Mental Health. Why does the epidemic continue to grow bigger, why is more and more money needed to treat it?

"You can judge your health by your happiness". 

Dr Edward Bach. 

I wrote this some years ago, and unfortunately it is a relevant now as it was then. Mental health is another epidemic of chronic illness that we have been facing for many years, conventional medicine has been next to useless in treating it successfully, doctors us dangerous drugs with serious side effects to treat it, so we find the situation gets progressively worse. And so there are more demands for more money to be ploughed into the same old, failed medicine. Here it is, so how the situation has (not!) changed over the intervening years.

"Diseases that affect the brain, and reduce our mental capacity to cope with life, are becoming increasingly prevalent. Depression, for instance, is a problem that appears to be on the increase - not only in terms of numbers of people affected, but also the age at which people are now becoming affected.

The Mental Health Foundation provided these statistics about the problem.

• 1 in 4 British adults experience at least one diagnosable mental health problem in any one year and 1 in 6 experiences this at any given time (The Office for National Statistics Psychiatric Morbidity Report 2001).
• It is estimated that approximately 450 million people worldwide have a mental health problem (World Health Organisation 2001)
• Mixed anxiety and depression is the most common mental disorder in Britain, with almost 9% of people meeting criteria for diagnosis (The Office for National Statistics Psychiatric Morbidity Report 2001). 
• One in ten children between the ages of one and 15 has a mental health disorder (The Office for National Statistics Mental Health in Children and Young People in Great Britain 2005).
• Rates of mental health problems among children increase as they reach adolescence. Disorders affect 10.4% of boys aged 5-10, rising to 12.8% of boys aged 11-15, and 5.9% of girls aged 5-10, rising to 9.65% of girls aged 11-15 (Mental Disorders more common in boys, National Statistics on Line, 2004)
• Depression affects 1 in 5 older people living in the community and 2 in 5 living in care homes (Adults in later life with mental health problems, Mental Health Foundation, quoting Psychiatry in the Elderly (3rd Edition), OUP 2002.

Another UK web site (the link no longer works) described the situation like this.

• Major (or clinical) depression is a huge and growing problem. "(It is) the No.1 psychological disorder in the western world, it is growing in all communities, in all age groups, with the greatest growth being seen in the young, especially teens".
• Major depression is the 4th most disabling condition in the world, and 2nd in the developed world (the biggest consumers of ConMed drugs).
• The escalation in the problem, and the recurring episodes of depression show that "while the first line treatment of depression by antidepressants may sometimes control the symptoms, it usually does little to give sufferers depression-free lives".
• Clinical or major depression is growing at an incredible rate.

The website went on to make two important points about the reasons for the depression epidemic.

               First it claimed that there is 10 times more major depression in people born after 1945 than in those born before.

               Second, it said that this increase is not due to more people telling their doctor, and that misdiagnosis and undiagnosed cases would indicate the problem is much bigger than the statistic showed.

• Depressive disorders affect approximately 18.8 million American adults or about 9.5% of the U.S. population age 18 and older in a given year (including major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, and bipolar disorder).
• Everyone, at some time in their life, will be affected by depression - their own or someone else's, according to Australian Government statistics (its states that depression statistics in Australia are comparable to those in the US and the UK)
• Pre-schoolers (children under 5?) are the fastest-growing market for anti-depressants, with at least 4% - over a million children being clinically depressed.
• The rate of increase of depression among children is an astounding 23% per year.
• In developed countries 15% of the population suffers severe depression.
• 30% of women are depressed. Men's figures were previously thought to be half that of women, but new estimates are higher.
• 15% of depressed people will commit suicide.

So is this evidence of yet another ‘epidemic’ of illness that has occurred over recent decades? Or is there something else that needs to be understood about this increase in mental illness? Whilst the statistics found on these two websites demonstrates the size of this epidemic, another important question needs to be asked.

               Is it a real epidemic of real disease?
               Or is it an epidemic that has been constructed by a health industry that has come to see Mental Health as a source of income and wealth?

