Homeopathy Healthy Medicine

This article first appeared at 

http://arh.blogspot.com/2012/01/healthy-medicine-8-more-evidence-for.html

In my last blog in this series, there were a couple of responses indicating that homeopathy had not been able to prove itself over the last 200 years. This is utter nonsense! Homeopathy is a form of medicine that has never been subsidised, as conventional medicine is now subsidised by the NHS. People use it because it is safe, and effective. And as patients have had to pay for it, another advantage is that it is inexpensive too.

See, for example, this article that covers a brief history of homeopathy in the treatment, and prevention, of acute diseases like Scarlet Fever, Cholera, Diphtheria, and Malaria.

For those of you who are new to homeopathy, here is an excellent description of homeopathy, and how it differs from conventional medicine. For anyone who worries about the drug-based medicine that dominates the NHS, this is well worth reading.
Indeed, as this article suggests, homeopathy is the natural way to treat both body and spirit.

And so, in order to demonstrate the kind of conditions it can treat, here is a small collection of articles that can be found on the internet. Have a look at them - and decide if homeopathy is for you.

The treatment of Influenza with homeopathy. Or alternatively, look at this article. Or this one for the prevention of colds and flu.

Homeopathy and Croup.

Homeopathy and Diarrhea.

The treatment of Carbuncles with homeopathy.

The treatment of Impotence with homeopathy.

Homeopathy and infertility.

Homeopathy and menstrual cramps.

Homeopathy and the treatment of ulcers.

In treating illness, homeopathy is always safer than conventional alternatives; and this is for many a big advantage, and why people use it initially. These articles show how homeopathy can be used rather than popular, but largely ineffective and dangerous conventional drugs.

This is an excellent article on why homeopathy should be used to treat depression, not least because the dangers and ineffectiveness of antidepressant are gradually becoming more widely known.

And with the growing awareness of the dangers of antibiotics, and increased resistance to them, this article explains why homeopathy is a better alternative.

Conventional Medical Drugs. What price the value of human life?

Big Pharma company GlaxoSmithKline has been fined 400,000 pesos for killing 14 babies during a vaccine trial in Argentina between 2007 and 2008.

Good news? Well, at least they were caught! But one Argentinian peso is worth just $0.25 dollars - about 20p. So I make that to be just over £500 per life lost. No prosecution of GSK personnel responsible for conducting these trials. And the money - well - it is not even pocket money for GSK. (For a more local report see this).

So what is the value of human life? I wonder what my sentence would be if I had murdered 14 babies? A heavy fine?

But life is cheap - at least when Pharmaceutical drugs are involved!

Estimates about how many people Big Pharma kill each year vary amazingly. This article states that it kills just 106,000 deaths per year. This leaves me wondering at what point they stopped counting! But it is a difficult calculation to make - not least because when deaths occur the association with Pharma drugs is usually denied. But at least this article tries to show the extent of the fraud, the illegal sales activities, and the total fines that Big Pharma companies have been paying in the USA. It also states clearly that spending money on drugs does not lead to saving lives. Whilst spending more on drugs than any other nation, the USA is 49th in terms of life-expectancy.

Drugs are regularly being linked to disease and death. The diabetes drug, Actos, for instance is now being linked with cancer. Last year it was banned in France because it was found to cause bladder cancer. But this does not prevent drug companies selling it elsewhere - for as long as they can get away with it!

When medicine causes disease, or death, it is called Iatrogenesis - caused by doctors. This article explains that it is not just drugs that cause this in conventional medicine, but many other factors. It states that iatrogenesis cause approximately 225,000 deaths each years, making it the 3rd biggest killer in the USA.

In an attempt to assist us, this article picks out the 10 most dangerous Pharma drugs. But is it wise to do this? Highlighting these is only the tip of the iceberg of dangerous Big Pharma drugs, and what is needed is to highlight that they are all potentially dangerous to our health, and even to our lives. But it does point that that for the first time, in nearly a century, automobile accidents are not the leading cause of accidental death any more (according to the US National Center for Health Statistics). This prize now goes to Big Pharma drug companies!

