Friday, 18 August 2017

They harm us with their drugs, we pay compensation, and then raise more money for them!

If vaccines are safe, why has the US government paid out $3 BILLION to vaccine-injured families? This is the question asked by Natural News, an internet portal that focuses on natural health. It is hated by skeptics, medical fundamentalists, who love medical science, no matter how corrupt it proves to be, and hate anything that are alternative to the promotion of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. They will hate this Natural News article on vaccine damage. Indeed, they will have hated it since March 2015, when it was first published.

That was over two-and-a-half years ago! During that time have you heard an answer from the pharmaceutical industry, or from governments around the world? Has the mainstream media picked up the story in order to verify the truth or otherwise of the story?

Of course not! Instead, governments and mainstream media has been reinforcing the message of the pharmaceutical industry - all vaccines are entirely safe - they are effective - we should all be vaccinated against almost any illness - and if anyone refuses to be vaccinated they should be forced into accepting it.

If the story was not true the pharmaceutical industry would have sued Natural News, and anyone else peddling such an anti-pharmaceutical message. They have not done so. So is the story true! What is the story? It can be summarised in four points.

  • The conventional medical establishment, supported by government, and passively accepted  by the mainstream media, tells us regularly that vaccinations, in all their forms, are safe and effective.
  • The USA government has indemnified the pharmaceutical industry from any responsibility for their vaccines causing injury and damage (which, of course, they don't cause anyway) by setting up the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).
  • VAERS, sometimes called the Vaccine Court, has examined the negative effects of vaccination (which of course never happens) and has awarded $3 billion to vaccines damaged families (which of course do not exist) in less than 30 years.
  • There has been an ongoing failure, by governments and the pharmaceutical industry, to answer the question about why so much money has been paid to vaccine damaged families when these vaccines are effective and entirely safe. There has been a similar failure by the mainstream media to investigate this rather important paradox.
So what is the purpose of the VAERS system? Simply, it is the USA government indemnifying pharmaceutical companies for the vaccine damage cause to patients. 

What does this mean? It means it is the government, rather than the pharmaceutical industry, that pays out compensation to vaccine damaged families. It means that whilst the drug companies cause the vaccine damage, they do not have to take responsibility for that damage. So they profit from selling vaccines, and then leave it to the government to pay out vast amounts of compensation.

Where does the government get its money? VAERS pays vaccine damaged families with public money, the money they raise in tax, from taxpayers. So it is taxpayers who have to foot the bill for something that the rich and powerful pharmaceutical industry should be responsible.

Who are these taxpayers? You and me! Including those amongst us who have had the misfortune to suffer from vaccine damage. In other words, vaccine damaged families are paying themselves for the harm they have suffered through vaccination!

A brilliant business model - should it be replicated elsewhere?
This is a brilliant business model that other industries may want to replicate for itself. Faulty and dangerous goods, of and and every description, could flood the marketplace, causing absolute mayhem, but with the industry having to bear any of the consequences. Of course, the industry would have to be sufficient powerful, sufficiently rich to ensure that politicians and the mainstream media are kept in line, so that the public does not get to hear about it. But it is surely something worth pursuing!

Just think of the benefits. A manufacturer can produce a product without paying too much attention to its efficiency and safety. When the product causes damage and harm to consumers they can call on the government to indemnify them against legal action, and paying financial compensation. And the additional profits this produces can be skilfully used to ensure that the mainstream media does not tell anyone about it. What is there to lose?

So think about the benefits to your industry. You will be able to tell everyone about your products, about their safety and effectiveness, regardless of whether it is true or not. So, hearing nothing to the contrary, we will all want to buy whatever it is that you produce. Indeed, if your product advertising is sufficiently successful, if people can be convinced of the value of what you are selling, you can provide consumers with yet another incentive. You can set up charitable organisations that will raise more money for you, to enable you to do more research and development into your product.

There will be significant costs involved, but all these can come from the amazing profits that can be made from this model of production and marketing.
  • Politicians will have to be kept on-side, with sizeable contributions to their campaign funds, thereby tying them into your business model. No doubt other personal incentives may be necessary from time to time.
  • Governments will have to be kept on-side, with promises of investment in the national economy, and even threats of moving investments out of the country, and similar 'positive' incentives too, as and when required.
  • The mainstream media will have to be kept on-side, by delivering large advertising budgets that maintain their viability, and exchanging directors to work on each other's boards will also be helpful.
  • Supporting charities will have to be kept on side, with large donations to the cause, paid on the basis that they say positive things about your products, and ensuring they are run by people who are sympathetic to your business.
Once you have all this in place, any industry can thrive, even with ineffective and unsafe products, even when they damage families, and ruin the lives of millions. Why on earth have you not thought about such a business opportunity before? Why has the pharmaceutical industry been the only one to adopt this brilliant business plan? It's all beyond me.

Tuesday, 15 August 2017

Antidepressant Drugs, Mental Health, and Chemical Castration

Was 2016 a watershed year for antidepressant drugs? Or should it have been? Is any defence for them now being available for prescription by the conventional medical establishment?

Or have doctors prescribed dangerous drugs for so long now they have got used to the idea of damaging their patients? After all, as I wrote in March 2016, the doctor's medicine cabinet is getting emptier by the day! Doctors are now working under considerable constraint when they want to prescribe blockbuster drugs like painkillers and antibiotics - as a result of the well known dangers of these drugs.

Yet antidepressants are now facing similar concerns about their safety, especially during the current epidemic of mental health.

The mental health charity, Mind, undertook a piece of research in 2012, surveying more than 1,000 patients who were taking antidepressant drugs. It revealed that over half of these people were not warned by doctors about the possible serious side effects, notably to their relationships, their work, and their social life. The study show that

  • Over 60% of antidepressant users felt the medication had a negative effect on at least one aspect of their social life.
  • 44% reported an effect on their sex life.
  • 27% said it affected their work or study.
  • 23% said it impacted on their social life.
Plenty there to get depressed about! Indeed, one of the most notable side effects of antidepressant drugs is depression! Anyway, the doctors magazine, Pulse, has recently covered this story again, and they quoted Dr John Read, professor of psychology at the University of East London.

     "People taking antidepressants need to be warned about these effects, which can be very upsetting, especially in people who are already experiencing depression."

So, five years after their research was published, Mind is calling for better support for people on antidepressant drugs, to help them cope with their potential impact, as well as better training for GPs and prescribing nurses. It is part of the charity's ‘Find the Words’ campaign. They say that mental heath care staff have insufficient training to cope with this important task, and that they have an incredibly difficult job to do, under enormous pressure. Pulse goes on,

               "The evidence that serious and long term ADRs resulting from SSRIs, SNRIs and other psychotropic drugs have been hidden from prescribers by both pharmaceutical companies and regulators continues to accumulate." (My emphasis).

In other words, doctors have been prescribing antidepressant drugs without knowing the full adverse reactions patients might experience! Pulse goes on to talk about the 'slight of hand' in pharmaceutical sponsored, ghost written clinical trials, which have "been categorised and documented".  Indeed, a comment made to Pulse from a hospital consultant makes an incredible admission!

               "... the "apparent lack of prescriber awareness of a damming and expanding ADR evidence base" (perhaps even a widespread denial) seems to contrast with the growing patient insight into such serious adverse experiences as Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction. (PSSD."  (My emphasis).