Mental Illness has become a big money earner for the pharmaceutical industry, and in recent decades there has been a rapidly increasing supply of suitably diagnosed patients who are said to have a ‘Mental Illness’ of some kind. Indeed, where individuals show no sign of disease the conventional medical establishment appears to be willing to invent new mental disorders (for more on how conventional medicine regularly comes up with new diseases, see "The Creation of Illness".

Conventional medicine has developed, and relies upon the theory that mental health problems are caused by a ‘chemical imbalance’ in the brain, and that mental illness arises when someone has low levels of serotonin in their body. And as should be expected the pharmaceutical industry just happen to have the drugs to correct this imbalance. The theory is unproven and unsound, and the drugs that interfere with our serotonin levels, antidepressants and antipsychotics, may be dangerous, but never mind it is a good business opportunity!

The sale of both antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs have been, and continue to be, a major source of revenue for the the pharmaceutical industry for many decades. (And of course this has continued right up to today)!

The ability to persuade us that we are ill, and that, as a result, we need conventional medical treatment, especially pharmaceutical drugs, has been one of the main reason for the rise of our drug-dominated NHS. It is more difficult to persuade someone they have the physical symptoms of illness, but it is not so hard to persuade them that they are not thinking properly.

And the ability of conventional medicine to persuade so many people that they are ‘mad’ or ‘sad’ or ‘bad’ has certainly proven to be a lucrative ploy. Who was it that said, with amazing insight, that you have to be mad to be able to live in the modern world! It is certainly true that traditional communities are less susceptible to depression. And major depressive illnesses are apparently almost unknown in the Amish society in the USA.

Perhaps it also needs to be noted that one feature of traditional communities, including the Amish, is that pharmaceutical drugs are not used or approved there.

Indeed, it can also be argued, very strongly, that pharmaceutical drugs can contribute to to the mental health epidemic. (Postscript, 10 years + on, it is quite obvious now that drugs DO contribute to mental health problems).The link between mental health and suicide is often sited, on the basis that depression leads to people taking their own life. For instance, it has been estimated that 80% of suicide victims suffer from major depression. But it is equally true that most people who suffer from ‘major depression’ are taking antidepressant drugs. The question arises, therefore, about whether it is the depression, or the antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs that is causing the massive increase in suicide rates.

It certainly means that antidepressants are not stopping people from taking their lives!

So now, 10 years on from writing this piece, it would appear that nothing ever changes in the world of conventional medical treatment, other than that we pour more and more money into useless and harmful treatments, and the epidemic of mental health continues to grow.

The Dementia Epidemic. What is the cause?

There are a variety of pharmaceutical drugs that have the side effect "confusion", "memory loss", "decreased mental alertness" and other symptoms of dementia. There are less pharmaceutical drugs that admit to "dementia", or Alzheimer's Disease, as a side effect!

There are a whole host of websites that will confirm that drugs are a major cause of confusion and memory loss. I have listed some of these at the foot of this blog below. More to the point, a cursory perusal of the British National Formulary, or MIMS (medical bibles for doctors which provide details of known drug side effects) will indicate that many, if not most pharmaceutical drugs have these symptoms of dementia as side effects.

The question is, are these side effects just minor, temporary conditions, rather like some conditions we more normally associate as 'side effects' - a headache perhaps, or a dry mouth? Or do they constitute a longer term, more permanent threat to the brain? Can they so easily be dismissed?

Regular readers of this blog will know that I use the term "DIE's" for drug side effects - I think that this is a more accurate description. They are 'Disease Inducing Effects' and should not be discounted as either minor or temporary.

I have listed the scientific evidence that has linked dementia with a considerable number of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and these drugs include some of those most commonly taken drugs, especially those regular taken by older people. They include

• The flu vaccine (especially if taken over a period of successive years),
• Antidepressant drugs,
• Antipsychotic drugs,
• Statin drugs,
• Sleeping pills, particularly of the Benzodiazepine family,
• Anticholinergic drugs,
• Antihistamine drugs,
• Proton Pump Inhibitor drugs, such as Rennies and other popular brands,
• H2 Blocker drugs,
• Painkillers,
• and many others.

