Thursday, 22 February 2018

Antidepressant Drugs. Why is the Mainstream Media an Echo Chamber for the Pharmaceutical Industry?

BBC News is promoting pharmaceutical drugs, yet again! Today, it is Antidepressant Drugs. And in doing so it is failing to provide the public with full and accurate information about these drugs.

The study they having been referring to is 'Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis', published in the Lancet. BBC News has featured this study throughout the day (22nd February 2018). The headlines provided  are

  • The study provides 'compelling evidence' that antidepressant drugs work, and are effective.
  • The arguments about the drugs "have been settled".
  • This is good news for patients and clinicians.
  • More people should be taking the drugs.
  • One person is quoted saying that there was a stigma, a reluctance to take the drug, which was unnecessary, and that 'talking therapies' did not work for him.
All this is 'compelling evidence' that has 'settled the argument' is taken from the study, and the BBC article covering the study can be found here. Other mainstream news agencies have also covered the study in much the same way, regarding it as authoritative, and all reporting it without question or reservation. So what are the questions that should have been asked?

Who funded the study?
BBC News never asked! But the study itself provides a large list of pharmaceutical companies who paid for the study. In the 'declaration of interest' at the end of the study the companies mentioned include:
  • Eli Lilly, Janssen, Meiji, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Takeda Science Foundation, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, Otsuka, TEVA, Geodon Richter, Recordati, LTS Lohmann, and Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Lundbeck, Otsuka, SanofiAventis, Servier, Otsuka and Meiji, Yoshitomi.
It is well known (except perhaps by the mainstream media) that research funded by pharmaceutical companies routinely produces more positive and favourable results than research that is funded independently.

How effective were antidepressant drugs found to be?
BBC News never asked, although it did say that each drug was tested against "dummy pills" (or placebo). What this means is that antidepressant drugs are better than nothing! Did the drugs cure the condition? If so, in how many patients? If not, to what extent was the depression relieved?

And how effective are antidepressant drugs compared to 'talking therapies'? Other than producing one person who said that talking therapies did not help, but drugs did, the BBC did not bother to ask!

Were antidepressant drugs found to be more or less effective than herbal treatments, homeopathy, acupuncture, etc. BBC News did not ask, perhaps because they never acknowledge the existence of any of these alternative medical therapies!

What are the side effects of antidepressant drugs?
BBC News never asked and never mentioned these either. Whenever they report the benefits of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines they rarely do, and if they do they only ask conventional doctors (so called 'experts') who, of course, have no vested interest in providing their answer!

Yet the answer is well known to the conventional medical establishment because it is published in the doctor's drug bibles, the British National Formulary (BNF), MIMS and similar. These include serious withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness, headache, irritability, sleep disturbance, nightmares, psychosis, and seizures. In many parts of the world, including Britain, all antidepressants come with a warning about their use in children and adolescents. They also increase the risk of suicidal thinking, suicidal behaviour and violence. 

These side effects are available online on websites such as Drugs.com, Rxlist.com, and others, although the pharmaceutical industry is now buying into these too! So I have outlined the serious side effects of the many kinds of antidepressant drugs in this article.

BBC News presumably is presumably not aware of these side effects, perhaps thought that their recommendation for more people to take them should not be qualified in any way!

Why is this evidence reported when other evidence is ignored?
Other studies, including many published by the Lancet, have not been reported. Why is this? Is it because they are more critical, more questioning of the value of antidepressant drugs?
Many similar studies are ignored by the mainstream media. So the reason for highlighting this research seems clear - it is about the rehabilitation of antidepressant drugs.

Drug Rehabilitation. How will this study be used?
The BBC article makes it clear that this is an important study for the pharmaceutical industry. Here are some of the comments that can be found in it.
  • "Scientists say they have settled one of medicine's biggest debates after a huge study found that anti-depressants work". (My emphasis).
  • The authors of the report ... said it showed many more people could benefit from the drugs.
  • The Royal College of Psychiatrists said the study "finally puts to bed the controversy on anti-depressants". (My Emphasis).
  • The lead researcher is quoted as saying "This study is the final answer to a long-standing controversy about whether anti-depressants work for depression". (My emphasis).
  • A Royal College of Psychiatrists spokesperson said: "This meta-analysis finally puts to bed the controversy on anti-depressants, clearly showing that these drugs do work in lifting mood and helping most people with depression". (My emphasis).
All these statements indicate that medical science has decided that the concerns and controversy surrounding these drugs are matters no longer to be discussed. Medical science is telling us that it has given its final decision. There is to be no more examination, no more questioning. And the mainstream media will no doubt go along with this too. It has done so before!

The MMR Vaccine and the Thompson Debacle
Take-up of the MMR vaccine plummeted following links with the Autism epidemic. It was a matter of concern for the conventional medical establishment so the pharmaceutical industry funded several 'scientific' research projects in the early 2000's which determined that no such link existed. Since that time the issue has never been discussed in the mainstream media, including the BBC. It is out-of-bounds. I suspect that this study will be used in the same way - to stifle discussion, to censor information, to keep the public misinformed.

