HPV (Gardasil) vaccine. The most dangerous yet?

Perhaps the HPV vaccine has a lot of competition, but is the Gardasil, Cervarix vaccines the most dangerous to be imposed on us by the conventional medical establishment? 

Perhaps. But maybe the real problem is that this vaccine is given to strong healthy girls, who have proven their wellness and fitness for more than 10 years. Then, our lovely daughters were given the vaccine, and so often, their lives have been destroyed. 

In contrast to this, the DPT and MMR vaccines are given to very young babies and children. Parents might have thought they were normal during the first months of their lives, but perhaps they were mistaken. Perhaps they were not normal, and it was only after the vaccination that the 'abnormality' was noticed.

Just as the pharmaceutical companies had problems denying the outcome of Thalidomide, it is difficult for them to deny the dreadful consequences of taking the HPV vaccine.

And the flu vaccine is often given to older people, or people with respiratory problems. They might get ill after the vaccine, but they might have done anyway. And besides, our doctor, who we trust implicitly, told us that the vaccine was very safe! Who are we to question his judgement?

Yet this does not stop the pharmaceutical industry pushing the HPV vaccine, or governments throughout the world seeking to force it on us. For instance, the Australian government is trying to force our daughters to 'protect themselves' from cervical cancer, and giving their doctors financial incentives to do so. They are doing so as this is an important 'public health' measure. Well, we have heard it all before!

Yet, as Judy Wilyman reminds us, most infectious diseases had declined long before vaccines were introduced. It was basic health measures like better hygiene, clean water, improved diet and decent housing that contained them. Yet the Australian government is planning to expand vaccination to all individuals, with a schedule scanning from birth to death, and including the HPV vaccine. And new bio-security laws introduced in 2014 include forced vaccinations, or arrest in declared pandemics of infectious diseases. It is a land of milk and honey for drugs companies, but could herald the end of health freedom and patient choice.

Some governments have learnt from their mistake. The Japanese government, for instance, placed a moratorium on the use of HPV vaccine in 2014, and many other countries are considering similar action. Judy provides us with the following websites. 

• Gardasil The Carnage continues in France
• India: Supreme Court to Rule on Merck Fraud Regarding HPV Vaccine Deaths
• Spain: First case filed against HPV vaccine manufacturers and health authorities

Yet in truth there are a myriad of websites that speak volumes about the harm the HPV vaccine has caused - in statistical terms, in terms of the various ailments it has caused, from convulsions to paralysis, and most harrowingly of all, in terms of the sheer trauma and devastation caused to young girls, and their families. (For more information on this evidence, and a selection of websites, go to my previous blog, 'HPV vaccine. We need to protect our daughters from this').

So let's look at the conclusions reached on the harm caused by the HPV vaccine in this study, which looked at the latest information, and examined available epidemiological studies. This is the 'plain language' account given on the Med Check: the informed prescriber website.

          "Two HPV vaccines (Cervarix and Gardasil) have been marketed in Japan since 2010. More than 3 million girls were inoculated with HPV vaccines prior to the withdrawal of a recommendation for inoculation by the Japan's Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) in May 2013. 

          "Incidence of serious adverse reactions to Cervarix was 800 among 2.6 million girls inoculated (one in 3000 before withdrawal of the recommendation), while the incidence increased to 3.2% per year after the retraction, using the latest data (3,200 cases per 100,000 person years or one in 30 per year). This is similar to the frequency of serious adverse events within 1.2 years after the first vaccination (annual rate of 2.8%) reported in a well-controlled clinical study of Cervarix. In this study, annual incidence of serious reactions, autoimmune diseases and death after 3.4 years comparing with those between 1.2 and 3.4 years was estimated as 4%, 0.63% and more than one per thousand respectively. These incidence rates may also occur in Japan."  

          "The epidemiologic surveys that the MHLW used as evidence of safety have serious flaws in their methodologies. One study confuses incidence (newly occurred disease among a certain population at a certain point of time) with prevalence. The other two studies have a serious bias known as the “healthy vaccinee effects”. Those vaccinated are usually healthier than those non-vaccinated, because the latter group avoid vaccines due to health problems."