Many older people are prescribed a cocktail of different pharmaceutical drugs, and conventional doctors have little knowledge about what this type of polypharmacy can do to human health, leave alone to the human brain which is our most vulnerable organ.

Dementia is not just affecting older people. It now strikes people in their 50's and 60's, even some people in their 30's and 40's! It is estimated that 1 in 3 people will suffer from dementia, and that in future this might rise to 1 in 2. So something needs to be done, and we cannot wait for conventional medicine to be honest. So we need to take action to protect ourselves, and our loved ones. My suggestion is simplicity itself!

• Do not take pharmaceutical drugs, and do not accept vaccinations for flu or indeed any other condition.
• If and when you are ill look to other medical therapies for treatment. They are often more effective anyway, and they are certainly safer because they do not use toxic substances, such as mercury and aluminium, known to have harmful effects on the brain.
• Anyone who is taking pharmaceutical drugs, or have taken them in the past, should seek out assistance from a homeopath to antidote the toxicity that has been introduced into you body.

Conventional medicine is harming us, as individuals, and as a population. It is time for us all to say "No, no more. We have had enough!" And we should do so whilst we still have the mental capability of doing so.

Postscript. A selection of websites that discuss the link between pharmaceutical drugs and confusion, memory loss, etc

• https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2012/03/08/many-drugs-can-cause-confusion/ 
• https://www.webmd.com/brain/medications-that-can-cause-confusion-or-a-decreased-alertness 
• https://bebrainfit.com/20-medications-that-can-cause-memory-loss/ 
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3451468/Common-antibiotics-trigger-DELIRIUM-Drugs-cause-confusion-hallucinations-agitation-weeks-study-warns.html 
• https://www.aarp.org/health/brain-health/info-05-2013/drugs-that-may-cause-memory-loss.html#quest1 
• https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408593_5 
• https://womensbrainhealth.org/think-about-it/10-drugs-that-may-cause-memory-loss 
• https://www.caregivers.com/blog/2013/07/3-causes-confusion-in-the-elderly/ 
• https://www.healthline.com/symptom/confusion#modal-close 
• https://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/side-effects/mental-confusion-or-delirium 
• http://www.healthinaging.org/resources/resource:potentially-inappropriate-medication-use-in-older-adults/ 
• https://www.helpguide.org/harvard/whats-causing-your-memory-loss.htm 
• https://www.davidwolfe.com/medications-cause-memory-loss/ 

A Child Dies. A Junior Doctor is Struck Off the Medical Register. What are the implications for Conventional Medicine?

A junior doctor has been struck of the medical register by the GMC, and its decision has now been supported by the High Court. The decision has caused controversy and consternation within the ranks of the conventional medical establishment. The Medical Protection Society, which represented the doctor, has warned that the case would have "worrying implications for doctors". The medical community is, indeed, angry, with over 800 doctors writing to the GMC about the dangers of 'criminalising' clinical errors.

Note that the concern is about 'criminalising' clinical errors, not a concern about clinical errors, per se!

The Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has tweeted his concern, saying that he was "perplexed" that the GMC acted as it did, and adding that "patient safety must be paramount". He said on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme that doctors needed to be able to express themselves freely about mistakes in order to keep patients safe.

The chief executive of GMC said that this was a "tragic case" - because a family lost their son in terrible circumstances, and a doctor has lost her career. Yet it is important to note that much of the concern has been about the processing of the case.

• The doctor was a registrar at the Children’s Assessment Unit at Leicester Royal Infirmary in February 2011, the most senior doctor on duty when a six-year-old child with sepsis died. 
• The doctor was subsequently convicted of manslaughter by the Crown Court in November 2015.
• The Medical Practitioner Tribunal Service, who investigated the case, decided in June 2017 that striking the doctor from the register would be ‘disproportionate’ and instead recommended a 12-month suspension.
• The GMC overturned this decision, and accordingly they struck her off the register.
• The doctor appealed the GMC decision, and the High Court has now confirmed it.