The censorship has continued. In September 2014 Dr William Thompson, one of the co-authors of one of these 'conclusive' studies, admitted that the researchers had destroyed evidence that would have led to the conclusion that there was, indeed, a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. I have blogged about this situation several times. The information regarding this situation was clear then, and it remains clear now. What Thompson revealed concerns corruption throughout the conventional medical establishment, including bogus medical science and crooked drug regulators.
 
But the information has never been published by the mainstream media.

I made a formal complaint to the BBC about their failure to report this, but was informed that it was not a matter of public concern, and that BBC editors had lots of other stories to cover!


Why do I focus on BBC News reporting?
The BBC is a public service broadcaster. It is paid for by licence fee payers. Other news organisations are funded by advertisers, and it has been calculated that the pharmaceutical industry provides as much as 70% of this advertising revenue. This not an excuse, the public have a right to full and honest information about the drugs they are prescribed. But it is a reason. The BBC has neither reason nor excuse.

Antidepressant drugs are failing, but just as with the MMR vaccine, they are highly profitable for the pharmaceutical industry. As the BBC article states,

               "There were 64.7 million prescriptions for the drugs in England in 2016 - more than double the 31 million in 2006 - but there has been a debate about how effective they are, with some trials suggesting they are no better than placebos."

Perhaps this is the only piece of honesty in the entire article, although to be fair, the BBC has engaged in the antidepressant debate in the recent past.
I suspect that this research may be intended to end this critical debate - certainly as far as the conventional medical establishment is concerned, and most likely our mainstream media too. Whether the BBC will also draw back into the safety of conformity remains to be seen.

Health Freedom, Informed Consent and Patient Choice
The debate does matter. No-one should be expected to accept any form of medication or treatment without being fully aware of both the potential benefits and the possible dangers. In caving in to the conventional medical establishment over the Autism, MMR vaccine link, the mainstream media, including the BBC, has allowed parents to put their children in danger with the vaccine for the last 15 years or more.

They now have to decide if their viewers, listeners, readers and licence payers deserve to be given full and honest information about antidepressant drugs.

 

Monday, 19 February 2018

Epilepsy and the use of Cannabis in Conventional Medicine

Conventional medicine likes to be in control! It dominates the NHS, it dominates our thinking about ill-health, its causes and treatments. Despite 'patient choice' being a key policy of all British political parties, and the government espousing the idea of 'no decision about me without me' in its 2010 White Paper on health, doctors continue to be arrogant enough to think they always know best!

There have been several cases in recent years when patients have wanted treatment but were thwarted by the NHS. And it would appear that there is another on its way.  This is the story, as I understand it.

A six-year-old boy, Alfie Dingley has a "rare and aggressive" form of epilepsy which causes multiple seizures. Apparently Alfie can have up to 30 fits daily, and in one single year suffered 3,000 seizures, and 48 hospital visits. The parents took their son to Holland where a cannabis-based treatment dramatically improved the situation. Whilst there Alfie went 24 days without an attack, and it has been estimate that with the treatment Alfie would only have about 20 seizures a year.

However, the parent's request for this treatment has been denied in the UK by the Home Office because cannabis remains illegal here.

Instead, the NHS offers Steroid injections, for which he has to go into hospital after each attack. As the mother says, correctly, these drugs can cause organ failure, especially with the amount Alfie has to take.
  • Clearly, the Steroid treatment does not work to treat the condition.
  • Clearly, the Cannabis treatment does work in Alfie's case.
  • But to conventional medicine these simple observations appear to make little difference!
Homeopathy treats people with epilepsy, and does so more safely and effectively than any conventional treatment. This morning I checked my homeopathic repertory and there are over 250 remedies that are known to be successful. One of these is Cann-I, or Cannabis Indica. So homeopaths have known the value of Cannabis, and have been using it for a long time - for epilepsy, and many other conditions.

I notice that Alfie's mother says that Alfie's cannabis dose, made from the whole cannabis plant, was "very small" and that he was taking this in just three drops of the oil. This sounds like homeopathy, or something very similar.  It uses two homeopathic principles.

  1. Using a substance that in its normal form can cause the condition - that is, treating like with like.
  2. Using the substance in small, attenuated doses.
What it not doing, which homeopaths would do, is to dilute and succuss until there was nothing of the of the original substance left!


This situation is forcing the parents to raise money to take Alfie abroad to receive the treatment. This is a denial of human rights, the right to treat ourselves (and our children) in the way we think correct, and not according to the dictates of conventional medicine. And in order to get the treatment of their considered and informed choice, it is putting the family to unnecessary inconvenience and expense.

Yet this is typical of conventional medicine, which in choosing treatment for patients discounts 'patients outcome' almost entirely, and operates solely on the basis of the proof provided by 'medical science'. So steroids, dangerous as they are known to be, are okay because they have been tested by pharmaceutical companies. And Cannabis cannot be prescribed because of its addictive qualities, and because it has not been tested and approved by conventional medicine, and the pharmaceutical industry, who will not profit from its use.

This is not an isolated situation. In the USA it is becoming a serious issue. The Dr Mercola website published an article today which stated that the "Minnesota Governor Dayton Refuses to Legalize Medical Marijuana, Despite Parents’ Pleas". This article states that medical marijuana has been extensively studied, with positive results. 