          "While there is no evidence yet that HPV vaccine decreases mortality from cervical cancer, if we assume that the vaccine could cut the cervical cancer mortality by half, the expected maximum benefit would be 2.0 less deaths per 100,000 person-years. Hence, the harm experienced is overwhelmingly greater than the expected maximum benefit."

We strongly recommend avoiding HPV vaccine.

I leave you with this devastating conclusion about a vaccine the conventional medical establishment is trying to force on us all, of course, with the assistance of compliant governments throughout the world.

Heartburn (PPI) Drugs and Dementia

Proton pump inhibitors are 'heartburn' drugs that seeks to reduce acid in the stomach. Some PPI brand names are Nexium, Omeprazole, Prevadic, Prilosex, Pantoloc Control, and Zanprol, amongst many others. They are used to treat stomach and duodenum ulcers for short periods, and to remove bacteria called 'pylori' from the stomach to prevent and stomach cancer. But as with all conventional drugs that seek to 'inhibit' specific bodily functions, PPI drug only cause 'side effects' , in this case, an increase in other bacteria, particularly 'clostridium difficile', or 'C.Dif' which can cause serious, and sometime fatal enteritis.

Indeed, PPI drugs inhibit much more, and by interfering with normal body functions, are known cause more serious harm to normal cell functions.  Heartburn drugs have already been linked to an increased risk of heart attacks and bone fractures, and, of course, to C.difficile infections. But now they have been implicated in causing dementia.

A study, conducted at the German Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases in Bonn, and published in the journal JAMA Neurology, looked at 11 years of insurance data covering 74,000 people over the age of 75. It identified 29,510 patients who developed dementia during the study period, of which 2,950 regularly took PPI drugs. It was calculated that those who took PPIs increased their risk of dementia by 44% compared with those who had not taken the drugs. The researches concluded:

          "The avoidance of PPI medication may contribute to the prevention of dementia." 

Even the mainstream media has picked up on this link, including The Mail, The Express, and The Telegraph. But the study has received a hostile reception from the conventional medical establishment, who have attacked the study in order to protect their reputation. They have pointed out, correctly, that the results provide only a statistical association, and have mostly demanded that more focused trials investigating the link should conducted.

Foremost amongst these critics is the British NHS, in their article "Link between indigestion drugs and dementia 'inconclusive'." The article says that "the Mail's headline sounds scary, but is no cause for alarm. The research behind the story provides no strong reason to stop taking PPIs as prescribed."

So, for the conventional medical establishment, such as association, even with a disease as dreadful as dementia, is insufficient to ensure that prescription of the drug is stopped, pending investigation. Rather, it is assumed that drug is safe (and is given to patients) until such time as it is proven to be harmful or dangerous!
          "This study found people taking PPIs had a 44% higher risk of developing dementia in a seven-year period compared with those not taking the drugs. However, it's not accurate to say this was down to the PPIs – the study couldn't prove this, and there are many possible explanations."

Such is the 'health and safety' rules applying to all pharmaceutical drugs, according to the UKs NHS! First, first the drug has to be proven to be dangerous, by the 'correct' type of study, then once they believe it, theywe will start protecting patients! H&S representatives in any other industry would be overcome with apoploctic rage! And of course neither the British press, or the NHS, mentioned that PPI drugs have been implicated elsewhere!

• There is no mention, for instance, that PPI drugs have already been linked to other serious illness, including heart and kidney disease, and vitamin and mineral deficiencies.
• And there is no mention, anywhere, that there have been other studies that have linked heartburn drug with dementia!

One study, ‘Acid inhibitors may raise risk of developing dementia’, found that they may lead to confusion, delirium and dementia, and particularly that memory problems were seen in older black people, who were chronic users.

Another study, ‘Risk of dementia in elderly patients with the use of proton pump inhibitors’ assessed the association between the use of PPIs and the risk of dementia in older people. It found that patients receiving PPI drugs had a significantly increased risk of any dementia … and Alzheimer’s disease … compared with non-users. They concluded that

     “Due to the major burden of dementia on public health and the lack of curative medication, this finding is of  high interest to research on dementia and provides indication for dementia prevention”.

