Friday, 3 July 2015

Starving, malnourished children - give 'em vaccines

The BBC 'Today' news programme was on good form this morning (3rd July 2015). They did a piece on poverty in India, describing the state of some children in Gujarat, and linking it with Government promises at the last election, and the fact that it was now intent on reducing expenditure.

And did you know (I didn't until the BBC informed me) that there was not even enough money to get the children properly vaccinated.

Now, there's a scope. Starved and malnourished children need vaccinations!

Well, it might be a priority for the BBC, in their regular role of salesmen for the Big Pharma companies. But I doubt that it is on the priority list of anyone else but the vaccine makers!

Thursday, 2 July 2015

The Autism Epidemic in Scotland, and throughout the world

The first cases of Autism were reported in the USA in the 1940's. Before that there was no such disease, it was just not known.

At the same time the conventional medical establishment began to vaccinate us, injecting mercury, or aluminium, and other noxious substances into our bloodstream.

And as we have vaccinated ourselves more and more, Autism has grown, and grown, and continues to grow. We now have an Autism epidemic.

Our doctors continue to insist that there is no connection between the two trends, that vaccination is entirely safe, and that Autism is caused by ..... well, they don't actually know. This is what NHS Choices says,

     "The exact causes of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are unknown, although it is thought that several complex genetic and environmental factors are involved.

A recent article published in Natural News on 26th June 2015 demonstrates just how rapidly the Autism epidemic is developing, and harming our children; and they use statistics from Scotland to demonstrate it.

     "The UK is facing an unprecedented number of new autism cases, according to new research. Figures in Scotland, which are among the most comprehensive available in the British isles, reveal that the autism rate among students at Scottish schools is up 1,360% percent since 1998, with no perceivable end in sight.

The immense growth rate of autism in Scotland over the past 16 years is highlighted by the following:

Year |       Total number of pupils |       Number of pupils with an ASD
1998         758,414                                820
1999         755,081                                959
2000         751,243                                1,245
2001         745,063                                1,515
2002         738,597                                2,204
2003         732,122                                2,663
2004         723,554                                3,090
2005         713,240                                3,484
2006         702,737                                2,443
2007         692,215                                3,919
2008         681,573                                4,900
2009         676,740                                5,254
2010         673,133                                6,506
2011         670,511                                7,801
2012         671,218                                8,650
2013         673,530                                9,946

As the article suggests these figures might be something to trigger some concern, and some investigation. But they do not! There is a wall of silence. Our doctors don't tell us, even about a possible connection. The NHS is quite happy to continue with the vaccination schedule, even to increase it. The Government is too frightened that the Big Pharma companies may pull out their investment in Britain. And the British media is asleep!

After all, these figures have been published in an American website, not by a concerned media, keen to look after our health!

If parents want to avoid their children becoming Autistic they have to begin taking matters into their own hands, and to refuse to allow them to be vaccinated. No-one else seems prepared to do anything about it.


Sunday, 28 June 2015

We are unhealthier now, but spend multi-£billions on drugs and vaccines


  • We are getting sicker
  • We devote enormous resources on conventional medicine
  • Why?

The world's Population Is Getting Sicker. A study, based on a global survey, and outlined in a Lancet news release on 8th June 2015 showed that people are losing more 'years of healthy life' to illness now than they did in the 1990s.

The 'Global Burden of Disease' survey should that only 4% of people worldwide had no health problems (in 2013), whilst one-third (representing about 2.3 billion people) had more than 5 health problems! What is worse was the the situation is getting progressively worse.

The proportion of years of healthy life lost because of illness rose from 21% in 1990 to 31% in 2013.

This trend is contrary to the picture that the conventional medical establishment wants to project, and what the mainstream media works hard to get us to believe.

  • Drugs and vaccines are winning the war against ill-health. 
  • Conventional medical science has got, or will soon get, cures for every illness and disease. 
  • Our doctors can be relied upon to make us better when we get sick.

The study was an extensive one. It involved data from 188 countries, and looked at over 300 illnesses and injuries, according to the Lancet news release, which described the study as the largest analysis of trends in health around the world for the years 1990 to 2013.

The survey found that in both 1990 and 2013 the leading causes of ill health worldwide were the same, namely Low back pain, depression, iron-deficiency anemia, neck pain and age-related hearing loss.

In 2013, two conditions, musculoskeletal problems, such as low back pain, neck pain and arthritis) and mental health and substance abuse disorders, such as depression, anxiety, and drug and alcohol abuse, accounted for nearly half of all loss of healthy years of life.

Of course, there was little of no mention of the role of conventional medical drugs in making us sicker through the side effects of drugs and vaccines!