Our experience with Pharma drugs now points to only one sensible conclusion; they are a danger to our health, and to life itself. And it is no good trying to apportion blame to just a few drugs. They are all heavily implicated. Any trying to decide which drugs are okay, and which are dangerous is no good. We just don't have the information - mainly because the drug companies refuse to tell us!

The British Medical Journal has actually complained about this practice! An amazing outbreak of honesty from them! Apparently, when there is evidence that a drug might work - Big Pharma publishes it. When they have evidence that it doesn't, or where there is evidence that it might cause problems, the evidence can be witheld. I have discussed this in an earlier blog - and raised some of the issues it raises (or should raise) for all of us.

It would seem that we never know quite what we are taking when offered Big Pharma drugs. The only information we are given is positive information, and this means that it is bogus information! Nor do doctors and GPs. Nor do the Drug Regulatory bodies.

There is no-one out there appears either able, or willing, to protect us from the consequences of conventional medicine, and Big Pharma drugs. Except ourselves, of course. And we must all begin to say: 

"NO" - "ENOUGH OF THIS" - "LIFE AND HEALTH IS TOO VALUABLE"

How can we eat to stay well?

The problem with eating well, or our health, is that we are so often given loads of conflicting advice. Take for example the issue of breast feeding. The are 'scientific' studies to show that it is best for mums; and for babies. And there are conflicting studies saying that formula milk is best.

This happens regularly; and it is probably quite intentional! It is done to confuse us. There is one simple rule of thumb to determine with 'science' is right, and which is not. Who paid for the research?!!? Unfortunately, this information is not always immediately available to us. So there is a second rule to follow. What is the more natural option? Clearly, humanity has been designed to feed our young with breast milk from the mother. Any 'science' which says otherwise is probably funded by those who produce, and make profits, from the alternative.

This article links the use of formula milk in the USA with baby deaths. Whether this is true of not, the article argues, interestingly, that food regulators tend to assume that processed food is always safe, and that locally produced food is always dangerous.

Some the claims of this 'cheque-book science' can be quite absurd! It has, for instance, let to the EU banning any claim that water can prevent dehydration! Apparently, according to an article that appeared in the Telegraph, this finding was made by 21 scientist in Italy, who concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control. Presumably, then 'dehydration' is a medical condition; and one that has nothing to do with water intake; and indeed, it is a medical condition that cannot be corrected by drinking water.

What about this research? Does sugar really accelerate the ageing process? The key here is the massive increase in sugar consumption over recent decades. It is used in lots of food processing and confectionary; it is not a 'natural' food; and we can live quite well without it. So it is probably correct. Yet we need to be careful here. Often, sugar consumption is attacked on the dubious basis that we are better off eating sweeteners; don't drink coke, it has sugar, and will make you fat; instead, drink 'diet' coke. If research suggests this, read this blog. You are better off with sugar than artificial sweeteners; but probably better off without both!

See, for example, this article on Aspartame linking it with both cancer and premature birth.

In this blog I will try to steer away from research that is clearly been used to promote processed, and largely unhealthy food - and here are a few articles that are linking what we eat to our health.

There are several article about Green Tea. It is always difficult to know just how clear-cut these claims are; but people having been drinking this tea for centuries; and it has always had the reputation of being a 'healthy' drink.
* This one links the drinking of Green Tea with reduced LDL Cholesterol levels.
* This one points to several studies linking Green Tea with reduced Cholesterol.
* This article associated the drinking of Green Tea and the prevention of cancer, and how much we should drink.
* And this one links Green Tea consumption with the prevention of Prostate Cancer.

And this two articles concern Probiotics - in an age when we have all been over-prescribed Antibiotics, without knowing just how dangerous to our health they can be.
* This article highlights 4 pieces of research that suggests Probiotics can reverse the damage done to our stomach by antibiotics.
* And this article appears to reinforce that message - that Probiotics can offset the damage caused by antibiotics.

