Monday, 20 June 2016

Medical censorship. 'Man Made Epidemic', a film about Autism, pulled from film festival

This morning I received notification that there was to be a 'world premier' of a new film 'Man Made Epidemic' taking place in London. I quickly found the trailer to the film, and watched it (please click on this link and watch the trailer, it only take 3 minutes).

The film is about Autism. It says that in the 1970's the condition affected just 1 in 5,000 children. Now it affects 1 in 50 children. The trailer did not say, as it could have done, that the disease was unknown prior to the 1940's! It goes on to look at pesticides, and then vaccines, as a potential cause of this epidemic.

Encouraged that at last such an film should be shown publicly, I looked to see where it was being shown. I discovered it was to be shown at London's East End Film Festival on 25th June. What was I doing on Saturday? But then I saw another link, 'Man Made Epidemic' pulled from London Film Festival. I went to the link, as you should, and sure enough, the film had been withdrawn. The festival director had decided to withdraw the film "after a hefty discussion on their Twitter account had arisen". We need to wonder about the nature of that 'hefty discussion', who it was with, and what pressure the director came under to censor the film!

This is, of course, the second film about vaccine safety that has been pulled from a film festival within the last few months. Earlier this year Robert de Niro bowed to presumably similar "outside pressures" and pulled the documentary 'Vaxxed' from the Tribeca Film Festival. Since then, I understand that 'Vaxxed' has gone viral in the USA. It is only to be hoped that 'Man Made Epidemic' will do likewise in Britain.

The reputation of the conventional medical establishment depends on the efficacy of vaccination as a treatment. More to the point, the profits of the pharmaceutical industry depends on us continuing to accept them, and believe that they are safe and effective. So films like this are abhorred. Conventional medicine does not want us even to consider the possibility that the 'medicines' they have been given to us for over 60 years might be unsafe, and might have led to the epidemic of autism we are experiencing.

So the pharmaceutical industry uses its wealth, its influence, and its muscle to make sure we cannot see the film.

Censorship is only necessary when an Establishment position is indefensible. If it was defensible the conventional medical establishment would surely defend it, and not seek to prevent us from seeing a film, and considering the issues raised. What this censorship tells us, better than any other evidence, is that vaccines have become indefensible. That is why this film, and Vaxxed, have been withdrawn. That is why the USA Congress have refused to debate revelations made by a top medical scientist that information was destroyed in 2004 that would have linked Autism with the MMR vaccine.

Pharmaceutical profits are threatened. And if we were allowed to know the truth about vaccines doctors would have to explain why they have been happy to give them to us for so long. And the mainstream media, including our 'public service' broadcaster, the BBC, would have to explain why they have failed to investigate, and/or refused to tell us about the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines throughout all this time.

This censorship of two important films show that health freedom is under threat from the powerful vested interests of the drug companies. It shows that conventional medicine is not interested in ensuring that patients have sufficient information about prescribed drugs and vaccines in ensure they can make an 'informed choice'.

It cannot be long now before the conventional medical edifice begins to tumble around the feet of the medical establishment. The vaccines and autism link is just one that will bring it down. The damage, disease and death caused by painkillers, antibiotics, antidepressants, Statins, and many other pharmaceutical drugs, is a story that still has to be told and understood by the general population.

When we are told, by those brave enough to do so, we will need to find better, safer, more effective medical therapies to both maintain, and restore our health. And we will have to ask serious questions about why we have been duped by the conventional medical profession for so long.


Tuesday, 14 June 2016

Is Cholesterol harmful? Do we need Statin drugs?

Conventional drug-based medicine is supposed to be based on science. The pharmaceutical companies tell us this all the times. My last blog raised the question - how secure is this science? It did so in relation to a single, alcohol dependence drug, Nalmefene.

Now, the same question needs to be asked about the medical science that for decades has been telling us that cholesterol, especially LDL cholesterol, was harmful, and that to counter the dangers of cholesterol we should all take statins.

