CBD OIL. Why does pharmaceutical medicine not want to know? Whatever happened to Patient Choice?

Medical cannabis, CBD oil, or cannabidiol, based on cannabis or marijuana, is controversial.

In the UK there are an increasing number of parents who are demanding access CBD oil through the NHS. A gruop of parents today (5 February 2020) have travelled to Westminster to lobby MP's, demanding free medical cannabis prescriptions for their children. Cannabidiol is very expensive, and the conventional medical establishment does not appear too keen on granting anyone access to it, certainly not the UK's Department of Health, and the NHS.

The makers of Cannabidiol claim that it is non-psychoactive (it doesn't act like cannabis), and make many marketing claims for CBD oil.

• it is claimed to be the answer to many illnesses, including chronic pain, diabetes, depression, anxiety, epilepsy, seizures, and autism.
• over 50% of patients using can stop taking pharmaceutical drugs.
• that it has been clinically proven in treating a wide range of health benefits
• it can regulate mood patterns and sleep cycles
• it can mitigates inflammatory response
• improve cognitive performance

So what is the row about? Why is there such disagreement? If parents want it for their children; and it has such sweeping benefits why is it not being offered to them, free on the NHS? Is it the expense? Pharmaceutical drugs which are equally expensive can be obtained on the NHS. Or is the problem that CDB oil is effective and might reduce demand for pharmaceutical drugs? The drug companies would not welcome this.

Medical cannabis was made legal in he UK in 2018, yet many parents are spending more than £1000 per month on buying it for their child. The campaigners visiting Westminster are mainly parents of severely epileptic or autistic children who have decided to take legal action to challenge the NHS's refusal or failure to prescribe it. Very few people obtain a prescription for medical cannabis, a few children and adults with rare and severe forms of epilepsy, some who have serious side effects from chemotherapy, and some people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

The NHS defends this stance in a number of ways.

• There are concerns about the safety of medical cannabis (although there are no concerns about the pharmaceutical drugs currently being prescribed). 
• There has been inadequate scientific trials (the testimony of parents who have used it and found it to be transformational is not sufficient). 
• Medical cannabis is not required when there are pharmaceutical alternatives (and parents can have as many of these drugs as they need, even if parents say they do not work).
• The fact that prescribing CBD oil might damage sales of the pharmaceutical drugs currently being used is, of course, denied.

I am not entering into a discussion about any of these political/financial/medical arguments. I would rather the NHS, and these campaigning parents, discovered the advantages of (i) not using pharmaceutical medicine, and particular childhood vaccines, which have most likely caused the problems of epilepsy and autism in the first place, and (ii) the benefits of homeopathy, and other natural therapies, which would offer safer, more effective, and less expensive solutions.

However, the issue surrounding medical cannabis clearly demonstrates another important issue: Health Freedom and Patient Choice.

The Conservative government came to power in 2010 advocating patient choice. Remember the White Paper - "no decision about me without me". Whatever happened to that? It was never publicly reversed, just left on a shelf to be forgotten, to gather dust! The pharmaceutical companies certainly did not like it; perhaps they thought too many people would not want to take their drugs and vaccines. And perhaps the drug companies were too powerful for the weak, irresolute conservative politicians.

At the same time there was also a pilot policy to develop direct payments to patients: personal health budgets. This was a system where sick people (or their parents) could receive a lump sum payment from the NHS which they could then allocate to the treatment of their choice. Whatever happened to that? Perhaps the drug companies thought too many people might opt for treatment that did not include their highly profitable drugs and vaccines.

So, 10 years on, patient choice has not advanced. It has been reversed. Politicians are no longer talking about patient choice. Indeed, they are more likely to be heard advocating mandatory drugging and vaccination policies. And this is the case even though 'patient choice' and 'personal health budgets' would resolve the problem.

So whatever the rights and wrongs of medical cannabis the current row is informative. It is still the conventional medical establishment that decides who can have what treatment. The patient can either accept their decision, do without, or bankrupt themselves by paying for it themselves.

Patients have absolutely no rights in health care.

 There is no health freedom.  

"All decisions about me without me". 

The doctor knows best. His decision is final.

Rogue Doctors....Paterson, Shipman. How do they add to the case against Pharmaceutical Medicine? What lessons need to be learnt.

