The Menopause and Homeopathy

The Menopause is not a disease, it is a natural life-transition, but it is a condition that many women suffer from quite seriously. It can produce irregular, heavy or painful periods, and problems such as host flushes, night sweats, insomnia, mood swings, concentration and memory problems, vaginal dryness, fatigue, depression, headaches, heart palpitations, loss of libido, weight gain - and much else.

Conventional medical treatment had, prior to 2007, been with Hormone Replacement Therapy drugs (HRT). Doctors had always told women how safe and effective this treatment was, but in 2002, the Women's Health Initiative began 'the largest and best designed federal studies of HRT'. These were stopped in 2007 when it was discovered that HRT significantly increased the risk of dying from cervical cancer, breast cancer, heart attacks, strokes, and blood clots. There were also increase risk of dementia.


Were these findings a devastating or terminal blow for HRT? It would appear not! The NHS Choices website, even now, states that the main treatment for the Menopause "if the symptoms are severe" is non-other than HRT!

So the main treatment used for Menopausal symptoms within the NHS is a drug that has been found to have deadly consequences!

In fairness, NHS Choices also describes some other treatments, but these raise other serious issues for the health of women. One is the drug Tibolone - described as a synthetic steroid hormone drug that “acts in the same way” as HRT - which given HRT's record is not really re-assuring! 

However, it should be noted with some trepidation that Tibolone is a treatment that the FDA (the USA drug regulator) has refused to approve. 

However, in the UK (according to NHS Choices) it is a safe treatment, and “carries some small risks, including a small increased risk of breast cancer, cancer of the womb, and stroke”. Is that okay then? Does that re-assure you that this drug is safe? Why is it that a drug used in one country can be considered dangerous whilst the same drug in another country is safe, and only carries 'small risks'?

Clonidine is another drug used for the menopause, although apparently it was originally designed to treat high blood pressure “but has been found to reduce hot flushes and night sweats in some menopausal women”. However, as NHS Choices continues:

    “Clonidine can cause unpleasant side effects including dry mouth, drowsiness, depression, constipation and fluid retention”.

I remain uncertain why the side-effects of Clonidine are described as ‘unpleasant’ whilst those for Tibolone are considered to be just ‘small risks’.

I discovered this when I was preparing an article on my website, "Why Homeopathy?". I started my research believing that the use of HRT had been practically terminated, and was surprised to find that it was still the main treatment in use for the menopause by the Conventional Medical Establishment.

So, how much safer, and more effective is homeopathic treatment? Well it could hardly be more dangerous - and, of course, like all homeopathic treatment, it is very safe. And homeopathy has a number of key remedies that are known to treat menopausal symptoms successfully, and have been doing so for over 200 years. 

What is more, these remedies relate to the woman's individual experience of the menopause. Homeopathy does not treat women, or the menopause, as a single condition, with a single 'off-the-shelf' remedy for all. Homeopaths are trained to discover the symptoms experienced by the individual, and then to find a remedy that best matches those symptoms.

So, if you want to discover more information about the homeopathic treatment of the Menopause, click here, and look at my 'Why Homeopathy?' article.

It has to be the better option!

Aspirin. That nice, harmless painkiller?

I wrote about Aspirin in my e-book, "The Failure of Conventional Medicine", in which I outlined why, after spending so much on health care during the last 60+ years we seem to be getting sicker rather than better. In this piece I wrote the following:

          ".... like all NSAID drugs, aspirin is associated with side-effects such as stomach ulcers, disruption of the blood clotting system, and asthma attacks in susceptible people. And aspirin is far more dangerous than we have been told. A WDDTY report dated 18th October 2007 claims that aspirin kills 20,000 people in the USA every year, whilst another 100,000 end up in hospital as a result of taking the drug".

Since writing this, I have to admit that I seem to have got things very wrong! Aspirin is now known to be much more dangerous than I realised at the time. The dangers of Aspirin go far beyond the Gastro-Intestinal diseases it causes.