Instead, the 'usual suspects' were blamed. For instance, the growing number and proportion of older people in the population was one name culprit, and it is disappointing that there appears to have been no mention that people are getting sicker now earlier in their lives.

Yet the study is important. It found that 1 in 10 people worldwide in 2013 suffered from at least one of the following disorders:

  • tooth decay
  • tension headaches
  • iron-deficiency anaemia
  • age-linked hearing loss
  • genital herpes
  • migraines
  • intestinal roundworm
  • and a genetic blood disorder.

The study described a startling rise in ill health between 1990 and 2013 arising from

  • diabetes
  • Alzheimer's disease
  • arthritis

The conclusion of the study was that whilst death rates were declining, rates of disability were rising. It noted that global diabetes rates rose by 43% over the 23 years studied, whilst deaths from diabetes only rose by 9%. In other words, modern medicine may have kept people alive longer, but that quality of life was not improved. The author of the study, Theo Vox, Professor of Global Health, the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, was quoted in the news release.

     "Large, preventable causes of health loss, particularly serious musculoskeletal disorders and mental and behavioral disorders, have not received the attention that they deserve. Addressing these issues will require a shift in health priorities around the world, not just to keep people alive into old age, but also to keep them healthy."

Yet this issue is not about 'a shift in health priorities'. The promise made to us by the conventional medical establishment has never been to keep us alive, albeit suffering from more chronic disease. The promise has been to eliminate disease. In this our drug-vaccine led medical culture has failed, and is continuing to fail.

The problem of accelerating, world-wide ill-health will only be understood once the role of doctor-induced disease, iatrogenic disease, is taken seriously into account.

Only when we begin to understand and recognise the role of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, which have been dished out like confetti for decades, will we address these issues. Side effects are really disease-inducing-effects (DIEs). They are not just slight, temporary headaches. They are fully fledged diseases. We are told by conventional doctors that side effects, or DIEs, are inevitable. They are not! They are inevitable within a medical system that continuously fights the body, drugs that 'inhibit' this function, or are 'antagonist' to that function, or which 'block' something else.

The fact is that the more we spend on conventional medical care, focused as it is on DIE-ridden drugs and vaccines, the sicker we are becoming, and in future the sicker we will become. This is what this study states, clearly and unequivocally. What the study unfortunately fails to do is to identify one of the most fundamental reasons for this ongoing trend.

I am currently in the process of writing an e-book that looks more closely at DIEs. The purpose of this book will be to look at diseases, particular chronic diseases that are currently running at epidemic proportions, and identifying the conventional medical drugs and vaccines that are known to cause these diseases.

Perhaps it is time for the conventional medical establishment to recognise their role in this pattern of growing ill-health. This may take a very long time!

So it is certainly time for patients, for those of us who are getting sick, to begin to recognise the role play by Big Pharma drugs and vaccines in our ill-health.



Thursday, 18 June 2015

Rennies. A simple, safe Antacid drug. Or a cause of Dementia?

Rennies is readily available on sale at most chemists. It does not need a doctor's prescription. Lots of people use it for an upset stomach. Most people think it is safe.

But it isn't!

Have a look at this research, which links Rennies with Dementia.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467900002067

For an broader assessment of the dangers of Rennies, please click here. This article also covers the dangers of two other 'safe' and widely used antacid drugs, Gaviscon and Alka-Seltzer.



Wednesday, 17 June 2015

Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPI Drugs). The unspoken dangers

Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) reduce the amount of acid made by your stomach, and are used to treat acid reflux and ulcers of the stomach and  the gut. The drugs act by suppressing stomach acid. PPIs come under a number of different brand names, including Aciphex, Altosec, Controloc, Dexilant, Esotrex, Gasec, GastroGard, Inhibitol, Kapidex, Levant, Lomac, Losec, Lupizole, Monolitum, Nexium, Omepral, Omez, Pantolac, Pantozol, Pantomed, Pepcid, Prevacid, Prilosec, Protonix, Somac, Tagamet, Tecta, UlcerGard, Zantac, Zentro, Zoton, Zegerid, Zurcal, and no doubt many others.

Since the discovery of PPI compounds in the mid 1970's, they have become the drug of choice for most acid-related conditions, and have been widely sold throughout the world since that time. Doctors will often tell you they do not develop side effects (see, for example, the patient.info website), and are 'well-tolerated. This is untrue.

For instance, one consumer organisation in the USA, Public Citizen, asked the FDA in 2011 to add a ‘black box’ warning to them, to make users aware of the drastic side effects caused by PPIs. Of course, this did not happen!

