Friday, 22 May 2015

Conventional drug-based medicine. The death throes.


  • Our doctor's can no longer cope with the demands being made on them by patients.
  • Our Accident and Emergency Services can no longer cope with the demands being made on them.
  • The NHS demands more and more money
Together, what does this mean? Are we witnessing the death throes of conventional, 'science' based medicine?


This is a heartfelt plea by a doctor, a GP, recently published on Facebook, and worth of note. It has attracted much support and sympathy from the professional medical fraternity.

  • Unhappy with your GP?
  • Write to your MP. 
  • There is absolutely nothing we can do about this at a practice level. 
  • We cannot recruit any more GPs. 
  • We cannot fund any additional staff.
  • We cannot work any longer hours and be safe (bet you didn't know that I often leave work around 11pm and have left at 2am before). My 'part time' 5 session (ie 20h) is approaching three times that in reality. 
  • Why do you think we're running late? (Genuine question - I'm interested to know what people think we're doing.) It's because people come with lists. It's because 10 minutes isn't enough. 
  • It's because people use appointments that they don't need when actually self-care and time and patience will do the job perfectly well. The human body is designed to cure a lot of things itself, especially infections. 
  • It's because we're interrupted, quite legitimately, by phone calls from palliative care nurses wanting to discuss medication urgently for the dying patient; by ambulance crews called inappropriately who are asking us to take responsibility for patients not being taken to hospital; by the coroner asking us for information to try to prevent a bereaved family having to wait for a postmortem before they can arrange a funeral; by nurses who need us to give a second opinion on something that they're already gallantly managing beyond their duty; by urgent prescriptions that need signing because the patient didn't plan properly (we all make mistakes). I could go on. 
  • We get brought tea because otherwise we wouldn't drink anything for 5h at a time - morning surgery typically is 4.5-5h, with patients every 10 minutes. 
  • Each patient is not just a symptom. They are people with problems, with lives and responsibilities, and we try to treat them holistically. In 10 minutes. 
  • It takes the frail old lady 2 minutes to undress so we can examine her, another minute to get up onto the couch, another couple to put herself back together again. That's half the appointment gone. 
  • We could do longer appointments, but would have fewer.
  • I really do understand the frustrations of the general public - remember I have a family too, who occasionally need to see a doctor.
  • But. We are working flat out. There is a reason that there is a shortage of GPs. There is a reason that no one wants to train as a GP.
  • If we were genuinely working 9-5 on >£100k then why would there be a recruitment problem?
  • No one wants to do it because it's a draining job, very heavy on workload, and we are demoralised and constantly berated by the press and portrayed as lazy and money grabbing.
  • If you have ideas on how it could be done better then please share. Genuinely. We are all out.

So what is happening here? Why are our doctors struggling? Why does the NHS need more and more £billions, and each time more resources are found and spent another crisis emerges?

During the General Election in May 2015, the political parties were fighting over how they were going to fund a further £billion for the NHS. Within two weeks of that election parts of the conventional medical establishment were already saying that this massive increase in spending was not enough! And so it goes on!

No-one has yet diagnosed the real problem. Rising levels of expenditure on health. Rising levels of illness and disease. And doctors unable to cope.

This crisis situation in health care provision arises from devoting all our resources in a medical system that relies on drugs and vaccines that are 

  1. ineffective (so ailments, illnesses and diseases remain, ongoing and unimproved, so patients come back, time and time again)
  2. dangerous (which means patients get 'side effects' from the drugs, which are really new diseases, and so return to their doctors with more serious conditions). 
The result is patients do not get better, they get sicker. Chronic diseases, like arthitis, asthma, allergies, dementia, depression, et al, are at epidemic levels, and rising. And even new diseases, like autism, unknown, or virtually unknown since our love affair with toxic drugs and vaccines began over a century ago, are now affect an increasing number of people. 

So they go to their GP's who cannot cope. So the go to their A&E departments, who cannot cope. And when key medical staff cannot cope, the NHS keeps asking for more and more money. 

But they ask for money and resources for the same failed, and failing medical system. The NHS invests in yet more ineffective and dangerous 'scientific' drugs. More and more harmful vaccines. Even the most successful conventional drugs are failing now, antibiotics and painkillers, to name just two. So, the major tools that conventional doctors have relied on either don't work any more, or they are now known to be too dangerous to prescribe.