Yet another study, ‘Inappropriate prescribing of proton pump inhibitors in older patients: effects of an education strategy’ found that there was frequent prescribing of PPI drugs for older patients that was entirely inappropriate, and “independently associated with co-morbidities and dementia”.

Despite all this, until conventional medicine understands, and then accepts the mechanism linking the drug with reduced cognitive function, it is unlikely that doctors will stop prescribing them. The NHS has said so. Patients have been told, don't worry. All is well! And it is well known that millions of patients are taking these drugs, routinely and regularly, throughout the world. 

And, of course, we also know that there has been an epidemic of dementia in recent decades - an epidemic for which the conventional medical establishment has no explanation!

Pharma companies bribe health staff to prescribe drugs and vaccines?

"Pharmaceutical companies are bribing NHS officials in Britain to use their drugs within the NHS. So reported the Daily Telegraph on 27th July 2015., and discussed in my blog, "Drug Companies bribing NHS officials to sell their drugs".

On 16th February 2016, the Telegraph reported that "Ministers launch urgent inquiry into NHS officials' second jobs at drugs firms". 

          "This newspaper has revealed that more than 130 NHS officials involved in assessing which drugs are given to patients are also acting as paid consultants to pharmaceutical companies. Scores of health service staff, most of whom are managers or other senior officials, are receiving generous fees to sit on “advisory boards” for drugs firms whose products they are responsible for considering on behalf of the NHS."


The Telegraph goes on to report that Alistair Burt, the health minister, stated: 

          “These are very serious allegations – an urgent investigation is under way and action will be taken against any NHS staff attempting to influence purchasing decisions in return for payment, gifts or hospitality."

Such a statement is long overdue from a government minister. It adds yet another strata to the deception and fraud to which the UK's National Health Service (NHS) has been subjected to over the years. The findings of the Telegraph enquiry are quite clear and very specific.

• NHS managers can earn up to £1,250 per day advising pharmaceutical firms on selling their products to the NHS, in addition to flights and hotel costs for “meetings” held abroad.
• Three officials at one CCG, Luton, were flown separately to a German spa town for paid advisory board meetings. In December the industry regulator found that the company, Stirling Anglian, had lavished “unacceptable” levels of hospitality on NHS officials.
• The pharmaceutical industry is spending £30 million a year employing officials and doctors as consultants, and another £10 million sponsoring their attendance at events. In total, 138 officials responsible for advising or making decisions on drugs adopted by the NHS were found to have been receiving payments from pharmaceutical firms, based on financial links that were formally registered.

Initially, these claims were denied by NHS managers, but such was the detail of the information the Telegraph provided, the NHS has now had to agree to investigate the allegations. The Telegraph even mentions on NHS manager by name, and mentioned how he had tried to justify the allegations against him.

So what does this mean for patients of the NHS? During the last 70 years, the NHS has been increasingly dominated by medical treatment based on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. These drugs and vaccines have long been known to be dangerous, to the extent that it has been estimated that over 500,000 patients die in Europe and the USA every year. This figure itself probably a severe underestimate of the real number of patients routinely killed by conventional medicine every year, and the amount of illness and disease caused by them, and dismissed as 'side effects'. Yet nothing has been done to stop it!

This raises the important question - why this is happening? And why it has been allowed to happen, so consistently, over decades!

The answer to this question is now becoming clearer. 

The conventional medical establishment is based on deception and fraud.

• The government, and the Department of Health, have either been aware of this, and done nothing about it, or they have been asleep on their job. The UK government, of course, have many reasons for supporting the pharmaceutical industry, which is a major investor in Britain. Presumably these broader economic benefits outweigh the harm being done to patients.
• The NHS, as this investigation highlights, is too close to the drug companies. The drug companies are prepared to spend £millions to make sure that NHS managers spend £billions on their drugs and vaccines, regardless of the harm it does to patients.
• The MHRA (the UK's drug regulator) and NICE (which produces guidance on health technology and clinical practice) have both been similarly infiltrated by the pharmaceutical industry to ensure 'compliance' with their financial objectives, rather than the health and well-being of patients.
• Doctors and health practitioners have also been subjected to the same kind of financial 'incentives' by the pharmaceutical companies to ensure that their drugs are used, even when they are known to cause harm, disease and death.