So what are the side effects of these commonly used drugs? The most common side effects of PPIs, the one’s openly admitted by the conventional medical establishment, include:
  • Gastrointestinal upsets, such as diarrhoea and constipation
  • Abdominal pain
  • Flatulence
  • Nausea
  • Headaches
  • Rashes, itching
  • Dizziness
  • Insomnia
  • Drowsiness, malaise
  • Blurred vision
Yet these common side effects are only the beginning of the problems that PPI drugs can cause to patients. Dr Ray Sahelian, on his webpage, outlines the association of PPI drugs with cancer, infection, gastric atrophy, polyps, Helicobacter pylori, and says that the chronic use of PPIs can lead to confusion, delirium and dementia.

PPI Drugs and vitamin B12 absorption
Perhaps many of these serious associations with PPI drugs are related to one of the known effects - in reducing the absorption of the important vitamin, B12. In this study, published by JAMA, the long-term users of PPI drugs have been found to have a 65% risk of deficiency, which can lead to:
  • Anaemia
  • Nerve damage
  • Psychiatric problems
  • Depression
  • Female fertility and childbearing problems
  • Dementia, including Alzheimer disease 
  • Heart disease
  • Cancer

PPIs and Clostridium difficile (C.Diff)
Clostridium difficile is one of the new superbugs, created by conventional medicine’s love of Antibiotic drugs. NHS Choices says that C. Diff is a type of bacterial infection that can affect the digestive system. “It most commonly affects people who have been treated with antibiotics”. It says that it can cause diarrhoea, high temperature, and painful abdominal cramps. But it also admits that “it can also lead to life-threatening complications such as severe swelling of the bowel from a build-up of gas (toxic megacolon)”. What they do not admit is any connection with PPI drugs.

This Medscape article, ‘Proton Pump Inhibitor Use Linked to Clostridium Difficile Infection’, published in 2010, outlines two studies issued in the ‘Archives of Internal Medicine’ that showed a correlation between use of PPIs and Clostridium difficile infections. These studies led to the FDA including a warning on the labels of PPI drugs. In an accompanying editorial, Mitchell H. Katz, MD, from the San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, California, describes these studies as well as the others described in the series, "Less Is More."

"The increases in the risk of Clostridium difficile infection with PPIs are not at all modest, reflecting the likely importance of gastric acid in protecting against infection from this pathogen” (My emphasis).


PPIs, Osteoporosis and Fracture risk
The link between PPI drugs, Osteoporosis and the increased risk of fractures, is well documented, but of course not accepted by the conventional medical establishment. Several studies have identified an association between PPI prescription and the development of hip fracture and fractures overall.
  • Yang YX, Lewis JD, Epstein S, et al. Long-term proton pump inhibitor therapy and risk of hip fracture. JAMA 2006;296:2947–53.
  • Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L. Proton pump inhibitors, histamine H2 receptor antagonists, and other antacid medications and the risk of fracture. Calcif Tissue Int 2006;79:76–83.
PPI Drugs, Confusion and Dementia.
This is confirmed in several studies. One study, ‘Acid inhibitors may raise risk of developing dementia use may lead to confusion, delirium, and dementia’ found that memory problems were seen in older black people who were chronic users.

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

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

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

PPIs and Heart Attacks (Myocardial Infarction)
It has been accepted for many years that PPI drugs might cause heart attacks in those people who had previous history of cardiovascular disease. However, more recent evidence, in this study published in June 2015, Proton Pump Inhibitor Usage and the Risk of Myocardial Infarction in the General Population, demonstrated  that this prior susceptibility to heart attacks was not necessary. The conclusion of the study was this.

“Consistent with our pre-clinical findings that PPIs may adversely impact vascular function, our data-mining study supports the association of PPI exposure with risk for MI in the general population. These data provide an example of how a combination of experimental studies and data-mining approaches can be applied to prioritize drug safety signals for further investigation

Dependence and Withdrawal 
When the USA consumer organisation, Public Citizen asked the FDA to give PPI drugs a ‘black box’ warning in 2001, one of the reasons they gave was the potential for developing dependence on the drug.

“Rebound acid hypersecretion risk - a kind of PPI dependence that can occur even after just four weeks on the medication. Patients and health care professional should be informed about the risk of PPI dependence and warned not to take the medications beyond their time frames and indicated uses. There is no current warning about this in any PPI label”.

The problem has been discussed on several internet sites, including this one, and also on this ABC News article. However, no such warning has, to my knowledge, ever been given by drug regulators.


Instead, patients are routinely told by the conventional medical establishment that Proton Pump Inhibitor drugs are ‘well tolerated’. Clearly, they do not believe that these drugs have done sufficient damage to patients yet!