So doctors are claiming that they have not been made aware of the side effects of antidepressant drugs, even though I was blogging about their dangers over 5 years ago! The evidence about the harm antidepressant drugs cause has been around for a very long time, but as usual the conventional medical establishment,has met this evidence by ignoring and denying it.

Indeed, the situation has been more than just 'ignored' or 'denied'. Prescriptions for antidepressant drugs for children rose 54% between 2005 and 2012 in the UK. The World Health Organisation (WHO) said in early 2016 that it was very concerned by the rise in use of antidepressants in children in particular, both in the UK and other countries which it said was ‘not justified’. Prescriptions had increased 60% in Denmark, 49% in Germany, 26% in the USA, and 17% in The Netherlands.

And the hospital consultant then raises another issue, specifically about SSRI antidepressants, that doctors are are using these drugs "as part of the Ministry of Justice's on-going program to roll out a voluntary chemical castration program for certain categories of convicted sex offenders".

               "Two types of medication are available to treat sex offenders. The first are known as SSRIs -commonly prescribed for depression, anxiety, and obsessive compulsive disorder. They help govern activities such as eating, sleeping and sexual activity".

So this is what we are being asked to believe by the conventional medical establishment.

  • The nasty side effects of antidepressant drugs have been known about for many decades, but they have been ignored and denied, and doctors have not been told.
  • The prescription of antidepressant drugs, with their nasty side effects, has grown exponentially, especially in the last 20 years, including young, vulnerable children and young people.
  • Doctors, one part of the conventional medical establishment, who have prescribed these drugs, now claim in their defence that they were unaware of their nasty side effects.
  • Conversely, other doctors, involved in the management of convicted sex offenders, themselves part of the same conventional medical establishment, DID know about the nasty side effects of antidepressant drugs. Indeed, they are knowingly and intentionally using them to produce one of the nasty side effects!
There is a stunning duplicity of the most serious kind, bordering on criminality, here. People with depression have been given antidepressant drugs by doctors who now claim they have not been made aware they can cause chemical castration. So innocent patients have not been told. Even if this was so it points to unacceptable professional incompetence, and gross negligence.

On the other hand, convicted sex offenders are given antidepressant drugs by doctors who are quite aware that they can cause chemical castration. I wonder if these patients are aware of the intention of their doctors? I wonder if the criminal justice system is aware of what they are doing?

Now, let's have a show of hands. 
Who trusts the conventional medical establishment?
Who wants to entrust their health to conventional doctors?

Wednesday, 9 August 2017

Vaccine Consent. Should I vaccinate, or should I just say 'No'? Or should I ask my doctor to take responsibility for their safety?

Many people continue to face the dilemma - should I vaccinate or should I just say 'No'.

On the one hand, conventional medicine tells us that vaccines are 'entirely safe' and harm no-one, governments and national health services around the world routinely offer vaccines to us, our doctors sit in front of us, confirming that vaccines are safe, and beneficial, and necessary, and the media complies entirely with the message.

On the other hand, people continue to hear about people who have apparently suffered from vaccines, babies following the plethora of childhood vaccinations, teenagers following the HPT (Gardasil) vaccine, and adults, especially after the flu vaccine. Perhaps it is their friends, or family, or work colleagues who tell them about this. Or someone raising money for a child who has suffered a disability after receiving a vaccination. We are told, of course, that the vaccine was not the cause, and anyway these stories are rarely carried on the mainstream media.

Then people hear about vaccine injury settlements, especially in the USA with their 'Vaccine Court'. The federal government has paid out over $3 billion in awards and legal fees for families and persons that have been affected by vaccine damage between the years of 1989 and 2015. In total, 3,937 cases have resulted in the awarding of financial compensation via the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). So if vaccines are entirely safe, why is so much money spent on compensation for vaccine injury? In addition, we hear that these hefty settlements are funded by government, not by the pharmaceutical industry, who have been given 'immunity'. Why is such an arrangement with drug companies necessary? And why is tax-payer money being used for this purpose, if vaccines are entirely safe, and harm no-one as we are told?

Indemnifying conventional medical staff is becoming a significant problem in Britain too, I have written about it several times before. Our doctors are saying that unless the government pays for their indemnity insurance, they may no longer be able to practice. Why is their indemnity insurance premiums rising  to such unaffordable levels? Is it because the drugs and vaccines they are giving to their patients are causing harm? Surely not!

So perhaps some people are even relieved when, throughout the world (Italy, France, Germany, the USA, Australia, et al), mandatory vaccination is being introduced. At least it takes choice away from us, we no longer have to face the dilemma. If we want to receive child benefit, or for our child to attend a nursery, or indeed school, the government will insist the children are fully vaccinated.

But hold on. If vaccines are entirely safe, if they do not harm anyone, if they bring with them so many benefits, why should the government need to make vaccination mandatory? Should it not rather be barricading the doors of surgeries, pharmacies and hospitals against the stampede for vaccines? Why is it necessary force us to do something that is so obviously good for us?

Yet it is easier to just go along with the flow, to vaccinate, and keep our fingers crossed that our doctors, and the conventional medical establishment, are right. It is uncomfortable to say 'No', especially when we are not experts in the subject. It is difficult to withstand the pressure to vaccinate. If I say 'No', will I really be undermining 'herd immunity'? Am I placing myself, or my child, at risk of dreadful killer diseases if I don't vaccinate. Is there really any sensible alternative?

Well yes, there is! Why don't we ask our doctors to take on the responsibility. After all, it is THEY who are putting us under pressure to take THEIR vaccines. If it was anything else we were buying, a car, a washing machine, a holiday, a meal, our weekly shop, we would expect some degree of responsibility to be taken by the seller.

So, how about agreeing to vaccinate IF our doctor confirms to us, in writing, that the vaccine we are  being offered is, indeed, 'entirely safe'. After all, it only what we are told, so that should not be difficult to do, not too much to ask. I have seen many such draft consent forms. This is one of them (I am not sure of the source). It appears to do the job. What do you think about it?

Vaccination Consent Form

Names of Vaccine: .....................

I hereby give my consent to my child ..... (name)..... being vaccinated with the above vaccine subject to the following conditions:

1. That the patient information booklet which has been supplied with the vaccine is fully accurate, both as to the safety and the efficacy of the above-mentioned vaccine.

2. That the person ..... (name of doctor or nurse).... performing the vaccination, the Health Authority, the manufacturers of the above mentioned vaccine, and the Department of Health will accept full joint and several responsibility for any injury caused to my child as a result of the above mentioned vaccine being administered.

3. That in the event of any such injury being caused, my child will receive full compensation, assessed in accordance with the normal principles of English Tort Law.

If these conditions are not acceptable, the vaccination should not take place.

....1st Parents signature......
....2nd Parents signature.....


Tuesday, 8 August 2017

The Australian Report (on homeopathy). A travesty of evidence and science!

I commented in my last blog that conventional medical doctors are often in denial. They tell us that their drugs and vaccines are safe, even though they might have some 'minor side' effects. They deny the effectiveness of homeopathy. Both are denials that causes so much patient harm.

