The Media. An assault on our intelligence?

It would appear that our brains are under assault. The mainstream media, not least amongst them BBC News, is reporting findings from New Zealand that smoking cannabis can seriously damage our IQ. No doubt the evidence for this link is strong - but this is not my point.

Earlier this month, a Harvard study showed that Fluoride can also seriously damage our brains, and lower our IQ. I have looked to see if BBC News, or any other mainstream media, have deluged us with this information. They haven't! There has barely been a mention.

For more information on the Fluoride - IQ link, also see here.

What is the reason for this? Both reports seem to be of general, and equal public concern. Together, they might appear to represent a good news story. But only one was selected.

Could it be that the mainstream media, and BBC News in particular, feels okay about attacking Cannabis, an illicit, illegal drug, but not about criticising Fluoride, a poison routinely added to our water supply in many parts of the country.

Question? Are more people smoking Cannabis than drink water in Manchester, Birmingham, Southampton, and many of our largest cities which have Fluoride added to the water supply?

So Cannabis is easier to target. To criticise Fluoride, on the other hand, is taking a swipe at public policy, and would unsettle water companies, governments, and politicians who signed up to the current law - that allows local health authorities to ask that Fluoride is added to our water.

Our media is weak. It is beholden to a Political and Medical Establishment, and dare not challenge it. The craven attitude of BBC News has been mentioned on his blog many times. It dares not inform its viewers and listeners of threats to our health.

Ahhh well! Let's go and put the kettle on, and drink some more Fluoride. Better not smoke any cannabis though! It might affect my brain.

How Homeopathy can help with eye strain

The holiday season is well and truly over and everyone has returned to the office - often sitting and staring at computers for hours a day. It is, therefore, not surprising that many people suffer from eye strain as they get adjusted to their old environment once more. 

The use of modern equipment and VDU’s,coupled with the frequent use of Kindles and iPads, have arguably overtaken reading and writing in bad light as the main cause of eye strain.

Eye strain mostly occurs when you over-use your eye muscles by concentrating on visually intense tasks for any length of time. If any muscle is held in one particular position for too long it will cause the muscle to strain and in the case of the eye, the ciliary muscle begins to tighten.

This can cause the eyes to become irritated and uncomfortable some times leading to non-specific symptoms including headaches, fatigue, itchy or a burning sensation around the eyes, blurred vision and, occasionally, double vision.

To prevent eye strain, try avoiding tedious visual tasks and doing close-up work for too long, such as reading a book, needlework or computer activities on a VDU. In addition, it is important to allow the eyes to focus on distant objects at least once an hour. If, however, you continue to suffer from any of the above symptoms, you can try the remedies listed below, which may bring relief. If your symptoms persist, do have your eyes checked by your GP (for general eye health) or an optician (for problems with vision).

Useful Homeopathy Remedies

ß Euphrasia – this may be useful for tired eyes which water and burn. It is suggested to use this externally as an eyewash, in diluted tincture form available from a homeopathic pharmacy. It can also be taken in tablet form.

ß Ruta – this may be advantageous for sore eyes with dim vision, which has resulted from too much concentrated, close work

(Homeopathy for Common Ailments by Robin Hayfield & www.avoideyestrain.com)

This article was first published by the ARH in the Septemeber 2011 issue 16 of 'Homeopathy Healthy Medicine'. 

The ARH regularly publish these newsletters to provide information about homeopathy to the public that is not usually available through our mainstream media. ARH makes them available to everyone as free downloads (go to www.a-r-h.org), and they can be used for information, marketing and publicity purposes.

Skeptics insist Homeopathy doesn't work. So what do they have to say?

Warning. 

Please don't read this blog if you want to avoid reading bad language and extreme abuse!

Many people, indeed a growing number of people, do not want to take pharmaceutical drugs. Although they are not being informed by those who should be informing them - the government, the NHS, GP's, the mainstream Media - there is a growing realisation that Conventional, Drug-based Medicine, does not work, and that worse still it is dangerous. Many have already moved to CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine), and Homeopathy in particular. Many, many more are just 'uneasy' about the treatment they are being offered.

