The shame of Benzodiazepine drugs

We should not be fooled into thinking the dangers of Conventional Medical drugs are short-term. 

No more is this so than the disastrous Benzodiazepine drugs, still being used, apparently, for conditions such as anxiety, insomnia, agitation, seizures, and muscle spasms.  

The Oldham Evening Chronicle (http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news-headlines/48255/doctors-ignored-drugs-warnings) recently entered this long-standing debate, and reminded me of the havoc they have caused, and are still causing those who took them (presumably as 'safe' and 'effective' drug) several decades ago!

An Oldham campaigner, Barry Haslam, who runs the 'Beat the Benzos' group, and was left brain damaged after 10 years addicted to Ativan, has recently uncovered a 30-year-old document revealing doctor's fears about the number of people addicted to benzodiazepine drugs. The medical profession ignored these warnings - presumably the drug companies were too busy counting their profits! Certainly, between 1967 and 1978 the number of long-term repeat prescriptions doubled every year, with 50% of these given without a consultation.

The information he obtained, through a Freedom of Information request showed that the Medical Research Council met in 1981 to debate the addiction, and withdrawal problems of the drug. It is not known yet what happened after this meeting. Presumably not much that would have benefitted patients at that time, or subsequently.

Mr Haslam is reported as saying:

     “It is a scandal that the medical profession ignored a report showing half the people in the study were brain damaged. 

     “The report may have gone into medical journals but nothing seems to have happened after that.

     “It is incredible that this was being discussed 30 years ago. 

Well, nothing much seems to change in the world of ConMed - just the drugs! But it is quite incredible that a drug that has caused for much harm, for so long, is still being given to patients today.

For more on this, and other disastrous drugs, go to Medical Science. The failure to protect, or here, where I have written specifically about Benzodiazipine drugs.

Cancer is a modern, man-made disease

This is more evidence that cancer, like many diseases now at epidemic level in our society, is man-made. In my view, Pharmaceutical drugs are one the most significant causes of these epidemics.

'What Doctors Don't Tell You' have reported
http://www.wddty.com/cancer-is-a-modern-man-made-disease-say-mummy-researchers.html

that cancer is primarily a man-made disease, "caused by pollution, diet and our modern lifestyle." Why ConMed drugs were not included in this list is strange; we know well enough that so many of them cause cancer.

This claim has been made by researchers studying Ancient Egyptian and Neanderthal mummies and fossils (published in Nature Reviews Cancer, 2010; 10: 728-33).

           "The researchers from Manchester University found just one case of cancer in their extensive investigations.  They also disputed the standard medical view that cancer is more prevalent today because we live longer; they discovered many older mummy remains, which showed other signs of ageing common today, such as osteoporosis and hardening of the arteries".

For more information on the link between cancer and pharmaceutical drugs, click here.

Drug company lies, and HRT

More lies from Big Pharma, in order to sell dangerous, toxic drugs. This is just a sequel to the news, nine years ago, that HRT caused breast and cervical cancer. It has been reported at

Journal of the American Medical Association, 2010; 304: 1684-92


HRT was a major money winner for ConMed until research (rather late in the day, as usual) showed how dangerous it was. Sales dwindled (and breast cancer rates reduced with those dwindling sales), but Big Pharma remained upbeat! They had profits to generate, to hell with all those women!

They have tried to downplay the breast cancer risks for over 9 years by claiming that the cancers caused by the drug were not aggressive and were easily treated. Cancer? Easily treated? Presumably treated by more or their toxic drugs!


Now the same researchers have discovered that the claim is not true – HRT causes advanced and life-threatening breast cancer.

Now, there's a surprise! But at least it has enabled doctors to continue prescribing HRT to thousands of women, exposing them to the risk of developing an aggressive form of breast cancer. And, of course, Big Pharma has been able to pocket their ill-gotten profits from the distress, agony and death of patients.

What an obnoxious business.

Why the constant attacks on homeopathy?

The simple, and most obvious answer is that homeopathy is coming under attack because it is successful, and ConMed and Big Pharma does not like it. Think the reverse, if it was not successful, no-one would bother to attack it (and it would have died out years ago).