               “To date, more than 15,000 modern peer-reviewed scientific articles on the chemistry and pharmacology of cannabis and cannabinoids have been published, as well as more than 2,000 articles on the body’s natural endocannabinoids. In recent years, more placebo-controlled human trials have also been conducted."

This Health Impact News article, "Medical Cannabis: the real reason the government wants to keep it banned" looks behind the scenes to the vested interests that do not want to allow patients access to the treatment. It's the usual stuff, covered so often in this blog! Vested interests, and governments cozying up to those vested interests, and a conventional medical profession prepared to use dangerous drugs rather than safer treatments - so long as they can make profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

Alfie's parents will not been told about homeopathy for the same reasons. It is a medical therapy that is readily available throughout the UK, but rarely offered to patients by the NHS who prefer patients to take dangerous drugs (even when they do no work) rather than look for alternative treatment. They prefer to force parents to go overseas for treatment rather than to offer simple, safer and more effective treatments in this country.

So my advice to Alfie's parents? Or indeed anyone else who is sick, and prescribed dangerous and ineffective treatment. Seek out a qualified homeopath in your local area (findahomeopath.co.uk) and see whether alternative medicine can offer treatment that is safer and more effective than conventional medicine.

Postscript
I have just heard another account of the situation, and have noticed that Alfie's condition has been described as "rare and aggressive". Whenever I hear that I immediately wonder if the illness has been caused by conventional medicine itself. It is well known that epilepsy is caused by a number of conventional  drugs and vaccines, including pharmaceutical drugs like Amphetamines, Anti-depressants, Anti-psychotics, Antibiotics, Painkillers, and many others.

I also heard that this 'rare and aggressive' condition did not start until Alfie was 8 months old. One of the biggest side effects of childhood vaccines are seizures, and this is the time when children have already received the DPT vaccine, and many have recently received the MMR vaccine. I do wonder if conventional medicine is not only reluctant to treat him, but are reluctant to examine whether vaccines, or some other pharmaceutical drug, is the cause.

Friday, 16 February 2018

Mass killings in the USA. What is the cause? Too many guns? Or too many SSRI Antidepressants? The cause has to proceed the solution.

I write this blog the day after the mass killing incident at the Marjory Stonemason Douglas High School in Florida, USA, when 17 people lost their lives. Already it is suspected that the killer, Nikolas Cruz, was taking prescribed medication, possible SSRI antidepressant drugs.

Such killings are not an uncommon tragedy in the USA. In Britain we hear only of the most serious mass shootings, the one's with the most serious loss of life. Even in America, apparently, they have become so common that not all of them are reported.

The discussion surrounding the incident has, as usual, focused on the gun control laws. Should the government reform them, restrict access to guns. Or uphold the constitutional right of Americans to carry guns for self defence. The focus is not unreasonable - the deaths, after all, are being caused by guns! The gun Cruz used was his gun, his parents made him keep it in a locked gun cabinet, but he had a key.

But is it a sufficient to focus on the gun? Ownership and possession of a gun does not mean that the killer have to use it to kill people.

We hear that Cruz had a troubled past, that he was adopted, and his mother died 3 months earlier of  pneumonia. According to Vaxxter, a family friend has already told a local newspaper, the Sun Sentinel, that Cruz had been on 'medications'.

               “I know she had been having some issues with them ..... He was being a problem. I know he did have some issues and he may have been taking medication. (He) did have some kind of emotional or difficulties.”

Mass shootings have often been linked to pharmaceutical drugs. I wrote about the connection back in 2011 when I first heard evidence linking mass shooters to pharmaceutical drugs, not least to SSRI antidepressant drugs. Since then I have research all the pharmaceutical drugs that are known to cause violence, and these include not only antidepressants, but Antiviral drugs, Benzodiazepine drugs, ADHD drugs, Lariam and Champix (Chantix). As Vaxxter comments:

               "One thing is becoming more and more clear, we need to take a deeper look at what these SSRI medications are doing to our society. We need more awareness and more studies."

I have looked, listened and watched the mainstream media to hear of any recognition of this link between drugs and mass killings, without success. The focus remains on guns.

So what happens in a country does have rigorous gun control laws? In Britain there are not so many shootings, very few in fact. But the problem, instead, is knives and stabbings. How many of the young people involved in this violence are taking pharmaceutical drugs? Perhaps USA citizens will not be surprised that we don't know, because we don't look into it, our focus is on preventing young people getting access to knives!

The problem is that if we don't identify the CAUSES of violence, all the causes of violence, then the problem of violence can never be reduced, leave along resolved.

If it is guns, or knives, we can introduce some measure of control. If pharmaceutical drugs are to blame nothing will be done as the problem is never raised, never considered, never investigated. If it is drugs, and we don't recognise it, all we can do is to wait until the next depressed youngster is given antidepressants, and wait until he decides to kill someone - whether with a gun or a knife!

Postscript 20th February 2018
This latest School Shooting atrocity was also undertaken by young man who was on pharmaceutical drugs. The gun killed the 17 victims; the trigger was pulled by the 'side effects' the conventional medicine.

