Big Pharma targeting teenagers with their dangerous HPVGardisil vaccine

The Health Sciences Institute is new to me, but I now receive their regular newsletter. For those of you who would like to subscribe, write to them at dailyhealth@agorapub.co.uk


This is one of their newsletters, copied here in full....


"This is a warning for all parents and grandparents: Drug giant Merck wants to inject every one of your young girls and boys with Gardasil (Cervarix in the UK), the controversial human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. 

It's controversial, of course, because it's been shown to prevent a few types of human HPV, but it certainly is not a "cervical cancer vaccine," as it's sometimes touted.

In addition, the total reported adverse side effects (including deaths) linked to the vaccine are staggering.

But all those drawbacks don't bother the mainstream media. Not a bit! It's like major media outlets are playing whack- a-mole — always on a worldwide lookout for the slightest shred of good news about these HPV vaccines to pop up, and then...WHACK! they hit us over the head with it.

Spanning the globe 

Starting down under...

In a new Australian study, researchers found that Gardasil use helped reduce the number of cervix abnormalities in young girls by "as much as 50 per cent."

That sounds pretty impressive. But buried in a lower paragraph is the laughably unimpressive truth: Among vaccinated girls, the rate of high-grade cervical abnormalities was 0.42 per cent. Among unvaccinated girls: 0.8 per cent.

The difference was just a few tenths of a single percentage point! And yet when you twist the maths, it comes out like a great headline and a big win for these vaccines.

In another recent study, Austrian researchers tested more than 100 men for HPV infection and found that about 10 per cent had high-risk HPV, but none showed clinical symptoms of infection.

CNN, a global news channel based in the US — one of the media's most generous Gardasil enablers — reported on the research, and offered this quote from the vice chair of the urology department at the University of Kansas: "Not only girls, but boys should be vaccinated because of these findings."

Wow — that's a huge jump to THAT conclusion! The study didn't involve vaccinations in any form. And yet based on the results of his very small study, he's ready to vaccinate every boy.

Of course, CNN's report doesn't let out a peep about the avalanche of daunting side effects linked to these vaccines that were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. The same was true earlier this year when CNN covered a Gardasil study that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In that study — partly designed and funded by Merck — results showed that Gardasil was about 60 per cent effective in preventing HPV genital warts in young men.

Now, you expect trials like this to have the drug company's fingerprints all over it. But CNN didn't mention anything about the study authors and their significant Merck affiliations:

* Seven authors were employees of Merck and owned Merck stock or stock options * Five authors received Merck grant support * Five authors received speaking fees or fees for board membership from Merck * Six authors received travel reimbursement from Merck * One author had "an approved, filed, or pending patent" related to subject matter discussed in the NEJM article

Well it's just one big happy Merck family, cranking out a study with (surprise!) wonderful results for the Merck product.

"HPV vaccine effective in men" was the no-grey-areas CNN headline.

Now for the reality check

About 2,000 boys and young men received a Gardasil vaccine, and about 2,000 did not. Three years later, 36 in the Gardasil group had external genital lesions, and 89 had the same in the placebo group.

That's a difference of only 53 cases, which is pretty insubstantial given the total number of subjects and the fact that we have no way of comparing the levels of sexual activity of the two groups.

Meanwhile, at some point, 36 men must have said something like, "Wait, I got the vaccine and STILL got genital warts? What's up with that?"

Good question, Merck. What's up with that?

Mothers and fathers, grandfathers and grandmothers – don't be fooled by the media's ridiculous whack-a-mole game. This vaccine is in no way worth the risk for your young boys and girls.

Big Pharma companies - top list for government fraud

The Health Sciences Institute (HSI) have recently announced that Big Pharma companies are up to a variety of "underhand fraudulent activities". Their newsletter said that in a recent 'Public Citizen' report, in the US, it was revealed that drug companies have drawn False Claims Act penalties of nearly $20 billion - the vast majority occurring in the last five years. 

They said that the biggest culprit was Pfizer, who had to pay up a settlement of more than $2 billion for one infraction, the illegal marketing of Bextra, their now-defunct painkiller.

However, three other companies joined Pfizer in what HSI described as 'the elite upper echelon of the Big Pharma Fraud Club', which paid out a combined $10.5 billion in in fines over just 20 years.

* Eli Lilly

* GlaxoSmithKline

* Schering-Plough. 