Aspirin was first patented as a drug in 1889, so in over 120 years, the conventional medical establishment appears to have been quite unaware of the dangers of Aspirin, or quite unprepared to tell us about them, although at the same time quite prepared to tell us that aspirin was 'safe', and could be taken routinely for any number of health reasons.

In August 2011, the magazine WDDTY (What doctor's don't tell you) reported that although Aspirin is supposed to prevent heart disease (and many millions of patients are taking a daily aspirin to do so, on the advice of their doctors), all NSAID drugs, including aspirin, actually become a killer for patients who already have a heart condition. The article reported on research done at the University of Florida, published in the American Journal of Medicine, which showed that patients taking aspirin regularly increased their risk of dying by 47%.

Research in Australia has linked Aspirin with age-related macular degeneration. Perhaps this is not surprising, given the number of older people who have been encouraged to take aspirin, routinely, over recent decades. But note that the researchers could not quite bring themselves to prove a 'causal' relationship! This probably means two things. First, patients won't be told until a 'causal relationship' has been completely demonstrated. And in the meantime, doctors will continue to give it to us despite the risks!

Note that doctors in the UK have already been told about the doubling of the risk of contracting the condition, but that their advice is to continue prescribing it:

          " ...'any decision to stop aspirin therapy is complex and should be individualised', noting that the risk 'should be balanced with the significant morbidity and mortality of sub-optimally treated cardiovascular disease'. Overall they felt there was insufficient evidence to recommend changing practice, except in patients with strong risk factors for neovascular age-related macular degeneration".

So all is well within the world of the conventional medical establishment! Carry on, they say, despite the risk.

So do our doctors tell us about the risk? Well, at least WDDTY have done so. In their report on research done at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, they say that the risk increases the longer patients take aspirin, and that "those who have taken the drug regularly for 10 years or longer are at the highest risk" emphasising the the drug can cause many kinds of eye problems, up to, and including, blindness.

See also the following articles on Aspirin, Eyesight and Blindness.
Taking aspirin regularly causes severe degenerative eye disorders
Taking aspirin as few times as once a week triples risk of blindness

So what about all the evidence that suggest aspirin does such wonderful things for our health? For example, does it not reduce cancer risk? WDDTY have again suggested that this is another piece of ConMed hype. It reports on an article published in The Lancet that examined the evidence of aspirin's 'cancer-protecting' role, which found that the study was a re-analysis of about 90 previously published studies - which conveniently managed to exclude several major US trials that had failed to find "any protective effect from aspirin".

The situation is actually worse than this, as described in this article which indicates that not only will aspirin not prevent cancer, it will actually cause it. The author reminds us that the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, in 2004, found that daily aspirin intake "is linked to a significantly increased risk of developing cancer". Indeed, the article goes on to remind us of the overall dangers of aspirin, namely:

          "Regular use of aspirin is linked to heart attack, stroke, intestinal bleeding, organ damage, and death".

The conclusion that can be reached is that the ConMed Establishment is willing to discount, or to ignore, the overwhelming evidence that aspirin consumption is dangerous; and that it is able, and willing to use and manipulate 'medical science' in order to highlight any marginal, or indeed bogus benefits that can be found in drugs.

We are dealing with Big Business interests here, not in a health service that puts patient interests first and foremost.

Similar claims have been made for Aspirin in relation to it preventative role in treating Dementia. 'The Healthier Life' have examined these claims, and came to this conclusion:

          "In a new study, research gave memory tests to hundreds of older subject with high risk of heart disease. Five years later, they gave the same tests. Subject who took low-dose aspirin tended to score a bit hight than those who didn't use the therapy. Okay. Slightly better memory. That's good. But even the researchers admit ... "There were no differences in dementia rates in the two groups".

So this is not a ringing endorsement of aspirin as an effective treatment of dementia. But any marginally positive news is used by the ConMed Establishment to hype its drugs. So despite the risks to our hearts, our eyes, and our stomachs, older people are given a drug in the hope that it might, just, have a marginal effect on our brains.