Homeopathy - winning the battle against the denialists!

This blog was first published at 
http://arh.blogspot.com/2012/01/healthy-medicine-7-winning-argument.html


Homeopathy is gradually winning the health debate! Homeopathy denialists, with their so-called 'skeptical' arguments, have for the last decade been trying to undermine homeopathy, but they are gradually being found out for what they are - an attempt to support drug-based, conventional medicine from competition - not only from homeopathy but from other CAM therapies. Foremost amongst the 'winning' arguments for homeopathy is that research in three key European nations have recently come out 'in favour' of homeopathy.

In Sweden, an attempt by the ConMed Establishment to prevent the practice of homeopathy was over-ruled by the Supreme Administrative court. This case began when a medical doctor, trained in homeopathy in the UK, used it in his practice. He was put on probation by the 'Medical Responsibility Board', but he appealed on the grounds that he had used homeopathy when the patient requested it, and after conventional treatment had been ineffective. After being sentenced in two lower courts, the doctor had been forbidden to use homeopathy - on the grounds that 'homeopathy is unscientific'. So this case shows the lengths that people will go to prevent patients gaining access to homeopathy, and that when the 'there is no evidence to support homeopathy' argument is examined, it is found to be entirely without substance.

In Switzerland, the situation was similar to that in Sweden, but on a much larger scale. Anti-homeopathy sources tried to prevent the use of homeopathy in their compulsory national health insurance system. After an exhaustive investigation that took several year to complete, the conclusion reached in the Health Technology Assessment report, recently published, on the effectiveness, appropriateness, safety and costs of homeopathy in health care was as follows:

"In conclusion we have established that there is sufficient supporting evidence for the pre-clinical (experimental) as well as clinical effects of homeopathy, and that in absolute terms, as well as when compared to conventional therapies, it offers a safe and cost-effective treatment.”

In Italy, a team of researchers evaluated the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment through 'standard objective public health indicators'. There is a summary of this research here, and this is what they found.

"In general, results were significant for the drug usage indicator: the population of homeopathic care users uses fewer drugs than the standard population. Furthermore, it can be seen that the number of drugs and the drugs expenditure reduce significantly after homeopathic treatment. Hospitalization indicators tended to favour patients who had received homeopathic treatment but were not always statistically significant". 

In other countries, like India, homeopathy is rapidly becoming the preferred medical therapy. This article explains that homeopathy, according to a survey conducted by the Indian government, is the number two preferred mode of treatment, after allopathy. And as the survey says, homeopathy costs just a fraction of conventional medical costs, and has no side-effects or adverse effects.

Even the UK government has refused to be brow-beaten by the homeopathy denialists. The House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, in a 2010 report, led by the denialist and ex-MP, Evan Harris, and signed off by just 3 MPs, recommended that the NHS should stop spending money on homeopathy. The committee was able to do so by deciding to ignore completely the evidence presented to them by the ARH, and other UK homeopathy organisations. Despite this, the New Labour government, and more recently the Coalition government, have said they would not implement this recommendation, in favour of 'patient choice'.

Even so, the NHS continues to be dominated by the Conventional Medical Establishment, and there are still battles to be fought and won. The financial influence and industrial power of Big Pharma companies will ensure that this is so. For instance, throughout the country, local Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) are refusing to allow patients a choice of medical therapy when they are ill - and they do so on a similar basis - there is no evidence.... etc.

But homeopathy will win these battles for one very simple reasons - that in stark contrast to conventional medicine, homeopathy is a medical therapy that is entirely safe, and very effective.


And as a result, homeopathy is a medical therapy that people will want choose - when they have either personal experience of this, or they are given access to the information that demonstrates it.

BBC News, Big Pharma - and an outbreak of honesty?

Could this be an outbreak of (very welcome) honesty within the BBC News service? Hitherto, their reporting of health issues has been lamentable, apparently only willing to publish the 'good' or 'positive' news about pharmaceutical drugs, and quite unwilling to tell its listeners, viewers and readers, any of the 'bad' or 'negative' news.