Yet it is not just denial. The conventional medical establishment, led by the powerful pharmaceutical industry, is frequently found to be openly attacking any medical therapy that is an alternative to its dominance, its monopoly of national health services, anywhere in the world.

What is happening in Australia at present is not only illustrative of these attacks,but  it shows the depths to which Big Pharma is prepared to plummet, the lies it is prepared to tell, the facts it is prepared to cover up, and the medical science it is prepared to undermine and taint in doing so.

Particular thanks has to be given to the Homeopathy Research Institute (HRI) in uncovering the the true depth to which conventional medicine, and the pharmaceutical industry, is prepared to sink in order to attack homeopathy. So their article on 'The Australian Report' is the basis for much of this blog.

In March 2015, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) published an 'Information Paper' on homeopathy, often referred to as ‘The Australian Report’, which concluded:

               “…there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective”.

This finding was sufficient to trigger headlines around the world, written by a compliant, pharma friendly media, that the NHMRC had found that homeopathy does not work for any condition.

This was not the first report to make such a claim, and with conventional medicine failing to cope with the epidemics of chronic disease around the world, and the pharmaceutical companies failing to come up with new drugs or vaccines that are either safe or effective, it is not likely be the last. 

What is significant about the Australian Report total disregard conventional medicine, and its apologists, has for the integrity of medical science. Following an extensive and detailed investigation, of the Report, the HRI was able to reveal "evidence of serious procedural and scientific misconduct in producing this report", and it was able to outline these key facts about the Australian Report.

  • NHMRC did the homeopathy review twice, producing two reports, one in July 2012 and the one released to the public in March 2015.
  • The existence of the first report has never been disclosed to the public. It was only discovered by AHA through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.
  • NHMRC say they rejected the first report because it was poor quality despite it being undertaken by a reputable scientist and author of NHMRC’s own guidelines on how to conduct evidence reviews.
  • FOI requests have revealed that a member of NHMRC’s expert committee overseeing the review process, Professor Fred Mendelsohn, confirmed the first review to be high quality.  saying,  “I am impressed by the rigor, thoroughness and systematic approach given to this evaluation of the published reviews of efficacy and side effects of homeopathy [….] Overall, a lot of excellent work has gone into this review and the results are presented in a systematic, unbiased and convincing manner.” 
  • NHMRC said the results of the report published in 2015 were based on a “rigorous assessment of over 1800 studies”. In fact results were based on only 176 studies.
  • NHMRC used a method that has never been used in any other review, before or since. NHMRC decided that for trials to be ‘reliable’ they had to have at least 150 participants and reach an unusually high threshold for quality. This is despite the fact that NHMRC itself routinely conducts studies with less than 150 participants.
  • These unprecedented and arbitrary rules meant the results of 171 of the trials were completely disregarded as being ‘unreliable’ leaving only 5 trials NHMRC considered to be ‘reliable’. As they assessed all 5 of these trials as negative, this explains how NHMRC could conclude that there was no ‘reliable’ evidence.
  • Professor Peter Brooks, Chair of the NHMRC committee that conducted the 2015 review, initially failed to declare that he was a member of the anti-homeopathy lobby group ‘Friends of Science in Medicine’.
  • In violation of NHMRC’s own guidelines there was not one homeopathy expert on the committee.

So, as a result, in August 2016, the HRI’s in-depth scientific analysis became part of a submission of complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, brought by Complementary Medicines Australia, the Australian Homoeopathic Association, and the Australian Traditional Medicine Society. This is what Rachel Roberts, Chief Executive of HRI said about the report, and the reason for the complaint.

               “NHMRC’s review is just bad science. Decision-makers and the scientific community rely on these kinds of reports and need to trust their accuracy. This is not about anyone’s personal opinion as to whether homeopathy works or not. It is about the importance of evidence being reported objectively, whatever it says, and the NHMRC did not do that.”

This is something that has rarely happened with so-called official reports on homeopathy.The full HRI analysis goes into some 60 pages, which cannot be shared whilst the complaint is ongoing, but the data provided details that demonstrated the spuriousness of the science used.

  • Use of an inappropriate scientific method
  • Failure to use standardised, accepted methods
  • Failure to obtain sufficiently accurate data to perform a meaningful review
  • Failure to conduct an effective preliminary and public consultation
  • Significant post-hoc changes to the research protocol
  • Impact of NHMRC’s unusual method on the review results
  • Further evidence of bias and misreporting
  • Poor reporting – lack of clarity, inconsistencies and errors
  • Evidence that this was a case of deliberate bias, not scientific error.

So it would appear that most of these failings are not too different from the failings of the pharmaceutical industry when conducting its research into new pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines! Rachel Roberts is quoted as saying, in the HRI article.

               “The public has a right to know that there are high quality studies showing homeopathy works for some medical conditions, such as hay fever, sinusitis and diarrhoea in children – information that was lost only due to NHMRC’s mishandling of the evidence. If the evidence on conventional medicine was treated this way there would be an outcry - and rightly so. NHMRC’s job was to accurately summarise the body of evidence for homeopathy for the public, a task in which they categorically failed.”

So, I hear you ask, what happened to the first NHMRC report into homeopathy? NHMRC initially worked with an external contractor, from April 2012 to August 2012, in order to produce a review of the evidence on Homeopathy to inform the Australian public. It was called "A Systematic Review of the Evidence on the Effectiveness of Homeopathy" but was never made public. Moreover, NHMRC continue to refuse to release it, despite repeated Freedom of Information requests. What is known is that the contract with the first review team was terminated. It seems likely that they did not come up with the 'correct' result! The new external contractor, OptumInsight, was more 'successful', although it required over two years, from December 2012 to March 2015, to manipulate and overcome the evidence!

In criticising the accuracy of the Australia Report, HRI discovered that it was not alone. HRI states that FOI requests brought to light that two independent experts also raised concerns over the conclusions of the 2015 report, as part of its peer review process, prior to final publication. Apparently the Australasian Cochrane Centre commented that “...'no reliable evidence’ does not seem an accurate reflection of the body of evidence”. Similarly; a second expert felt “uncertain of the definitive nature of the Report’s conclusions”. 

Yet despite this, as the HRI states, NHMRC chose not to act on this feedback. They did not amend their conclusions. These experts, too, had failed to come to the 'right' conclusion, the conclusion required by NHMRC! They had failed to understand that this was not really a discussion document. A firm negative conclusions was required that proved the ineffectiveness of homeopathy, and nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of this - certainly not science!

The Australian Report was designed to provide a conclusive, but hopelessly unscientific summary of the findings of a review of systematic reviews. The HRI seeks to explain their mistake, that they confused ‘lack of evidence of effect’ with ‘evidence of a lack of effect’. They say that the Report’s conclusion, that there is ‘no reliable evidence’ that homeopathy works, was 'widely misunderstood', with people believing it meant that the NHMRC had found that homeopathy did not work, and that this misunderstanding triggered the widespread media coverage, "propagating the inaccurate story that the NHMRC found homeopathy to be no better than placebo for all the conditions." The HRI goes on to explain that the scientific analysis had revealed multiple examples of bias and misreporting, and that this explained how NHMRC arrived at such a definitive and negative position, at odds with the conclusions of the majority of other more academically rigorous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathy. It continued

               "Most crucially, NHMRC’s findings hinge primarily on their definition of reliable evidence: for a trial to be deemed ‘reliable’ it had to have at least 150 participants and a quality score of 5/5 on the Jadad scale (or equivalent on other scales). Trials that failed to meet either of these criteria were dismissed as being of ‘insufficient quality and/or size to warrant further consideration of their findings’. Setting such a high quality threshold is very unusual, but the N=150 minimum sample size criterion is arbitrary, without scientific justification, and unprecedented in evidence reviews."