Tuesday, 16 June 2015

CMO calls for medicines review on safety and efficacy of drugs? To restore public trust?

BBC News have today (16th June 2015) issued the news that the UK government's Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, has called for an independent review of the safety and efficacy of medicines as she is worried that recent controversies over the use of medicine "have damaged faith in the way research is carried out and presented".

This must come as a considerable surprise to those people who regularly listen to BBC News.

Just what controversies are these? And what are the problems in the way medical research is carried out and presented? Have we heard about these concerns before?

Apparently, a copy of her request was obtained by the BBC's File on 4 programme as part of an investigation into 'concerns'. So what are these concerns?

  • She is concerned "about the view that doctors and scientists are "untrustworthy".
This has never been said before, certainly not on the BBC, which regularly tells us about new medical breakthroughs, but nothing about any issues with the safety of the drugs patients are given
  • She is concerned about a clot-busting treatment for strokes, a technique called thrombolysis.
What is her concern about this treatment? I have never heard the BBC tell its viewers and listeners anything about this clot-busting treatments. Surely, if there were concerns about thrombolysis, this trusted broadcaster would tell us about it. Wouldn't they?


  • She is concerned about the use of cholesterol-lowing statin drugs for people at low risk of developing heart disease.
What is her concern? The BBC has regularly told us that statins are life-saving drugs, even that they are entirely safe. Certainly, they have never told us otherwise!
  • She is concerned about the use of the anti-viral drug, Tamiflu.

What is her concern? Have the BBC ever told us anything about Tamil, certainly anything that was to do with 'concerns'.

The BBC tells us that the letter reads:

"There seems to be a view that doctors over-medicate so it is difficult to trust them, and that clinical scientists are all beset by conflicts of interest from industry funding and are therefore untrustworthy too."

  • Doctors over-medicate?
  • Conflicts of interest?
Surely not, surely if these problems existed our trusted BBC, and its health and science correspondents would have told us about it.


The letter also says that none of this is not in the interests of patients or the public's health. Yet it is difficult to believe that the BBC would not have been aware of these threats to patients (who, after all, are the BBC's viewers, listeners and readers), or about threats to public health, without reporting them.

"I have, therefore, reluctantly come to the conclusion that we do need an authoritative independent report looking at how society should judge the safety and efficacy of drugs as an intervention."

So Dame Sally Davies seems convinced. It does seem that she might be correct. Perhaps in the absence of interest in these matters by the mainstream media, including the BBC, we do need such an 'independent' report.

The BBC articles take up the problem with the treatment of strokes, I believe for the very first time!

"Each year in the UK, there are more than 150,000 strokes. About 85% are caused by an obstruction blocking the flow of blood to the brain. Patients with this type of stroke may be eligible for treatment with alteplase, subject to tests in hospital. File on 4 visited the hyper-acute stroke unit at Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust to see how staff assessed and administered alteplase. Dr Jane Molloy, the clinical lead for stroke services, described how they explained the potential benefits to patients and their families. Doctors would say that for every three people treated with this medication one will make some extra improvement, and one in seven will recover their independence who would not do so otherwise, she said.

File on 4 then set out the risks.

"We know that the risk of bleeding with thrombolysis is six in 100 and that will include minor bleeding but also might include major bleeding with the possibility that it could cause a fatal bleed in the brain."

"Some doctors say the benefits have been exaggerated. Dr Roger Shinton, a former stroke physician at Birmingham's Heartlands Hospital, is sceptical. He said: 
          "I'm prepared to accept that there are some patients who could get some benefit, but overall it may be that on balance the number of people benefiting is actually quite small and does not justify the use given the significant harms that we know."

His views, as a conventional doctor, are strange indeed. Whenever, and if ever, the BBC investigates medical concerns, it talks to doctors who provide us all with re-assurance. Their strategy is surely foolproof, isn't it? There is a problem with a medical process, so ask those who are committed to that process to give us their opinion.

And yet, read on....

Dr Shinton's concerns have won 'powerful backing' from the former president of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Richard Thompson, who is quoted as saying:

"My worry is that the trials are not consistent, that the evidence is not strong enough to be giving, after all, a very expensive treatment. Do we want to recommend a treatment with a marginal effect when we know we are, if you like, killing a few patients and saving others?"

Yes, an important question. I have often heard doctors explain to BBC interviews that the advantages of a drug, or vaccine, or procedure, outweighs the disadvantages. The BBC usually accept this without question. So it is not surprising, perhaps, that in this BBC articles, it finds such an individual, Dr Dale Wenn, from the Stroke Association, who defended the treatment.