Postscript 7th May 2018
A new study from Clemson University, published in the Journal of Child and Family Studies, 2018; doi: 10.1007/s10826-018-1096-2, has found that one-third of school mass shooters were taking psychiatric drugs, and that one-third were diagnosed with a mental disorder and were taking psychiatric drugs such as antidepressants.

Doctors continue to leave the NHS in droves, yet another sign of the failure of conventional medicine

Several articles in the doctor's e-magazine this week attracted my attention. I have long been arguing that conventional, drug-based medicine is failing, and that it is this failure that underlies the ongoing crisis in the National Health Service in Britain.

The first article stated that "almost 3,000 GPs retired before the age of 60 over the past five years". There are probably two reasons for this, doctors are well paid and many might feel financially able to retire early. Or, of course, working in the NHS is such a stressful job doctors want to get out of it as soon as they can. Reading the comments of doctors on articles published in the magazine the main reason seems to be the latter.

Yet what can be more rewarding than working as a doctor helping patients, and curing illness and disease? 

The problem is, as I have long argued in this blog, is that this is just not happening. And what job is less rewarding than treating sick patients who continue coming back, no better, or even sicker?

The government is aware of the problem of GP shortage, and have taken action. The second article reveals that result of these government measures. "Number of GPs continues to decline as 200 leave in three months".  As the article says, "the GP workforce in England is continuing to decline with 219 full-time equivalent GPs lost to the profession since September (2017)". Clearly not a helpful situation when the NHS continues in crisis, and patients find it difficult to book an appointment with a GP!

The inevitable result of an increasingly sick population and a declining number of doctors is that the remaining doctors have an increased workload. This is what the third Pulse article confirms. "Over 80% of GPs say workload has worsened since GP Forward View". The article is based on a Pulse survey of NHS doctors which concluded that "the Government's £2.4bn general practice rescue package has failed to relieve GP workload two years on".

The failure of conventional medicine, dominated by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines as it is, has been ongoing now since the NHS made them available to everyone, free at the point of use, 70 years ago. It has been quite predictable. And whilst the conventional medical monopoly with the NHS continues, the NHS will continue to fail, or the entire system will be bankrupted.

It is time patients started to take action, for the sake of heir own health, and say 'No' to pharmaceutical drugs, and begin to demand safer, more effective medical therapies.

Thursday, 15 February 2018

Regular Headaches? Pharmaceutical Drugs are a massive cause, and good for repeat business!

I crashed my DIEs website at the weekend! I was writing a new page on the adverse drug reactions known to cause headaches, and migraines. First, I was amazed at how many pharmaceutical drugs caused headaches. Then I found a page on the Right Diagnosis website that produced a list of 2,796 substances that are know to cause headaches. Most of these substances were pharmaceutical drugs! So I copied these on to the page, tried to save it, and the programme crashed! Eventually I found that the page was just too long, the programme was just too long.

It was a temporary problem. The page is now up and running, with all 2,796 drugs listed!

Since beginning to write this book on DIEs (the Disease Inducing Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs), which now has over 50 illness, I have been amazed not just by the amount of damage drugs can cause to our health, but the amount of evidence there is to support the fact that they do so. In the main, this is evidence that is kept from us.

Yet writing this particular page, on headaches, it clearly demonstrated something else. What a brilliant business the pharmaceutical industry is!

When we get a headache our usual response is to reach for the painkillers. So a condition that is so often CAUSED by a pharmaceutical drug is usually treated by ANOTHER pharmaceutical drug.

So we have then taken two pharmaceutical drugs, each one providing its own side effects, and combining together to produce more!

Those side effects, which are not just 'headaches', or a 'dry mouth', but can become serious diseases like arthritis, allergy, anxiety and depression, cancer, confusion and dementia, epilepsy, heart and kidney failure, pneumonia, and much else.

And when we contract these serious illness, conventional doctors presents us with more drugs. So whilst the pharmaceutical industry gets richer, we get sicker. And as we get sicker, our National Health Service finds that it cannot cope, and year by year has to demand more money, more resources. These resources are spend on more drugs, more vaccines, making them even richer, and us even sicker, and the NHS closer to bankrupcy.

And this is then all blamed on an ageing population! People like me, I suppose, someone in my 70's, who has not received any conventional medical treatment since he was in his late 20's! It is homeopathy that helps me when I get ill. It has cured my gastric ulcers, my heart palpitations, and my migraines, and done all this WITHOUT side effects, and without making me sicker.

But then homeopathy has always been a lousy business! Instead of making people sick, and creation more business, it makes patients well, it cures them. And they no longer require us. It is a really bad business model - but great for patients!

Monday, 12 February 2018

Smoking. Quit with E-Cigarettes? Or with Homeopathy?

Conventional medicine has been uncertain about whether E-cigarettes, an electronic device that delivers nicotine vapour to our lungs, should be used for patients who want to stop smoking. However, it would appear that the NHS has reached a decision. E-cigarettes are now tone considered "a medical device".

This represents a bizarre situation in the UK. The conventional medicine establishment being prepared to pay for e-cigarettes whilst at the same time trying to ban homeopathy from NHS funding!