The malpractice of Ian Paterson, a breast surgeon operating in the English West Midlands, has led to him serving a 20 year prison sentence for 'wounding with intent'. He undertook 'needless surgery' on hundreds of women, with the coroner, and West Mindlands police, looking into the deaths of at least 23 patients. Paterson is a rogue doctor; but there have been many others - Harold Shipman, an English doctor working in Greater Manchester, comes immediately to mind, someone who killed over 200 of his patients.

Do these, and similar rogue doctors, represent a serious argument against the practice of pharmaceutical medicine? As a supporter of natural medicine, should I be using their activities to attack the conventional medical profession?

No! I believe that this would be inappropriate. There are 'rogues' in every profession, in every walk of life. Such doctors use their position and expertise to maim and kill their patients; but most doctors are not motivated in this way. They genuinely want to help their patients.

              "The suffering described; the callousness; the wickedness; the failure on the part of individuals and institutions as well as Paterson himself - these are vividly described in what patients told us. The scale of what happened, the length of time this malpractice went on; the terrible legacy for so many families; it is difficult to exaggerate the damage done, including to trust in medical organisations."

These are the words of the independent inquiry into Paterson's activities, so the suffering he caused cannot be discounted.  But even so rogue doctors are not grounds for the wholescale abandonment of conventional, drug-based medicine.

So is the problem that these doctors operate within a medical system that is inherently dangerous for patients, a medical system that can cause serious patient harm?

Yes. This is undeniably true. Pharmaceutical medicine is the only form of medicine based on the use of treatments that are known to harm and damage patients, which can cause disease, and ultimately death. Indeed, the conventional medical establishment often states that unless a drug DOES have such an impact on the body, it cannot and will not work. Pharmaceutical medicine does not respect the precautionary principle, or the Hypocratic oath of "first do not harm".

We should always remember that doctors cannot afford to pay for their own indemnity insurance premiums because they operate a system of medicine that is inherently dangerous, and patients damaged by medical treatment need to be compensated.

What all this means is that Paterson, and other rogue doctors, should be punished; but not used as scapegoats for a medical system that is routinely causing harm to thousands of patients every day. Conventional medicine is a danger to patients even with Shipman dead, and Paterson in prison.

Even so, this is not the main lesson that can, and should be learnt from the medical career of Ian Paterson. The real lesson is alluded to in the conclusions of the independent inquiry into his malpractice which described the environment in which he was allowed to work.

               "There was a culture of avoidance and denial, an alarming loss of corporate memory and an offloading of responsibility at every level. This capacity for wilful blindness is illustrated by the way in which Paterson's behaviour and aberrant clinical practice was excused or even favoured. Many simply avoided or worked round him. Some could have known, while others should have known, and a few must have known."

The NHS cover-up of Paterson spanned many years, just as it had done with the activities of Shipman. Paterson began working at Solihull's Spire hospital in 1999, and was appointed at Solihull Hospital (part of the local NHS Trust) in 2000. The General Medical Council did not investigate his practise for the next 11 years, even though 'concerns' were raised as early as 2003. The inquiry found that hospital management had "missed several opportunities to stop him".

This is the real lesson to be learnt (but probably won't be). Pharmaceutical medicine does not operate openly and transparently, within the NHS, and within national health services around the world. Indeed it is difficult to see how the conventional medical establishment can EVER open itself to scrutiny - and survive.

• It would have to admit that its drugs and treatments routinely harmed patients, causing serious illness and chronic disease - just as a result of taking them.
• It would have to admit that it has always known that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have harmed patients and caused chronic disease.
• It would have to accept that the medical science, on which conventional medicine is supposed to be based, is deeply corrupt and totally unreliable.
• It would have to admit that drug 'side effects' are seriously under-reported, meaning they were 10 times, even 100 times, more harmful than they tell us.
• They would have to admit they did not know which drug or vaccine would cause which illness or disease - that taking them was akin to playing a game of 'Russian Roulette' with their health.
• They would have to admit that they do not apply the precautionary principle in treating patients, and ignored the principle of 'first do no harm'.
• They would have to admit that if patients want to stay healthy it would be better for them to avoid all pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

In other words, if the conventional medical establishment were to be as open and honest as the inquiry into Paterson wanted, no patient would ever want to use pharmaceutical medical treatment again.

So cover-ups like this one over Ian Paterson, and the secrecy within which conventional medicine always shrouds itself, is an important and necessary feature of its survival, and that this is unlikely to change.