So what we get is more patient sickness, and more doctor fatigue.

We are witnessing the death throes of 'conventional' medicine, based as it is on failed drug and vaccine based medicine. Medical science has failed.

But the conventional medical establishment is just too big, and the pharmaceutical drug industry is just too powerful and influential, to allow us to realise it yet.

The penny will have to drop very soon, but until it does, we should have sympathy for those doctors who are trying their best to help us. They are just unable to do so.


Tuesday, 19 May 2015

Our Health Freedom is being denied by our 'Free' Press

Most of us believe that the right to free speech is one of our most fundamental freedoms. When there are attempts to limit our freedom to say what we believe we become rightly indignant. Freedom of speech was hard won, and we are keen to fight for it.

The European Conventional on Human Rights has sought to protect our right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion since 1953.

Our 'free press' was certainly hard won, one of the triumphs of the struggle for democracy and personal liberty. We wanted our journalist to be free to investigate, to question, to bring to task those who ruled us. We refused to accept that our governments should restrict our right to know the facts, both sides of every story. So thousands of people suffered and died to ensure that the press was free of government control.

Yet it is no longer the government, but the big, powerful industrial and commercial corporations that now control the news media, and restricts its freedom to report. And the biggest of these conglomerates is the Pharmaceutical drugs industry.

The result is that today, there is one area of our freedom that is under severe threat. Health Freedom, the right to decide what we do, and what is done with our bodies, the right to information about medical therapies, and in particular, the right to know about the dangers and effectiveness of conventional medical drugs and vaccines.

Our mainstream media is doing all it can to ensure that its readers, listeners and viewers are not given  full information about matters concerning health and medicine.
  • It will publish very little information that is even vaguely critical about conventional medical practice, even if the information points to patients being seriously harmed. 
  • It will, however, readily publish any, and all information fed to them by the conventional medical establishment, particularly by the Big Pharma companies, about potential 'medical breakthroughs', prospective medical advances, and new 'miracles' drugs and vaccines.
  • It will not publish any evidence or information about pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines and treatments that have been found to be ineffective, or dangerous, or both. Although this evidence is being produced on a regular basis, it is rarely covered by the media. 
  • It refuses to publish information about alternative medical therapies, and if it does, coverage arises from the attacks on it made by people and organisations closely connected to the conventional medical establishment.
  • Any medical issue that is discussed, the call on 'experts' to give their opinion, and these experts  are invariably from the conventional medical establishment.
  • Even when alternative medical therapies, are discussed the 'experts' the experts consulted are invariably conventional medics whose opinion is invariably condemnatory of alternative medicine.
What happens, for instance, if a CDC scientist who undertook research in 2004 to ascertain whether there was a link between Autism and the MMR vaccine admitted that important evidence that supported such a link was intentionally omitted? Would that admission be a matter of public concern? Would we be entitled to be told this, especially when during the following 10 years the conventional medical establishment insisted, on the basis of that research, that there is no such link?

The magazine, 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' (WDDTY), in its editorial in March 2015, gave this evidence.

      "In all its literature to parents, the Department of Health does not publish one word of information about potential side effects, or lack of efficacy of any vaccine, even though this material is freely available in other countries".

     "In the US, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),  the major government agency charged with studying vaccines, has consistently buried unfavourable data about the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and its link to autism by massaging the data".

     "When a CDC whistleblower scientist recently blew the story about the CDC burying these data - a scandal of Watergate proportions - not one major paper in the US or UK was willing to carry the story".

If you want to know more about this situation, go to WH Smiths and buy a copy of the WDDTY magazine. But no! You cannot do that! This 'champion of the small press' will not carry the magazine as a group supported and funded by Big Pharma companies, staged a campaign protesting about it.

The result is that people are not being properly informed about health matters. Our 'Free Press' is failing in its duties to its readers, listeners and viewers. It allows itself to be controlled by the conventional medical establishment.

As a result, patients cannot make an informed choice about what they should do to maintain their health, of what treatment to choose when they become ill. We are not given access to all the information - about conventional medicine, and about the alternatives to it.




Monday, 4 May 2015

The Mustard Gas Experiments 1941-1942. Homeopathy works! So just ignore it!

