Tuesday, 22 December 2009

The Vicious Circle of Illness

My e-book, freely available by clicking on this link, talks about the 'vicious circle' of conventional medical failure. By this I mean that the more money spent on the NHS during the last 60 years, principally on BigPharma drugs, the sicker we have become as a nation.

And yet we do live longer! I explained this apparent greater longevity as a statistical device. Take a base figure in the mid 1850's, when large numbers of people died every year in new, industrial and insanitary towns, where people lived in poverty and squalor, longevity was bound to improve during the last 150 years alongside improved public health measures, improved diet, better housing, and so on. But NHS-ConMed has expropriated the credit for this trend. It consistently leads us to believe that our increased life-expectancy was the result of their drugs.

So what about the generation, now in their 60's, who have lived all their lives under the NHS, and have taken more pharmaceutical drugs, earlier in life, than any other generation in history?

New evidence from the USA suggests that this generation is actually sicker than previous generations. See these links,  http://www.naturalnews.com/z027778_Baby_Boomers_degenerative_disease.html, and also http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227670/Health-timebomb-hits-baby-boomers-Over-60s-suffer-illnesses-caused-bad-diet-lack-exercise.html.

This is just what could be expected - the more pharmaceutical drugs we consume, the sicker we become. Perhaps over the next few years, longevity trends will actually begin to reduce.

Why do skeptics hate homeopathy? Homeopathy and the treatment of autism.

"Perhaps because it is one of the most threatening alternative modalities – financially, philosophically, and therapeutically. Actually, homeopathy has been a threat to allopathy ever since the 1800s, when German physician Samuel Hahnemann developed the homeopathic system".

So says Amy L. Lansky, PhD (see http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/12/22/Why-Skeptics-Love-to-Hate-Homeopathy.aspx).

Amy used ConMed treatment for herself and her family until her 3 year old son showed signs of autism, and that started her search for a safer form of medicine. She found homeopathy, and as she says, "after two years of treatment, he was testing normally and was released from eligibility for special education benefits".

The skeptics will dismiss this experience as anacdotal; but then they would, wouldn't they! The safety and effectiveness of homeopathy is a threat to ConMed, and skeptics want to stop people getting access to any treatment that is safer and more effective than their favoured treatment.

For more information, look at Amy's website, http://www.impossiblecure.com/.

Medicine - the use of low doses in cancer treatment

Conventional medicine (ConMed) would have us believe that only by taking highly toxic drugs in large physical doses can have any impact on our health. This is quite wrong, and the evidence of the benefit of low, minimal and homeopathic doses is actually well known to science - except, of course, to the skeptics and supporters of the Pharmaceutical drugs industry.

It would appear that researchers within the conventional medical establishment are beginning to get the message. Read this at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2754535/?tool=pubmed for a broad overview of the research that looks at the advantages of low doses, mainly in the treatment of cancer.

Of course, the lower the dose, the safer the medicine. Samuel Hahnemann got to know about minimum dose over 200 years ago, and homeopathy has taken the concept to its ultimate conclusion. This is why homeopathy is safe medicine. But ConMed is welcome to the party, better late than never!

Thursday, 17 December 2009

Scarlet Fever and Homeopathy

Samuel Hahnemann published his pamphlet Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever in 1801, that is, 208 years ago. In this he promoted Belladonna as a specific prophylactic (preventative) remedy for Scarlet Fever / Scarlatina.

Since that time homeopathy has become aware of many other remedies that prevent and treat this condition, and deal with the aftermath.

Many people have benefitted from homeopathy during the last two centuries, and Belladonna has become an important homeopathic remedy for many conditions. Not only is the remedy effective in many conditions that involve high fever, it is also extremely safe.

Tuesday, 15 December 2009

Junk Science vs Homeopathy

It is always useful to engage in discussion about health issues. In a previous post, the Black Duck has raised a study by George Lewith and Trevor Bryant in 2003 on Belladonna. So for readers of the blog rather that BD.
  • There are other trials that prove that Belladonna is an effective remedy (for patients who have symptoms of illness that reflect the Belladonna symptom picture). The point is that trials must reflect what is being claimed for homeopathic remedies - and one remedy for one condition is not what homeopathy is about
  • This reflects the 'dead end' of RCTs. Such trials rarely throw any light on anything useful. In fact, you can design RCT studies to prove whatever you want to prove.
  • The real benefits of Belladonna are seen with patients with Belladonna symptoms; sudden, high fever, burning heat, redness, etc. Belladonna will have no visible effects on people who do not have such symptoms.
  • So large RCT trials that give Belladonna to people who don't need it will certainly prove that Belladonna has no effect!
The real point, though, and the point being made throughout this blog, is that giving Belladonna in potency to someone who does not need it may do no good, but it does no harm. This is why homeopathy is a safe medical therapy.

In contrast, most, if not all conventional medical (ConMed) drugs do harm to patients, whether they are correctly prescribed or not. Some kill patients. Other lead to patients developing other diseases. Most ConMed drugs are positively harmful to people's health. And the 'scientific' testing of ConMed drugs has done little or nothing to protect patients from such outcomes.

And did homeopathy ignore the study? No we did not! Lionel Milgrom wrote 'MacCavity's not there!" and published it in JACM.

This is the point that Black Duck does not want to acknowledge.

Dana Ullman, Homeopathy, and Skeptic Interference

Dana Ullman is writing an amazinging good blog on the Huffington Post. To see his latest go to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/how-homeopathic-medicines_b_389146.html?show_comment_id=36324951#comment_36324951.