Apparently, one common swindle involved Big Pharma overcharging cash-strapped state funded pharmaceutical suppliers as much as 12 TIMES the cost of a drug. 

Yet given the wealth of Big Pharma companies, these financial penalties are relatively small. The risk of getting caught is soon repaid by the huge level of drug company profits. So big are these profits, raising the fines substantially will probably not act as a deterrent against fraud of this kind.

HSI suggest that Big Pharma fraud, in all its manifestations, should be dealt with through criminal law because, as it says, these practices put everyone at risk - but 'does a great job of boosting drug company profits.

But in the name of profit, Big Pharma CEOs, and senior executives, have been putting us all at risk long enough. And as HSI say, what they are doing is criminal - and they get off by writing relatively small cheques from the company's account.

So if any reader is still taking pharmaceutical drugs, please consider. Are you taking them for your health? Or in order to boost the profits of wealthy drug companies?

A case of Angina - treated with homeopathy

Sanket Taldevkar sent me this case, someone he has treated for Angina. I am pleased to publish this, on his behalf, in order to show the nature of the homeopathy interview - the precursor to enabling patients to access safe and effective homeopathic treatment. It is published just as he sent it to me, and demonstrates just how effective homeopathy can be in the treatment of Angina.


Not every homeopathy works in the same way, but notice how the emotional symptoms of the patient have been considered in equal measure to the physical symptoms of Angina. This shows how homeopathy qualifies as a truly holistic therapy. 

The mind, and our emotions, are central to our physical health.

CASE OF ANGINA
MALE. 40 YR/M

STRESS TEST POSITIVE, SER.CHOLESTROLE BORDERLINE. AND HYPERTENSION

D: WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?
P: PAIN IN CHEST SINCE LAST TWO MONTHS.

D: TELL ME MORE ABOUT CHEST PAIN, HOW IT STARTS?
P: SINCE LAST TWO THREE MONTH I HAVE NOTICE MYSELF WHENEVER I WALK FAST OR DO MY PRACTICE PAIN STARTS [PT IS CLASSICAL DANCER AND TEACHER BY PROFESSION]

D: TELL ME MORE ABOUT THIS? WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU EXACTLY? WHEN U WALK FAST OR DO UR PRACTICE?
P: MEANS WHEN I START MY MORNING CLASS I FIND PAIN IN CHEST WITHIN 10 MINS.

D: TELL ME ABOUT THAT TEN MINS WHAT HAPPENED EXACTLLY?
P: FOR FIRST 10 MIN I FEEL PAIN IN MY CHEST, THEN I HAVE TO TAKE REST FOR HALF AN HOUR THEN ONLY I CAN PRACTICE FURTHER, BUT AGAIN WITH SOME EFFORT PAIN RETURNS, AND SAME THINGS GOES ON.

D: TELL ME MORE ABOUT THAT PAIN?
P: IT IS IN CENTER OF THE CHEST.

D: CAN U DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF PAIN
P: IT’S KIND OF PRESSING.

D: TELL ME MORE ABOUT PRESSING
P: MEANS I CAN FEEL PRESSURE IN CHEST, THAT TIME I COULDN’T SPEEK PROPERLLY

D: WHAT HAPPENS TO U AT THAT MOMENT?
P: IT IS VERY DISTURBING TO ME

D: DISTURBING MEANS
P: MEANS I COULDN’T FOCUS ON MY PRACTICE

D: TELL MORE ABOUT THIS, WHEN IT IS DISTURBING THE MOST?
P: ITS DISTURBING BECAUSE I CANT COPE UP WITH RHYTHEM, MANY OF THE TIME I BARE THAT PAIN TILL THE POINT IT GOT WORSE AND TRY TO MAINTAIN MY STAMINA. PREVIOUSLLY WHEN THERE WAS NO SUCH PAIN I USED TO PRACTICE 2 TO 3 HRS A DAY NON STOP BUT NOW I HAVE TO TAKE REST IN BETWEEN.

D: WHEN U DECIDE TO STOP DANCING AND HAVE REST?
P: SEE I CAN DANCE TILL HALF AN HR BUT AFTER THAT I CAN FEEL I AM NOT CO-OPING WITH THE RYHTM THEN, THAT TIME I FEEL PAIN IN MY CHEST?