At the very height of the 2nd World War, when Britain stood almost alone against Nazis Germany, and the prospect of troops suffering and dying from mustard gas attacks, two pieces of research were undertaken to assess whether Homeopathy was helpful.

The research indicated that it would be helpful. So what happened? The information was ignored by the Government! The circumstances are outlined in the Institute of Homeopathic Research website, and is replicated here. What the story demonstrates is that any evidence supporting the effectiveness of Homeopathy is ignored. It was ignored when Britain was at war in the 1940's, and it continues to be ignored by 'skeptics', including members of 'Sense about Science' and the 'Good Thinking Society' (both front organisations for Big Pharma drug companies, today.

Not even the prospect of saving the lives of our armed forces in the event of a Mustard Gas attack could open up the minds of the Establishment!

"One of the first double-blind and placebo-controlled trials ever conducted for a governmental agency (England’s Ministry of Home Security) tested homeopathic treatments during World War II and was conducted in 1941-42 on volunteers whose skin was burned with mustard gas.  The Glasgow trial included 40 volunteers, and the London trial included 240 volunteers. A more recent analysis of the data further substantiated the statistical significance of this study (Owen and Ives, 1982), and even more recently, it was described in detail in the famed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (Dean, 2014).
In the Glasgow experiments, only Mustard Gas 30C was used, given moments before getting exposed to mustard gas.  The first experiment found that none of the first 12 patients receiving homeopathic treatment experienced deep lesions after exposure to mustard gas, while all (!) of those volunteers who received a placebo experienced deep lesions.  Of the next 28 volunteers who received the homeopathic medicine, 12 had superficial wounds and two had deep lesions after the homeopathic treatment.  In comparison, those volunteers who were given a placebo, two experienced superficial lesions and 12 had deep lesions.
In London, two experiments were conducted.  The first experiment included 139 volunteers who were assigned to take one of several homeopathic medicines known to treat burns, including Rhus tox, Kali bich, Opium, Cantharis, and Mustard Gas (all in 30C).  A second experiment was conducted with 101 volunteers, in which they were either given a placebo or a specific protocol of Variolinum 30C and Rhus tox 30C, taken after exposure, as well as Mustard Gas 30C and Rhus tox 30C given 14 days before exposure.
The results of the London experiments were sent for “independent analysis.  A report determined that “there is certainly an indication of beneficial effects of the drugs in general.”
A recent review of this study acknowledged that despite the remarkable results at two locations, the Ministry of Home Security still rejected the results on the grounds that the experimental technique must have been flawed, despite the fact that the Ministry helped in the design of the trial that included the use of placebo controls, blind outcome assessment, and independent statistical testing. (My emphasis). The Ministry of Home Security never provided any evidence that these studies were flawed, but considering the positive outcome of the studies, they simply assumed that something was wrong with them.
References.
Dean, Michael Emmans. The Mustard Gas Experiments Done by the British Homoeopathic Society for the Ministry of Home Security, 1941-1942. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2014 107(11)453-455.  DOI: 10.1177/0141076814521937.
Paterson, J. Report on Mustard Gas Experiments,  Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 1944, 37:47-50, 88-92.
Owen, RMM, and Ives, G.  The Mustard Gas Experiments of the British Homeopathic Society: 1941-1942,  Proceedings of the 35th International Homeopathic Congress, 1982,

Thursday, 23 April 2015

Doctors under-report side effects of drugs and vaccines, which makes them 10 times more dangerous than they tell us

A study, reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, (2006; 296: 1086-93) found that whilst prescribing doctors should be reporting side effects and adverse reactions in his patients many do not do so. In fact, the actual rate of reporting was found to be alarmingly low - about 10 times below the optimum level set by the World Health Organization. The study report procedures amongst doctors in Portugal, where 26 adverse reactions were reported per 1 million population, whereas WHO say that this should be closer to 300 report per million people.

The researchers said that this under-reporting was not restricted to Portugal, and that the USA, Canada, Italy, Sweden and the UK also have very low reporting rates

Commenting on this study WDDTY said that if the WHO targets were reached, the whole drug industry would 'grind to a halt', and of course, that would never do!