The NHS Choices website, which is the website I generally use to outline conventional medical treatment for illness, says that E-cigarettes "allows you to inhale nicotine without most of the harmful effects of smoking, as the vapour contains no tar or carbon monoxide". It says that research has found that e-cigarettes can help in giving up smoking, and that patients "may want to try them rather than the medications listed above". It says that it expects "medicinally licensed e-cigarette products become available" soon, and that doctors "will be able to prescribe them". The advice until then is to buy a device.

Stop Smoking with Conventional Medicine?
As the main reason for smoking is addiction to nicotine the idea that a device to introduce nicotine to the lungs might stop the addiction seems rather fanciful!. So what are the alternatives to e-cigarettes?This is what the NHS Choices website offers.

          Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)
NRT is described as a medication that provides the patient with a low level of nicotine, without the tar, carbon monoxide and other poisonous chemicals present in tobacco smoke. NHS Choices says that it can help reduce unpleasant withdrawal effects, such as bad moods and cravings, which may occur when you stop smoking. It come in many different forms, as skin patches, chewing gum, inhalators, tablets, oral strips and lozenges, and nasal and mouth sprays. The treatment is said to last between 8-12 weeks. It says that although most people can use these, "it may be advisable to get medical advice first, for example, if you have kidney or liver problems".The following side effects are then reported
  • skin irritation when using patches
  • irritation of nose, throat or eyes when using a nasal spray
  • difficulty sleeping (insomnia), sometimes with vivid dreams
  • an upset stomach
  • dizziness
  • headaches
As usual, NHS Choices is rather conservative in letting patients know about the full side effects. The Medicine Plus website is slightly more forthcoming, saying that "all nicotine products may cause side effects",  including those mentioned above, but addition some 'special concerns'. Contrary to NHS Choices it states that this treatment may NOT be completely safe in pregnant women, and they should be kept from children as "nicotine is a poison'.

               Varenicline (Champix)
This is NHS Choices next suggestion. This is a drug that seeks to reduce cravings for nicotine but also to block "the rewarding and reinforcing effects of smoking". It has the audacity to claim that "evidence suggests it's the most effective medication for helping people stop smoking".

It is a pharmaceutical drug that has one of the worst safety records!

So it is only available on prescription, and is 'not recommended' for children under 18 years of age, women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, people with kidney problems, and as usual admits to only a few of the less serious side effects, including feeling and being sick, insomnia, vivid dreams, dry mouth, constipation or diarrhoea, headaches, drowsiness and dizziness. The Drug.com website is more honest, listing side effects such as
  • difficult or laboured breathing
  • hyperventilation
  • tightness in the chest
  • Anger
  • anxiety
  • feeling sad or empty
  • feelings of panic
  • irregular heartbeats
  • irritability
  • loss of interest or pleasure
  • mood swings
  • restlessness
  • seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not there
  • insomnia, sleepwalking, abnormal dreams, nightmares
  • thoughts of killing oneself
  • difficulty having a bowel movement (stool)
  • general feeling of discomfort or illness
  • lack or loss of strength
  • nausea, vomiting
  • stomach pain, heartburn, indigestion
  • body aches or pain
and many others. Anyone considering taking this drug should read this long list of serious side effects rather than believing that the information provided by conventional medicine is an honest and transparent account of its dangers to our health!

               Bupropion (Zyban)
This drug is the next recommendation, "a medication originally used to treat depression, but it has since been found to help people quit smoking". It is available on prescription only, and again, it is not recommended for children under 18, women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, people with epilepsy, bipolar disorder or eating disorders. And again it mentions just a few minor side effects, such as dry mouth, insomnia, headaches, feeling and being sick, constipation, difficulty concentrating and dizziness. As usual, the Drug.com website can add considerably to this list.
  • Anxiety
  • hyperventilation
  • irregular heartbeats
  • irritability
  • restlessness, inability to sit still, need to keep moving,
  • shaking
  • buzzing or ringing in the ears (tinnitus?)
  • skin rash, hives, or itching
  • confusion
  • false beliefs that cannot be changed by facts
  • having extreme distrust of people
  • seeing, hearing, or feeling things that are not there
  • seizures
  • Actions that are out of control
  • anger, assaulting or attacking others, being aggressive or impulsive
  • chest pain or discomfort
  • fast or pounding heartbeat
  • constipation
  • stomach pain
  • unusual weight loss
  • Blurred vision
Stop Smoking with Homeopathy?
So for people who wish to stop smoking, conventional medicine can either offer drugs with serious side effects, and now e-cigarettes - which is just a different way of assuaging the addition to nicotine. So what does homeopathy have to offer. The Doctors Health Press website provides several alternative means of breaking the smoking habit, including this list of homeopathic remedies.

Tabacum
Tabacum is a remedy made from tobacco. It helps for those that experience nausea, motion sickness, vomiting with cold sweats, watery diarrhoea, vertigo, paleness, angina and palpitations, depression, and sexual weakness. Cold air improves symptoms, but things worsen from heat.

Caladium Seguinum
Caladium sequinum helps with those that cannot experience a bowel movement without having a cigarette first. Other symptoms present when caladium is necessary may include asthma, nausea, vertigo, headaches, impotency, depression, nervousness, and sensitivity to noise.