Now, a new paper has been published by the BMJ (the British Medical Journal). It is called "Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review." A group of international scientists reviewed 19 studies into the effect of LDL cholesterol on mortality. Contrary to what doctors have been telling us for over 40 years, they found that in most studies there was actually an inverse relationship between LDL cholesterol levels and mortality for those over 60. The authors concluded that "our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies."

The study has been discussed in the Telegraph, on BBC News, and in the doctors e-magazine, Pulse, and in each the study has been heavily criticised by the conventional medical establishment. Pulse provides us with a statement from the British Heart Foundation, which is typical of the reaction:

          "There is nothing in the current paper to support the author’s suggestions that the studies they reviewed cast doubt on the idea that LDL Cholesterol is a major cause of heart disease or that guidelines on LDL reduction in the elderly need re-valuating."

In contrast, the authors of the paper provide us with a forthright and contrary view.

          "Lowering cholesterol with medications for primary cardiovascular prevention in those aged over 60 is a total waste of time and resources, whereas altering your lifestyle is the single most important way to achieve a good quality of life."

So, one part of the conventional medical establishment is advising patients that to avoid heart disease we are all need to take Statin drugs, because they are very effective. Another part is saying statins are 'a total waste of time and resources'!

So who is right? Who are we to believe? And where is the science behind the assertion that cholesterol causes heart disease? And that statins prevent heart disease?

Two things are certain about this 'debate' going on with the conventional medical establishment , and neither of them are 'scientific'.

  • The first is that the response to the new paper is not that it has raised important doubts that require further investigation. It is straight denial, an outright refusal to investigate further. As the British Heart Foundation has said - the study does not cast doubt on previous finding - and there is no need to re-evaluate.


  • The second is that nowhere, in any of these discussions, is there any mention of the serious and harmful side effects that statin drugs are now known to cause - including dementia, diabetes, liver and kidney disease, et al (see 'The Dangers of Statin Drugs')

Medical science is no guarantee of the safety or the effectiveness of drugs. It is not a reliable informant about the causes of illness.

Medical science has, for too long, been the creature of the pharmaceutical companies, who have used their massive wealth to purchase the science it has wanted to sell its drugs.

  • we have a drug that can reduce cholesterol? Well, let's tell patients that cholesterol causes heart disease so that we can sell the drug to huge numbers of patients!
  • let's also tell patients that the drug is 'entirely safe', that everyone should be taking it, even after it has proven to cause serious illness and disease to patients who take it regularly.

This is not a 'scientific' disagreement. It is not even a 'scientific' discussion. It is a demonstration that conventional medical science has been bought and paid for by pharmaceutical money for decades. This new study suggest that what I, and many other people having been saying about cholesterol and statins for many years is true. It shows the extent to which the public has been duped into thinking that statin drugs have been beneficial to our health. But this possibility will be studiously ignored!

What it demonstrates is that when 'science' might result in a reduction of drug or vaccine sales it is routinely castigated and ignored. Only the 'science' that supports pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and can be used in their promotion, is considered to be 'scientific'.

It is not science that underpins conventional medicine, it is drug promotion!

What this situation demonstrates is that no-one should believe anything that the conventional medical establishment tells us about our health!

Wednesday, 8 June 2016

Alcohol dependence drug - the 'science' that supports it!

Nalmefene, trade name Selincro, and originally known as Nalmetrene (one drug, three names!), is an 'opioid antagonist' used for alcohol dependence. It was developed in the 1970's, so it has been known about now for over 40 years. It has been used in the USA for over 20 years. The drug was, of course, scientifically tested, and approved and licensed by drug regulators throughout the world, as being both safe and effective. In Britain it is a drug approved and recommended by NICE, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (note the name).

Nalmefene's known and accepted side effects include nausea, dizziness, insomnia, and headache, although these are largely dismissed by the conventional medical establishment as being 'mild' or 'moderate' or 'of short duration". Well, that's all right then! Is it?

The problem is that the drug, known for over 40 years, and prescribed for most of that time, has now been found to be ineffective. The doctor's magazine, Pulse, reported this on 8th June 2016

          'The researchers from the University of Stirling found that nalmefene had not been tested in an NHS setting, concluding that its relevance to UK primary care ‘is unknown’, with other weaknesses in the evidence arising from primary outcomes not being specified fully prior to the start of trials and a lack of trials comparing nalmefene to existing treatments such as naltrexone.