Irritable Bowel? Ulcerative Colitis? Help at hand? Medical science suggests an antidepressive drug might be helpful!

The nonsense coming out of the pharmaceutical medicine establishment is constant. The latest the news that medical science is going to see if an antidepressant drug, amitriptyline, can treat irritable bowel disease (ulcerative colitis). What is more frightening than this trickle of nonsense is that this is dangerous nonsense; and we are not being told about these dangers.

The BBC, always willing to support medical science, and the pharmaceutical industry, in any way it can, is at the forefront of this propaganda campaign.

               "A medical trial is being held to see if a drug developed as an anti-depressant could become a common treatment for Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). Amitriptyline has sometimes been prescribed to people with IBS when other treatments have been ineffective."

Pharmaceutical medicine could certainly do with an effective treatment for IBS, or Ulcerative Colitis, and such headlines will certainly raise the hopes of the 12 million people that the IBS Network estimates suffer from this condition, in the UK alone.

And certainly, the drug amitriptyline (as with all other antidepressant drugs) have a hopeless record in treating depression. So perhaps a new use for the drug would be welcomed by the pharmaceutical industry.

BUT AMITRIPTYLINE IS A DANGEROUS DRUG. It is already known to have the most atrocious side effects. It carries warnings about suicidal thinking and behaviour, as well as other major side effects, including abdominal and stomach pain (sic), confusion, convulsions and seizures, irregular heartbeat, depression and anxiety (sic), and much else.

NO-ONE SHOULD TAKE AMIPRIPTYLINE WITHOUT READING THIS FULL LIST OF KNOWN SIDE EFFECTS! And don't be fooled by the 'incidence not known' cover up. These side effects are common, but just how common doctors don't want us to know.

So did the BBC tell us about this? Of course not. They never do. The BBC sees itself as a drug sales outfit, willing to tell patients about the 'good' news, but keeping the 'bad' news to itself.

Irritable Bowel is a deeply painful and distressing condition, and it is best treated with homeopathy. I have written about the homeopathic treatment of IBS here, comparing it with conventional medical treatment. Patients with IBS are already sick enough, without being asked to risk the dreadful side effects of antidepressant drugs like amitriptyline.

The Coronavirus Panic. Just how dangerous is this new virus?

The worldwide coronavirus panic is in full swing!

It remains to be seen how dangerous this new flu virus is, how many people will be infected, and how many people will die from this apparently fearsome influenza pandemic. And certainly, as I mentioned in a previous blog, we should begin to wonder why doctors think we should panic about influenza when there are many more serous iatrogenic illnesses and deaths to be concerned about.

Certainly, if it is anything like previous panics, SARs, Swine flu, and Avian Flu we might be looking back at the reaction of pharmaceutical medicine, and the mainstream media, in a few months time - and wonder what on earth it was about!

But just to let you know - the homeopathy community is NOT in a panic. I am currently in discussion with a number of UK homeopaths about possible remedies that might be useful in treating this potential flu pandemic with what we call a 'genus epidemicus'. And we are in agreement. We do not need new remedies. The remedies that homeopathy have used for over 220 years will work with this, and any other influenza outbreak. The symptom picture of the new coronavirus appears to be much the same as any other, more common type of influenza.

This, of course, is different with pharmaceutical medicine, which each year has to produce a vaccine that focuses on a particular strain or type of influenza, and usually gets it wrong. Homeopathy does not have to focus on any predicted strain - it works of the basis of similars, 'like treats like' - not 'same treats same'.

In other words, the remedies will work as long as they match the flu symptoms. So I will be suggesting to my family, friends, and former patients, to do what I have always recommended - to take a preventative monthly dose of the remedy Oscillococinum; although if the outbreak does expand, or if it does get closer to home, the dose can be increased to a remedy every fortnight, or even every week.
Other homeopaths recommend different remedies. Some, for instance, prefer the remedy Influenzinum, whilst others use remedies like Gelsenium, or one of many other remedies that are known to have flu symptoms.

The comparative calm of the homeopathic community is based on passed experience, and not misguided wishful thinking. Even with the most serious influenza pandemic of all time, the Spanish flu outbreak of 1918, homeopathy has a successful track record.