Ignatia
Ignatia is used when there is an aversion to tobacco smoke. Common symptoms (treated) will include toothaches, spasms, twitches, tics, faintness, and chilliness. They also have suppressed grief, anger, shock, and fear. They are also an idealist and become sensitive quite easily. Symptoms worsen from touch.

Lobelia
Lobelia is made from Indian tobacco. It is used for smoking withdrawal, especially when the person has asthma, emphysema, a weak stomach, indigestion, vomiting, intense nausea, vertigo, cold sweats, and a lot of saliva. The person is also a hypochondriac, and fear leads to shortness of breath.

Nux Vomica
Nux vomica is appropriate when the person experiences irritability, depression, stress, insomnia, and anxiety when they are trying to quit smoking. Besides cigarettes, the person will also likely abuse other stimulants like alcohol, drugs, and coffee. The person is also very quite critical, driven, and uptight by nature. They also have a lot of unsatisfied urges.

Plantago
Plantago will help create a dislike for tobacco. The person’s symptoms will include facial neuralgia, earaches, toothaches, eye pain, restlessness, irritability, red wetting, depression, and insomnia from tobacco. Movement seems to improve symptoms, but things worsen from touch and resting.

Staphysagria
Staphysagria is great for people with addictive tendencies, including the need for tobacco, alcohol, food, TV, sex, and attachments to relationships. Hunger is also common, along with cravings for milk, bread, and sweets. The person is also obsessed with sex and masturbation. Tobacco use will cause angina, heartburn, coughing, itchy skin, and frequent cystitis. Suppressed rage and anger are also common.

There are many other homeopathic remedies that can help eliminate the craving for nicotine Arnica is good for reducing craving), and the withdrawal symptoms people experience when trying to stop smoking (Avena Sativa is particularly useful for this). In contrast to conventional treatments, all these homeopathic treatments are safe. So what is the NHS proposing to do?
  • To ban the safe treatments
  • To promote the unsafe treatments
Does this sound like a reasonable or rational health policy?

Friday, 9 February 2018

Patient harm? Medical blunders are bankrupting the NHS! Or is it just dangerous medicine?

Homeopaths, who are members of the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, are obliged to take out indemnity insurance. It costs them less that £50 per year.

Conventional medical doctors are complaining that they cannot afford to pay for their indemnity insurance, so the NHS is helping them pay for it. For more on this see my blog, "Indemnity. What happens when doctors harm patients?"

These two facts should indicate, to anyone who is looking for such an indication, that homeopathy is a considerably safer medical therapy than conventional medicine.

Now, we are told, pay-outs for 'medical blunders' have reached such a peak that they represent around 60% of the UK's annual spend on healthcare, and that the BMA and the AMRC have warned that if the full £65 billion compensation is paid to damaged patients, the NHS could be bankrupted!

A WDDTY article states that negligence and malpractice claims have risen alarmingly in the past few years: in 2014, the total liability stood at £29 billion, and so it has more than doubled in a couple of years. As it says, the NHS costs UK taxpayers around £105 billion a year.

So quite amazingly the NHS will soon be paying out more for the outcomes of conventional medical treatment than the treatment itself!

WDDTY says that patient groups are worried that the spiralling payments could result in cases being 'brushed under the carpet,' or creating a wall of silence and denial in NHS hospitals. Actually, this is already happening - and indeed it has been happening for decades. This is why patients still do not know about the full horror of the harm that is caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines!

This story has even reached the UK's national press - unusual for them to publish anything 'negative' about conventional medicine!

          The Mail's headline was "Justice Secretary is warned to cut 'staggering' payouts for NHS blunders or the health service will go bankrupt". The article manages to place the blame entirely on 'medical mistakes', 'negligence' or 'blunders', rather than the inevitable outcome of practicing medicine that is INHERENTLY DANGEROUS! Indeed, the article manages to make no mention whatsoever of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines!

               At least the Telegraph article, "Cutting compensation for those maimed by the NHS would be 'hideously unfair'" seems more concerned about damaged patients than the finances of the NHS. But it also manages to make no mention of the harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines!

We all know the reason for this media silence (or is it censorship)! The pharmaceutical industry funds the mainstream press, some estimates say to the tune of 70%. Clearly, it is unwise to bite the hand that feeds you!

So patients are harmed, but led to believe that they are being harmed because of medical negligence, mistakes, or blunders. So it is individual doctors who have to pay the price and not the medical system they operate. The pharmaceutical companies, meanwhile, take the profits, and pay little or nothing in compensation to patients. Their drugs and vaccines have been used "in error" by these doctors. Apparently it is not the fault of the drugs!

Yet doctors don't pay the price or their errors either. Or when they do, as in the current case of a junior doctor at a Leicester hospital being struck off the register, there is an outcry. "Unfair", is the message. Why should the doctor be blamed?

Which leaves the question - who is to blame for the levels of patient harm that is now threatening to bankrupt the NHS? It's not the blunders of doctors! It's not the pressure doctors have to work under within the NHS! It is not an underfunded or badly organised NHS!

It is the drug-dominated medical system that dominates the NHS!

If the conventional medical establishment could admit this a solution would be readily available. Move away from pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and bring in more homeopathy, and other safer, more effective medical therapies. So what is the NHS doing? It is proposing to ban homeopathy!