          "In the analysed trials, the team also found that more participants taking nalmefene dropped out of trials than those taking a placebo due to experiencing more common adverse reactions including nausea, insomnia, fatigue and vomiting.


The Stirling team concluded that whilst ‘proponents for nalmefene argue that it should be used widely and proactively for public health benefit;, ...uncertainties about efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nalmefene inhibit appraisal of the possibility of such benefits.’

Of course, the drug company disagrees with this assessment. Well, they would, wouldn't they!  So Pulse continues.

          "The study, published in Addiction, searched for all published research papers relating to using nalmefene for alcohol consumption problems and found six published studies to analyse, three of which had been sponsored by Lundbeck, the pharmaceutical company who produce nalmefene under the brand name Selincro.

Well, so half the papers were 'sponsored' by the drug company. No issue there then for conventional medicine, as most drug research is bought and paid for by the drug companies that will profit from its use!

          "These three papers were used by the NICE appraisal committee to assess whether nalmefene could be recommended for treatment of alcohol-dependent patients...... NICE currently recommends that nalmefene can be given as an option for reducing alcohol consumption for alcohol-dependent patients who have a high-drinking risk level without physical withdrawal symptoms or in alcohol-dependent patients who do not require immediate detoxification.

So NICE agreed with the 'science' supporting the drug, and recommends it for patients. Professor Carole Longson, from NICE, is then quoted as follows:

          ‘Our appraisal process for nalmefene thoroughly interrogated the evidence base and, as is the standard with all our appraisals, we engaged with and took into account submissions from a multitude of stakeholders. When presented with the evidence, including the analysis of the clinical studies, the independent committee concluded that there was sufficient evidence to recommend nalmefene in specific circumstances.’

Then, a spokesman for the drug company is allowed to comment, and is quoted as follows:

          "We are surprised by the conclusions of [the study] and strongly disagree. Robust scientific data is the reason for nalmefene being the first and only drug approved for the indication “reduction in alcohol consumption for alcohol dependent patients” and nalmefene has demonstrated a positive efficacy/safety profile for dependent drinkers. ‘Moreover, nalmefene was assessed by NICE and the SMC, who both concluded that nalmefene is a cost-effective treatment for alcohol-dependent patients and should be available for prescription in the NHS in England, Wales and Scotland.’


So, medical science appears to speak without any clear agreement. So is this really science that underpins pharmaceutical drugs? Can patients be assured, with an certainty, that what they are told about a drug is true? Some 'medical scientists', from the drug company, and NICE, appears to think so. But the 'scientists' from Stirling would appear to disagree, and as far as I am aware, they have no financial interest in the drug. Yet their science, it would seem, is summarily dismissed. It is not going to be looked into further.

So does medical science really provide patients with guarantees about the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceutical drugs - and not just this one, all of them? With a drug that causes mild and short term side effects, taking an ineffective pharmaceutical drug is one thing. But what about drugs with more serious side effects? Is 'medical science' more certain about these drugs? But wait, what is this? A list of side effects published in Drug.com about Nalmefene.

          "Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); fainting; fast, slow, or irregular heartbeat; fever; flushing; heart rhythm changes; seizures; severe or persistent headache or dizziness; shortness of breath; sudden chest pain.

Does the drug company, NICE , and Pulse know about these side effects? Do these side effects change the balance, and make taking an 'ineffective' drug less acceptable?

Probably not. The history of pharmaceutical drugs indicate that they have to do far more harm to patients before they are seriously challenged within the conventional medical establishment. The safety and ineffectiveness of a drug rarely becomes an issue until it begins to cause serious damage to patients, over a long period of time, to the point when the damage can no longer be denied.

Conventional medical science, based as it is on RCT's (Randomised Controlled Tests), is a farce. It always has been a farce. RCT's can prove whatever they want to prove, or more accurately, they can prove anything those who pay for the trials want them to prove. Then, and for many years after, RCT evidence is written on tablets of stone, it becomes law, not to be challenged or questioned, despite any new evidence that emerges.