D: TELL ME MORE ABOUT, WHEN U NOTICE THAT U R NOT CO-OPING WITH RHYTHM
P: THAT MOMENT I AM PUSHING MYSELF TRYING HARD BUT I CAN’T, DUE TO PAIN

D: HOW IT FEELS TO U AT THAT MOMENT WHEN U R PUSHING URSELF AND TRYING HARD BUT CANT
P: I FEEL VERY ANGRY ABOUT MYSELF

D: WHAT THE ANGER ABOUT?
P: WHY I CAN’T CO-UP WITH THIS

D: THIS IS WHAT U THINK RIGHT
P: YA

D: BUT WHAT IS THE ANGER ABOUT?
P: ANGER ABOUT MY POTENTIAL.

D: TELL ABOUT POTENTIAL.
P: POTENTIAL, CAPACITY TO SUSTAIN YOUR ENERGY [Hg: CLOSING ALL HIS FINGERS AND MAKING IT LIKE PUNCH]

D: CAN U EXPLAIN ME THIS
P: ITS LIKE THINGS ARE IN YOUR CONTROL, AND YOU ARE IN HARMONY WITH IT [Hg. SAME AS MENTION ABOUVE]

D: WHAT IS THIS YOU ARE SHOWING WITH YOU HAND?
P: IT’S CONTROL

D: EXPLAIN ME THE WORD CONTROL
P: CONTROLE IN THE SENSE, IT GIVES ME SATISFACTION.

D: WHAT IS CONTROL FOR YOU?
P: FOR ME IT’S VERY IMPORTANT.

D: HOW
P: FOR ME, TO GIVE MY BEST PERFORMANCE I HAVE TO BE IN VERY DISCIPLINED MANNER. BECAUSE IN DANCE ITS NOT ONLY THE MUSIC, NOT ONLY THE DANCER BUT DICIPLINE OR YOU CAN SAY HARMONY IS MOST IMPORTANT.

D: TELL MORE ABOUT HARMONEY, DISCIPLINE, PERFORMANCE
P: I CAN SAY HARMONY AND DISPLINE ARE THE MOST MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF ANY PERFORMER, AND NOW A DAYS I AM SRUGLLING WITH THIS.

D: HOW IT FEELS TO YOU?
P: IT FEELS LIKE GOING DOWN.

D: TELL ME ABOUT YOUR FEARS
P: GENERALLY I DON’T HAVE ANY FEAR BUT NOW DAYS I FEEL LIKE I AM NOT ABEL TO DANCE LIKE BEFORE I DID.

D: WHAT IS THE FEAR ABOUT?
P: FEAR ABOUT LOOSING PERFORMANCE DUE TO PAIN. MEANS WHEN YOU ARE IN FRONT OF AUDIENCE YOU HAVE TO GIVE YOUR 200% THEN ONLY YOU GET APPRECEATION AS A PERFORMER. AND TILL THIS DATE I AM DOING MY BEST I AM PREPARING MYSELF FOR NATIONAL EVENT.

D: SO WHAT IS MOST THING YOU ARE CONCERN ABOUT
P: WILL I ABEL TO MAINTAIN THIS, BECAUSE AT NATIONAL LEVEL COMPETITION IS VERY TUFF ONE MISTAKE AND YOU ARE OUT OF THE LIST, EVRYONE GIVES HIS BEST. AND I DON’T WANT TO MISS THIS DUE TO THIS REASONE

D: TELL ME MORE ABOUT THIS
P: FOR A BIGNEAR IT’S NOTHING TO LOOSE, BUT FOR PERSON LIKE ME IT’S COMING DOWN FROM YOUR LEVEL.

D: TELL ME MORE ABOUT COMING DOWN.
P: BASICALLY IT’S A FEAR OF FAILURE AND DUE TO SMALL MISTAKE

D: TELL ME ABOUT YOUR MOST STRESSFUL EVENT IN LIFE
P: I THINK 6YR BACK

D: WHAT HAPPENED THAT TIME?
P: I STARTED MY DANCE CLASSES WITH MY FRIEND , BUT AFTER A YEAR IT DIDN'T GO WELL, AND THAT TIME I WAS NEW IN THIS TOWN, SO I UNDERGONE LOST OF DIFFICULTIES , MEANS I EVEN DON’T KNOW HINDI OR MARATHI AT THAT TIME.

D: HOW IT FEELS TO YOU AT THAT MOMENT?
P: NOTHING, I TOOK IT AS A CHALLENGE AND WORK HARD AND STARTED MY OWN DANCE CLASSES. BUT NOW IT’S OK I DON’T THINK MUCH ABOUT IT.