And so it goes on!


Tuesday, 6 February 2018

Yellow Fever. Treatment and Prevention

There is an epidemic of Yellow Fever in Brazil that is causing some panic. It is claimed that the epidemic started with the deaths last year of hundreds of monkeys in the rain forest in the states of Rio de Janeiro, Espirito Santo and Sao Paulo, and then began to affect the human population. In January WHO confirmed that the number of confirmed cases has tripled in January and is advising that foreign travellers get vaccinated before visiting. The timing is interesting, just weeks before the annual Carnival which attracts thousands of tourists to the country.

Brazilians, too, are lining up for the yellow fever vaccination, alarmed by the increase in the number of fatal cases of infection. Yellow fever is a viral disease transmitted by mosquitoes in tropical regions, and continues to be a major killer in Africa and other parts of the world. During the 19th century, when Yellow Fever epidemics were often experienced, homeopathy had the best record of treating it. Conventional medicine had little to offer.

And conventional medicine still has little to offer. Web MD says this, admitting not only that there is no treatment, but even the drugs used to treat the external symptoms come with inherent dangers to patient health:

                "Because there is no cure for the viral infection itself, medical treatment of yellow fever focuses on easing symptoms such as fever, muscle pain, and dehydration. Because of the risk of internal bleeding, avoid aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs if you suspect you have yellow fever. Hospitalization is often needed."

So it is little wonder that the Brazilian epidemic has produced panic, and a call for people to get vaccinated. NHS Choices says this about the yellow fever vaccine.

               "There's a very effective vaccine that can stop you getting yellow fever if you're travelling to an area where the infection is found."

Very effective? But even NHS Choices admits that it cannot be given to babies under nine months of age, pregnant and breastfeeding women, people over the age of 60, people with weakened immune systems, and people who are allergic to any of the ingredients in the vaccine, including people with an egg allergy. So for all these people there is no treatment, and no vaccine!

Which leads to the question, why are these people unable to have the vaccine. The reason, of course, is that it is not safe - it comes with a whole host of serious adverse vaccine reactions which are listed on the Drugs.com website.

  • Confusion
  • convulsions (seizures)
  • coughing
  • difficulty with breathing or swallowing
  • fast heartbeat
  • feeling of burning, crawling, or tingling of the skin
  • nervousness or irritability
  • reddening of the skin
  • severe headache
  • skin rash or itching
  • sneezing
  • stiff neck
  • throbbing in the ears
  • unusual tiredness or weakness
  • vomiting
  • Difficulty with moving
  • joint pain
  • muscle aching or cramping
  • muscle pains or stiffness
  • pain at the injection site
  • swollen joints

Well, to be fair, NHS Choices did not actually say the vaccine was safe! However, it was only prepared to admit that the vaccine had a few 'minor' side effects - a headache, muscle pain, a mild fever and soreness at the injection site, which would soon go away anyway! This is not exactly a lie, just the omission of the whole truth! Dishonest perhaps?

Yet is the vaccine the best option, as there is no treatment? Well, not exactly, homeopathy was able successfully to treat 19th century epidemics of Yellow Fever - so is it able to treat the disease now? Well, yes it is; but no-one should not expect to find this mentioned by the conventional medical establishment. And certainly it is not being mentioned to Brazilians, or to anyone planning to visit Brazil for the Carnival.

So I am now off to write another page in my "Why Homeopathy?" website on the treatment of Yellow Fever. It is available at this link - see you there!


Monday, 5 February 2018

Huntington's Disease. No conventional treatment, but can Homeopathy help?

Yesterday evening (4th February 2018) I watched a BBC 1 Television programme "Call the Midwife". It is a popular, long-running, and extremely good series that raises many important social and medical issues from the 1950's and 1960's, mainly to do with pregnancy and childbirth. Last night's episode featured a woman, and her young daughter, who had Huntington's disease, and its treatment.

The episode was set in 1963, and the doctor said that 'there was no treatment' for the condition. Whilst watching I wondered what conventional medicine had to offer patients today, over 50 years on. So I went to the NHS Choices website, and found this explanation.

               "There's no cure for Huntington's disease. Its progress can't be reversed or slowed down, although this is the goal of many research projects."

It says that goes on to say that "some of the features of Huntington's disease can be managed with medication and therapies, which may be coordinated by specialist teams". These therapies include speech and language therapy, and occupational therapy, and emphasises the importance of regular exercise.

In other words, conventional medicine still has no treatment for this disease.

As a homeopath I have never treated a case of Huntingdon's disease (once called Huntingdon's Chorea) but I was aware that homeopathy was able to treat 'involuntary movement', and many other other features of Chorea. In researching I found one interesting website that listed a number of remedies that have been successfully used in the treatment of this progressive disease. So I wrote another page for my "Why Homeopathy?" website, which compares conventional with homeopathic treatment for many illnesses. 

The major point to make here is that when conventional doctors tell patients there is no treatment for a disease, Huntington's disease or any other, or that the only treatment available is by dangerous drugs with potentially health harming side effects, it is true only to the extent that CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE has no treatment. It is always wise to check whether treatment is available outside the monopolistic world of the conventional medical establishment!