This drug is good for patients. No, the drug is bad for patients.
Breast feeding is good for babies. No, breast feeding is not good for babies.
And so on, ad nauseam, the gold standard of science!

And the nonsense does go on! It has always gone on. So what should patients look for in medical treatment?

  • First, they should look for a therapy that does not, and cannot cause harm.
  • Second, they should find out whether that therapy has been used to treat a particular condition, illness or disease.
  • Third, they should discover search the outcomes of that treatment.
Take homeopathy for instance. Even our critics admit that it cannot do harm, indeed, they attack us for this very reason! It can treat any condition, illness or disease through its symptoms, and has done for over 220 years. And there are millions of patients who can testify that they have been treated homeopathically, both safely and effectively.

And most important of all, homeopathy does not depend upon the kind of 'medical science' that leads to such disagreement, uncertainty and disarray.




Tuesday, 7 June 2016

Heart Palpitations. Why Homeopathy is the best treatment


Heart palpitations are described by NHS Choices as follows:

“Heart palpitations are heartbeats that suddenly become more noticeable.
Your heart may feel like it's pounding, fluttering or beating irregularly, often for just a few seconds or minutes. You may also feel these sensations in your throat or neck. Palpitations may seem alarming, but in most cases they're harmless and are not a sign of a problem with your heart.”

It is probably correct to say that they are harmless. Yet it is equally true that they can also be annoying, uncomfortable, and debilitating, often for long periods.

Conventional Medical Treatment for heart palpitations
The NHS Choices website has been used here as the source of information about the conventional medical treatment of this condition. However, it does not appear to offer any treatment for heart palpitations, unless they are considered to be part of a more serious condition, such as Arrhythmia, Atrial Fibrillation or Supraventricular tachycardia.

Perhaps this is because they consider heart palpitations for be a ‘harmless’ condition, or because they do not have confidence in any drugs they have for the condition.

However, they do admit that heart palpitations can be caused by “some types of medication”, and they mention specifically asthma inhalers, and drugs for thyroid problems. However, there are many more pharmaceutical drugs that are known to cause heart palpitations, and indeed, heart problems generally.

Homeopathic Treatment of Heart Palpitations
Homeopathy is a medical therapy that will avoid some of the side-effects and adverse reactions of conventional medical treatment. Homeopathy is the second most popular medical therapy in the world, and the most popular holistic system of medicine. Homeopathy is based on remedies made from a variety of different substances, all of which are known to cause symptoms of illness if taken in their normal form. However, homeopathy has discovered that substances that cause symptoms of illness can also cure those same symptoms of illness.

This is the principle of “Like cures Like” on which all homeopathy is based.

The task of the homeopath is to find a remedy whose symptom picture matches the symptoms of a person’s illness. These remedy symptom pictures have been developed over the last 220 years.

The selection of a homeopathic remedy is based on the individual’s symptoms of illness, not on any broad conventionally-defined illness. It is important to stress this. Homeopathy does not treat illness or diseases. Instead it treats an individual who has been diagnosed with a particular illness or disease. The distinction is important, and if you wish to read more about this, click on the chapter “Illness Diagnosis”.

As far as heart palpitations are concerned, homeopathy has highlighted a number of remedies that have been found to be useful in its treatment. The Hpathy.com website has outlined some simple remedy pictures for a number of these remedies. All the remedies mentioned are safe, and any remedy that matches the patient’s symptoms will be effective. These simple remedy pictures give some indication of the types of symptoms they will treat.

Aconite
This remedy is indicated when the palpitation is the result of fright, excessive physical exertion, functional or structural disease of the heart, lungs or stomach, in young, plethoric, robust individuals with an excitable temperament.

Arsenicum alb
Violent palpitation of the heart, the paroxysms being worse just after midnight. They are often accompanied by a paroxysm of nervous asthma and are attended with great restlessness and anxiety. There is frequently a periodicity about the attacks in those who are chlorotic and addicted to the excessive use of alcohol.