D: TELL ME MORE ABOUT YOUR HOBBIES
P: THE ONLY THING I LIKE IS DANCE.

D: WHAT YOU LIKE THE MOST ABOUT DANCE?
P: EVRYTHING ABOUT DANCE, FOR ME IT’S INNER SATISFACTION WHEN YOU GET APPRICIATION.

D: HOW IT FEELS TO YOU WHEN YOU GET APPRICIATION?
P: THAT IS THE ONLY THING FOR WHICH ANY PERFORMER DOES EFFORTS, ITS NOT ONLY ONE EVENT YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT THEN ONLY YOU ARE GREAT PERFOMER

D: DO YOU GET ANY DREAM?
P: SINCE 4-5 MONTHS I HAD VERY HORRIBLE DREAMS

D: TELL ME IN DETAIL.
P: MEANS, I SEE AM STANDING IN A RAW FOR AUDITION, SO MANY PEOPLE ARE THERE THE ONE BOY WHO IS RECEPTIONIST CALLS EVRYONE INSIDE EXCEPT ME.

D: TELL ME MORE ABOUT IT
P: I FEEL VERY RESTLESS THAT MOMENT, SO I DIRECTLLY RUN INSIDE THE AUDITION HALL, MUSIC AND ALL STRATS BUT I FORGOT MY STEPS, AND THEN I WAKE UP .AND THEN WHOLE DAY I KEEP THINKING ABOUT IT.

D: HOW IT FEELS TO YOU?
P: IT CREATES ANXIETY IN DAY TIME, EVEN THOUGH I AM PRACTICING.

D: WHAT IS THE ANXIETY ABOUT?
P: ANXIETY ABOUT LOOSING OR MISSING STEPS, THAT IS ONE MORE PROBLEM FOR ME, WHENEVER I AM GETTING READY FOR AN EVENT I FEEL VERY RESTLESS. I KEEP DOING STEPS AGAIN AND AGAIN SO AS TO AVOID MY ANXIETY.

UNDERSTANDING OF THE CASE : PT IS SUFFERING FROM PAIN IN CHEST, ON INQUIRING ABOUT PAIN WE COME TO KNOW THE BASIC PROBLEM FOR HIM IS , HE IS NOT ABEL TO MAINTAIN HIS STAMINA FOR PERFORMANCE .THIS IS THE MOST TROUBLING FOR HIM.
KINGDOM MINERAL: BASIC ISSUE IS ABOUT STRUCTURE, BECAUSE ON ASKING ABOUT PAIN THERE IS NO ISSUE OF PLANT SENSITIVITY OR THERE IS NOTHING SPECIFIC SENSATION WHICH INDICATES PLANT KINGDOM, SAME WITH ANIMAL THERE IS NO ISSUE OF VICTIM AGGRESSOR OR COMPETITION OR BASIC SURVIVAL ISSUE.

HERE PT IS STRUGLLING WITH HIMSELF, HE PERCIEVS PROBLEM AS A DISTURBANCE IN MAINTAINING HIS PERFORMANCE, AGAIN WITH MINERAL HE HAS PROBLEM IN PERFORMANCE NOT ABOUT SECURITY, POWER, OR IDENTITY SO IT INDICATES ROW 5. IN ROW 5 HE HAS STRUGGLING TO MAINTAIN WHAT HE HAS ACHIVED TILL DATE SO IT, NEED TO MAINTAIN IT SO IT’S COLUM 11

REMEDY GIVEN ARGENTUM METALLICUM 200 / ONE DOSE

F/O: 15 DAYS. BLOOD PRESSURE: 140/100
PAIN ON EXERTION IS STILL THERE, COMPLAINS PAIN AND BURNING MICTURATION, WITH FEVER.
ADV. DRINK LOT OF WATER, AND EXERCISE WITH IN NORMAL LIMITS SO AS TO DEVELOP COLATERAL
TREATMENT: SL ONE DOSE

F/O AFTER 3 DAYS: BLOOD PRESSURE 140/100, PAIN IS STILL THERE, BUT UTI IS BETTER NOW, NO FEVER
TREATMENT: SL ONE DOSE

F/O AFTER 15 DAYS. BLOOD PRESSURE 130/100, PAIN IS THERE BUT NOW PT CAN DANCE TILL 1HR.
TREATMENT: SL ONE DOSE

F/O: AFTER 15 DAYS PT CALLS ME AND SAID THERE IS LOT OF PAIN IN CHEST SINCE MORNING.
ON ASKING ABOUT THIS HE SAYS HE GOT AN INVITATION FROM ANY GROUP TO PERFORM THERE AND FOR THAT HE DID HEAVY PRACTICE. BLOOD PRESSURE: 140/110
TREATMENT: ARGENTUM 200 ONE DOSE