In the Guardian, on 12th May 2006, Sarah Bosely wrote that the BMA had said the Yellow Card scheme was not being used enough. The article quoted BMA figures that at least 250,000 people went to hospital each year because of the damaging side-effects of medication, and that about 5,000 die. As a result the BMA was urging doctors to be more vigilant, and to report any suspected side-effects their patients might experience. They said that only an estimated 10% of adverse drug reactions were currently reported through the "yellow card" scheme to the MHRA. A BMA spokesperson said

"Doctors have a professional duty to report all adverse drug reactions, especially if children or the elderly are involved. Unfortunately too many health professionals are confused about reporting procedures. Doctors must make sure they report any suspected [adverse drug reactions] and at the same time increase awareness among their patients about the reporting process".

Another BMA spokesman said that not all side-effects could be picked up in clinical trials before the medicine is licensed, which meant that greater vigilance was needed on the part of doctors, pharmacists and nurses. In the same article the MHRA urged healthcare professionals to use the yellow card scheme. It said

"There is no need to prove that the medicine caused the adverse reaction, just the suspicion is good enough" 

The article concludes by saying that it has long been known that doctors did not report all the suspected side-effects their patients tell them about, and that 10 years earlier the BMA had issued similar guidance to doctors - but with little effect. So what does this mean, in practical terms? 

It means that if only 10% of the known DIEs of a drug or vaccine are reported, these drugs and vaccines are 10 times more dangerous than the conventional medical establishment realises, or accepts.

Yet there is another issue, and that involves the honesty and transparency with which the conventional medical establishment deals with issues about the dangerousness of drugs. In an Observer article published on 20th January 2008, Dennis Campbell reported that Steve Walker, chief executive of the NHS Litigation Authority, said that doctors must own up to the mistakes they make in order to cut down on compensation claims that were totalling £613 million annually. He called for a new culture of honesty and openness.

Negligence lawyers say that the main reason a number of victims take legal action is to obtain more information. 'The message to doctors is: if you're aware of an error, or a shortfall in what's been delivered, you should feel free, indeed you should feel under an obligation, to tell your patients and to apologise and to explain, either verbally or in writing, even if the patient is likely to sue,' he told The Observer. 

"The explanation bit is really important to many, many claimants. It doesn't matter if it heads off a claim or encourages a claim, people as human beings and patients are entitled to this and they should be getting it. Some patients are dissatisfied by not getting this information already. Some patients and patients' relatives feel short-changed by the system. They believe there's a lack of honesty, of frankness and of candour.'

The NHSLA handles some 5,400 claims every year for clinical negligence in England. Walker wants doctors to 'sympathise with the patient or the patient's relatives' where someone has died and to 'express sorrow or regret' at any death or injury which followed substandard care. He has put his advice in writing to every hospital in England and will do the same to doctors, midwives and nurses through their professional bodies.

'I feel, and this authority feels, very strongly that people are entitled to know when something has gone wrong; entitled to an apology if something has gone wrong; entitled to an explanation of what went wrong and why, in words that they will understand; and entitled to the opportunity to ask questions about what happened and why,' Walker said. 'While some hospitals already do these things, I want to see the NHS adopt this as universal good practice.'

Whilst this kind of testimony is often made, it is usually done within the context of doctors, or some other medical staff. making a mistake or error. 

What this ignores is that the medicines conventional doctors use are inherently dangerous.

It is a matter of inadequate and dangerous tools being defended, whilst those who task is to use those tools are blamced for the problems that arise from using them!

Often the conventional medical establishment will be heard calling for more honesty and transparency, and the importance of admitting that mistakes have been made. Yet, as this book will show time and time again is that dangerous drugs and vaccines are being prescribed, and the DIEs they cause are either not known, they are denied, or or they are heavily discounted. 

There is little honesty or transparency within the conventional medical establishment about the dangerousness of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, either before, during and after their prescription. 


As a result, many people will read this book and find it hard to believe how common illness and diseases, many at epidemic proportions, some never known before the present era, are known to be caused by conventional drugs and vaccines. They will be surprised because their doctors have never told them!

This article was first published in the Ebook, "DIE's. Disease-Induced-Illness".

Sudden Infant Death. Is it caused by conventional medical drugs?