Great marketing. Lousy medicine!

Aspirin is a NSAID painkiller. In the next few days I will be continuing with a series of blog on painkillers that implicates these drugs with far wider damage to human health.

After 30 years, MHRA (reluctantly?) suspends use of HES drips!

HES drips, used to treat critically ill patients, and patients undergoing surgery, were suspended by the MHRA (Britain's drug regulator) on 27th June 2013.

The reason, we were told in an MRHA press release, was that 'the benefits no long outweighed the risks'.

HES (Hydroxyethal Starch) drips have been licensed for use since the 1980's, and in over 30 years, they are now known to have caused thousands, and probably hundred's of thousands of unnecessary deaths in British hospitals through renal, or kidney failure, and increased morbidity.

Some doctors have apparently been calling for a ban on these drips since the 1990's, but as so often when drugs, vaccines and other conventional medical treatments are questioned, nothing was done to protect patients by drug regulators, who task is - to protect patients!

It would seem that as far as the Conventional Medical Establishment is concerned, taking action to protect patients against dangerous drugs and vaccines appears to be a last, and final resort. It is not difficult to argue that it is probably easier for them to allow people to die rather than to admit that a treatment they have approved, and has been used routinely within the NHS for decades, has actually been killing people for many years - under their very nose!

Surprisingly, the BBC appears to have picked up this story. Usually, like the rest of the mainstream media in Britain, they complacently ignore such stories, and fail to investigate anything that is critical of the Conventional Medical Establishment. However, the Radio 4 programme, 'You and Yours' reported the ban on 19th August 2013, and it was dealt with in more detail on on the 'Face the Facts' programme on 21st August 2013. Two months after the ban, and 20+ years after initial concerns were being expressed, but at least the BBC has risen from its usual torpor and apparent indifference when it comes to patients being harmed by conventional drugs and vaccines.

Professor Ian Roberts, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, was featured on this programme. Apparently, he had raised the subject in 1998, as he considered that there was not evidence of benefit "and a trend towards harm", (Interesting language)? He made the point that many millions of people have used this drip, and if just 2% were harmed, this meant that some 20,000 people per million would have suffered. Later in the programme, it was stated that 4 million people used the drip between 2008 and 2012 alone.

Before this time, two studies were released. One, a French study in 2001, pointed to the kidney damage the drips were causing. The second, a German study in 2008, point not only to renal failure, but to 'unnecessary deaths'.

These studies, as is so often happens, failed to lead to any reaction from the drug regulators.

Instead, the programme said, numerous studies suddenly appeared that 'played down the harm caused by this drips'. Again, this is how the 'evidence' of 'evidence based' medicine is so often undermined. Any suggestion that a profitable drug or vaccine is harmful, and 'positive' studies begin to appear that suggest otherwise, and these studies are often funded by the companies who are profiting from the drug.


As far as HES drips were concerned, Professor Joachim Boldt was apparently available to support the Pharmaceutical industry. Boldt, a German anesthesiologist, and professor at Giessen University, is now known to have falsified 'scientific' research papers that supported the use of this drug. He has been stripped of his professorship, and he is now under criminal investigation for the possible forgery of up to 90 research studies (Wikipedia).

It is quite remarkable how much fraud is associated with conventional medical drugs and vaccines, and this is just one more example of the mis-selling and bogus promotional activity that underlies so much conventional medicine. It dominates what the Department of Health, the NHS, and our local GP's tell us about the health treatment they have to offer us.

The three drug companies who manufacture the HES drip have apparently admitted that Professor Boldt was paid to speak at medical conferences. But they continue to deny that there is anything wrong with the drug, and challenge the new findings.

As they said to the BBC, the drip continues to be used in the USA, and elsewhere, where there are no such reports of harm!

So if you live outside Europe, beware!

