autism IS caused by MMR vaccine. Evidence of 'no connection' was fraudulent medical science

               The MMR Vaccine, Autism, and the silence and culpability of the Political, Medical and Media Establishment

The BBC has continued to ignore this important news story, made by one of the study's lead scientists, namely, that vital evidence, that would have proven the vaccine-autism link, was destroyed. To this day it remains a censored news story. Yet this is fraudulent 'science'. It is the very science that allowed the BBC to say, today, that there is no proven link between vaccines and autism! So let me try to help Robinson, and the BBC!

Perhaps the 10% are aware of the fraudulent activity of the CDC in respect of this vaccine-autism link. Perhaps the 10% are aware of the regular revelations that drug companies have provided false information, or withheld important information, about their drugs and vaccines.  Perhaps the 10% are aware of the heavy fines that pharmaceutical companies have paid in US courts as a result of this. Perhaps the 10% know children who have been damaged by vaccines. Perhaps the 10% even know families who have been compensated by vaccine courts for the damage caused to their children by vaccines.

So there you have it, a clear indication that the BBC is fully supportive of the conventional medical establishment, in everything it does and says, supportive to the extent that it will not even discuss health issues in a way that is fair to the growing number of people who have concerns about the damage done to our health by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. If anyone wants to know what conventional medicine thinks, just tune into the BBC.!If anyone wants to hear a balanced debate, one in which the opposing views of an important and growing number of people are represented, we have to look outside our 'public service' broadcaster, and certainly look outside our mainstream media, financed as it is by the pharmaceutical companies. They no longer tell us the whole truth.

There is a bigger problem here. Robinson talked about 'trust' in relation to convincing patients to accept vaccines. Yet surely trust arises from honesty, from fairness in how issues are covered, from informed discussions that involve both sides of an argument. The conventional medical establishment has been proven to be, time and time again, dishonest if not fraudulent, not least in the vaccine-autism controversy. Yet by attaching itself so firmly to conventional medicine the BBC is now associating with their dishonesty and fraud. It is presenting partial, biased news about health. As a result, I no longer believe anything the BBC says about health issues. Lots of my friends and colleagues feel the same way.

And if the BBC cannot tell the truth, or the whole truth about health issues, can it tell the truth about politics, about economics, and about other social issues.

Australian Homeopathy Report. The credibility of medical science.

In March 2015, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) published an 'Information Paper' on homeopathy. It concluded that “… there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective”.

That is fairly conclusive. After all, the report was backed by medical science, and sponsored by the national government of Australia. Indeed, following the report's publication, headlines around the world heralded that homeopathy just does not work!

Most homeopaths around the world were not surprised at this. We are getting used to it! We just yawned, and got on with curing our next patient! Most homeopathy users just shrugged their shoulders, saying "Well, homeopathy worked for me!"

The pharmaceutical companies, no doubt, clapped their hand in glee. Science has come to their assistance, again! And the mainstream media has danced to their tune, again! Money well spent! Or so they thought.

However, some Australian homeopaths (who may well have yawned initially, like the rest of us) actually spent time examining the report. Now, the Homeopathic Research Institute has reported on the report and its findings.

               "An extensive detailed investigation by the Australian Homeopathic Association (AHA) into NHMRC’s conduct, combined with an in-depth scientific analysis of the report by HRI, revealed evidence of serious procedural and scientific misconduct in producing this report. FOI (freedom of information) requests have brought to light that two independent experts also raised concerns over the report’s conclusions during peer review, prior to final publication. The Australasian Cochrane Centre commented that for some conditions, "... ‘no reliable evidence’ does not seem an accurate reflection of the body of evidence”; a second expert felt “uncertain of the definitive nature of the Report’s conclusions”. NHMRC chose not to act on this feedback and did not amend their conclusions".

So, with this refusal, in August 2016, a complaint was submitted to the Commonwealth Ombudsman by the Complementary Medicines Australia, the Australian Homoeopathic Association and the Australian Traditional Medicine Society. So what exactly has been found about this 'information paper on homeopathy'? Why is it the subject of complaint? This is a summary of what HRI found.

               * The use of an inappropriate scientific method

               * Failure to use standardised, accepted methods

               * Failure to obtain sufficiently accurate data to perform a meaningful review

               * Failure to conduct an effective preliminary and public consultation

               * Significant post-hoc changes to the research protocol

               * Impact of NHMRC’s unusual method on the review results

               * Further evidence of bias and misreporting

               * Poor reporting – lack of clarity, inconsistencies and errors

               * Evidence that this was a case of deliberate bias, not scientific error.

Rachel Roberts, Chief Executive of HRI, made this statement about the Australian report.

               “NHMRC’s review is just bad science. Decision-makers and the scientific community rely on these kinds of reports and need to trust their accuracy. This is not about anyone’s personal opinion as to whether homeopathy works or not. It is about the importance of evidence being reported objectively, whatever it says, and the NHMRC did not do that.”

Indeed, it is not just the homeopathic community that should have a grievance about this report (and many other similar reports).

The Australian Report brings into question both the credibility of medical science, and the honesty and integrity of the Australian government. 

These were not casual, unimportant mistakes, they are serious errors. Moreover, they are serious errors that were not corrected by the NHMRC, or the Australian government, when pointed out to them. There is an agenda here, and the agenda has been laid bare by this report. What is at stake here is not the future of homeopathy, which is entirely secure.

• It is the credibility of medical science. Is it really open, transparent and objective? Is it really science? Or is it 'science for sale'? Will medical science produce any evidence required to support their major paymaster, the pharmaceutical companies? Is this 'cheque-book science' in action? 

• It is the integrity and honesty of national governments. Do they represent the people who elect them, defending them from harm, providing them with good-quality information on which to make important health decisions? Or is the value of pharmaceutical investment, or whatever other incentives they offer, more attractive than the health and safety of their constituents?

The conventional medical establishment is in trouble. Its antibiotics no longer work, and in a few years will be totally ineffective. Its vaccines are coming under heavy criticism as more patients are seriously damaged by them. All its painkillers are now known to be so harmful doctors are being asked not to prescribe them. And so it goes on.

Moreover, the pharmaceutical industry has no answer to the epidemic levels of sickness and disease we are now experiencing. National health services are in crisis around the world, both in terms of vanishing, or non-existent treatment options, and the burgeoning cost health care based on pharmaceutical drugs.

And more and more people are now refusing to risk the dangers of conventional medicine (even though most of the evidence is still largely hidden from view) and instead are turning to homeopathy, and other alternative medical treatments.

So, as usual, we must 'follow the money' in these circumstance. Who stands to profit from the rubbishing of homeopathy? Who loses profits when patients decide to use homeopathy rather than risk taking pharmaceutical drugs? So Big Pharma is under threat, and they are prepared to pay medical science to produce spurious, non-scientific reports (after all, medical science has been telling us that unsafe pharmaceutical drugs are safe, and that ineffective pharmaceutical drugs are effective for many decades now).

And they calculate that it is to their advantage to pay politicians and governments to put their name to such reports. The Australian government is an avid supporter of the pharmaceutical industry. It has been following a policy of forced, or mandatory medication now for several years. I have recently discussed this with an Australian correspondent, and the extent to which parents are being pressurised and forced to vaccinate their children is quite alarming.

This is a serious situation, and I would welcome any Australian citizen, who is concerned about this, to write a blog on the current situation, and the choices that Australian parents and patients are having to make as a consequence of health policy there. I will happily publish any informed article.


Postscript. August 2019
Under duress, the Australian government has now published the first report, and it was withdrawn because it found that homeopathy was "an effective medical therapy". Read an update here.