The Telegraph must be congratulated on this investigation. They have filled in one more important part of the comprehensive 'marketing' strategy of the pharmaceutical industry, and they have convinced the government that it needs to investigate these allegations.

Yet, the silence of the media, over the years, has been an important element in the ongoing dominance of the pharmaceutical industry within the NHS. The board directors of pharmaceutical companies, and the board directors of the large media corporations have been interspersed and interwoven! The media industry is in decline, and their dependence on Big Pharma has been used to ensure that only 'good' news is published about their drugs and vaccines.

In all these situations it is the individual patient who has lost out. We have been told to take this drug, or that vaccine, on the basis that they were safe medications that would benefit our health. However, as time goes on

• it is becoming clearer that the biggest beneficiary of this 'medication' is the fraudulent pharmaceutical companies.
• and the biggest losers are the patients who have accepted what they have been told by the conventional medical establishment.

Yet, none of this should come as a complete surprise to anyone in the British government! In July 2005, the House of Commons Health Committee produced a 126 page report on "The influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry". Anyone can read it! The report examined the influence that the pharmaceutical industry upon the practice of medicine and healthcare in the UK. It was ignored at the time, and it continues to be ignored. The consequence of ignoring it is discussed here in this Dr Rath Health Foundation article by Paul Anthony Taylor

His assessment suggests that there are important questions remaining! 

• Have the people who have benefitted from being part of the conventional medical establishment discovered yet that the pharmaceutical game is up? Or can it just be ignored again? 
• Is the corruption and fraud practiced by the drug companies over the years acceptable any longer? Or can this continue to be brushed aside, in the hope that we might forget about it again? 
• Are the deaths, and the epidemics of chronic disease caused by conventional drugs and vaccines, acceptable any longer? Or will they continue because Big Pharma money is just too influential to stop it happening?

The alternative will be for our government, the department of health, our NHS, our doctors, and our mainstream media, to start informing us now, honestly and openly, about the damage caused to our health by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, particularly over the last 50-60 years?

500,000 deaths per year? Is this even a problem?

In my blog "An epidemic of misinformed doctors and patients" a devastating statistic was quoted - that in the USA and Europe alone, half a million people were being killed each year by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, given to us by conventional doctors to make us better!

I also quoted a BBC presenter (Mishal Husain), who was questioning Dr Assem Malhotra, the doctor who used this statistic, who commented,

          "Drug companies, and others, would say there was always a risk when you take medication"

I have since been wondering in what other field of human activity such a glib response would emanate from the BBC, and our mainstream media outlets?

          "500,000 people are killed each year in this conflict".

Would such a conflict be ignored, passed off as though these people were just 'collateral damage'?

          "500,000 people are killed each year by on our roads".

Would this carnage be dismissed, passed off because of the importance of the haulage industry?

Yet because people are given drugs and vaccines by the pharmaceutical industry, on the pretext of making them better, it would appear that it can be readily discounted!

And as the deaths are caused by conventional doctors, who work on the Hippocratic principle of 'first, do no harm', our media, including our 'public service broadcaster', feels there is nothing worthy of further investigation!

The 500,000 figure is undoubtedly a gross underestimate. It does not include the illness and disease caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, routinely dismissed as 'side effects'. It does not take into consideration that in reporting side effects it is well known, and accepted, that only 10% are ever acknowledged. Does this mean that the figure of deaths could be as high as 5 million deaths per year.

It is quite a remarkable situation that our mainstream media does not believe this situation to be worthy of further investigation. Dr Malhotra did not appear to make the evening news. There appears to be nothing in today's news that there is any further interest.