Sudden Infant Death, or Cot Death as it is more commonly known, is described on the NHS Choices website as "the sudden, unexpected and unexplained death of an apparently well baby". It says that at least 300 babies, usually under the age of 6 months, die "unexpectedly" of this syndrome every year. In most cases, a fit and healthy baby is put to bed by parents, and is found dead some hours later.

So what causes this awful tragedy? This is the conventional medical explanation, as provided by the same website.

     "No-one knows exactly what causes SIDS, but it is thought to be the result of a combination of factors.
Experts believe SIDS occurs at a particular stage in a baby’s development, and that it affects babies who are vulnerable to certain environmental stresses. This vulnerability may be due to being born prematurely or to low birthweight, or other reasons not yet identified. Environmental stresses could include tobacco smoke, getting tangled in bedding, a minor illness or having a breathing obstruction. Babies who die of SIDS are thought to have problems in the way they respond to these stresses and how they regulate their heart rate, breathing and temperature".

History of SIDs
Children have always died in their infancy, no doubt for a variety of reasons. There are accounts of this in the  bible, and certainly during the middle ages.  

However, it was not until 1969 that the term 'Sudden Infant Death Syndrome' was coined, and recognised as a distinct disease, and since then, a variety of reasons for cot death have been put forward by the conventional medical establishment - none of them particularly convincing.

So with no medical explanation, it is often the child's parents who have been placed under suspicion, often prosecution, and sometimes convicted and imprisoned on the basis of the 'expert' evidence given by conventional doctors. The case of Sally Clark is probably the best known of these cases, not because she lost two babies to this 'syndrome', but because she was imprisoned, released when the miscarriage of justice was recognised, but committed suicide soon afterwards.

Vaccines and Drugs that may cause SIDs
The tragedy of this SIDs case, which has been repeated too often, is that there is an explanation for the syndrome, although it is an explanation that the conventional medical establishment refuse to admit. As the Sally Clark website says.

     "The only common factor, which may or may not be relevant, is that both deaths followed shortly after vaccination. [There is research into the possibility that these vaccinations can cause death within a few days if infants have certain genetic defects.]

The DPT vaccine, given to babies usually when they are just 2-3 months old, and repeated twice more on a monthly basis, is the only known cause of SIDs, or cot death.

Yet the link between SIDs and the DPT vaccine is not world shattering news. Indeed, our doctors know it, the NHS know it, and the Big Pharma drug companies know it. The link is admitted on the package insert for each DPT vaccine, and this blog also points to more evidence linking the 'syndrome' with the DPT vaccine.

There is also evidence that other conventional pharmaceutical drugs are linked with SIDs. 

Methadone, an opiate drug, used as a painkiller, and an anti-addiction medication by conventional medicine, is also linked to SIDs.


Indeed, it is suspected that any conventional medical drugs that seeks to influence sleep, or fluid control, including antihistamines and alcohol can have a marked effect on crib death rates.

Monday, 20 April 2015

History of the Vioxx Drug Scandal. How can we ever trust conventional medicine again?

Vioxx was a NSAID painkiller and anti-inflammatory drug. It was one of the new, Cox-2 inhibitor drugs, developed by Merck, and approved as scientifically safe and effective by the FDA in May 1999. It was also marketed as Ceoxx and Ceeoxx. It quickly gained wide acceptance as a safe way of treating patients with arthritis, menstrual pain, and acute pain generally. When it was first marketed Vioxx was said to be a "wonder drug", safer and more effective than other NSAID's such as Aspirin and Ibuprofen

The conventional medical establishment told us that, unlike earlier NSAID drugs, Vioxx (and other Cox-2 inhibitors) relieved pain and inflammation without interfering with the protective stomach lining, a well-known DIE in the older drugs. 

After its introduction in 1999, Vioxx was withdrawn from the market, worldwide, in September 2004, after it was implicated in several fatalities, involving heart attacks and strokes. It has been estimated to have caused up to 140,000 cases of serious heart disease, and that up to 40% of these could have been fatal. Other serious DIEs included kidney insufficiency or failure, seizures, high blood pressure and peripheral edema. kidney and liver damage, pregnancy complications, birth defects, and high blood pressure.

Yet, for that short period Vioxx quickly became is one of the most prescribed, and most profitable pharmaceutical drug ever to be given to patients. When it was withdrawn from the market it was being prescribed to over 80 million people, and was a massive money earner for Merck, estimated to have been about $2.5 billion. So when it was withdrawn, after its short, but too long lifespan, it became the most profitable drug ever to be banned!