There is partial recognition that the decision is far more significant than a matter of process. It concerns whether doctors should function within what has been called a 'learning environment', where doctors can admit their mistakes and discuss them without the threat of losing their careers. One doctor has been quoted by the doctor's e-magazine, Pulse, as saying:

               "When considering whether a doctor is fit and safe to practise every case must be assessed on its own merits and should not be solely determined by the criminal sanction handed down by the court. Gross Negligence Manslaughter cases are usually complex, involve systems failures, and are devastating for all concerned. A conviction should not automatically mean that a doctor who has fully remediated and demonstrated insight into their clinical failings is erased. 'This appeal decision may jeopardise an open, learning culture in healthcare at a time when the profession is already marred by low morale and fear. We are considering all options in the interests of our member and the wider profession."

This is the second dimension to the case. Doctors do make mistakes, patients do die, and it is important that learning takes place. If a doctor realises that admitting a mistake will lead to dismissal they will not admit the mistake.

• People do die, it is part of life - the final part.
• People die who should not die when they are not given appropriate medical treatment at the appropriate time.

It is distinguishing between these two deaths that has been raised by this case. The public was to be protected, not from the inevitability of death, but from death through the lack of appropriate medical treatment. 

Yet there a third dimension to this case which has not been discussed in relation to this case, and many others.

• Conventional medical treatment is inherently dangerous - and it is dangerous its own, without any help from illness or disease,. It kills millions of people every year who should not die.

So has this doctor been struck off the medical register because of the seriousness of the illness, or a deliberate or reckless failure to provide appropriate treatment, or because the treatment she gave the child was inherently dangerous? Does the doctor represent an ongoing risk to patients because of her incompetence, or because of the dangers of the type of medicine she practiced?

So is public confidence in conventional medicine best served by striking this doctor off the medical register, thereby endangering open discussion and learning, or by allowing her to continue practicing her trade, which is inherently dangerous?

Jeremy Hunt has said that doctors all over the world are always going to make mistakes, and for patients to be safe they need to be able to reflect to discuss such cases openly and freely. Whilst this may be true, such discussions take place amongst a medical profession that fails to recognise the inherent dangers of the medicine they practice. It believes without question or doubt that the treatment it offers is the most effective, and the safest available. It is not! And the safety of conventional, drug-based medicine should be part of the debate in this case.

If open discussion is really required, if patient safety is really paramount, then the value of safer and more effective medical therapies need also to be involved in those discussions.

Certainly the involvement of alternative medical therapies in an open and honest debate in this case would have been useful. It would have discovered that there were alternatives to the conventional treatment of sepsis. Treating sepsis is something that homeopaths have been doing for decades, and for which there is considerable clinical testimony, and 'scientific' evidence too.

Frass M, et al. 
Adjunctive homeopathic treatment in patients with severe sepsis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in an intensive care unit. 
Homeopathy. 2005, 94, 2, 75-80. 

              "In this study, 70 people admitted to an intensive care unit suffering from severe sepsis were treated either with individualised homeopathic treatment or placebo. On reviewing the signs of sepsis, organ failures, need for mechanical ventilation and other parameters at 180 days after beginning treatment, 76% of the patients using homeopathy met survival criteria versus 50% of those on placebo."

Such evidence is routinely dismissed by the conventional medical establishment, as can be seen in this dismissive and deeply unscientific article about this research. 

So if there are 'open' discussions amongst doctors these are closed to conventional medical practitioners,. Alternative medicine is excluded. If there are safer and more effective treatments for sepsis they will not be discussed, leave along offered to patients, even if that means that a 6-year old child has to die.

So if this doctor had not been struck off the medical register it is unlikely that she would have learnt about the homeopathic treatment of sepsis.