               "Out of 176 individual studies the NHMRC included in the homeopathy review, only 5 trials met their definition of ‘reliable‘, none of which, according to their analysis, demonstrated effectiveness of homeopathy. This explains why NHMRC concluded there is ‘no reliable evidence’ that homeopathy is effective. For context it is worth remembering that if it was indeed the case that ‘no reliable evidence’ existed for homeopathy, it would put homeopathy in the same evidence category (“unknown effectiveness”) as 46% of conventional treatments used in the NHS, but in fact this conclusion is inaccurate."

It was magnanimous of HRI to try to explain what NHMRC may have done to get their conclusion so wrong! It is quite possible to come to a less favourable interpretation about what has happened, and what the Australian Report represents. It is this.

There was no 'confusion' in what they did, there was no 'mistake' made in the criteria selected. The report was written and published by a group of people, all within the conventional medical establishment, and what they did, what they said in the report, was what they fully intended to say, quite regardless of the evidence. It was a malignly crafted Report that was intended to be exactly what it was - another hostile, gratuitous attack on homeopathy. It purposely aimed to discredit a rival medical therapy, one that is seen increasingly to be a threat to the dominance of pharmaceutical interests.

Yet the HRI is correct in it final remark about the Australian Report, one it has arrived at as a result of many years of tireless scientific work. So I will give them the final say, and emphasise it.

               "Contrary to NHMRC’s findings, there are ‘good quality, well-designed studies with enough participants for a meaningful result‘ ... which show that certain homeopathic treatments are effective for certain conditions such as hay fever, sinusitis, upper respiratory tract infections, diarrhoea in children and lower back pain. The fact that the results of such studies were unjustifiably dismissed means that NHMRC have misled the public by misreporting the evidence for effectiveness of homeopathy."

I was well before my doctor prescribed drugs for me! And I am better now I have stopped taking them!

Phyllis (not her real name) is a good friend, older than us, she is now well into her 80's. Only a few months ago we commented on how well she was for her age. She told us that she had never had a serious illness in her life, except for glaucoma, for which she had regularly taken eye drops. She is a meticulous woman, tidy, organised and efficient. As a homeopath I always smiled; if she was ever ill I would think first of the remedy Arsenicum Album! Indeed, she also had another typical Arsenicum feature, she was anxious, she was a worrier, she worried about everything, especially her health. She would, perhaps, been a hypochondriac, except that she really did not have much to worry about on that score! Yet, this was nearly her undoing.

A few months ago she went to see her doctor. She had a pain in her arms, not really a pain she said, more a sensation really. The doctor agreed to do some tests. Then, as she was leaving, she mentioned her high blood pressure, and showed the doctor the figures she had taken with her home blood-pressure gadget. Typically Arsenicum! Not only did she have a blood pressure machine at home, she took readings regularly, and was sufficiently organised to have the readings with her when she went to visit the doctor!

This was how it all began. The doctor said the readings were high, and prescribed her a drug to lower it. Initially Phyllis said she did not want to take drugs. But the doctor asked if she would prefer to have a stroke, and this frightened her sufficiently to agree to take them.

I was immediately concerned, although Phyllis would never consult with a homeopath. She did not believe in that sort of thing! Earlier, in conversation, I had told my 'Arsenicum' friend that some people had higher blood pressure than others, that worrying about blood pressure was in itself a bad thing, and that she (and many other people) had probably lived with what conventional medicine believes to be 'high' blood pressure for most of her life!

When I heard that her doctor had given her Amiodipine, a calcium channel blocker used to treat high blood pressure (hypertension) to prevent stroke and heart attacks I commented that this was typical of the 'medicine by numbers' so often practised by conventional medicine, and that I doubted whether she needed it. Yet it is difficult to persuade an Arsenicum about anything that lies outside their own particular beliefs. So I warned her to be careful, to watch carefully for the well known side effects of the drug. These are many and varied. I told her what they were.

The next few months were difficult for all her friends. Initially she lost her appetite, she had a bad taste in her mouth, and her stomach was upset. So she returned to her doctor who prescribed Omeprozole, a proton pump inhibitor that decreases the amount of acid produced in the stomach.

I rolled my eyes, out loud! One drug leading to another drug to deal with the problems created by the first. I told her about the serious side effects proton inhibitor drugs were known to cause. They are many and varied! I told her what there were.

The situation became worse as the weeks progressed. She could not sleep, which of course she worried about. And eventually she became severely depressed. Actually, at times she became quite unbearable! She had always been eccentric, always very much her own person. Now, at times, she became intolerable, even her best friends despaired.

Phyllis returned to the doctor, who listened to what she said, and told her to stop taking the drugs. She did so, indeed she was happy to do so, and within a few days she soon returned to her normal self. Thank goodness! Or, perhaps, thank her doctor. Phyllis was fortunate, indeed, that she had a doctor who, rather than denying the link with pharmaceutical drugs, drew back from the multiple drug route that leads so often to serious ill-health and death. Phyllis would not have listened to anyone except for her doctor, who she trusted, implicitly.

Yet this is what happens to so many fit and health people. Although essentially well, they go to the doctor with a minor ailment, for which they are routinely prescribed a pharmaceutical drug. The side effects of the drug are experienced, in one way or another, and the association with the drug is either not recognised, or it is routinely denied. The conventional medical establishment is always in denial! So more pharmaceutical drugs are prescribed in order to deal with the side effects of other pharmaceutical drugs! Yet these new drugs also have serious side effects, and soon the patient is taking a cocktail of drugs, which proceed to cause a multitude of illnesses.

In a short time the patient becomes very unwell. For the patient this is seen as bad luck. For too many doctors it cannot be the drugs causing the problem, so it must be the natural consequence of old age!

If patients are ever to be safe, it is important that we all  begin to examine how our illnesses and diseases have been caused. It is rarely, if ever bad luck. It is often poor nutrition, and our diet generally. It is sometimes the result of our sedentary life style, and lack of exercise. It can be caused by many other lifestyle factors. It can certainly be caused by stress. Yet in this age of science and technology it is increasingly obvious that the petro-chemicals that now play an important part of our lives, and which pollute the environment we live in, are seriously implicated as a major cause of ill-health.

Foremost amongst these new technologies, which are known to cause sickness and disease, are pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. The more we have consumed them during the last 100 years, the more we have experienced epidemic levels of diseases, such as ADHD, allergy, dementia, arthritis, asthma, birth defects, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, a whole multitude of autoimmune diseases, and mental health disorders; and so many 'new' diseases, such as autism, Crohns, chronic fatigue, Parkinsons, and many others.

If we want to understand why we are unwell, why we are sick and suffer from disease, we need to appreciate the role that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines now play in creating ill-health and disease. It has become a major cause

For more specific information about how pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are known to cause illness and disease, go to this link, "The disease inducing effects of drugs and vaccines".