You will see that his blog comes under the same kind of 'skeptic' interference as this one, from the self-style quackbuster, Black Duck. My advice to everyone, including those who have written in to support homeopathy, is to stay calm. This is what I have written to Dana's blog - and I reproduce it here because I believe it is good advice.

"Stay calm, Dana! The skeptics have been placed here to annoy us personally, and undermine homeopathy particularly. I am having the same problem on my blog http://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/. The purpose of my blog, and yours, is to try to inform people about the benefits of homeopathy, particularly at a time that conventional medical drugs are proving to be so dangerous, and based on such bad science. Indeed, it is strange that skeptics don't have anything to say about the almost daily revelations about the cheque-book, junk science that serves as the 'evidence base' for conventional medicine.

So for readers - don't be put off - skeptics are widely believed to be funded by the drug companies, who don't like homeopathy because it is not good for their business!

And Dana - stay calm. I thoroughly enjoy your blog, and I hope that you are bringing more people to question conventional medicine, and to realise that that there are safe and more effectives forms of medical therapy out here".

Monday, 14 December 2009

MS and the Gardisil vaccine now linked

Horrendous, I know, but the Gardisil vaccine is now being linked to MS in Australia.


Of course we have had the Cervarix vaccine in the UK, but early reports showed that this was having enormous adverse reactions. See, for instance,


Tamiflu - more Big Pharma deception

For those following my discussions with 'the Black Duck' about the safety of homeopathy and conventional drugs, (see previous post), there is now more news of drug company deception.

See http://www.naturalnews.com/027734_Tamiflu_Roche.html

This is just part of what the article says about Tamiflu, the anti-viral drug, and Roche, the drug's manufacturer.

"Roche claims there are ten studies providing Tamiflu is both safe and effective. According to the company, Tamiflu has all sorts of benefits, including a 61% reduction in hospital admissions by people who catch the flu and then get put on Tamiflu.

The problem with these claims is that they aren't true. They were simply invented by Roche.

A groundbreaking article recently published in the British Medical Journal accuses Roche of misleading governments and physicians over the benefits of Tamiflu. Out of the ten studies cited by Roche, it turns out, only two were ever published in science journals. And where is the original data from those two studies? Lost.

The data has disappeared. Files were discarded. The researcher of one study says he never even saw the data. Roche took care of all that, he explains".

Truth and honesty appear to go out of the window when there is the prospect of selling, and making huge profits from selling pharaceutical drugs!

Friday, 11 December 2009

Patients deceived by another drug company

Pfizer has been caught in yet more science fraud. The company has apparently been found to have altered findings for their drug, Neurontin http://www.naturalnews.com/z027692_science_fraud_Neurontin.html.

An unusual, one-off occurrence? Unfortunately not, indeed, it would appear that most large pharmaceutical drug companies have been caught publishing the 'science' they liked, and not publishing the 'science' the disliked! See this link, from my e-book 'The Failure of Conventional Medicine' for more examples of this illegal and unsafe practice.

Conventional medicine claims to be supported by an 'evidence base'. It would appear that some of this evidence base is actually fraudulent - and perhaps more of it than we are aware. That would certainly explain why so many pharmaceutical drugs, given to patients as tested, and therefore effective and safe, turn out to be ineffective and dangerous.

Friday, 4 December 2009

Homeopathy - the evidence base

The detractors of homeopathy regularly repeat that homeopathy has no evidence base, that science is clear that homeopathic remedies cannot possibly work.

This is a lie, repeated so often many people continue to believe it is true.
The Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons is currently doing an investigation into the 'evidence base' for homeopathy, and several submissions have outlined the growing body of science that supports homeopathy as an effective medical therapy. Have a look at the following, all referring to the scientific evidence:







Side effects? Adverse reactions? Or Disease Inducing Effects (DIEs)?

The terms 'side-effect' or 'adverse reaction' do not adequately describe the damage that NHS-ConMed drugs can do. Indeed to describe the carnage caused by NHS-ConMed drugs as 'side-effects' is an understatement of enormous proportions. They are inadequate descriptions of what drugs can do, and a gross underestimate of the human tragedy they cause on a regular basis. The terms make a mockery of the reality - that thousands of people every year suffer serious ill-health as a direct consequence of taking drugs to make them better.

Pharmaceutical drugs cause disease, and sometimes death. That is why 'Disease Inducing Effects', or DIEs is a better description. For more discussion on this, click here.

Tuesday, 1 December 2009

Science - the failure to protect us from conventional medicine

Conventional Medicine (ConMed) is supposed to be safe, and to be effective, because it is based on 'science'. Science provides ConMed with its evidence base, so every drug, every treatment you are given by your doctor, or by your hospital is its guarantee for safety and efficacy.

Yet the regulation and testing of drugs has regularly, and frequently failed. The drug testing system itself (in the UK, in the USA, and elsewhere) has been shown repeatedly to be dishonest and deeply corrupt, infiltrated by powerful and influential pharmaceutical drug companies whose primary interest is to profit by selling us drugs.

Drug testing, the evidence base for ConMed, has consistently failed to protect us. So where is the evidence for this? Have a look at my e-book, 'The Failure of Conventional Medicine' I have collected just some of the evidence together.

ConMed has regularly announced drugs as being 'miracle cures' for disease; and just a few years later these same drugs have had to be withdrawn, or banned, because they have been found to be unsafe, or dangerous, or even (literally) lethal. Again, if you want to see a list of some of these drugs, click on this link.

If this is the type of medicine is safe enough for you, it is widely available, free of charge within the NHS.

Safer medicine is rather more difficult, although not impossible to obtain within the NHS at present.