The Big Pharma industry is under pressure, and it is worried. It has every right to be. They are still sufficiently powerful to ensure that Regulators don't, or can't regulate their drugs effectively, and thereby protect patients - which should be their primary objective. They still hold a virtual monopoly within the NHS. And most serious of all, the mainstream media is unwilling to question an industry that are their major advertisers. But BigPharma's older drugs are either out of patent, under severe restriction, withdrawn or banned. Their newer drugs are doing no better, and probably much worse. Confidence in them is waining, and they are desperately trying to maintain their profits.

Big Pharma is also well organised. Over recent years have sought to attack CAM, and Homeopathy has borne the brunt of this assault. One part of their campaign are a number of 'denialists' who like to call themselves 'Skeptics'. These people can be found responding to this, and other blogs, and they are active on Social Media platforms, such as Twitter.

Just Pure Denial.
So what do these 'homeopathy denialists' have to say? I don't usually engage with them (see some of the language below to understand why) but I have spent some time looking at some of their recent responses to my Tweets (follow me at @stevescrutton). Usually it is just pure denial; 'homeopathy just cannot work'; yet in support of this statement Denialist's offer no evidence. It is just pure denial.

Scott Hansen "How homeopathy is a complete scam perpetrated by quacks on the vulnerable and gullible alike. A clear statement, Scott. Any evidence that homeopathy does not work? Perhaps you explain this to the millions of people throughout the world who, for over 200 years, have been successfully treated by Homeopathy?

Ahh! But of course. Is this the explanation, from Peter Vintner? "Homeopathy survives in India because of corruption and ignorance. And parasites taking advantage of the poor". So anyone who says that 'Homeopathy Heals' is just wrong, Peter knows best! Denialists actually believe anyone who says that Homeopathy has helped them is either 'corrupt and ignorant'. And actually, Peter, homeopathy in India is not 'surviving' - it is flourishing!

Yet Peter Vintner has more useful insights too. "Homeopaths come in basically 2 types. Deluded or dishonest. Both are vain and self-important". So the patients are wrong, and so are the Homeopaths! Only the evidence (not to mention the credibility) is missing.

4tis.  "Homeopathy is incapable of generating resistance because it doesn't affect malaria. Simple really". So having made a statement we are just to believe what 4tis says! Simple really.

Edzard Ernst. "Healthier way to treat depression. Another bogus claim". Any evidence for that Edzard?

Homeopathy just can't work!

Denialists will always repeat, ad nausea, the argument cannot work because there is no 'active' substance in homeopathic remedies.

This comment is typical when Denialists talk about Homeopathy "...and completely useless. It is just water after all".


David James makes this comment. "Homeopathy is water with water in it".

Guy Chapman, again. "Homeopathy is irrelevant to the treatment of infertility. The 'remedies' are completely inert". Again, just a statement, even though Homeopaths have been using these 'inert' remedies for over 200 years with considerable success.

"A celebrity who used homeopathy for her arthritis - effect due to consultation, not remedy". This is another reason used by Denialist's seeking to maintain their position that Homeopathy cannot work - it is not the remedy that works - it is the consultation! I wish Homeopathy was that easy! And I wonder why, if this is so, why GP's don't learn from the techniques.

Swiss Government Report.
Take this more specific example, Some of my tweets have highlighted the recent Swiss Government- backed research on Homeopathy, probably the most intensive and comprehensive look into Homeopathy that has ever been attempted.

Pete Crowe. "...that should have read 'Swiss homeopaths have looked at homeopathy - and found it good"

4tis. "Amazing you still misrepresent the Swiss HTA. It's simple the CAM case for the defence. Of course it'd be pro homeopathy" 

These 2 Denialists, amazingly, are asking us to believe that the Swiss Government established a Committee to look into Homeopathy - and loaded it with Homeopaths!