Secrecy already abounds within the NHS, and this will be reinforced by the High Court's decision to support the BMC. Yet people are dying unnecessarily on a regular basis, not just because of the failure of an individual doctor, but because conventional doctors practice a form of medicine that is inherently dangerous. There will be no real learning which conventional medicine has a monopoly within the NHS. Indeed, secrecy is a necessary tool for the conventional medical establishment - they need to practice behind closed doors in order to cover up just how dangerous drug-based medicine is.

This judicial decision will probably made little difference to this. Certainly the safest, and probably the most effective treatment for sepsis will continue to be excluded from the NHS, denied to patients. Learning is not happening within the NHS, and patients are not properly or fully protected from the harm caused by both negligent doctors, and by a form of medicine that is inherently dangerous.

The Treatment of Sore Throats

Doctors have been instructed not to prescribe "precious antibiotics' for people with sore throats. Instead they should recommend painkilling drugs like aspirin and paracetamol. These new guidelines have  been produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) who said, quite correctly, that most sore throats were caused by viruses so cannot be treated by antibiotics. Despite this, NICE has calculated that antibiotics are prescribed in 60% of sore throat cases!

• What does this mean? It means that doctors have been prescribing drugs to us that do not work! 
• Why have they done so? They have had nothing else to offer us! And they have even less now!
• Why is NICE recommending painkillers? They might temporarily relieve some of the pain, but they DO NOT treat the condition.
• Why does NICE also recommend the use of throat lozenges? The NHS Choices website states quite clearly that there is not evidence that these work!

Conventional medicine is keen that their 'precious antibiotics' should not be prescribed unnecessarily. NICE stated that the overuse of antibiotics is making infections harder to treat by creating drug-resistant superbugs. People are becoming resistant to antibiotics, which means they no longer work. They said that patients needed rest rather than antibiotics! Again, this is true, it is always best for people to rest when they feel unwell. But this does not disguise the fact that conventional medicine has not treatment for the condition!

Fortunately homeopathy CAN treat sore throats effectively. There are a number of remedies used regularly by homeopaths for over 220 years that are known to work, and are entirely safe. I have outlined both the paucity of conventional treatment, and the remedies that homeopathy can offer on my 'Why Homeopathy?' website.

So what causes sore throats? According to NICE in their guidance they are mainly caused by either bacterial or viral infections. Yet one of the biggest, if not the biggest cause of sore throats is closer to the home of conventional medicine - pharmaceutical drugs. When writing about the causes of sore throats on my "DIEs. The Disease Inducing Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs" website, I found a website that outlined nearly 400 substances, mainly pharmaceutical drugs, that were known to cause sore throats.

So it would appear that conventional medicine has discovered many drugs that can cause this condition, but absolutely no drugs that can treat it!

Is this the definition of a useless medical system?

It is the reason for the ongoing failure of conventional medicine, and the current crisis of the NHS? Is this not the predictable outcome of a medical system that can create disease, but cannot cure it?

I hope everyone is now looking for an effective, safer alternative for their medical treatment!

Doctors have prescribed addictive drugs for their patients for decades! Now the government has decided there should be a review.

When the UK government ask for a review into prescription drug addiction and dependence it is very clear that there is a very serious issue. There are very serious issues about most pharmaceutical drugs, and we are rarely told about them! And even the BBC has today (24th January 2018) told us about it, which must mean that the situation is very serious indeed.

The UK government, the NHS, health professionals and the mainstream media are usually too busy promoting pharmaceutical drugs to bother telling us about problem side effects!

Apparently the Department of Health (DoH) has tasked Public Health England (PHE) to undertake what they describe as a 'landmark' review into prescription drug addiction and dependence. DoH said that this has arisen from NHS Digital data revealing that 1 patient in 11 (8.9%) has been prescribed an addictive medicine, which is an increase of 3% over the past five years. It wants to know why there has been such an increase, and will look in particular at benzodiazepine and z-drugs, gabapentinoids, opioid pain medicines and antidepressants. Health minister, Steve Brine, is widely quoted

               "We know this is a huge problem in other countries like the United States - and we must absolutely make sure it doesn’t become one here. While we are world-leading in offering free treatment for addiction, we cannot be complacent."