This is how the pharmaceutical industry operation. They use junk science, cheque-book science - the science that allows them to produce, get a licence, and sell dangerous and lethal products for profit. And they do this all at the expense of patients, their health, and even their lives.

And as the programme intimated, has to be question marks raised about the regulation of conventional medical drugs. Why, after the studies of 2001 and 2008 was there no response, no insistence on a thorough investigation from either the European Drugs Agency, or the British MHRA? Why was the MHRA still approving new drugs of this type as recently as 2010.

Why are the drug regulatory agencies failing to do their job, to protect patients from harm?

Why is the Conventional Medical Establishment happy to continue peddling drugs and vaccines that are known to cause us harm?

Why are our doctors failing to comply with their Hippocratic Oath?

But, at least, congratulations to the BBC for doing at least one piece of honest and informative journalism on an important health issue.

DPT and MMR Vaccines. Is this really a denial from Jeremy Hunt?

The dangers of the DPT and MMR vaccines are well known to anyone who examines the 'non-official' evidence that is coming regularly from parents whose children have been damaged by both these vaccinations, and others. Those who have not looked into this are entirely reliant on official Department of Health, NHS, and GP denials, and the mainstream media's passive and unquestioning acceptance of these denials.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that I have recently published 3 blogs in relation to the dangers of the DPT and the MMR vaccines, routinely given to our young children.

• The DPT Vaccine. Do doctors really know it is dangerous? And if so why are they not telling us?
• The MMR Vaccine: Our GPs, the NHS, and Big Pharma know it is dangerous. 
• Open Letter to Jeremy Hunt, Health Secretary regarding the information on these vaccines

The first two provide details of the quite frightening lists of serious diseases caused by the MMR and DPT vaccines, and which are mentioned within the package inserts that comes with each vaccine.

The third blog was an 'open' letter to Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State at the Department of Health, asking him to confirm the 'side-effects', 'adverse reactions', or DIEs, contained within these package inesrts.

There has now been a response from the Department of Health to my letter. I have copied the Department of Health's  response letter below, so that if anyone wants to plough through it can do so. However, for those people who don't want to do so this is my précis of what they seem to be saying.

• The package inserts relate to vaccines used in USA, and not in the UK and Europe. There is no explanation about just how different these vaccines are, but the insinuation appears to be is that the US vaccines are not safe (although they do not comment on this) but that 'our' vaccines are safe!

• And, as the US vaccines are no longer used here, this is not a problem for us.

• In the USA, such adverse reactions 'may be listed without regard to causality' so that 'it is possible that some events listed in the US product inserts were just a coincidence', that is, the vaccination and the adverse reaction may have come together, but this was just coincidental! The two events are quite separate. The child may have been healthy prior to the vaccination, and damaged (or even dead) after the vaccination, but without proof of causality we must not assume that the vaccine caused the damage!

• In Britain, we are told, 'current practice is that events should not be listed as a possible side-effect ... unless there is reasonable suspicion or evidence of a possible causal association'. In other words 'spontaeous reporting' (which I assume means a parent reporting that their child has been damaged, and there is a connection) is not good enough. This kind of evidence is considered to be 'anecdotal', and not 'scientific'. Parents making such claims are not to be believed, per se. If there is suspicion that there is a connection between a vaccine and child damage, there is no need for action until such time that a causal link has been found.

• Only when such a 'causal relationship' is found will the MHRA investigate into the situation. Of course, it is well to realise that the Department of Health, and the MHRA, has no money to research these 'causal links' independently, so usually it is the manufacturer who is asked to fund the research, and be good enough to let us all know.

• The main part of the letter gets complicated, with talk of 'SPCs' (Summary of Product Characteristics) and 'PILs' (Patient Information Leaflets), and what is, and (more accurately) what is not put in them. What seems clear from this description is that drugs and vaccines are put on to the market, they are given to us, and there are a variety of hurdles to negotiate before any  'adverse reaction' reports are even considered, leave along added to SPCs and PILs.