Yet the history of Vioxx is more significant than just another pharmaceutical drug that was found to be far too dangerous to give patients. 

It quickly involved Merck in massive litigation in the USA, and showed just how devious and criminal the Big Pharma industry can be when they are pushing dangerous drugs, and keeping the truth from the general public, and in this case, from conventional doctors too.

By 2007, Merck, was facing some 7,000 outstanding lawsuits in the USA, and experts estimated that the drug companies potential liabilities might be over $5bn (BBC News, 12 March 2007). Merck's legal and compensation costs have been estimated at about $6 billion, which probably meant that the company still profited from the sale of Vioxx!

Again, rather late in the day, medical scientists found that Vioxx (and drugs similar ro Vioxx) could cause heart attacks and strokes because they stop an enzyme producing blood-thinning agents, thereby leading to a greater chance of blood clotting. This highlighted the total and absolute failure of pharmaceutical drug testing, the incompetence and inability of medical ‘science’, and drug regulation, to protect patients from highly dangerous drugs.

As so often happens, it was not until many thousands of people had  been prescribed the drug, and suffered and died because of it, that its dangers became apparent to the conventional medical estabishmen, and were deemed to dangerous to continue giving it to patients!

Vioxx therefore demonstrates many aspects of the almost routine dangerousness of conventional medical drugs:

          • Vioxx was presented to us as a new 'wonder' drug. 
          • We were told that it had been 'scientifically' tested, and proven to be an effective and safe drug. 
          • But within a few years on the market it was found to be dangerous, a 'killer' drug. 

But the Vioxx scandal also demonstrated much more.

          • That medical 'science', that supportedearly claims regarding  the efficacy and safety of this drug, was not only wrong, but totally condemned by its total inaccuracy, its direct obfuscation of the facts, its blatent failure to disclose evidence, and what amounted to the criminal falsification of drug test results. 

          • That the drugs industry was based, not just on 'failed' medical science, but that it is based on a vast conspiracy of industrial, commercial and medical dishonesty too. 

During the court hearings it was revealed that Merck had known about the risks associated with Vioxx as early as 2000. Its response was to try to bury the heart disease risks of the drug. The Wall Street Journal revealed that Merck had been trying to bury the serious health risks of Vioxx as far back as March 2000.  The company was accused by the New England Journal of Medicine of 'manipulating' a study that claimed, incorrectly, that the cardiovascular risks did not arise until 18 months of use. Further, two medical professionals testified that they were pressured by Merck not to publish test results that showed increased rates of cardiovascular disease. By early 2005 a study calculated that Vioxx had caused between 88,000 and 140,000 cases of heart disease in the US, and thousands of deaths.

Dr Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet, summed all this up when he wrote: 

     "The licensing of Vioxx and its continued use in the face of unambiguous evidence of harm have been public health catastrophes."

Yet whilst Merck was eventually forced to pay large sums of money in compensation to its victims in the USA, the drugs industry can still demonstrate that it has a powerful influence within the court processes - at least in the UK. 

Vioxx victims in the UK, who also suffered heart attacks or strokes, were not compensated owing to the protection accorded to the drug companies. The Guardian report (29th November 2005) said that Lord Brennan, one of Britain's leading QCs, had warned of a "serious risk" that people injured by faulty drugs will no longer be able to mount compensation claims in the British courts. It said that more than 500 people who had suffered strokes or heart attacks following Vioxx treatment had lost an appeal for legal aid. Another QC said that the failure to get funding for the case spelled "the end of litigation against drug companies in the UK".  He added that British people may end up with no justice, no recompense, whereas in the USA Merck would probably settle the cases.

Merck has certainly done so. As with all drug companies, they cause mayhem, disease and death, pay victims compensation when they are forced to do so, then carry on plying their drugs to us as though nothing had happened!

The scandal of Vioxx was reported in the mainstream media, but not at any level commensurate with the damage to health, the disease, the deaths caused by the drug. As usual, the public were 'proteccted' from learning about the behaviour of the drug companies by their friends in the press! However, it is well reported on the internet, so for further details of the enormity of the Vioxx scandal, information can be obtained there.