This article is one of the best I have seen, not only outlining the reasons for the hostility homeopathy generates, but going over the attacks it has suffered now for over two centuries.

You can find it at:
http://www.homeopathyheals.me.uk/site/featured/565-why-the-constant-attacks-on-homeopathy

Here is a short extract.

"In 1854 there was a cholera epidemic in London but when the House of Commons asked to see a report about the methods of treatment, patients who had received homeopathic treatment at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, were not included. The House of Lords then demanded an explanation and it was later shown that under conventional medical care the death rate was 59.2 per cent but for patients under homeopathic care, only 9 per cent!"

The  history of homeopathy is littered with such examples of prejudice by the ConMed profession, which cannot stand the fact that homeopathy is, and always has been, more successful in treating patients successfully.

Watermelon as good a statins for blood pressure!

The American Journal of Hypertension, (2010; doi: 10.1038/ajh.2010.142) have come up with this research, and although it is not exactly ground-breaking news, it is typical of an enormous amount of research evidence published that points to natural foods being as good as drugs for medical conditions. 


Well, I suppose it would be difficult for any natural food to be worse than the toxic drugs ConMed provides us with in the name of health! Certainly, any natural food is considerably less expensive. And very, very much less dangerous!


Watermelon is apparently the richest edible source of the amino acid L-citrulline, which regulates blood pressure. How about taking this as a dietary supplement then? No, in this form, it can apparently cause nausea, gastrointestinal problems and diarrhoea.


So just eat the food (especially if it is organically produced). And certainly steer clear of Statin drugs (see my previous blogs on these awful drugs).


Our health is more in our control than most people realise. Good diet, healthy life-style, exercise, and steering clear of toxic ConMed drugs will usually enable our bodies to stay healthy.

Sweetening the Medicine?

Although my blog focuses on Big Pharma, it is a toss-up whether they, or Big Food does more to damage our health. But now, it would appear, they are beginning to co-operate!

Nestlé today announced the creation of Nestlé Health Science S.A. and the Nestlé Institute of Health Sciences to pioneer a new industry between food and pharma. These two separate organisations will allow Nestlé to develop the innovative area of personalised health science nutrition to prevent and treat health conditions such as diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease, which are placing an unsustainable burden on the world’s healthcare systems.

It can be argued very strongly that Big Food is implicated in the epidemic levels of diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. So now they going to put ConMed drugs in our Kit Kat bars!

I wonder if they will bother to tell us? Or are we just to take the medicine, sweetened as it will be.

They obviously have no shame. 

The Supramolecular Chemistry of Homeopathy

I would implore anyone who is interested in homeopathy as a safe medical therapy, but concerned that "it has no scientific basis" as many of our critics constantly state, to listen to this lecture on the 'supramolecular chemistry of homeopathy'. Even as a homeopath I had no idea that there was so much science already in existence for explain why it works. This lecture was given recently by John Benneth at Cambridge University, in which he reviews the attempts that have already been made to model the 'memory of water' - one of the proposed explanations for why homeopathic remedies works. This is how John introduces his lecture, which you can access at http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1074586

In the 200 years since its invention, homeopathy has been the subject of much controversy. The major feature of opposition has been the lack of a rational explanation for the action of its pharmaceuticals. The question of "what is it?" is what in part has made the effects of homeopathic treatment difficult to understand and homeopathy impossible to rationally accept in the occidental corpus of science. I propose here that homeopathic remedies are actually supramolecular chemicals, which may well be the missing link between homeopathy and modern science. A supramolecule is an organization of two or more molecules that are held together by intermolecular forces. Citing recent studies, I propose that aqueous structures and their electromagnetic (EM) signals are what give homeopathic remedies their reportedly unique biological action.

Supramolecular chemistry is a non-traditional branch of chemistry that examines these intermolecular forces, the weaker and reversible non-covalent interactions between molecules. It is used here to explain how liquid aqueous structuring is created by the unique linking characteristics of water molecules, how the biological action of the solution is maintained in the absence of the original molecule, and what provides the homeopathic remedy with its specific EM properties. Novel proposals are supported by the orthodox literature in this controversial presentation.