• Then comes the statistics about some of the diseases I highlighted in my letter. And, as you can see, there is just nothing to worry about!

• Finally comes the 'all drugs and vaccines have side-effects' argument, and the ultimate 'no gain without pain' argument, which for homeopaths, of course, is alway met with much laughter!

There is no no re-assurance about the safety of the DPY and MMR vaccines to be gleaned within this letter from the Department of Health. Just an overwhelming apathy. What the letter does emphasise is the length to which the Conventional Medical Establishment will go to protect conventional drugs and vaccines, and to undermine any suggestion that any pharmaceutical drug or vaccine could possible be dangerous.



Here is the DoH letter...
"The two documents you refer to are the product inserts in Infanrix vaccine and MMRII vaccine in the United States. Whilst the Department is unable to comment on the US manufacturers' rationale for including these events you describe in these inserts, it should be noted that both documents state that such events may be listed without regard to causality. It is therefore possible that some events listed in the US product inserts were coincidental with vaccination.

In the UK and Europe, possible side effects of medicines and vaccines are listed in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) for healthcare professionals and the Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) for patients. These will differ in some ways to the US product inserts. Although Infanrix and MMRII are no longer marketed in the UK, the UK SPC and PIL for the similar products, Infanrix IPV and MMRVaxPro, can be viewed on the electronic medicines compendium website at http://www.medicine.org.uk/emc/.

Although in the past some adverse events were included in many EU SPC and PILs on the basis of spontaneous reporting and without established causality, current practice is that events should not be listed as a possible side effect in the SPC or PIL unless there is reasonable suspicion or evidence of a possible causal association. When a new signal of a possible side effect emerges, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which has responsibility for safety of medicines and vaccines in the UK, together with other European regulators, takes steps to review all available evidence to assess a causal association and to quantify the risk. Regulatory action may then be taken to ensure prescribers and patients are aware of the possible risks via the product information and other relevant communication.

The UK product information for Infanrix IPV (and other DPT vaccines_ does not list Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) as a possible side effect. There is reference to DIDS within the SPC but only to state that a family history of SIDS should not preclude vaccination. The association between infant immunisation and SIDS has been extensively studied through epidemiological research. These studies have found no evidence of a causal association and are published in the medical literature.

Similarly, Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) is not listed as a possible side effect in the Infanrix IPV and there is no robust evidence to support this association. Researchers in the US have recently published a study which found no evidence of an increased risk of GBS following vaccinations of any kind (including DPT and MMR vaccines). Although GBS is listed as a possible side effect in the MMRVaxPro SPC, this is an historical inclusion in MMR vaccines SPCs based on temporally-associated case reporting, and there is no robust evidence of a causal association.

Encephalitis, if causally associated with MMR vaccine, has been reported at a frequency below one per 10  million doses. Any risk of encephalitis following administration of the vaccine is far below the risk of encephalitis cause by natural diseases (measles: 1 in 1000 to 2000 cases; mumps: 2-4 in 1000 cases; rubella: approximately 1 in 6000 cases). The balance of risks and benefits of MMR vaccine are clearly favourable.

Of course, as with any medicine, vaccines can cause side effects in some people and potential risks must be balance against the expected benefits in preventing serious disease. However, serious side effects are very rare. It is important that healthcare professionals discuss potential risks and benefts with vaccines or their parents/carers, and the PIL should be made available to parents/those being vaccinated when they receive the vaccine. The PIL is a useful basis for this discussion.

SD, Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries

Statin Drugs. Why are they not banned?

This blog is all about 'safer medicine'. One of the most dangerous drugs sold today, and one of the most widely taken, are Statins. I first wrote about the dangers of Statin drugs back in July 2010, with a blog entitled: "Statin drugs: another 'wonder drug' ready to take a fall!"

          "Many doctors have told us that these drugs were so good in preventing heart disease we should all be taking them! They were also supposed to be entirely safe". 

And this has been the propaganda that has persuaded so many people to take them.