And in another, 4tis (denialists often don't use their real name) Tweet, he just added "Not" in front of the wording of the article I referred to. Obviously, a very powerful argument!

Alan Henness. "LOL! No, the Swiss Gov didn't decide homeopathy to be good". Back to pure denial, without, of course, evidence to support his assertion.

Peter Vintner then chips in with a statement, that I "know Swiss govt doesn't support homeopathy. Facts don't suit the business model of peddling medical fraud". However, the Swiss government now includes Homeopathy in its National Health Insurance scheme.

Patient Choice

Denialists don't like any mention of Patient Choice, or Medical Freedom. It means that people might be able to choose for themselves the medical therapy they wish to use for illness, and they seem to want us all to go on taking Pharmacuetical drugs - although they never admit this. When tweeting about 'Patient Choice' and "Medical Freedom', these comments have been made.

Guy Chapman. "The 'freedom you assert is the freedom to lie to people for profit. You have no right to this, quack". Such insults are often used by denialists - and it gets much worse than this, as does the language used!

It is always easy to tell when one side of an argument is losing - they revert to personal insults!

Peter Vintner. "Homeopathy has no place in primary care because it's not medicine. It has no intrinsic value either". So listen closely to Peter; and search in vain for any justification for what he states so dogmatically.

Whooping Cough Epidemics

When presented with evidence that Homeopathy has helped anyone, for any illness or disease, the insults always get worse - and the supporting arguments dwindle even more. Following several Tweets that have arisen from the recent Whooping Cough epidemics in the USA, it has become clear that the Pertussin vaccine is just not working. Worse still, for denialists, is the growing evidence that vaccinated children fare worse than the unvaccinated, and that the vaccinated who get the disease get it far worse. So what do the skeptics say?

4tis. "Stupid and dangerous" and "Dangerous nonsense" - without him providing any indication why the results of research were any of these things. He tried a bit harder with "I wish I could say that I can't believe @stevescrutton said that, but it is too typical of his posts" but his incredulity about the facts presented to him (in the articles) is not particularly enlightening for anyone else!

Guy Chapman. "Utter bullshit. You are a merdering fucktard quack". Yes, both the spelling and the abuse does get worse! Much worse.

And so now, finally, on to just pure, foul-mouthed Abuse!

I will just repeat these comments here, without comment, as no comment is really necessary. These comments tell you all you really need to know about Homeopathy Denialists, and Skeptics. 

Pete Crowe.  "What a fucking asshole. Its like he wants children to die".

Guy Chapman. "It's pretty clear that @stevescrutton is a profiteering quack with no scruples whatsoever".

     "Your mind is entirely closed to the mass of evidence that the scams you shill are dangerous quack".

     "Malaria vaccines just make disease worse. Murdering, morally bankrupt fucktard quack

     "Obviously @stevescrutton hasn't heard homeopathy not promoted for acute any more to avoid appearing like murdering quacks". Well, just one comment then. Homeopaths have always, and will always work with acute illnesses, as it works very well with them. This is just pure misinformation.

     "Protect your child from dangers of shameless fuckwit quacks; don't go near @stevescrutton @health ranger and their ilk. Lying fuckers".

And finally, responding to the mounting evidence, case after case, that most mass shooting in the USA and elsewhere are perpetrated by people on anti-depressant drugs, came this remark

     "Were Big Pharma drugs involved in Aurora killings? No. Now fuck off you ghoul".

Unfortunately, it is not quite so easy to get rid of Homeopathy. Homeopathy is a safe, effective and inexpensive medical therapy that has survived this kind of abuse for over 210 years. Drug-based medicine is in terminal decline. Homeopathy is the medicine of the future.

And this blog is dedicated to providing information about health, and the treatment of ill-health, so that people can make up their own minds.

Fraud and corruption. The Media? Banking? Or Big Pharma? Which is worst?

Everywhere, Big Corporations seem to be under fire for corruption and fraud. 