This morning, on its Today programme, the BBC reported that a BMJ (British Medical Journal) editorial had attacked the 'long-existing habit of the pharmaceutical and science community' to publish only selectively (that is, the good bits) about the clinical trials on new drugs. This, by itself, is an amazingly refreshing outbreak of honesty from the Conventional Medical Establishment! But to listen how the BBC dealt with this, listen to the broadcast at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9671000/9671074.stm

You will hear in the short clip that two examples are given of this Big Pharma practice, which has been going on for decades, largely without comment or concern from the BBC, or indeed, the mainstream media generally:

1. Tamiflu - about which Roche has apparently been refusing to publish data, and
2. Vioxx - where evidence about its link to heart attacks has been suppressed by the drug company.

Apparently, the BBC asked the drug companies to comment - but they declined! However, Professor Colin Blakemore said, presumably in their defence:

What journal will publish boring results?

Indeed, he appeared to assume that the public only wanted to hear the 'good' news, and certainly for as long as I can remember, this is all the BBC has wanted to report too.

Blakemore, perhaps mirroring the attitude of the entire conventional medical establishment, appears to have been more concerned about the need to 'entertain us' rather than ensuring, and safeguarding, the health of patients!

However, despite this unusual but welcome display of BBC honesty, it is also clear that they did not know how to ask searching and relevant questions on the issue. Indeed, they did not appear to recognise the importance to us all of this issue.

* How many pharmaceutical companies are failing to publish the full evidence about their drugs?

* On what basis are Big Pharma companies allowed to withhold important clinical information? Is this being done in order to sell more drugs? And if so, can this be in the interests of the health of patients?

* Are the Drug Companies being held fully accountable for any consequences to patients of the drugs they manufacture and sell? (Drug companies are being sued in the USA for the damage they cause patients, but not, it would seem, in this country).

* How many pharmaceutical drugs, and indeed which ones, are currently being prescribed without the full clinical information being known to medical personal and patients?

* How many patients are at this moment taking pharmaceutical drugs about which full information remains unknown? And what action will now be taken by the medical authorities to obtain this information?

* How long has the government, the NHS, and MHRA been aware of the practice? If the medical establishment has known about it, why has nothing been done? And if it did not know, is there a need to re-examine the basis on which pharmaceutical drugs been sanctioned, approved and prescribed to patients?

* Are local doctors and GPs aware of this practice? Are they, indeed can they be, fully aware of the impact any drug has on their patients?

Clearly, the BBC are more adept at criticising and attacking those people who are aware of the dangers of Big Pharma drugs, and who are looking for 'non-drug alternatives' to the medicine being offered to us within the current NHS-ConMed monopoly.

The Joy of Discovering Homeopathy

I reproduce this email (sent to a homeopathy website) to demonstrate something that I remember well, as a former homeopathy denier (skeptic) - the joy of discovering how powerful homeopathy is as a healing medical therapy.

I am very excited to tell you about the *miracle of homeopathy.*
My mother who was diagnosed Rheumatoid Arthritis. R.A factor positive 5
years ago. Since Then she was on following medicines of Allopathic in
nature.

1: Methotrexate a DMARD ( Disease modifying antireheumatic Drug) for 3
years.
2: Later on she was given Leflunamide as DMARD.
3: Naproxen Sodium 500 mg B.D for severe pain from (NSAID Group).
4: Omeprazole to prevent drug induced ulcer.
5: Cetrizine for her allergies
6: Ecitalopram for depression.
7: Glucosamine and chondriton sulphate for joint supplementation.

But still she had severe pain in her wrist, elbow, knee, shoulder joints
especially early in the morning and night aggravated by cold and some how
ameliorated by motion. Although she was massaged twice a day but all in
vain. She also had dry cough at night and day time and had stomach problems.