Wednesday, 2 August 2017

Indemnity. What happens when doctors harm patients? (3)

I have written about the issue of medical indemnity on several previous occasions (do a search on 'indemnity' on top right hand side of this page). It is a burning issue for conventional medicine, and the situation is moving on rapidly.

Indemnity insurance enables doctors to harm patients without facing the full financial consequences of doing so.  For the conventional medical establishment this is important; after all, they are dealing with dangerous drugs and vaccines every day. Doctors give them to patients on the basis that they are safe, in the full knowledge that they are not only unsafe, but cause diseases far worse than the conditions for which they are prescribed, and will actually kill a certain percentage.

So it is little wonder that patients get angry, and sue doctors for damages caused to their health by 'medicines' that were supposed to make them better.

As my previous blogs outline, doctors within the British NHS are finding indemnity insurance premiums to be too high for them to pay. Now, we are being told that doctors are in urgent talks with the government as indemnity costs are making general practice 'untenable'. This has been reported in the GP e-magazine, Pulse, on 31st July 2017. In this, the chair of the BMA GP Committee, Dr Richard Vautrey, has said that the increases in litigation costs for defence organisations this year were ‘significantly increased’.

There is, of course, only one reason for insurance payments to rise. There are more damaged patients suing more doctors who have given them dangerous drugs and vaccines!

The consequence, according to Dr Vautrey, is mass GP list closures. He told Pulse:

               "We need to ensure that every doctor ...... needs confidence that they’ve got the indemnity to be able to work. Whether in an out-of-hours setting, extended hours, in a practices doing locum sessions without the worry of indemnity costs. We’ve made it very clear to the Department of Health, even in the last few days, that this has to happen quickly. Because there is a real risk that medical defence organisations will be forced to put up their rates to a level that will make it untenable for many GPs to work, or to do the number of sessions that they were able to do."

Vautrey said that this was despite the fact that in recent months doctors had secured reimbursement for the inflationary rises in indemnity this year and last, but this will not cover for the latest increase.

What this means is that OUR government is using OUR money to support conventional doctors prescribing pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that harm US, and kill US - in ever-increasing numbers!

This is not the only indemnity arrangement. Indemnity is given by many governments directly to pharmaceutical companies to indemnify them against the harm they do to patients (their citizens), especially with regard to vaccine injury. In the USA, for instance, the federal government has given drug companies the right to harm patients by compensate damaged patients via the Vaccine Injury Court, totally paid for by the USA taxpayer! And this kind of cosy arrangement happens throughout most of the world.

It is a conspiracy against both patients, and taxpayers!

Who gains from this conspiracy? Certainly not patients, who suffer the harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and then pay for their injuries through the taxes they pay. Certainly not governments, who are being bled dry by medical insurance schemes throughout the world, dominated as they are by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that do not work, and cause us injury.

The profits of drug companies, however, are massively supported by government indemnity arrangements. They can develop dangerous drugs and vaccines without being overly concerned about the consequences to patients, and with the added assurance that their main salesmen (our doctors) will not suffer by prescribing dangerous 'medicines' to us.

UK government makes a pledge to doctors. We will protect you from harming patients with pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. 

Friday, 28 July 2017

Health. A surge of honesty in the mainstream media?

Is the mainstream media experiencing a surge of honesty when dealing with health issues, and particular about pharmaceutical drugs? Such is the dishonesty we have been subject to during the last 15-20 years such a thing may seem too good to be true. But in recent days, three matters have come to my notice.

A BBC Panarama programme called "A prescription for murder" was broadcast on 26th July 2017. Expecting little better from our so-called 'public broadcaster' I watched the programme with little expectation that they would do anything else than support the pharmaceutical line. But to my surprise it dealt with a serious problem seriously, and did not absolve SSRI antidepressant drugs from blame. The programme suggested that SSRI antidepressant drugs could cause violence, and that they were implicated in several mass shootings in America. The question had been seriously addressed and investigated, and there was some balance, even fairness, in the broadcast. Doctors from both sides of the argument were interviewed, and it seemed to be a genuine effort to delve into whether these pharmaceutical drugs did cause violence, and in particular whether they were implicated in the mass shooting at a Colorado cinema in July 2012.

It is a programme that the BBC, and the rest of the mainstream media, could and should have been producing and drawing attention to many years ago. I have written about it several times.

If the BBC had been prepared to be honest and critical at that time, the 2012 shooting they focused on might have been prevented, alongside many others that have happened subsequently!

Then there was the Mail Online article, MMR - The Truth, published on 27th July 2017, which not only re-examined the link between the MMR vaccine and Autism, a link denied by conventional medicine, and the mainstream media, for over 20 years, but the role of Dr Andrew Wakefield, whose position is rapidly being vindicated. So why is the Vaccine-Autism link suddenly being revived now. after two decades of denial and censorship?

Even the Natural News website is asking the same question when it observed that the 'Mainstream media is finally starting to cover stories about FOOD CURES working better than prescription drugs'. Why indeed? What are the reasons for this sudden surge of honesty in the mainstream media about the limited value, and the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs? Have news outlets suddenly forgotten who is paying for their bills? Or is this just a temporary aberration? And will they soon be brought back into line by the financial might of the pharmaceutical industry?

Maybe, but maybe not. In a recent blog I pointed out that the BBC, and the mainstream media generally, had a lot of questions to answer, "questions that will become increasingly important to people as the real harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs becomes more obvious, and conventional medicine becomes completely indefensible", and also suggested the consequences of the media continuing to deny the truth about what has been happening to our health. In particular, I asked the following,

  • how many people have taken pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines because they have not been made aware of the dangers?
  • how many people have taken conventional medication for illness for years in the belief that it would make them better - because no-one has ever questioned this assumption?
  • how many people have suffered the side effects, adverse reactions, and really the illness and disease, that are being caused by pharmaceutical medicine?

I predicted that the failure to tell people about the serious harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs for 20 years and more might eventually rebound on the media.

               "how many of these people can rightly accuse the mainstream media that they are seriously ill, or that their friends and relatives have died, because the media has failed to question or investigate the dishonest and fraudulent practices of the pharmaceutical industry?"

Perhaps this is what is now happening. The media are beginning to recognise that conventional medicine, based on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, is no longer defensible, no longer credible, that media censorship will ultimately result in people holding them accountable for not doing what they should be doing - honestly informing people about health, how conventional medicine is failing, and how the pharmaceutical industry has been damaging our health for decades.

So the media is culpable. If, for example, the link between the MMR vaccine and Autism has been covered up for over 20 years, people will want to know why they have not been told the truth. They will certainly blame the drug companies, and the doctors who have prescribed disease-inducing drugs. But they will also, quite rightly, blame the mainstream media, for their silence, their support of the pharmaceutical industry, their censorship of health issues.

How many people would still be alive, and/or healthier today, were it not for conventional medicine, media silence, and the unquestioning faith we have given pharmaceutical drugs.

For the media, honesty about such matters now represents self-interest. Actually, it probably always has done so. But even a too late conversion is better than no conversion at all!

How the NHS owes Homeopathy - every day! A case of mucocele.

A homeopath-colleague has told me about a condition she has treated recently. Her son developed a Mucocele. This NHS website describes the condition as follows.