The mainstream Media, and in particular News International, has been beset with difficulties arising from phone hacking scandals. The Banking industry is facing serious investigations into its business practices. And as a recent blog on this website has indicated, Big Pharma is facing serious problems relating to serious fraud and corruption.

So which is worse?
The Media has intervened in people's lives, and no doubt engaged in illegality in order to do so. The Regulatory Agency is accused of being weak and ineffective. But to my knowledge, no mainstream Media organisation is accused of actually killing anyone, and certainly not with the knowledge and connivance of the Regulator!

The Banking industry has brought the world's economy to the brink of bankruptcy through various nefarious activities designed to produce profit. Financial Regulatory bodies are being heavily criticised for failing to control the activities of Banks, that have led to the virtual bankruptcy of several states, the general destruction of economic activity, and the resulting tarnishing of the lives and livelihoods of countless millions. The stress this has caused has no doubt led to an increase in sickness, death, and suicide. But to my knowledge, no Bank has been accused of actually killing anyone directly, and certainly not with the knowledge and connivance of the Regulators!

The fraud and corruption of Big Pharma industry appears to be an entirely different case - and far, far more serious. It has come to light, in recent years, through many prosecutions in the USA courts.

* Eli Lilly, in January 2009, fined $1.42 billion for mis-selling its drug Zyprexa.

* Pfizer, in September 2009, fined $2.3 billion for defrauding and misleading promotion of its painkilling drug, Bextra (which was later withdrawn from the market for safety reasons).

* Astra Zeneca, in April 2010, fined $520 million for illegally promoting the anti-psychotic drug, Seroquel.

* Merck, in November 2011, fined $950 million for illegally promoting its painkiller, Vioxx, another drug that had to be withdrawn from the market for safety reasons.

* Abbott, in May 2012, fined $1.5 billion for its illegal promotion of its anti-psychotic drug, Depakote.

* GlazoSmithKline, in July 2012, fined $3 billion for its promotion of its drugs, and its failure to report safety data.

So why do these matters, and many, many similar matters, make Big Pharma fraud and corruption more serious than that found in Journalism or Banking?

First, not many people are aware of what the Pharmaceutical Industry is charged with, or what is happening to them as a result. It is surely quite amazing that when Big Pharma admits to these offences, which have killed people, that nothing beyond fines is done.

Whilst Governments and the Media rail against the Media, and the Banks, it is almost entirely quiet on this particular area of human activity. The reasons for this have often  been mentioned and discussed on this blog.

Second, there is no doubt that Big Pharma has become a major cause of disease and death, and that these outcomes have been directly caused by the products, and in particular the drugs, it sells to us. And it is undeniable that Drug Regulatory agencies, like the FDA, the MHRA, and the EDA, appear to be fully aware of this fact - but are doing little or nothing to prevent it, or to stop it happening, time and time again. See, for instance, this article on the FDA in the USA.

It also has to be questioned why it is that police authorities have never been asked to investigate who is criminally responsible when Big Pharma drugs have been found to have killed people. Is it the drug company, and its Executives who have marketed the drugs? Is it the Drug Regulator who have approved the drugs as being safe? Is it the Government, or the NHS, in passing these drugs to patients? Or is it the GP, who actually prescribed the drug?

So no criminal court has yet been asked to adjudicate on who is responsible for these regular deaths. No one, from Drug Company executives, to Drug Regulators, to the NHS, to the local GP, is being held accountable for their actions in producing, approving and prescribing these killer drugs.

So, as this article asks, are the drug companies literally getting away with murder?

This situation has been described as "The Moral Collapse of Western Medicine", and not without exaggeration. The fraud and corruption of Big Pharma does not just concern an industry bent on making profits, and apparently unaware or unconcerned with the damage it is doing to our health.

The situation surrounding Big Pharma, and drug-based medicine is by far the most serious case of corruption and fraud. And the reasons for this is because the situation also concerns, and implicates, many of the public agencies that are supposed to be advising, protecting, and looking after our best interests.