Yet presumably people are still being given, and taking the drugs and vaccines that are killing them in huge numbers, every year. RIP? Certainly it would appear they have to rest in silence!

Homeopathy in the USA. A sign of the weakness of conventional medicine?

The United States and America is where the threat to health freedom, and patient choice, is at its most extreme. In every state the conventional medical establishment is seeking to make vaccination mandatory, taking away the choice of patients.

Yet the people of the USA are great users of other medical therapies, not the least of which is homeopathy.

An important survey has recently been conducted into the usage of homeopathic medicines in the USA, and published in the most respected public health journal in the USA, 'The American Journal of Public Health'. The survey authors are from Harvard’s School of Public Health and the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, a Harvard Medical School affiliated hospital, and Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH, has kindly outlined some of the more salient facts arising from the survey:

• The survey noted that homeopathic studies “suggest potential public health benefits such as reductions in unnecessary antibiotic usage, reductions in costs to treat certain respiratory diseases, improvements in peri-menopausal depression, improved health outcomes in chronically ill individuals. And the control of a Leptospirosis epidemic in Cuba.”
• The survey analyzed data from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey for the prevalence and patterns of usage of homeopathic medicines among U.S. adults in relation to other complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) use.
• Two-thirds of homeopathy users ranked homeopathy as one of their top three CIM therapies.
• Homeopathy users who saw a professional homeopath were significantly more likely to feel that homeopathy was “very important in maintaining health and well-being” and that it helped their health condition “a great deal” than were homeopathy users who did not see a professional homeopath.
• Previous governmental surveys in 2002 and 2007 found that homeopathy was used by 1.7% and 1.8% of American adults respectively. This new survey found that in 2012 the usage of homeopathy had grew approximately 15% to 2.1% of U.S. adults.
• The usage of homeopathic medicines in the U.S. are considerably lower than in other Western countries, such as Italy (8.2%) and Germany (14.8%).
• The survey, like dozens before it, have found that people who were more educated were more likely to use homeopathic medicines than people who were less educated.
• The most common conditions for which people sought homeopathic treatment were respiratory and ear-nose-and-throat complaints as well as musculoskeletal pain syndromes.
• The researchers concluded that “because of potential public health benefits associated with the use of homeopathy, further research on this modality and targeted studies of users are warranted”.

The study abstract can be found here.

Perhaps the growing popularity of homeopathy, alongside the growing resistance to conventional, drug and vaccine based medicine, is the primary reason for the insidious movement towards mandatory medication in the USA. The pharmaceutical industry is beginning to realise that more and more people see their drugs and vaccines as ineffective and harmful, whilst at the same time, growing numbers of people are looking for safer medical therapies. For the drug companies this combination is a threat to their business, their profits, their influence with national health care systems.

Forcing people to have their drugs and vaccines has become a survival mechanism!

Pharmaceutical companies may see this flexing of muscle as a sign of strength and vigour. Actually, it is a sign of weakness and incipient decline.

"An epidemic of misinformed doctors and patients"

"A complete healthcare system failure"

These are the words of Dr Aseem Malhotra, an NHS cardiologist. His criticism of conventional medicine can be seen in this Daily Mail article, and he could be heard on BBC Radio 4' 'Today' programme today (24th February 2014).

I must admit to being surprised to hear the BBC interview with Dr Malhotra this morning, first because a senior doctor has seen fit to make such statements, and second, the BBC actually featuring anything that is the least critical of pharmaceutical medicine!

Basically, Dr Malhotra is one of six senior doctors, including Sir Richard Thompson, formerly the Queen's former physician, who have criticised the influence of pharmaceutical companies on the NHS. They are calling for a Public Enquiry into the effectiveness of pharmaceutical drugs, and their safety. They are complaining about several matters

• the prescription of too much medicine
• the biased funding of medical research (on drugs likely to be profitable rather than useful)
• commercial conflicts of interest
• biased reporting in medical journals
• biased reporting in the media

I have been making these criticism for over ten years now (I published the original version of 'The Failure of Conventional Medicine' in 2007). I have been asking the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, why they have ignored (censored) this information during all that time, and hitherto I have been studiously ignored!