               "A salivary mucocele is a cyst that arises in connection with minor salivary glands. They are common and are usually superficial. Mucoceles mainly appear in the lip but can also occur in cheeks and the floor and roof of the mouth. They appear as a bluish/translucent swelling just under the lining of the mouth. They may have a history of bursting, collapsing then refilling which may be repeated."

The mucocele was diagnosed, and my colleague treated it, trying several different remedies, all without success. As the NHS website says, "if the mucocele is small and doesn't cause any problems it can be left alone with no surgical intervention", but in this case it was neither small or problem-free, so eventually the dentist referred the case on in order to have it removed surgically, which apparently is "the treatment of choice" in conventional medicine.

However, before the operation happened my colleague tried another remedy. It had an immediate effect. This is how she described it.

                "The next morning the Mucocele was a baggy sack, like it had drained from the inside. By the end of the week, his lip was looking normal, no swelling what so ever. He has cancelled his operation. All I can say is thank God it takes the NHS so long to offer help, it gave us time to get rid of a very ugly looking lip. It will be interesting to see what his dentist has to say about this on the next visit, as she was the person that referred him for an operation."

On the surface, this is a simple, straightforward event. A mucocele was diagnosed, and an operation was planned. But when a good homeopathic remedy was found for the condition it was quickly and effectively cured, and the operation cancelled.

               "NHS England’s view is that, at best, homeopathy is a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds which could better be devoted to treatments that work."

This story is just one, small example, of how homeopathy DOES work. It is replicated day after day, with conditions more serious, and less serious than this one. So, first of all, the NHS (dominated as it is by the pharmaceutical industry) is wrong! Homeopathy is far more than placebo. If homeopathy was placebo the patient would have been cured with the first remedy, not the third or fourth one he was given!

Yet, more importantly, homeopathy worked to cure a nasty mucocele with a simple remedy, and so an operation was not required. How much money has the NHS saved because of that one simple remedy? How much is the NHS in debt to homeopathy?

I don't know the answer, but it will no doubt run into £1000's. My recent blog calculated that the NHS were complaining that they spend £115,000 on homeopathy each year. Not many mucocele operations have to be saved in order to repay that amount! And homeopaths are doing this every day with thousands of patients with hundred's of conditions.

Yet the situation is probably worse than this as far as patients are concerned. Predictably, the NHS will fail to ask other, more fundamental questions about this situation.

Is the NHS aware how the cure happened, is it interested?
Has the NHS bothered to ask how the cure was done, so that future patients can benefit similarly, without the need for an expensive and intrusive operation?
Has the NHS offered its thanks and congratulations to homeopathy for the cure?
Or will the NHS continue to attack Homeopathy, saying it is little more than placebo, and continue to say that money spent on homeopathy is a waste of taxpayers money?

It is not just a lack of gratitude that causes this lack of NHS interest and insight. It is the vested interests of the pharmaceutical industry, and an NHS that is almost entirely dominated by pharma drugs and vaccines, and a conventional medical establishment protecting its vested interests. They are unable to admit that homeopathy is safer, more effective, and above all, less expensive than conventional medicine.

Tuesday, 25 July 2017

Charlie Gard. The role of Conventional Medicine in 'new' and 'rare' diseases

Charlie Gard suffers from a rare genetic condition called mitochondrial depletion syndrome. This causes brain damage and muscle depletion. I am deeply suspicious about what is going on, not least the role being played by the conventional medical establishment. I have three main questions.
  • What is the cause of this new, 'rare', 'genetic' disease?
  • What is the USA new treatment that is now being offered, and why is it being offered?
  • Why is this treatment being rejected by the British medical establishment?
In particular, I want to raise the question of the role that has possibly been played by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

When Charlie was born, on 4th August 2016, he was described as a 'perfectly healthy' baby, born at full term with a 'healthy weight'. However, Charlie's parents, Connie and Chris, began to realise that he had difficulty raising his head and supporting himself compared to other babies of similar age. In October 2016, as a result of his being lethargic and his shallow breathing he was admitted to the Great Ormond Street Hospital. Here, Charlie went through a multitude of tests and examinations, which all lead to the diagnosis - mitochondrial depletion syndrome.

This is a condition where the cells of the body cannot use energy appropriately, leading to organs and muscles being unable to function properly. Charlie's condition deteriorated rapidly. He was placed in intensive care and was soon being kept alive by medical technology. The conventional medical establishment stated that there is no known cure for the condition, that Charlie had no chance of recovery, so they proposed to turn off his life support. The parents disagreed, leading to a long court battle, going right up to the European Court of Human Rights, all of which found against the parents.

Charlie's parents fought hard against this medical prognosis, which was that there has been 'irreversible brain damage', that he could not see, hear or feel, that he would never be able to breathe unaided, or swallow food, and had little or no awareness of the world around him. It has also been reported that he had fits that were "difficult to control".

Charlie's parents refuted this prognosis, convinced that Charlie did respond to their voices and touch, that he had awareness of the world around him, and they did not accept the view of the medical profession, and the courts, that his condition was irreversible. Indeed, they searched for potential cures and contacted a US doctor who offered an experimental treatment, called nucleoside therapy, which might, he said, offer some hope of reversing the condition. The treatment was expensive, but through crowd funding the parents raised the money, over £1 million. The courts however, based on the evidence provided by medical staff at Great Ormond Street Hospital, refused to allow Charlie to be moved to the USA for the treatment, as it was not 'in his best interests'. Medical opinion was that Charlie’s brain was damaged beyond repair, and that it was not in his best interests to transport him to the USA, that the risks of the treatment outweighed any potential benefit. The said that the treatment would be futile, merely serving to prolong his suffering.

The situation was presented by the media in an emotional way. The 'dreadful plight' of the family produced massive public sympathy and the donation of an enormous amount of money to spay for Charlie's treatment. The 'worst nightmare' of the parents was contrasted with the 'heartless and unfeeling' NHS, unwilling or too inflexible to save the child's life.  There were comparisons drawn with another recent case, where the NHS refused treatment for another young child, Ashya King. In terms of issues of parental choice there are similarities.

In truth, the Charlie Gard situation was probably far more complex than the Ashy King case, involving the machinations of a medical establishment which I suspect would be involved in a massive cover-up. So I will now outline my three concerns, each of them long-standing issues being raised in this blog.
  • What is the cause of this new, 'rare', 'genetic' disease?
Readers of this blog will know that I have always been sceptical of 'new' and 'rare' diseases. Invariably, these 'new' diseases are usually caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, especially when they are called 'syndromes'! So what is the cause of mitochondrial depletion syndrome? I looked at this on the Right Diagnosis webpage, and the various pages that it refers to. Yet, as so often with conventional medical, there is no description of 'cause' anywhere - just detailed and very intricate descriptions of various Mitochondrial diseases.

Describing what is happening, or going wrong, within the body is NOT the same as what is causing the body to function incorrectly.

So this case, if the mitochondria is not working properly, there is no reason given about WHY the mitochondria is misbehaving. The reason for the misbehaviour, the actual cause of the condition, is not addressed. Of course, it is said that the condition is 'genetic', which is a kind of catch-all, explain-everything formula so often used by conventional medicine to avoid having to look into the real causation.