* It concerns our politicians who do not appear to be looking after our best interests when they allow increasing expenditure on drugs, whilst at the same time failing to offer patients real choice in the medical therapies they can select to use when they are ill.

* It concerns the Regulatory Agencies whose task it is to ensure that the drugs we are given are safe, but who have regularly failed to do this - both before, and often for many years after they have been known to be dangerous.

* It concerns the massive ConMed Establishment, which is apparently intent in increasing our use of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and maintained drug-based medicine as a monopoly.

* It concerns the NHS, both its bureaucracy, and its front-line doctors and specialists, who advice us about our health, and prescribe medications that cause disease and death.

* It concerns the mainstream Media, and its failure to investigate what is happening to our health within drug-based medical practice.

It would seem that the only way we have to protect ourselves is to refuse drug-based medicine entirely, and look for safe, and more effective alternatives!

BBC News. A sudden conversion to honesty?

The BBC Today programme this morning featured a piece on GlaxoSmithKline's recent $3 billion fine for fraud in the USA.  


So is this a sudden (and welcome) conversion to honesty for the BBC when reporting on health matters? Or was this news just too big for them to ignore, and brush under the carpet? (which is what the BBC normally does when it deal with the Big Pharma industry).

The questioning in two interviews by John Humphrys would have appeared to be direct, and indeed quite critical - for anyone who was not aware of 'the health debate', but as this series of articles explains, journalist's like Humphrys are not really conversant with this debate. Certainly, the interviews he conducted made it clear that he believed, or wanted to believe, this was a 'one-off' situation, and he seemed relatively happy to accept the re-assurances that 'this situation was all in the past'. The interviews certainly failed to to bring out the full seriousness of the fraud that GSK has now admitted too.

Nor did it highlight the several other important court cases in the USA, involving several Big Pharma companies, in recent years. These have all been studiously ignored by our mainstream Media, just as they were this morning by BBC News.

* Eli Lilly, in January 2009, fined $1.42 billion for mis-selling its drug Zyprexa.
* Pfizer, in September 2009, fined $2.3 billion for defrauding and misleading promotion of its painkilling drug, Bextra (which was later withdrawn from the market for safety reasons).
* Astra Zeneca, in April 2010, fined $520 million for illegally promoting the anti-psychotic drug, Seroquel.
* Merck, in November 2011, fined $950 million for illegally promoting its painkiller, Vioxx, another drug that had to be withdrawn from the market for safety reasons.
* Abbott, in May 2012, fined $1.5 billion for its illegal promotion of its anti-psychotic drug, Depakote.

So the GSK incident is only the latest of a number of scandals - all ignored by the BBC, and other Media sources. And these stories are, of course, only the tip of an iceberg of fraud and corruption that have been perpetrated by Big Pharma companies on patients over the last 50-60 years.

Conventional drugs have created disease, in epidemic proportion. And they have caused death, and has done for decades, on an unprecedented scale.

This article, by Child Health Safety, states that Big Pharma drugs are now the 4th biggest killer in the USA (if the British media were honest enough to report these issues, perhaps we would know how it was ranked in the UK). But it should not be the task of small, internet based organisations like this one to inform the public, and patients in particular, about the dangers of Conventional Medicine. Patients should not have to turn to the internet to learn the truth about Big Pharma's drugs.

BBC News, in its public service broadcasting role, should be at the forefront of investigating the dangers of Conventional Medicine. It is not there yet.

But at least this morning's brief flirtation with honesty on the Today Programme might just be a start for BBC News, and if so, it is a welcome, if long-overdue conversion to open reporting on health matters.

We are currently in a time when the morality of large multinational companies is being brought into serious question. The Murdoch press has plumbed the very depths of corruption. The Banking industry is under very serious review. But do Media organisations, or Banks, really cause the same amount of pain, suffering and death to the general public as Big Pharma companies?

* Is phone-hacking worse than causing disease through drug 'side-effects'?
* Does financial impropriety, however corrupt or serious, kill more people that pharmaceutical drugs?