F/ O: AFTER 15 DAYS PAIN IS REDUSED, BLOOD PRESSURE 130/100

F/O AFTER 30 DAYS PAIN REDUSED, BLOOD PRESSURE 130/90, SER CHOL.IN NORMAL LIMITS. THIS TIME STRESS TEST NEGATIVE
PT IS PREPARING FOR NEW EVENT BUT NOW HE IS NOT FEELING ANY ANXIETY, NO RESTLESSNESS, DOING HIS PRACTICE. THERE IS NO DREAM AT ALL SLEEPS WELL.
PT STILL ON TREATMENT

Homeopathy - the real Evidence Based Medicine

What is the best form of medicine? 
What sort of medicine would you prefer?

* A therapy, such as homeopathy, based on simple principles or laws, that gives patients' safe remedies, and bases its practice, and develops its practice, on observing the outcomes of those remedies with patients?

* Or a drug-based medical system, that tests its drugs for effectiveness and safety on the basis of 'Randomised Controlled Tests', or RCTs, which are then regularly withdrawn after being given to millions of patients and found to be ineffective, dangerous, or both?

When you consider how often, and how regularly Conventional Medicine (ConMed) gets it wrong about the safety and efficacy of their drugs, and gives patients drugs that either don't work, or cause further disease and even death, it is quite amazing (see, for example, this website that lists many of the banned and withdrawn pharmaceutical drugs).

So there is, of course, only one sensible answer. Patients, first and foremost, want to be safe. They don't want to take drugs that not only fail not make them better, but actually cause further disease. They just want to be better!

One of the latest admissions of error concerns Hypertension, and 'high-blood-pressure'. It has emerged that 25% of people diagnosed with this condition don't actually have it!

But patients with hypertension are still given ConMed drugs - usually Statins. Most people know only what they have been told about Statin drugs - they are very effective - and entirely safe. But of course, they aren't! They are now associated with the following disease-inducing-effects (DIEs) - even though some conventional doctors are still telling us they are 'entirely safe'.

* Diabetes
* Serious skin infections
* Prostate Cancer
* Serious structural muscle damage (that can cause death)
* Certain cognitive problems.

Statin drugs, and Conventional Medicine generally, is a bad deal for patients. It tells us that HPB is bad for you (even this can be seriously questioned). It devises a test for HBP and then discovers it is getting it wrong with at least 25% of patients. Then it provides people who are probably not sick drugs that can make them very sick!

And Conventional Medicine then claims that it is entirely based on 'evidence'!

Well, in fairness, I suppose it is. It is just that the evidence of RCTs are not reliable. In fact, they have proven to be so unreliable they rarely tell us about the dangers of drugs until millions have taken them, and suffered their DIEs.

In stark contrast, homeopaths can give patients remedies knowing they will do no harm - the basic principle of the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors subscribe to. And if the remedy matches the symptoms of disease it is treating, they will treat the illness successfully.

How do we know what the patient's symptoms are? Simple! We ask them!

How do we know the symptom-picture of remedies? Simple! We test, or prove the remedies on people (knowing already that the process of potentizing remedies makes them entirely safe), and we observe the outcomes with patients. All this evidence has been put together over the last 200+ years - and is contained within the Homeopathic Materia Medica, and the Homeopathic Repertories.

The skill of the homeopath is to learn the complex and complicated techniques of 

matching the symptoms of both patient and remedy.

So where do RCTs enter this picture. Well, they don't! Homeopathy does not need RCTs to examine, or re-examine, what homeopaths have been doing for centuries. Why should we make use of a technique that has proven to be worthless when applied to ConMed drugs? ConMed, and Big Pharma drug companies have been using them for decades to confirm that drugs are safe and effective when, in fact, they have eventually been proven to be ineffective and dangerous. Statins have yet to be banned, or heavily restricted, like so many others. But it will come, as with all the others.

So drug-based conventional medicine is not 'evidence-based' medicine - because the so-called evidence that supports it has proven itself to be totally unreliable.