It is also an indication of the progress, or rather the lack of progress, made by conventional medicine in the treatment of illness and disease. Huntington's Disease was first recognised and described in 1872 when an American doctor, George Huntington, wrote a paper called 'On Chorea', since when the disorder he described obtained its name. "Chorea" is a Greek word meaning chorus or a group of dances, and is now the term used for many "dancing disorders" that were first noticed in the Middle Ages. The involuntary muscle jerks and twitches which are characteristic of the condition were thought back then to about being 'possessed by devils'. Even through the 18th and 19th centuries the disease was poorly understood. Then in 1993 it was discovered that a gene was involved, and ever since this has been described as a major breakthrough. But a breakthrough to what, exactly?

  • So the disease has been known for centuries.
  • It was first described and named over 150 years ago.
  • It is over 50 years from the time featured in the television programme.
  • And it is now 25 years since the connection with our genes was discover.
And still conventional medicine has no treatment!

Of course, the conventional medical establishment always promises new miracles drugs, wonder cures, and it does so on a regular basis. The last was in December 2017, heralded in all the mainstream media. But they have never amounted to anything, and that is why NHS Choices is still having to admit that "there is no cure for Huntington's disease". Stories about the 'breakthroughs' of medical science is all part of the propaganda campaign that has been going on for centuries - that conventional medicine is winning the war against disease.

It is not! So if anyone if looking for treatment of this awful disease a more worthwhile route may be to look at what alternative medical therapies, particularly homeopathy, able to offer. Begin with my 'Why Homeopathy?' page, and then look for a qualified homeopath near where you live.



Thursday, 1 February 2018

STROKE, and Epidemics of Chronic Disease. Conventional medicine refuses to admit that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are the cause

It is one of the main news stories on the BBC this morning: Average Age of First Stroke in England Falls. This gist is that the average age of people in England who have a stroke for the first time has fallen over the past decade, from 71 to 68 for men, and from 75 to 73 for women. These come from figures published by Public Health England between 2007 and 2016. Over the same period the proportion of first-time strokes suffered by 40 to 69-year-olds rose from 33% to 38%. PHE commented that the data showed strokes do not just affect older people and urged more people to be aware of the symptoms.

I have five main observations to make about these new health statistics.....

First, strokes are not the only illness or disease that is striking at an increasingly younger age. I am old enough to remember when CANCER was considered to be a disease associated with ageing! The age when DEMENTIA and ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE is striking is reducing, some people who are in their 30's and 40's. I believe statistics for HIP AND LIMB REPLACEMENT have also seen reduction in age.

Second, the reasons given by PHE for this phenomenon, with regard to STROKES, are threefold:

  • obesity
  • alcohol
  • smoking

This suggests to me that once again the conventional medical establishment are doing what they always do - looking for reasons to justify the failure of medical treatment, and to deflect attention away from the disease inducing consequences of their pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

  • Obesity is probably on the increase - but enough to explain this phenomenon?
  • There has been no significant increase in alcohol consumption since 2007 to explain what is happening.
  • And there has probably been a significant annual decrease in the amount of smoking since 2007.
So what about the unmentioned cause - pharmaceutical drugs? There are a host of drugs that are known to cause strokes, outline here. They include painkillers, Proton Pump Inhibitors, Beta Blocker drugs, anti-coagulants, steroids, the contraceptive pill, and chemotherapy to mention the main ones. Conventional medicine is fully aware of this, but they are (as usual) in denial. They don't want to admit their culpability; they refuse to admit that the drugs they prescribe to us might actually be a cause of strokes, and the age that first strokes are happening.

This brings me to my third observation. If the conventional medical establishment is in denial about one of the significant causes of stroke, what are its chances of doing anything about it. They might be able to reduce smoking, or alcohol consumption, or even obesity rates. But it is absolutely certain that they will not reduce strokes caused by pharmaceutical drugs! Why? Because PHE have not told anyone that there is a connection between strokes and pharmaceutical drugs!

So if you and I heard the news this morning, and wanted to avoid having a stroke, we might decide to lose weight, or reduce our smoking and alcohol consumption, but we would not stop taking our prescribed medication. After all, these have been given to us by our doctors, and we almost certainly haven't been told about any link to an increased risk of having a stroke.

The fourth point arises from this, that conventional medicine will inevitably fail to reduce the number of strokes, or the age when people have their first stroke. Their refusal to admit that pharmaceutical drugs have played a part, probably an important part in what is happening, will ensure that nothing effective will be done. Obesity, yes. Smoking, yes. Alcohol, yes. But drugs, no. We will continue to take our painkillers, our steroid inhalers, our Rennies to settle our stomach, our warfarin to thin our blood, all without realising that we are increasing our risk of having a stroke at an ever-decreasing age.

My fifth point concerns the mainstream media, and BBC News in particular. They consistently fail to  question the conventional medical establishment, leave alone challenge them. They treat conventional doctors as the experts, the people who know about illness and disease, and how to treat it. They are cravingly compliant, failing to ask searching and challenging questions about why there should be an increase in strokes at a younger age, why many illness are now running at epidemic levels, why they are making ever-increasing demands for more money and resources for the NHS, and why, at the same time, people are still getting sicker.