Arsenicum iod
This remedy should be studied where the arteries and heart show indications of degeneration.

Nux vomica
This remedy is often indicated when the palpitation is the result of a deranged stomach, liver or bowels, or from the abuse of alcohol, tea, coffee, or the result of excessive study.

Spigelia
When this remedy is indicated there is violent palpitation which is audible to the patient. The action of the heart is irregular both in rhythm and impulse, giving it an undulating motion. The palpitation is associated with shooting pains about the heart, rheumatism and intestinal worms.

Cinchona
When palpitation appears as a result of debilitating losses from diarrheas and hemorrhages or fevers, study this remedy.

Ignatia
When violent emotions or grief is acute; also, asafoetida, nux moschata and cocculus.
Pulsatilla: This remedy is to be thought of when palpitation appears as a result of menstrual derangement, or when fatty food has been taken.

Ferrum
This remedy is adapted to anaemic patients. The face changes colour frequently and is red at the beginning of an attack. These patients are often tubercular; are easily excited, and if females, the menses are scanty and uterine catarrh is present.

Digitalis
We have no remedy so frequently indicated in palpitation resulting from self abuses as this. It not only relieves the palpitation but it also diminishes and arrests the nightly emissions that so frequently accompany it.

Cannabis sat
This remedy should be thought of in those cases of palpitation of the heart that are the result of self abuse. It is second only to Digitalis in the relief of the palpitation from this cause and in its control over the sexual excitement.

Coffee
The palpitation is strong and visible; the patient is restless and weary, yet cannot sleep.

Calc carb and Sulphur
Should be studied in chronic cases.

Chamomilla and Opium
For cases that are the result of fright.

Platina
In cases of menstrual irregularity, retention of the menses and in cases of great sexual excitement.

Many of these remedies can be found in simple home-use remedy kits that can be obtained from these Homeopathic Pharmacies.

The Dr Homeo website takes a slightly different way of approaching the selection of a remedy, focusing on the emotional factors that can trigger heart palpitations.

  • Palpitations due to anger
  • Palpitations due to fright
  • Palpitations due to grief
  • Palpitations resulting from joy
  • Palpitations with anxiety
  • Palpitations from the intake of stimulants
  • Palpitations following physical exertion, or slight movement
  • Palpitations with anaemia
  • Palpitations due to pharmaceutical drugs
  • Palpitations at menopause
  • Palpitations due to hyperthyroidism
  • Palpitations with dyspeptic (acidic) symptoms

However, for an accurate, individualised remedy section, patients should consult with a qualified homeopath. This increases the likelihood of matching an individual with a remedy that will work for them. A remedy that does not match the symptoms of an individual’s illness will not work!

Monday, 6 June 2016

Asthma. Is it caused by urban pollution? Or antibiotics?

Urban pollution is becoming a problem. No, more accurately it has been a problem for a very long time (I remember as a child hearing about the smogs in London in the 1950's). Rather, the mainstream media are beginning to highlight it as a problem. Why? I will leave them to explain!

On the BBC Today programme this morning (6th June 2016) they featured the story of a young girl who had died of Asthma. The mother is prosecuting the government as she believes her condition was caused by urban pollution, and the government has not taken sufficient steps to combat it.

I have every sympathy for that position, as far as it goes. But I suspect, from the evidence given during the feature, this is not the whole story. This is what listeners were told.

  • The young girl developed a cough, caused by a virus.
  • She visited her doctor, who gave her antibiotics.
  • Note, antibiotics for a viral complaint!
  • Perhaps not surprisingly, the drugs did not work for her cough.
  • She returned to the doctor, who gave her stronger antibiotics.
  • She then quickly developed asthma, in very severe form.
  • She was hospitalised several times before she died.
Now, urban pollution has been around where she lived for a long time. The only new factor in the situation was the antibiotic drugs. And it is now known that antibiotic drugs can cause Asthma!