The real 'evidence-based' medicine is homeopathy. We  know our remedies. We know what they do. Patients routinely benefit from homeopathy, and do so in complete safety. But the real evidence comes from out patients - people who were ill, and get better after homeopathic treatment.

Homeopathy and Patient Choice

My last blog gave rise to some quite unpleasant remarks about Marjorie Titchen from 'homeopathy denialists', remarks that at best were completely devoid of any care or concern for her situation, and at worst totally callous. I have not published most of them, although I toyed with doing so in order to indicate the frame of mind of the anti-homeopathy dialetic, and the unpleasantness that it so often entails.

Perhaps the most distressing remarks were those that showed a total absence of concern, and the callousness of attitude, towards Mrs Titchen, and her situation:

     "I assume Marjorie is just doing fine without her sugar pills" is not only uncaringly callous, but completely ignores the fact that homeopathy was the therapy that controlled her arthritis over a decade ago.

The remarks also demonstrate that homeopathy denialists want to deny choice because of what they believe, and are not interested in what other people want for their health care. They clearly want everyone to be constrained within their own narrow and limited understanding of what medicine is safe and effective, and what medicine's are not.

     "....superstitious forms of treatment.... sugar pills.... have no place in the NHS"
     "...wasting public money on useless treatments.." regardless of whether people ask for them.

And them, anyone who wants to avoid the dangers of conventional medicine, and prefers the safety and effectiveness of homeopathy, are (as usual) derided. Homeopath's, apparently, make a living through

     "... other people's gullability and desperation".

In other words, Marjorie is asking for homeopathy because she is gullable and 'desperate'! This is groslly insulting. The fact that she has studied her condition for many years, and has come to clear, and informed decisions about how she wants to be treated (and how she does not want to be treated) is discounted - with abuse.

Several remarks demonstrate that denialists do not understand a remarkably simple fact - that we all pay for the NHS, every single one of us, and therefore should have the right to choose how we are treated.

     "Doctors are not retailers, there to dish out whatever a patient asks for - for free".

Homeopathy denialists want to dictate to everyone how we are all to be treated. It appears that whilst they, the denialists, presumably ConMed supporters, believe they should have the medicine they want, everyone else must have it too - whether we want it or not! They support the ConMed monopoly within the publicly-funded NHS. They support the paternalistic bureaucracy of the NHS.

Denialists are clearly autocrats rather than democrats. They are opposed to personal freedom. They not only want to deny us access to the medicine of our choice. They don't even understand why we want to have that choice.

There are two petitions about homeopathy on the government petition website at the moment. One asks that patients have a choice of treatment for their illness. The other demands that the NHS stops spending money on homeopathy. If you are a democrat, who believes in personal choice in the cars, or washing machines you buy, or the supermarket we shop in, please sign it. By doing so you will support the idea that we should be able to choose how we are treated when we are ill. The website can be found at:

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/11068

Remember, unlike the denialists, we are not trying to force anyone to accept any form of medicine. We want to support everyone's right to make an informed choice.

No Choice for Marjorie in the NHS

We are rightly proud of our health service. The principles of the 1947 NHS Act still apply, in the most part, that any citizen, when sick, will have access to health treatment - regardless of his or her ability to pay. 

But is everyone getting access to the type of treatment they want?

All the main political parties now parade ‘patient choice’ as an important objective for the future of the NHS. The previous Labour government, in its White Paper, (“Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: a new direction for community services. January 2006)” confirmed this. Patricia Hewitt, Health Secretary at the time, stated this:

          “(more) people (are) wanting a different approach to services, looking for real choices, more local care, taking greater control over their health, supported to remain independent wherever possible”.

The new coalition Government’s White Paper, “Equity and Excellence: liberating the NHS. July 2010” says this:

          “We want the principle of "shared decision making" to become the norm: no decision about me without me. International evidence shows that involving patients in their care and treatment improves their health outcomes, boosts their satisfaction with services received, and increases not just their knowledge and understanding of their health status but also their adherence to a chosen treatment. It can also bring significant reductions in cost, as highlighted in the Wanless Report, and in evidence from various programmes to improve the management of long-term health conditions.

Yet is this anywhere near close to reality within the NHS?

Marjorie Titchen is 93 years old. She lives in Bournemouth, where she continues to run a small hotel. She says that she will retire when she is 100 years old! By this time she will have paid taxes for over 80 years, so she has certainly paid her dues, and her entitlement to health treatment should surely be unquestioned. 