Perhaps this should be the concluding thought about Vioxx. If the conventional medical establishment can prove itself to be so incompetent, devious and corrupt in relation to this drug, what evidence is there that it is any more competent, straightforward and honest about the claims it makes for drugs they are prescribing to patients today? 


Thursday, 16 April 2015

Ibuprofen. Just how harmful is this ubiquitous painkiller?


Ibuprofen is a widely used painkiller. who safety record needs to be serious re-examined. It is the 'active ingredient' of many well known painkilling drug brands, many of them openly on sale, over-the-counter, and without doctor prescription. It is a NSAID (or Non-Steroidal, Anti-Inflammatory) drug.

Ibuprofen is used by the conventional medical establishment treat mild to moderate pain, in such conditions as toothache, headaches and migraine,  menstrual pain, and rheumatic conditions such as arthritis. It is supposed to to treat the swelling caused by some of these conditions, and in sprains, strains and sports injuries. It is also used to control fever, and is said to have an 'atniplatelet effect' that protects from blood clotting.

Ibuprofen is used in many well-known brand names, many of them openly on sale, without prescription. Perhaps the most well-known of these are Advil, Anadin, Brufen, Motrin, and Nurofen, 

But other names for Ibuprofen include: Actron, Adex, Arinac, Advifen, Actren, Alaxan, Alges-X, Algifor, Algoflex, Algofren, Alindrin, Alivium, Arthrofen, Artofen, Betagesic, Betaprofen, Bonifen, Bugesic, Buplex, Burana, Buprovil, Caldolor, Calprofen, Combiflan, Daisy, Dismenol, Diverin, Dolgit, Dolofort, Doloraz, Dolormin, Dolo-Spedifen, Easofen, Ebufac, Emuprofen, Espidifen, Eve, Fenbid, Fenpaed, Finalflex, Galprofen, Hedex, Herron Blue, I-profen, Ibalgin, Ibrofen, Ibugan, IBU, IBUFEN, Ibufen, Ibugel, Ibuflam, Ibugesic, Ibuhexal, Ibuleve, Ibum, Ibumax, Ibumetin, Ibumidol, Ibupain, Ibuprofene, Ibuprom, Ibuprox, IBU-ratiopharm, Ibuprosyn, Ibustar, Ibu-vivimed, Ibux, Ibuxin, Ipren, Kratalgin, Lotem, Medicol, Moment, Mypaid, Mrprodol, Narfen, Naron Ace, Neobrufen, Neofen, Norvectan, Nuprin, Nureflex, Orbifen, Panafen, Perifar, Profin, Ranfen, Rapidol, Ratiodolor, Rimafen, Salvarina, Solpaflex, Spedifen, Speedpain NANO, Spidifen, Tefin, Unafen, Upfen.

The names mean nothing. It all adds up to the confusion that the drugs industry seeks to disseminate. The less we know about what they are giving us, the more they can get away with hiding the dangerousness of their drugs from us!

The History of the Drug
Boots, the Chemist, claims responsibility for inventing Ibuprofen. They attribute the discovery to Dr Stewart Adams, who was looking for a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, and awarded an OBE for 'services to the pharmaceitucal industry. He is reported as saying:
     
          "We were convinced, on the basis of all the work we had done, that Ibuprofen would be both safe and effective".

It was marketed as a prescription drug from 1969, and as an over-the-counter, non-prescription drug from 1987. At the time it was said to be 'better tolerated' than aspirin, but equally effective. Boots still describes it as "just one of the many amazing products invested by Boots experts over the years".

Despite the serious side effects Ibuprofen is now known to cause, it continues to be available, without prescription. And whilst the conventional medical establishment know about the risks, little action beyond 'warnings' have been given.

Known and suspected side-effects (DIEs)
NHS Choices describes what they call 'the common side effects' of ibuprofen' as follows:

nausea and vomiting
diarrhoea
indigestion (dyspepsia)
abdominal pain

But NHS Choices also recognises the following, 'less common' side effects:

headache
dizziness
fluid retention (bloating)
raised blood pressure
gastritis (inflammation of the stomach)
stomach ulcers
allergic reactions – such as a rash
worsening of asthma symptoms by causing bronchospasm (narrowing of the airways)
kidney failure
   •      black stools and blood in your vomit (indicating there is bleeding in your stomach).