The reason for pharmaceutical medicine's panic is that it has a poor, if not hopeless track record in treating influenza. If 'anti-flu' drugs (like Tamiflu) are not effective; if there is no vaccine available; what else is there for doctors to do but to panic? And, with the mainstream media supporting pharmaceutical medicine to the hilt, it will feed the panic. It always does.

• So if you are a homeopathy user you don't need to wear a face mask (or even goggles), and certainly not a white space suit in fear. Just take your usual influenza remedy, and have them at hand.

• If you are not a homeopathy user yet it is exactly the right time to join us, and begin living life normally again.

PHARMACEUTICAL MEDICINE. Just how dangerous is it to our health? And why is a flu outbreak in China causing panic?

There have been many attempts to calculate how many deaths are caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. It is a a difficult calculation, not least because when offering a cause of death in post mortems few doctors will want to admit that drugs (s)he or colleagues have administered are the cause of death. Most, therefore, are under-estimates about the dangers of conventional medicine.

The Pharma Death Clock website has tried to estimate the harm that is being caused to patient by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines since 2000. It is a frighting read.

• Iatrogenic deaths - 15,733,539 people
• Hospital errors resulting in death - 8,830,770 people
• Death caused by adverse drug reactions - 2,127,413 people

And these figures, plus many, many more on this website, are just for the USA! It calculates that worldwide Superbugs (caused by antibiotic drugs) have alone caused 14,048,956 deaths. In Britain it calculates that chemotherapy drugs have killed 301,049 people!

So perhaps the headline news today (21 January 2020), that the British NHS faces a huge clinical negligence legal fees bill should not come as a great surprise - and certainly not to regular readers of this blog. The figures quoted in the news releases reflects the horrendous dangers of pharmaceutical medicine.

• £4.3 billion in legal fees to settle outstanding claims of clinical 'negligence'
• that every year the NHS receives over 10,000 new claims for compensation
• that the total cost of outstanding compensation claims is now £83 billion (against a total annual NHS budget of £129 billion)

Medical errors. Are they bankrupting the British NHS?

Yet the analysis of this 'problem' is never accurate. We are not witnessing here something that can be dismissed as 'errors' or 'negligence'. We are witnessing the consequence of an inherently dangerous form of medicine, conventional medicine, pharmaceutical medicine, that now dominates national health services around the world.

Nor does the problem end of patient death. In a series of blogs I have written over the last year it has become clear that doctors, the front-line face of this dangerous medical practise, can no longer afford to pay their own medical insurance premiums.

• SO WHAT SORT OF MEDICINE IS THIS?
• IT IS A MEDICINE THAT SEEKS TO DEFLECT ATTENTION AWAY FROM ITS DANGEROUS AND LETHAL OUTCOMES TO PATIENTS

The other main health news hitting the headlines recently concerns the 'new Chinese influenza virus' which has affected, to date, about 200 people in the Chinese town of Wuhan, and killed a total of 4 people. This is a problem considered to be sufficiently serious that medical authorities in Australia, Singapore, Hong Cong, Taiwan and Japan have already "stepped up screening of air passengers from Wuhan". It is likely that this panic will continue to escalate around the world.

Yet these same medical authorities do not panic about the numbers of people who are being routinely harmed, and killed by pharmaceutical medicine's 'negligence' each and every year!

These are the medical authorities who support a form of medicine' that makes us sick, causes epidemic levels of chronic disease, and kills millions of patients, and whose only response to the havoc it generates is to demand more and more money from governments around the world.

We need to start demanding answers. Why is the death of 4 people in China a matter of concern when the iatrogenic death of 15,733,539 people in the USA not? Why is a influenza outbreak a matter of panic when homeopathy is a safe, effective and inexpensive means of preventing, and treating flu?

HPV (Gardasil) Vaccine - linked to lowered probability of pregnancy

In June 2018, the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health published an article Gayle DeLong entitled 'A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25-29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection'. This is an everyday event - medical science publishing research and evidence about pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. However it is one the demonstrates the dishonesty of medical science.

Gayle DeLong told the story on the 'Children's Health Defense' website on 17th December 2019

               "Data revealed that 60% of women who had not received the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once, while only 35% of HPV vaccine recipients had ever conceived. The article detailed the statistical analysis as well as offered possible biological mechanisms for the results.  Three researchers peer-reviewed the article. When the article first appeared, the editors eagerly promoted it by making it free.  By early December 2019, the number of downloads reached close to 24,000."