Patients have faced a news blackout on the dangers and ineffectiveness of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. We have had an embargo on informing the public about the fraudulent activities of drug companies. We have not been informed about the commercial conflicts of interests that clearly exist in the running of drug regulation agencies throughout the world, including the UK's MHRA, and NICE.

Today, the six senior conventional doctors are calling for a 'health debate', something I wholeheartedly support, and have been asking for in a series of blogs in 2012.

In his interview this morning on BBC Radio 4, Dr Malhotra gave some figures from FDA (the USA drug regulator) who estimate that 120,000 people died in 2014 from the adverse reactions to drugs, which was a tripling of these deaths in the last 10 years. He also referred to research which estimated that there were about 1/2 million deaths caused by pharmaceutical drugs in the USA and the European Union together.

Michal Husain, the interviewer, tried to keep to the BBC's traditional line, in support of the pharmaceutical industry.

          "These are sweeping allegation, what is your evidence..?
          "There are always going to be links between doctors and drug companies... that this their work"
          "Drug companies and others would say there was always risks when you take medication"

Yet the figures of deaths given by Dr Malhotra are clearly an underestimate of the damage caused by conventional medical drugs and vaccines. He did not, for instance, speak about the illness and disease they caused, which are routinely dismissed as 'side effects' but which really underlay the epidemics of disease we are currently experiencing. And the death figures cited will not include all those people who have died, but their death have not been associated with pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines on death certificates. There must be literally millions more deaths caused by conventional medication which goes unrecorded. I spoke of one case in my blog "Alzheimer's Disease and the 'Flu vaccine', where a woman died of 'dementia', according to the death certificate, but had received a serious of 'flu vaccinations prior to this.

Is this going to be the start of a new openness in discussion conventional medicine? Will the Government and the NHS pick up on these concerns, and call for a public enquiry? Or will these doctors be ostracised, their reputations attacked, and their careers curtailed? (Andrew Wakefield springs to mind).

And will the media pick up on the request for a health debate? Or will all go quiet again? Will the BBC continue to herald new 'medical breakthroughs', as they have always done, for instance, with Statin drugs? And will they continue to ignore the dangers of conventional treatment, as they have always done, notably with Statin drugs? Dr Malhotra raised the issue of Statins, to illustrate his arguments this morning. On his twitter account, I have noted that several people have asked to learn more about his criticism of these drugs. Will it happen? Will the BBC pick this up? After all, Dr Malhotra is a cardiologist!

We will have to wait and see. But at least it is clear that there are a few doctors within the conventional medical establishment who are willing to present their fears - about 'an epidemic of misinformed doctors and patients', and a 'complete healthcare system failure'.

What homeopathy denialists / skeptics deny

Homeopathy denialists are a small, but vocal group of skeptics whose single task in life appears to be to deny that homeopathy is an effective and safe medical therapy. 

Of course, everyone can and should have an opinion, but homeopathy denialists usually express their opinions in a derogatory and abusive way. Bad language and abuse is usually the preserve of people whose message is tenuous and unsupported, who are limited in the arguments, and short of evidence to support their opinions.

• "Homeopathy does not work!"
• "Homeopathy is placebo!"

These are not so much opinions but statements. Rarely do denialists produce evidence to support their statements. Instead, they turn the burden of 'proof' on to homeopathy, and claim that 'there is not evidence' that homeopathy works, which then leads them into more denial when they have to deny the large and increasing amount of evidence that clearly shows that it works.

So what do homeopathy denialists have to deny?

First and foremost denialists have to deny the experience of hundreds, thousands, and millions of people who have been successfully treated with homeopathy. Homeopathy is now practiced throughout the world. And Homeopathy has been practiced for more than 220 years. What this means is that there are a lot of sick people who have been cured by homeopathy! All the denialists can do is to suggest that we are 'mistaken', or 'lying', or that it is just 'placebo'.