The BBC interviewer failed to ask questions about the logic of the prescription. Antibiotics are indiscriminate killers of bacteria, not viruses. Yet what antibiotics do is to upset the balance of our gut bacteria, which is of central to importance to our immune system. 

Did the 'stronger antibiotics' transform the cough into asthma? Did it do such damage to the young girls gut bacteria she was no longer able to fight her asthma attacks?

Anyway, it was urban pollution that got the blame. Perhaps it needed to be pointed out that urban pollution is not a new problem, it had been there, where she lived, all her life. So it is unlikely to have caused  this sudden, fatal asthma problem. It may have contributed to her cough. In future it might have led to progressive breathing and lung problems. But was it really the trigger that led to asthma attacks that killed her?

So were antibiotic drugs the trigger? I suspect we will never know, and that no-one in the conventional medical establishment will ever bother to investigate as they might not want to know. Nor, it would seem, does BBC News!

So is this sudden media interest in urban pollution going to be used to explain away the epidemic levels of asthma, as a killer disease?

344 Pharmaceutical drugs combinations banned in India

The news has not filtered through to the western world (or should I say the news has been censored by the western media?) but India has recently banned 344 pharmaceutical drug combinations. It was reported in the Indian Express on 21st March 2016.

So India is not only looking to develop traditional methods of health care to deal with illness and disease, it already understands that pharmaceutical drugs are harmful to health, and action needs to be taken to protect our health.

The same does not apply to us in the western world. A quick look at the banned drugs and combinations would indicate that they are the same is being prescribed by conventional doctors in Europe, the Americas, Australasia, et al.

The significant difference is not that the drug are harming people in Indian, but not us. The difference is the control that conventional medicine, and in particular, the pharmaceutical industry, has over our governments, our politicians, the regulatory systems set up to protect patients, our national health services and our doctors, and our mainstream media. We are not supposed to know!

The drugs involved in these Indian bans are not unusual, they are ones millions of patients are taking, and which thousands of doctors will be prescribing this very day, and no doubt tomorrow too. And they will be prescribed to millions of patients who will not have been told about their dangers, and so will be quite unable to make an 'informed choice'.

  • NSAID painkillers
  • anti-allergy drugs
  • anti-diabetic drugs
  • anti-drugs for weight loss and obesity
  • gastro-intestinal drugs
  • and antibiotic drugs
When will we be told? Don't hold your breath!

Friday, 3 June 2016

Ugly scar tissue and homeopathic thiosinamum

Scar tissue can be ugly, and whatever the cause, most homeopaths are aware of the remedy Thiosinamum, usually referred to as Thios, and its value in reducing this scaring significantly.

Nearly 10 years ago my granddaughter was born by caesarian section, and I gave her mother the remedy, alongside Arnical and a Hypericum/Calendula lotion to use topically. I knew at the time that it had worked successfully. But today, she asked about the remedy as her friend of hers had recently had a baby, also by C section. She told me that not only had it worked on her caesarian scar, it had also worked with a previous scar she had following an operation many years earlier. The remedy, she said, had got rid of this, almost completely!

Such is the power of homeopathy! With so many conditions, where conventional medicine has no solution, homeopathy often does. And it works so powerfully, often on conditions the homeopath know nothing about!

When I first began to practice, I treated a woman for menstruation problems. Not only was this treatment successful, she told me that the problem she had with 'split ends' (when the end of the hair splits into several strands) had also been successfully treated too! I had no explanation to give her, beyond the fact that her periods, and her split ends, had one thing in common - her! And that homeopathy treats the whole person.

There are other remedies for scar tissue.

Silicea. A homeopathic remedy often used to help reduce the appearance of keloid scars and even help prevent their formation.

Graphites. Is another skin remedy that can help reduce scarring, even in old scar tissue.

Calc Fluor. This remedy can help to keep the skin elastic as it has an affinity to connective tissue.

Prunella Vulgaris. This remedy is known to help skin recover more quickly.

Yet I have always found Thiosinaminum the most useful in dissolving scar tissue. Remedies can be purchased via the internet with any good homeopathy pharmacy. After surgery it is recommended that a remedy is taken daily, as soon after surgery as possible.