"The evidence says that alteplase has made a big impact on the recovery of stroke survivors. We have to remember that the number of disabilities associated with stroke is greater than any other medical condition. A stroke really can turn your world upside down. What alteplase has done is to improve the long-term recovery outcomes for stroke patients."

And then the BBC finds a statement made by Boeringer Ingelheim, which holds the licence for alteplase in Europe, who said its medicine played a vital role in the treatment of acute strokes.

"We are confident in our data, which is supported by the experience of clinicians who have been using our medicine to treat their patients for more than a decade. We are incredibly proud of the contribution our medicine makes to patient care at this critical time."

Well, that's the final word, in this BBC article, so perhaps all is well with conventional medical practice. All this investigatory journalism is hard work, questioning people (even medical 'experts'), delving into the outcomes of their practices. Much easier, surely, to listen the what the conventional medical establishment tells us, and go along with it.

And then, Sally Davies does this? I wonder why she wanted to upset the apple-cart? Yes, there are people out here who investigate the outcomes of conventional medical drugs, vaccines and procedures. That's why more and more people are turning to alternative medical therapies.

But shush, that's enough. The BBC might think that it ought to examine these medical therapies with an open mind. It's much easier just to forget about them. And to castigate them, if they are mentioned.

So quiet, all of you. The BBC science and health correspondents are asleep on the job. Don't wake them!

Gliflozins. A 'new' drug for Diabetes

Gliflozins, SGLT2 inhibitors, have not been around very long. They are a new class of drugs developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The first of these, Canaflifozin was approved by the FDA (US drug regulator) in 2013. Other types are called Dapafloflozin and Empagliflozin. They seek to prevent glucose getting into the blood stream.

Like all conventional drugs, gliflozins will have been fully tested by the drug companies. The tests will have confirmed, to the satisfaction of drug regulators that they are effective and safe. The full rigour of science will have been used to ensure that patients are not harmed.

Like all new drugs, the drug companies will have marketed it by telling us about its magnificent potential, as in this Times of India article.

"With the introduction of ... the Gliflozins, a new era of therapy has been ushered in, whereby independent of the insulin mechanism, the diabetic just flushes out the extra glucose in the urine. The efficacy of these drugs is significant and can lead substantial benefit in controlling the spiraling sugars in the diabetic. Simultaneously , the excreted glucose carries away un wanted calories and over a period of time results in some favorable weight loss".

So we have "a new era", a drug whose "efficacy is significant", and "can lead to substantial benefit in controlling the spiralling sugars in the diabetic". The patient can even expect to lose weight.
So can we look forward to the diabetes epidemic to be reduced? Has medical science has triumphed, yet again? Can patients  benefit greatly from the new wisdom of conventional medicine, and the brilliance of the pharmaceutical industry? Or are Big Pharma promises destined, once more, to hit the dust?
This is the headline of the GP magazine, Pulse (16th June 2015). Within two years of the launch of these game-changing drugs, problems have been identified - despite 'rigorous' scientific testing - despite the work of drug regulators.
"The European Medicines Agency (EMA) said it was conducting the review after 101 cases of diabetic ketoacidosis - a condition usually seen in patients with type 1 diabetes - were reported worldwide in patients with type 2 diabetes using the drugs to help control their blood glucose.
"All the cases were serious and some required patients to be admitted to hospital, the EMA said, while some patients’ blood glucose levels were not elevated as is usually characteristic of the condition, potentially delaying diagnosis and treatment.
"The regulator said it was writing to GPs and other clinicians about the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis and how to manage it and that ‘patients who have any concerns about their diabetes medicines should consult their doctor or pharmacist’.
It is the usual story with conventional medical drugs. 
  • The early hype of a safe and effective new drug.
  • It is given to patients, then quickly realised that it harms patients in ways that science did not predict.
  • The review will almost inevitably deduce that there are problems, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
  • Doctors will continue prescribing the drug to patients, and more harm and damage will be done.
  • More reviews will be undertaken, but for many years it is unlikely that effective action will be taken to protect patients.
  • And although doctors will be asked to use caution, patients will not be told about the dangers of the drug.
  • And the mainstream media will be dutifully quiet

The history of most, if not all pharmaceutical drugs follow a similar pattern, often ending up with the drug being withdrawn or banned. I have written about this in more detail in "Medical Science. The failure to protect us from 'scientific' medicine"
The medicine offered to us by the conventional medical establishment is usually unsafe, and often dangerous. Patients need to know this before they accept any drug or vaccine. Unfortunately, largely owing to the weakness of our media, most patients do not know. And so our doctors continue to harm us with drugs like Gliflozins.