Yet she has been fighting now for several years for treatment for her osteoarthritis. But the Bournemouth and Poole PCT has refused to consider it. Why? Because Marjorie wants to see a homeopath, and the PCT insists that they will allow her access only to conventional treatment. 

Marjorie refuses to accept conventional treatment, and her arthritis is getting worse. She says she has heard too much about the ‘adverse reactions’ to drugs, and does not want to go down that route. 

Even her GP supports her - but still the PCT remains unmoved. She has made representations, and formal complaints; she had written to the Department of Health; she has talked to her MP; she has highlighted her case in the local media. All to no avail.

The PCT refuses to budge on its paternalistic belief that it knows best. Their primary defense appears to be that there is ‘no evidence’ that homeopathy is effective in treating osteoarthritis.

Wrong, says Marjorie! She developed osteoarthritis over 12 years ago, and was referred to homeopathic treatment by the PCT at that time. This relieved her pain, and for several years she was pain free. So as she says, she is living proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy.

Wrong, says the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, referring to the research that has been carried out into arthritis that shows it can be effective in the treatment of the disease. 

This includes research that found homeopathy provided a level of pain-relief superior to a conventional drug, used as a control. This research, carried out in 1998, also found that homeopathy produced ‘no adverse reactions’.

So what is happening here? Mrs Titchen wants to access homeopathic treatment. Her GP supports her. Her homeopath is willing to treat her, as he did, successfully, several years ago. Homeopathic  treatment is not expensive, indeed, it is less expensive than the conventional treatment she is being offered. 

Yet the PCT still sees fit to make the purely bureaucratic decision to deny her the treatment she is asking for.

The NHS is dominated by conventional medicine, and it has become a monopoly. The bureaucrats in charge of PCTs in most areas don’t want to consider homeopathic treatment because they don’t want us to breach their monopoly. They also don’t want to allow homeopathy to prove more effective in the treatment of diseases, such as arthritis, than the favour medicine - in which, of course, they have a personal vested interest.

Government policy on patient choice is a mess. It talks about ‘patient choice’ but what it allows to happen within the NHS runs contrary to this objective. When the Department of Health is asked to comment on this kind of situation, it says that the decision rests at the local level, with the local PCT, which has to take ‘local needs’ into consideration. No doubt this is part of their laudable policy to devolve NHS power from the centre to local areas. But devolving power from London to local PCTs it acts against patient choice, as can be seen in Marjorie Titchen’s case.

The Bournemouth and Poole PCT, and its bureacracy has decided not to offer Mrs Titchen homeopathy. It know better than Marjories, her GP, and her homeopath. Such a decision is anathema ‘patient choice’, and all patients looking for drug-free treatment are certainly not getting the medicine of their choice.

The Guardian caught

The mainstream media has been attacking anyone espousing 'drug-free' medicine. Foremost in the firing line has been Homeopathy. And foremost amongst the mainstream media attacking Homeopathy has been the Guardian Newspaper. Now, the Guardian has been caught doing so.

          "In a first for journalism, the UK’s Guardian national daily newspaper has been caught falsifying their own newspaper’s public record in a bid to airbrush the facts about vaccine-caused-autism.  Whilst some other media outlets have adopted the approach of ignoring the evidence and writing and broadcasting one-sided reports, this time The Guardian newspaper has been caught changing it.  The Guardian removed the evidence – gone without a trace – from their online newspaper.

It is not surprising that the cover-up has been discovered when the Guardian was looking at the Vaccination-Autism link. Big Pharma cannot allow people to realise that the link is strong, if not definite. And those in the pocket, or in the pay of Big Pharma strive hard not to publicise, or discuss the links.

So one of our major, and hitherto most respected newspapers, The Guardian is actually trying to stop you getting important information.

It will be interesting to see how the Guardian responds. It is losing readership steadily, and a major reason for this is that people can no longer trust it to tell the truth. Certainly, I no longer read what was once 'my' newspaper because I saw the lies the paper was telling about Homeopathy. If it could print anti-homeopathy pieces, and refuse to publish anything in response, how could I trust it to tell me the truth about other important issues?

And why should I, or anyone, buy a newspaper if it wasn't able to publish balanced, and impartial news?

If anyone has any doubts about whether they are being told the truth about health - by the Guardian, by the BBC, or by any other mainstream media outlet, read this piece.