Yet these are just an inadeuate summary of known, and suspected side effects of Ibuprofen, as this more comprehensive list, taken from the Drugs.com website, demonstrates:

   •      Abdominal pain and cramps
acid or sour stomach, stomach soreness and discomfort
belching
bloating
cloudy urine
decrease in amount of urine
decrease in urine output or decrease in urine-concentrating ability
diarrhea
difficulty having a bowel movement (stool)
excess air or gas in stomach or intestines
full feeling
heartburn
indigestion
itching skin
pain or discomfort in chest, upper stomach, or throat
pale skin
passing gas
nausea
noisy, rattling breathing
rash with flat lesions or small raised lesions on the skin
shortness of breath
swelling of face, fingers, hands, feet, lower legs, or ankles
troubled breathing at rest
troubled breathing with exertion
unusual bleeding or bruising
unusual tiredness or weakness
vomiting
weight gain

Ibuprofen is also known to cause the following, many of them having a severe effect on the brain, including confusion, and on our emotions:

   • Agitation
back, leg, or stomach pains
bleeding gums
blistering, peeling, loosening of skin
blood in urine or stools
bloody, black, or tarry stools
blurred vision
burning feeling in chest or stomach
change in vision
chest pain
chills
clay-colored stools
coma
confusion
constipation
cough or hoarseness
dark urine
decreased urine output
depression
difficulty breathing
difficulty swallowing
dilated neck veins
dizziness
dry mouth
extreme fatigue
fast, irregular, pounding, or racing heartbeat or pulse
fever with or without chills
frequent urination
general body swelling
general feeling of tiredness or weakness
hair loss, thinning of hair
headache
hives or welts
hostility
impaired vision
increased blood pressure
increased volume of pale, dilute urine
irregular breathing
irritability
itching
joint or muscle pain
lab results that show problems with liver
lethargy
light-colored stools
loss of appetite
lower back or side pain
muscle twitching
nosebleeds
painful or difficult urination
pains in stomach, side, or abdomen, possibly radiating to the back
pinpoint red spots on skin
puffiness or swelling of the eyelids or around the eyes, face, lips, or tongue
rash
red skin lesions, often with a purple center
red, irritated eyes
redness of skin
seizures
severe abdominal pain, cramping, burning
severe and continuing nausea
sore throat
sores, ulcers, or white spots in mouth or on lips
stiff neck or back
stomach upset
stupor
swollen or painful glands
tenderness in stomach area
thirst
tightness in chest
unpleasant breath odor
upper right abdominal pain
vomiting of blood
vomiting of material that looks like coffee grounds
wheezing
yellow eyes and skin

Drug.com also outline the symptoms of Ibuprofen overdose, as it is particularly easy to overdose on this drug. They include the following:

Bluish lips or skin
difficulty sleeping
disorientation
dizziness, faintness, or lightheadedness when getting up from a lying or sitting position suddenly
drowsiness to profound coma
hallucination
lightheadedness or fainting
mood or other mental changes
muscle tremors
not breathing
rapid, deep breathing
restlessness
slow or irregular heartbeat
stomach cramps
sudden fainting
sweating

Drug.com says that if any of the following side effects persist you should check with 'your health care professional':

   • Continuing ringing or buzzing or other unexplained noise in ears
hearing loss
nervousness
Crying
depersonalization
discouragement
dry eyes
dysphoria
euphoria
feeling sad or empty
lack of appetite
loss of interest or pleasure
mental depression
paranoia
quick to react or overreact
rapidly changing moods
runny nose
sleepiness or unusual drowsiness
sleeplessness
sneezing
stuffy nose
trouble concentrating
trouble sleeping
unable to sleep

Yet even this list does not do justice to the harm that Ibuprofen can cause.

Miscarriage
A Canadian study involving pregnant women, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, found that those taking any kind, and even small amounts of NSAID drugs, including ibuprofen, diclogenac and naproxen, were 2.4 times more likely to have a miscarriage than those not taking the drugs.


So the drug that Dr Adams described as 'safe and effective', and for which he received an OBE, is far from safe. But it has been a marketing triumph. And the conventional medical establishment appears to be determined to protect it, regardless of the harm it is doing to us.