Indeed it is a problem in the USA. It would appear that it is such a serious problem there is even the prospect of pharmaceutical drug company executives being prosecuted. Perhaps this is why these dangerous drugs are the subject of an enquiry when so many other dangerous drugs are not! One PHE director is quoted as saying,

               "It is vital that we have the best understanding possible of how widespread these problems are, the harms they cause, as well as the most effective ways to prevent them happening and how best to help those in need. Many will have sought help for a health problem only to find later on they have a further obstacle to overcome.’

As usual, these warning about the harm caused by drugs come alongside reminders of how 'useful' they are - "many of the prescribed medicines are effective in treating conditions such as pain, anxiety and insomnia" we are told, the balm applied to the warning that these drugs are highly addictive, causing dependence and, if stopped, withdrawal symptoms. The balm is essential. Doctors have been prescribing these drugs for decades, with the blessing of government, the NHS, the entire conventional medical establishment, and the connivance of the mainstream media!

Well, better late than never to have a review into these nasty, harmful and dangerous drugs. We will now have to wait to see if the review will focus on patient safety rather than the need to pour more balm on to the oily waters of patient harm.

Many of the comments about the review seem to indicate that what is important is to better understand the drugs, especially in relation to addiction, in order that future prescribing will be safer.

What nonsense! The conventional medical establishment has known for a very, very long time that these drugs are addictive and dangerous. If they didn't they have been either grossly negligent or inexcusably ignorant! This review is probably more to do with doctor's trying to extract themselves from the responsibility of prescribing dangerous drugs to patients, and damaging them in the process.

Calpol. Is this REALLY a safe drug to give to young children?

Calpol is a pharmaceutical drug that has been marketed to young children for decades. Most parents will use Calpol believing that it is completely safe, and indeed here is little general information available to say that it might be harmful, particularly as it is such a readily available 'over-the-counter' medication aimed specifically at children.

Yet Calpol is really Paracetamol, a NSAID painkiller, perhaps the most common pain-killing drug that is known to cause, amongst many other side effects, acute liver failure. So although there are warnings on the packets, such as "keep out of reach and sight of children" and "do not give any other products that contain paracetomol" it continues to be widely used with young children. The paper insert in Calpol packets gives instructions about when not to give the medicine, when to speak to a doctor or pharmacist after giving the medicine, and a section on ‘side-effects’ mentioning the following:

• Skin rashes and other signs of allergy.
• Becoming unusually tired, unexpected bruising or bleeding, and getting more infections than usual.

Liver and kidney damage is mentioned on the leaflet - if people "use medicine containing paracetomol every day for a long time (several months or more)". This indication on timing is contrary to the most recent research about adults taking Paracetamol that indicates organ damage can arise in just a few days rather than months.

Still, a packet of Calpol I saw recently did say that it did not have any added sugar! 

Well, that's okay then!

Protect yourself from flu

This is a simple, short blog, with a simple, short message.

The NHS has announced that there has been a large increase in flu since the beginning of the year, creating a 4-fold increase in GP visits, and very high rates of hospital admission. The incidence of flu is worse than for any time since 2010-2011.

Clearly the flu vaccine is not working, and no doubt many of those contracting flu have already been given the vaccine.

The Flu Vaccine just does not work!

So rather than visiting a doctor, or a hospital for conventional treatment, the best advice is to use homeopathy - the both prevention and treatment.

For prevention, get yourself the homeopathic remedy Oscillococinum 30c. It can be purchased from any of these homeopathic pharmacies all of which will get the remedy to you overnight. Then take one daily for 3 days, and then weekly for the rest of the flu season. Make sure that your friends and family do the same.

For treatment, have a look at this website.