This is how medical science is supposed to work - if it functioned honestly and openly. But, of course, it doesn't. Young girls, and their parents, who are routinely encouraged by doctors to have the vaccination, are (or at least should be) entitled to know all there is to know about the likely side effects and consequences of any medication. But pharmaceutical medicine does not work this way. It is a business that thrives on enticing patients to take drugs and vaccines, and information about side effects is not good for drug sales.

Medical journals, such as the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, should publish evidence about every drug and vaccine. This particular research was processed in the normal way, peer reviewed, and published. Then it was withdrawn - and withdrawn without any satisfactory reason being given.

All this is detailed in Gayle DeLong's piece in Children's Health Defense.

Yet the detail is not important. What we are dealing with is a medical system that does not want patients to know about the serious, life-changing side effects of their drugs and vaccines. If the conventional medical establishment was honest it would look at DeLong's findings, and be sufficiently concerned to look further into the findings. Indeed, on the basis of 'first do no harm', and the precautionary principle, it would suspend use of the vaccine.

None of this is done. Instead, the journal pulls the research. It is important to realise that medical journals survive only on the basis of funding from the pharmaceutical industry. So if drug companies don't like a piece of research, if it might have an effect on profits, it is easier to ensure that the research is pulled rather than to seek to make the vaccine safe, and free of side effects.

So it's not just that pharmaceutical medicine peddles dangerous drugs and vaccines. It is that the pharmaceutical industry has sufficient control over medical journals (a major source of information doctors rely on) to ensure that they don't have to worry about the dangers - neither doctors nor patients will get to know about them.

So our daughters are damaged....

...and the drug companies rake in the profits.

EATING DISORDERS. One cause, routinely ignored by conventional medicine, is pharmaceutical drugs

Eating disorders, like Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia, are reaching epidemic proportions. They have been around for a long time, but they have increased substantially in recent times. One study found that the incidence of anorexia nervosa is around 8 per 100,000 persons per year, with "an upward trend has been observed in the incidence of anorexia nervosa in the past century till the 1970s" with "the most substantial increase was among females aged 15-24 years, for whom a significant increase was observed from 1935 to 1999".

This is, of course, the period when pharmaceutical drugs became more widely available and consumed, perhaps something that the conventional medical establishment wants to ignore as a possible cause of this increase. 

And the incidence of eating disorders continues to rise, alarmingly. In 2020, NHS Digital date (England) showed that hospital admissions for eating disorders rose by 37% across all age groups over the previous two years. They showed that there were 19,040 admissions for eating disorders in 2018/19, up from 16,558 the year before, and 13,885 in 2016/17. The most common age for patients with anorexia was 13 to 15. These British figures are mirrored across the entire pharmaceutical drug-taking world!

So what is pharmaceutical medicine, and the NHS doing about this rising tide of illness?

• They are spending money on it of course - more and more.
• They diagnose it mainly as a psychological illness, which means more counselling, more 'talking cures', and demands for more mental health provision
• And they come up with a number of reasons for the increase in eating disorders

Yet the reason doctors provide are no more than excuses - one of the most important reasons for the increase in eating disorders are pharmaceutical drugs. 

Research published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2019 (doi: 10.2105 / AJPH. 2019. 305390), found that young women who take diet pills and laxatives to reduce their weight are more likely to suffer an eating disorder just a year or so later.

• Laxatives increased the risk 5-fold and diet pills by 80%. These pills are easy to purchase over-the-counter in pharmacies or online. 

The researchers, from Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, described their findings as "a wake-up call" and called for a ban on their sale to young girls. Neither is going to happen.

• Conventional medicine will not 'wake up' as it is routinely and vigorously opposed to any suggestion that the drugs and vaccines they prescribe to patients cause serious illness and disease.
• And the drugs that cause eating disorders will not be banned because the powerful pharmaceutical industry will not allow them to be banned.

It is the same for all the epidemics of chronic disease we are now witnessing. One of the major causes of all of them are pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, but this is always denied by the conventional medical establishment.

So an important cause of the disease is ignored, and the disease continues to grow and grow. Conventional medicine bemoans increased patient demands on resources, their inability to cope with this increased demand, and seek increased resources to enable them to cope with the problem.

Conventional medicine is an on-going, self-fulfilling disaster!