Of course, the propaganda was more to do with selling drugs than any benefit to our health. Statins have been one of the most profitable drugs Big Pharma has ever come up with.  And of course, what we were told by the Conventional Medical Establishment, including our GPs, has proved to be entirely wrong.

Let's be forthright about this. Statin drugs are prescribed by doctors to make us better. But Statins are actually making people sick. In October 2011 I wrote this:

          "Even drugs like Statins, which we have been told are 'entirely safe' for decades, are now known to be unsafe. This article outlines the case against Statin drugs, and suggests that heart failure, pneumonia, nerve damage - and many other diseases can be contracted by people, the increasing numbers of people, who take them believing them to be safe.
http://safe-medicine.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/failure-of-conventional-medicine-2.html

Then,  in May 2012 I wrote this:

          "The prodigious rise in the use of Statin drugs over the last few years is another example. Statins have only recently been associated with both diabetes, and prostate cancer - so are Statins one cause of the epidemic of both these diseases? The Media has spent enough time in recent years allowing ConMed spokesmen to tell us how 'safe' these drugs are, and how we should all be taking them : perhaps now they can spare a little time asking why they have been telling us this, when it is palpably untrue, and may be connected with an increase in both these diseases.
http://safe-medicine.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/health-debate-5-epidemic-rise-in.html

You might be thinking that the conventional medical establishment would not be knowingly giving us drugs that were causing disease. But they certainly do know about the dangers. In November 2010, the British Medical Journal announced that Statins cause liver damage, kidney disease, and cataracts. This followed research undertaken at Nottingham University, using data from over 2 million patients taking Statin drugs.

So why are they still on sale?

Yet worse was to come. In October 2012, the FDA (the USA drug regulator) told us that Statins caused memory loss. Yet, despite this evidence, millions of patients are still taking these drugs. As I said at the time:


          "The FDA may have caught up - but have our doctors, the NHS, as they seem intent on continuing to prescribe Statin drugs, regardless of the evidence that they are causing serious DIEs. Indeed, I am not certain that all doctors have stopped telling us that these awful drugs are 'entirely safe'.

Given the epidemic rise in dementia among older people, did this connection with 'memory loss' lead to any action? No, they remain on sale. This is what I said at the time.

          "And what exactly is 'memory loss'. At the extreme end of the spectrum, memory loss equals Dementia. Can the FDA, or Big Pharma, or the NHS, tell us that 'memory loss' ends with a little bit of forgetfulness? Can they be certain Statin drugs are not implicated in the epidemic of dementia that we have been experiencing over recent decades.

And then there are links between Statins and Diabetes, another disease we are experiencing at epidemic levels. And still this there is no action taken. It is estimated that about 7 million people are taking these drug. How many of them go on to develop diabetes. Does anyone know? Does the Conventional Medical Establishment even care?

Then, if we look at the meek acceptance of our mainstream media, it becomes clear that we are not being told about the dangers of Statin drugs. Indeed, despite all this evidence, we are still being told that we should all be taking these drugs, because of their 'benefits'. Perhaps the worst culprit is BBC News. As recently as May 2012 their Today programme on Radio 4 extolled the benefits of Statins, with no mention of the dangers. As I said in this blog, there was:

* No mention of adverse reactions.

* No mention of Disease-Inducing-Effects (DIEs).

* No mention that Statins are now known to cause Diabetes.

* No mention of serious structural muscle damage.

* No mention of serious skin diseases.

* No mention of Prostate Cancer.

* No mention of heart disease.

* No mention of Arthritis.

In other words it is typical media reporting - by media organisations who appear to have more commitment to Big Business, and Big Pharma in particular, than the health and well-being of their viewers, listeners and readers. 

As far as health are concerned, they support the ConMed monopoly that exists within the NHS to the hilt. They will tell us nothing about the dangers of our drug and vaccine-led medical system. Nor will they do anything to inform us about safer, more effective medical therapies.