Denialists say they are 'scientists'. Yet the first duty of any scientist, worth the name, to observe the world, and to see what is happening there. If there are things happening that we cannot explain, the responsibility of 'real' science is to seek to explain it. Throughout the ages, this is how human society has developed! Real scientists do not observe that millions of patients have been, and are being cured by homeopathy - and then just deny it!

This gives rise to the second area of denial. There are 'real' scientists who are looking into the homeopathic phenomenon, and several interesting areas of study are emerging that suggest that homeopathy's working mechanism can be explained. But the response of homeopathy denialists is just to deny that these scientists are doing this, or alternatively they denigrate their work, or even undermine the science they are undertaking.

Homeopathy denialists favour another kind of science. They believe that the 'gold standard' of science are randomised, double-blind, controlled tests, or RCTs. This is the kind of science that has told us that conventional medical drugs and vaccines (including many hundreds that have been withdrawn or banned) are effective, and sufficiently safe to give to patients. The problem is that there are now about 200 RCT trials that indicate that homeopathy is more than placebo, that it is more effective than conventional drugs, and that it can and does cure illness and disease.

So this is the third area of denial that homeopathy denialists have to get involved in. The evidence supporting homeopathy provided by these 'gold standard' RCT trials, they say, is poor quality evidence. The numbers of people involved in these studies are too small. The control factors used are inadequate. The data produced does not support the conclusion.

Implicit in this denial is that the RCT evidence supporting conventional pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines ARE valid. Homeopathy denialists tell us that they support of 'evidence-based' medicine, by which they mean conventional medicine, dominated as it is by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Now, these denialists rarely, if ever, openly defend conventional medicine. Whilst they routinely denigrate homeopathy, by contrast, they seem blissfully unconcerned about the damage, disease and death caused by the medicine they believe to be RCT supported!

This, then, is the fourth area of denial that homeopathy denialists are forced to adopt - they have to deny that most conventional medicine is unsafe, and that most is ineffective in the long term. For denialists conventional drug and vaccines are evidence based, and therefore 'good'. Homeopathy, having summarily dismissed and denied the 200 RCT trials supporting it, is 'bad'.

This process leads homeopathy denialists to another conclusion, illogical and unsupported as it is. Anyone opting for homeopathy is putting their lives at risk, because they are refusing to accept the questionable 'benefits' of conventional medicine! Consequently, in their minds, homeopathy becomes a 'dangerous' medical therapy!

The denialists cannot present us with evidence about any patient who has been harmed directly by homeopathic treatment, but this does not prevent them claiming that homeopathy is dangerous! Such a position fits in with their world view, and their deeply unscientific prejudice. Indeed, it marks them out as being some of the most 'unscientific' people who express any views on issues relating to health!

Homeopathy denialists are a small band of people, dedicated to (and perhaps even paid by) the pharmaceutical drugs industry, who largely talk amongst themselves on social media, especially Twitter. I have blogged before on their foul-mouthed and abusive attacks on homoeopathy and homeopaths. This raises an important question. What should be done about them?

My advice? Ignore them! Let them carry on their rants! They have little to offer anyone looking to maintain or regain their health except bile. Homeopathy has a very positive message about an extremely effective, and entirely safe medical therapy that so many people need to know about. With conventional medicine failing so badly (antibiotics, painkillers, statins, et al), homeopathy offers hope for the future, and homeopaths should not expend any energy or time with such people.

For more information about the homeopathy denialists, look at these blogs (some of which contain some extremely foul and abusive language they have used).

• Militant skepticism and homeopathy. What do they have to say?
• Quack! Just another personal attack from a homeopathy denialist.
• Homeopathy and brain haemorrhage? Why such an abusive skeptic response?
• Skeptics insist homeopathy does not work. So what do they have to say?
• Paul Morgan. An angry homeopathy denialist.
• Homeopathy winning the battle against the denialists
• When everyone should give up on homeopathy

When considering the activities of homeopathy denialists, the wise and concise words of William Alderson should be considered.

          “The vitriol of opponents of homeopathy does not reflect an interest in science, but the scale of the threat homeopathy poses to an unscientific, dangerous, but highly profitable exploitation of illness”. William Alderson 3rd March 2016.