So what is the cause of 'mitochondrial depletion system' and other mitochondrial syndromes? Are pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines involved? There is, of course, no evidence for this in the public domain. Conventional medicine is not looking to blame itself, and so will not even be looking at this possibility. But there are some indications or clues that it might be.

For instance, autism was a 'new' disease in the 1940's. There is strong evidence that autism and vaccines are linked, vigorously denied by the conventional medical establishment. One of the features of this link is that the child develops normally during the early months of their lives, but shortly after vaccination (often the DPT and MMR vaccines) the problems begins, development stops or is skewed from the normal.

This appears to be so in the Charlie Gard case. I have no idea whether Charlie was given a DPT (or 5-in-1) vaccine. Reading through the many hundreds of comments on their fundraising page I was surprised at how many people have said that their children, or someone in their family, has had this disease, or something similar. So perhaps it is not so 'rare' as the conventional medical establishment believes! If so, it is even more important to find the real cause of these 'new' diseases. But as I have outlined in other blogs, conventional medicine is NOT honest about the side effects of their vaccines, or other drugs. For instance, on the 5-in-1 vaccines, NHS Choices website says this:

               "The vaccine ... has few side effects, although it's common for babies to be a little irritable afterwards. They may also have a short-lived small bump, redness and swelling at the injection site." 

The Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) is considerably more revealing. Not many parents read it, not many are given it to read. It mentions allergic reactions, like 'difficulty breathing', and temporarily stopping breathing (apnoea). It mentions collapse, loss of consciousness, lack of awareness, and above all, fits. Certainly, some of these known (but unheralded) 'side effects' bear some relationship to what Charlie experienced? So is this worth investigating, is the vaccine a possible 'cause' of this 'new' disease?

Certainly, as far as the conventional medical establishment are concerned, they would admit no suggestion of iatrogenic causation! They don't want to be held responsible. It is easier to dismiss what has happened to Charlie as a 'new' disease, of 'unknown' cause, and of course, no known cure!

I have written about the DPT vaccine before. The conventional medical establishment are determined that patients should not know about the dangers, and the mainstream media support them in this cover-up. In my blog, written in 2013, I outlined the serous side effects of the DPT vaccine (which is merely an older version of the '5-in-1' vaccine) mentioned in the PIL, which includes seizures and difficult breathing. More pointedly it is the only known cause of Sudden Infant Death syndrome, which is rarely, if ever, mentioned to parents before their child is vaccinated! So the conventional medical establishment is well practiced in denying the effects of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and if they are prepared to deny that 'death' is a side effect, they are more than likely to deny that the vaccine might be the cause of Charlie's problems!
  • What is the USA new treatment that is now being offered, and why is it being offered?
No-one knows much about nucleoside therapy except that it is untested, unproven, yet massively expensive. Conventional medicine has always thrived on new treatments, new breakthroughs, cutting-edge technology that is going to save mankind from dreadful diseases. Such treatments are heralded when they are new, only to be found wanting with age, and usually discarded many years later when they are found to be ineffective, or dangerous. The 'Ages of Drugs', how pharmaceutical drugs pass from being a 'wonder cure' to being banned, is something I have blogged about in 2014. Each of these treatments serve a purpose for those companies or individuals peddling them. But rarely are they of any assistance to patients, or combating illness.

Moreover, conventional medicine is a profits-driven business. If there is money to be made there is usually someone within the conventional medical establishment to exploit it! So if a pharmaceutical drug or vaccine causes a rare disease, with no cure, there will be someone looking for and developing an expensive treatment to overcome it!
  • Why is this treatment being rejected by the British medical establishment?
Yet the conventional medical establishment in Britain opposed the use of this particularly therapy. Why did it do so? There are already some reports that it has serious side effects. Yet, of course, we have all  been de-sensitised to the dangers of side effects, and we have all become too prepared meekly to accept these as 'unimportant'. And when a loved-one, especially a child, is dying these 'side effects' do not seem so important in comparison!

Yet however serious those side effects might be, conventional medicine does not usually prevent a treatment being tried. Indeed, it has a history of doing so, even when the treatments are known to be potentially harmful. But on this occasion they decided that the treatment would not work, and that it was not in Charlie's best interests! I merely ask - why?

It seems like the Gard family fell between two stools, two well-known aspects of the conventional medical establishment. One stool may have been concerned with denial and cover up, whilst the other was concerned with raising hopes, and making a substantial profit by doing so.

There may also have been a bit of 'professional pride' in what happened too. Doctors like to present themselves as experts, not as people who cause disease, or who sell expensive drugs and vaccines that purport to be effective when the track record of conventional medicine tells us they are probably not!

Charlie's parents fought hard to save their son's life, and despite their efforts, they failed. Yet there are important lessons that can be learnt from the Charlie Gard situation.
  • No-one should ever have an illness, or contract a disease, without checking whether pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have caused it. This is why I am developing my 'DIE's website (the Disease-Inducing-Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs).
  • When conventional medicine talks of 'new', or 'rare' diseases, be aware that pharmaceutical drugs may well be the cause, and consider what drugs the patient has been given prior to contracting it..
  • When conventional medicine says that a disease has a 'genetic' cause, begin to ask questions, and research into your family's medical background. 
  • When doctors talk about the 'causes' of a disease, but then merely offer a description of what is going wrong within the body, be deeply suspicious. Conventional medicine does know the difference, and there is probably a reason for them not wanting to focus on cause.

Monday, 24 July 2017

Banning Homeopathy on the NHS

There is (yet another) move to ban doctors prescribing homeopathy on the NHS in England. For many of us who appreciate the effectiveness of alternative medical therapies, and homeopathy in particular, and know about its safety, such attacks will not come as no surprise! The NHS has, over the years, become the mouthpiece of the pharmaceutical industry. The NHS is Big Pharma's preferred contact with patients. It serves as their retail outlet, par excellence, the source of their mighty profits in Britain.

The news was extensively covered in the mainstream news media throughout the weekend of 22nd-23rd July 2017. The doctor's e-magazine Pulse announced it with this headline, and discussed the possibility with no great regret!

So what should our response be? The growing homeopathic community is gearing itself up for another battle with the conventional medical establishment. Yet, I am going to raise an important question - is it really worth it? One radical response might be just to go along with the suggestion, and decide to withdraw homeopathic services from the NHS! 

              One advantage would be that it would help the public understand that the NHS has positioned itself as a monopoly supplier of conventional medicine, and it would ditch the pretence that an important NHS objective is to provide patients with the 'best medicine available'! 

               Another would be to end the pretence that homeopathy had anything more than a tiny, minuscule presence within the NHS in any case!

               Another would be to disabuse those patients who currently believe that if homeopathy could help them their doctor would recommend it and refer them on. The reality is that they don't, they won't, and the can't!

So perhaps the time has come for alternative medicine to establish itself as an alternative source of medical assistance, with alternative outlets, and to demonstrate that it is something quite different and separate to what is available on the NHS.

The thousands of patients who have benefitted from homeopathy might disagree vehemently with such a suggestion, especially those who would be unable to afford treatment outside the publicly-funded NHS. But the reality is that very few people, in very few areas of England, have any access to NHS homeopathy whatsoever. In London and Bristol there are small homeopathic hospitals. If someone is lucky, very lucky, they might have a doctor in a local surgery who practices homeopathy alongside conventional medicine. But most patients (like myself) live in areas where there is absolutely no access to homeopathy whatsoever, or to any other kind of alternative therapy. And if we ask the NHS for anything other than conventional treatment, it is routinely refused.