The vast majority of people who are taking Statin Drugs at this moment will not realise these dangers, they will not have been told either by their GP, the NHS, or the mainstream media.

And so we continue to be asked to continue taking "those nice, safe Statin drugs", and told "we should all be taking them. This, my last blog on the subject of Statins outlines even more information now available about the dangers of these drugs.

Drug Regulation. MIMS reports restrictions on 3 Conventional Medical drugs - in just 1 month!

MIMS is a monthly publication, and sent free to all UK GPs. It is supposed to keep doctors up-to-date with all the latest news about conventional pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

The August 2013 edition reported on new restrictions on 3 ConMed drugs, here is what they say about them. Incidentally, don't worry if you don't understand the language being used. ConMed uses this language to ensure (or in the hope) that we don't bother to read it. All it means is that the drug concerned has been found to be more dangerous than we have been told before. Well, not us, exactly, but our GPs and doctors. Whether they bother to tell us is another matter!

MHRA limits retigabine indications.
The MHRA has limited the use of the adjunctive anti-epileptic treatment retigabine (Trobalt) to patients with partial onset seizures with or without secondary generalisation where other appropriate drug combinations have proved inadequate or have not been tolerated.

Use of codeine in children restricted by EMA
Children should no longer be routinely prescribed codeine-containing medicines, the MHRA has confirmed, following a review prompted by safety concerns about an increased risk of respiratory depression.

A prize for anyone who can find out how long we have been given this painkiller to children!
Now, it would seem, it is not safe at all for children under 12 years old; and restrictions are required for anyone under 18.
Well, I am in my 60's, and I am damn well not taking it! Why do they assume adults are safe?


Diclofenac cardiovascular warnings and contraindications updated
Recent cardiovascular safety concerns have led the MHRA to issue new prescribing advice for systemic formulations of diclofenac.

(See my blog on Diclogenac - the dangers of this drug have been known for a long time, and they are serious dangers).

The real danger of all conventional drugs and vaccines is that doctors do not know their dangers when they given them to us. It is only after we suffer adverse reactions (DIEs) to the drug that they find out, and then we have to hope they tell us, and we haven't been damaged too much.

The horse has bolted; and only then do drug regulators close the gate

This kind of 'drug regulation' is as good as useless. The only way to keep from danger is to say 'No' to all conventional drugs and vaccines, and find a medical therapy does does not expose us to these unnecessary dangers.

Healing Broken Bones with Homeopathy

The healing of fractured Bones

Broken or fractured bones need immediate medical attention to ensure that the bone is properly set. But whilst you are waiting for this to happen you can take the remedy Arnica (at 30c or 200c) to help with the immediate shock, pain and bruising. This can be taken frequently after the accident, every 30 minutes if necessary.

Once the bone has been properly set, Homeopathy has two other brilliant remedies to assist healing.

Calc Phos

Calcium and Phosphorus are the two main minerals needed for building healthy bones so this remedy is well indicated for speeding up the healing process following a fracture. You can start taking it, on a daily basis, as soon as the broken bone has been properly knit. 

Additionally, for people who have weak or brittle bones, and are prone to fracture, this remedy is also useful as a preventative measure.

Symphytum.

A remedy made from the herb, Comfrey, which was once more commonly known as Knitbone. As the old name implies, it has been known for centuries that this can be helpful in fractures, or broken bones. What a pity this ancient knowledge has been forgotten by conventional medicine!

Symphytum 30c can be used daily for two to three weeks after the bone has been set, as an alternative to Calc Phos.

But I am also aware that some people have alternated the two remedies rather than taking just one.

Lots have people have been surprised at the speed that their bones heal, often up to 1/3rd of the estimated time they are given by the hospital.

Do you remember that David Beckham nearly missed playing in the World Cup because he broke a metatarsal in his foot some weeks before the competition started. He was considered 'doubtful'. But he played in England's first game - because he took one of these remedies (I believe Symphytum).