Just to control her joint pains i studied and worked on various materia
medicas and reached to *Bryonia *and *Rhus Toxicodenderon.* I finally
selected *Rhus Toxidenderon 6 C* to give her*.* Last night i gave her 5
drops of Rhus Tox 6c in a teaspoonful of water. Today she again took the
same dose three times a day. Just now my sister called me with amazement
that mother had very less pain today and she also didnot take massage. she
was quite fine and extremely surprised about those miracleous drops.
Wow, I am very happy and dont know what to do next?
Your kind views will highly be appreciated.
Thanks
Noor Muhammad khan- DiHom
Clearly, Noor is studying homeopathy, so his discovery of homeopathy must have happened earlier. But here he speaks of the joy of being able to treat other people of conditions for which ConMed has no successful long-term answer.

Homeopathy denialists believe that their attacks on homeopathy will do harm to us. Little do they know that this kind of experience that will forever ensure that homeopathy lives on! Let them do their worst. Homeopathy will survive for two reasons. The most important is that it actually works! The other reason is that people are beginning to realise that drug-based medicine is failing. This case demonstrates both.

So thanks, Noor, for reminding me of the joys of discovering homeopathy. And long may you continue to cure people of their ailments using this wonderful therapy.

Breast Implantation; where is the Medical Honesty?

What can we learn from this, the latest scandel arising within the world of ConMed? The issue of breast implantation has hit the headlines following news that French-made PIP implants were made with 'industrial' rather than 'medical' quality silicone, and that they rupture more easily than they should.

The main lesson, perhaps, is that it is difficult for patients to obtain the truth, or even full information, from the ConMed Establishment, and the governments and mainstream media who appear slavishly to support it.

The initial reaction of the UK government was that 'there was no problem'. Is there any more typical response to a medical scandal? Whenever there has been evidence that a Big Pharma drug, or a conventional medical procedure, might be dangerous, this is almost invariably the first response. "There is no evidence". "People should not be alarmed".

Within a matter of days, the UK government had changed its tone. Instead of a 1% failure rate, they had to admit that the failure rate was closer to 7-8%. It would appear that government was prepared to pour balm over health problems - even when it was not in possession of the full facts!

Indeed, there seems always to be a point at which the game of 'Russian Roulette' with our health becomes too dangerous - even for Government! As long as drugs, medical procedures, implants, etc., cause damage or death to just a small number, this appears to be acceptable. Beyond that point, however, they are forced to ask questions, slowly, tentatively, of course, whilst more 'reviews' are held!

Yet, this is perhaps nothing compared to the information given to the women who sought, and accepted these breast implants. Most of those who have spoken to the media tell a similar story - they were told that the silicone implants were safe, and rarely if ever ruptured. In the main, this procedure is carried out in private, for profit, clinics, who, of course, have a vested interest in providing women with such re-assurance. Whether these clinics are going to be as willing to accept responsibility now so many of these implants have, indeed, ruptured remains to be seen.

So was the information given to women honest? Did the clinics know that this manufacturer was not using medical-grade silicone? Probably not, as the French company selling them would have realised they would not have sold many had they done so. It was not in their interests to tell the clinics. So why did they use industrial-grade silicone? Was there no medical-grade silicone available? Or was it just because it was cheaper to do so, and so boosted company profits?

Anyway, it seems clear that private, for profit, health interests have dominated these medical procedures. The question is, has honest, full, transparent information for patients suffered as a result? There seems to be little doubt about this.

Moreover, there is little difference between this situation, and the ongoing sale of all ConMed drugs, and other medical procedures - as they are promoted by the National Health Service, and supported by Governments of all colours. In these health care matters, we, as patients, are dealing with enormously important, immensely influential, and frighteningly powerful private interests. And it would appear that profit is of central, over-riding importance. Our health, too often, appears to be a secondary consideration - regardless of whether we deal with private clinics, or the NHS, or indeed rely on Government and its agencies to tell us the truth about conventional medicine.

So perhaps the main lesson to be learnt is that we all have to be weary about what we are told about conventional medicine; that we need to question whether the information given to us is full, open and honest: or whether we are listening to the vested interests of a powerful medical establishment.