Another reason to withdraw homeopathy from the NHS, for me, would be that no reasonable or rational argument will ever suffice to persuade the conventional medical establishment of the case for homeopathy. This becomes clear if we look at the reasons NHS England is putting forward to ban homeopathy. This is contained in an NHS England consultation paper. The question it seeks to ask and answer is this:

               "Approve formal public consultation on products which are considered to be relatively ineffective, unnecessary, inappropriate or unsafe for prescription on the NHS."

Initially this question was asked because of the large number of pharmaceutical treatments that conventional medicine itself know to be ineffective, including drugs like paracetamol, tramadol, co-proxamol, dosulepin, prolonged-release Doxazosin, immediate-release Fentanyl, Glucosamine and Chondroitin, travel vaccines, and several others. Yet these treatments are still being prescribed by doctors. The reason for the consultation exercise is outlined in the NHS paper.

               "Last year, 1.1 billion prescription items were dispensed in primary care at a cost of £9.2billion. Over 90% of prescriptions currently issued are exempt from a prescription charge. It is vital that the NHS achieves the greatest value from the money that it spends, and we know that across England there is significant variation on what is being prescribed and to whom. Often patients are receiving medicines which have been proven to be ineffective or for which there are other more effective and/or cheaper alternatives, and products which it may no longer be appropriate to prescribe on the NHS."

This appears to be a perfectly reasonable thing to do! It is quite right that NHS England should not be spending public money on ineffective (leave along harmful) pharmaceutical drugs. They are the drugs that conventional doctors have been prescribing for decades, at great cost, and belatedly found to be ineffective and useless for patients.

Homeopathy, and herbal treatments too, were added as an after-thought! The NHS knows little about these therapies, as they demonstrate with the two reasons given for their inclusion: homeopathy is ineffective - and homeopathy costs the NHS a lot of money.

               "NHS England’s view is that, at best, homeopathy is a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds which could better be devoted to treatments that work."

Let's examine both reasons. First, what evidence does NHS England use to demonstrate that homeopathy is 'ineffective'? They provide none, other than 'their view', stated in the sentence above, that homeopathy is 'placebo'. Is it just me, or is anyone else fed up with this particular mantra?
There will almost certainly be a vigorous response from the homeopathic community to the new attack by NHS England, no doubt the most forthright coming from ARH itself. The responses will repeat all the evidence we have used, time and time again, to demonstrate that homeopathy is a safe and effective medical therapy. But will our response have any effect on our detractors, or the conventional medical establishment generally? Or in a few years hence will we be faced with another attack that states, without any supporting evidence, that homeopathy is 'just placebo'?

And so to cost. We are now told that homeopathy costs the NHS a lot of money, which is better spent on 'treatments that work'! So how much money is this exactly? The NHS paper is able to tell us, at least vaguely and tentatively!

               "Data on the residual use and cost of homeopathy on the NHS are hard to come by. A recent Freedom of Information request by a third party suggested that at least £578,000 has been spent on prescribed homeopathy over the past five years, with the total cost being higher than that when the cost of consultations was factored in."

If these figures are anywhere near correct, it means that NHS England is spending about £115,600 each year on homeopathy! Let me remind you about the figures (already quoted above from the consultation document) about the money NHS England wastes on 'ineffective' treatments!

               "Last year, 1.1 billion prescription items were dispensed in primary care at a cost of £9.2 billion." 

Of course, I assume (to use their own words) that this total cost will "be higher than that when the cost of consultations are factored in"! So, ignoring the issue of consultation costs, NHS England is concerned that homeopathy is costing them 0.001257% of their total drugs budget. (Now, is this right, I have struggled with these figures, one being so high, the other so minuscule! Anyone who wants to correct this, please do contact me!)

On the other hand, the NHS England consultation document is 9 pages long, and one entire page is devoted to its dismissal of homeopathy; that is, it takes up 11.11111% of the document!

So after these two considerations, the fundamental question is this - is there really any point in engaging such people in discussion? Is it not a waste of time and energy? Will they listen to anything we have to say? Is their stance so rigid, so dominated by the self-interests of their failing medical system that whatever we say will be ignored? 

Call me irascible, call me intolerant if you will, but I have long since ceased engaging with medical fundamentalists, so-called skeptics, who are not prepared to say anything beyond what the pharmaceutical industry wants them to say!

Does the homeopathic community not have better ways of spending their time? Homeopaths are treating so many more patients now who have been damaged by conventional, drug-dominated, NHS medicine. At the same time conventional doctors are having a bad time finding anything that is safe, or effective, to prescribe to their sick patients. The NHS itself is in constant crisis, with patients who do not get better, with a wide variety of chronic diseases now at epidemic levels, and paying for treatments that are slowly bankrupting it.

So my question is - why do we not let them get on with it? Let the NHS fail, as it inevitably will, alongside their painkillers which are now accepted as too dangerous to prescribe, their antibiotics which no long work, and all their other drugs that are causing epidemic levels of chronic disease with which they cannot cope!

Homeopathy will survive without the NHS. But the NHS will not survive without homeopathy, or indeed without other safe and effective alternative therapies.

So my suggestion is that homeopathy leaves the NHS. It is not a silly idea. Indeed, it is an eminently practical one. It will mean that we will need to develop our organisational structure. In each city and town, in every area of the country, we will have to ensure that there are alternative medical clinics, quite separate and distinct from conventional doctor's surgeries. Each clinic will have important tasks to undertake.
  • Each one will need to show they are offering something different, at a time when many more people are looking for alternative treatments for their chronic illness. 
  • Each one will need to demonstrate that they are effective in treating all kinds of illness, at a time the NHS failing to do so, and is therefore quite unable to cope with patient demand. 
  • Each one will need to demonstrate that they are offering safe medical therapies, when so may patients are currently suffering the chronic side effects of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.
Initially, those people who cannot afford to pay for alternative treatment will be excluded as alternative medical centres will not be publicly funded. Sadly, the safest and most effective treatments will be available only to those who can afford to pay, something I would personally regret (but it is not far from the current situation anyway). Perhaps for a time 'low-cost' clinics can be set up to ameliorate the situation. Perhaps we could look into starting up some kind of alternative insurance scheme. 

Yet this is likely to be a temporary problem. As the NHS runs out of viable treatments; and public money to pay for these treatments; and as more and more patients are empowered to insist on having patient choice, the demand for safer and more effective treatment will ensure that the demand for homeopathy, and other alternative treatments, will increase. When this happens, the NHS will not be able to avoid referring sick patients, for whom they have not treatment, to alternative clinics, and paying for doing so.

So perhaps it is time that homeopathy decided to stand alone. Instead of waiting to be banned, we should withdraw. We have survived for decades without the support of any appreciable public funding, and what is more, we have done so when conventional medicine has been given to patients, free at the point of need, and during the decades drug companies have been telling us that they had 'wonder drugs', the 'miracle cures', that would end illness and disease forever.

Well, why don't we just let them get on with it?