Unlikely! And this is what makes it even more important that BBC News, and other mainstream media organisations, to begin reporting honestly to us about health news issues.

Trapped Fingers: a rapid cure with Homeopathy

It was a lovely day, with 5 of our grandchildren (aged 6,6,5,4,and 3) playing in the house. The play got more boisterous and excited. A door was slammed. A short delay. Then a shriek of pain. The 3 year old, who was joining in, and having a lovely time, had trapped his fingers. His mum held him, and ran his fingers under cold water. I fetched an Arnica 30c, and popped it in his mouth. He would not show his hand, it was too painful, and so it was wrapped in a cold flannel.

Within minutes of taking the Arnica, his crying reduced, and his breathing got back to normal. I remembered that Hypericum was a remedy that was good for trapped fingers and gave him one. Five minutes later, he was calmer, and sleepy. We were concerned that he may have broken his fingers, but it seemed better that he should rest. Before he dropped off I gave him another Arnica. He slept quietly for about 2 hours.

When he woke, he was happy to let us see his hand. His fingers were a little swollen, and the bruising was there, plain to see. But he seemed okay. Soon, he wanted to get down, and he sat on and rode a toy fire engine.  He gripped the steering wheel with both hands. No broken fingers, just a little boy playing, almost as if he had not trapped his fingers.

Sometimes, Homeopaths can get blasé about the power of Homeopathy. At times like this it shows us just how remarkable it can be.

Patient Choice, the NHS, the British Government, and banning Homeopathy

Does the British Government agree with Patient Choice - when it comes to the choice of medical therapy. Patient Choice is certainly Government policy; just as it is the policy of every political party in Britain. 

But does it actually believe in it?

My answer is 'Yes, maybe'. In a recent written Parliamentary answer, Minister of Health, Anne Milton, stated:

          "The Department does not maintain a position on any particular complementary or alternative therapy including *homeopathy*. It is the responsibility of local national health service organisations to make decisions on the commissioning and funding of such treatments, taking into account their safety and clinical and cost-effectiveness and the availability of suitably qualified/regulated..."

Earl Howe, another Health Minister in the House of Lords, gave an identical response (11th June 2012). This statement shows not only that the Government is committed to Patient Choice, but also to local, rather than centralised, decision making - which again is highly commendable.

The problem is that up-and-down the country, local NHS Primary Care Trust (PCTs) are refusing to allow patients who want to use Homeopathy, and other CAM therapies, to have access to it.

So unfortunately, Patient Choice, and local decision making do not go well in this situation. The reason for this has nothing to do with effectiveness, or safety, or local funding issues - but it has everything to do with the monopoly position of Conventional, drug-based medicine within the NHS, and the determination to maintain it, at any cost.

Several months ago I spoke to my former MP, Louise Menche about this. I ascertained that Louise is no friend of Homeopathy, or CAM therapies generally. But we did agree that within each PCT (or within each of the new GP-led commissioning organisations) there should be a member of staff who is willing, and sufficiently qualified, to respond to patients who wish to receive 'drug-free' treatment. This would be a simple solution to this problem of implementing Patient Choice.

Access to medical treatment on the NHS is a right every citizen has (not least because every citizen has paid for it!) Every patient should also have the right to choose the treatment he/she wishes to receive. As I said to Louise Menche, I did not want to choose the treatment she wanted for herself. Similarly, no-one should be trying to prevent people choosing other options, which the Conventional Medical Establishment is certainly seeking to do at the moment.

So the issue is no longer one of belief, and the policy is in position - it is now just a matter of implementation. Unfortunately, the Government has not yet recognised that in order to implement Patient Choice, effectively, it has to take more action to enable it.

POSTSCRIPT
March 2019
The situation is now much worse. Even doctors who wish to prescribe homeopathy are now not permitted to do so. I wrote about this is 1917.

And in many other countries of Europe, measures to enforce mandatory drugs and vaccines are being enacted. This link shows the situation in every European country.