Thursday, 31 December 2015

Constipation? Why homeopathy is the safest and most effective medicine

Constipation is a common condition that means an inability to pass stools regularly, or a failure to completely empty the bowel. It often produces stools that are hard and lumpy, and either unusually large or small. The condition can be short-term, or it can become chronic, causing considerable pain and discomfort.

Conventional Medical Treatment for constipation
The NHS Choices website has been used here as the source of information about the conventional medical treatment of this condition. Quite rightly it focuses initially on sensible lifestyle advice.
  • increasing fibre in the diet.
  • adding ‘bulking’ agents such as wheat bran.
  • drinking lots of water
  • exercise
But it also recommends the use of paracetamol painkillers if there is pain and discomfort, and warning that children should not take aspirin.

It also warns that constipation can be caused by taking pharmaceutical drugs for other conditions.

Laxative drugs 
This is the first response of conventional medicine if lifestyle changes do not work. NHS Choices mention bulk-forming laxatives, such as ispaghula husks, methyl cellulose and sterculia - to make the stools softer, and easier to pass. It warns that plenty of water needs to be drunk if taking these drugs.

Osmotic laxative drugs
If the stools remain hard after bulk-forming laxatives, osmotic laxative are then usually prescribed. These increase the amount of fluid in your bowels, thus helping to stimulate the body to pass stools. Those mentioned are lactulose and macrogols, and again there is a warning not to take these without drinking lots of water.

Stimulant laxative drugs
These are prescribed when the stools are soft but there is still difficulty passing them. These laxatives seek to stimulate the muscles lining the digestive tract. Those mentioned are sennabisacodyl and sodium picosulphate, with a warning that they can only be used on a short-term basis.

Indeed, NHS Choices warn that after taking laxatives “for some time”, the dose has to be reduced slowly, and that this can take several months!

Treating faecal impaction
Faecal impaction occurs when stools become hard and dry, collect in the rectum, and obstructs the rectum, making it more difficult for stools to pass along. NHS Choices says that this is normally treated with a high dose of the osmotic laxative, macrogol, followed by a stimulant laxative. 

If this does not work, suppositories are inserted into your anus, gradually dissolving, and absorbed into your bloodstream. Bisacodyl is an example of a suppository that is often used.

Mini enema
If this also fails, drugs like Decussate and sodium citrate in fluid form can be injected through your anus and into your large bowel.

Although conventional doctors will usually say that these treatments are entirely safe, they all have side effects. The Mayo Clinic website outlines some of them, and they include difficulty in breathing, intestinal bleeding, skin rash and itching, swallowing difficulty, light-headedness, confusion, irregular  heartbeat, muscle cramps, unusual tiredness and weakness.

Homeopathic Treatment of constipation
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 constipation is concerned, homeopathy has highlighted a number of remedies that have been found to be useful in its treatment. The Honatur Homeopathy Online 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.

Bryonia alba
Bryonia is prescribed to patients who struggle to pass stools. The stools are hard, dry, voluminous and clumped. The patient has generally dry mucous membranes, which is why water intake should be increased.

Calcium carbonicum
Calcium carbonicum is prescribed when the patient is constipated but does not feel the urge to pass stools. When he defecates, the faeces are abundant and hard. He doesn’t tolerate milk and always craves eggs, carbohydrates and sweet foods.

Causticum is used for when there is an enormous difficulty in passing stools. All efforts are inefficient because the sphincter is paralysed. This medication is widely prescribed to the elderly.

Graphites is used in patients who can feel the presence of stools but don’t feel the urge to pass them. The stools are large, mucous and difficult to expel. In women, this often happens during menstruation.

Hydrastis canadensis
Hydrastis is recommended for constipation with false urges to defecate or when the defecation is incomplete. The stomach area is swollen and bloated and there is flatulence. This is a useful remedy in pregnancy or shortly after pregnancy.

Lycopodium clavatum
The patient who is affected by Lycopodium feels the need to defecate but does not manage to. The passing of the stool is incomplete and the stomach is bloated with flatulence.

Natrum chloratum
The faeces belonging to the patient who respond well to Natrum chloratum are small balls that look like “sheep’s excrement”. The passage of stools is painful and causes small tears and bleeding.

Nux vomica
The Nux vomica patient feels frequent urges to defecate, especially after eating and particularly when the intake has been copious.  The Nux vomica patient’s bowel movements are incomplete and haemorrhoids are a common problem. The constipation is caused by laxative abuse.

Opium is indicated when the rectum is completely inert. The stools are dry and black. This is the remedy that is used to treat constipation following a surgical intervention. The dose, in this case, would be given once a day for 3 consecutive days.

Silicea is prescribed when there is a severe difficulty in passing stools. The patient feels like the stool is reversing back inside once it has started to emerge. The faeces are hard and large. The patient makes an enormous effort to defecate.

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!

Wednesday, 30 December 2015

Cholesterol. Just how important are Statin drugs to our health?

The conventional medical establishment has for decades now told us that high cholesterol levels is one of the biggest risk factors for heart disease, and that it raises our risk of future heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular problems.

Yet, as Agora Health stated, in their recent newsletter, the problem is that lowering your cholesterol is virtually useless for preventing heart disease! They say that there is 'a ton of evidence' proving that cholesterol is not the deadly demons it has been made out to be!

     "For instance, did you know that fully half of all people admitted to hospital with a heart attack had no previous symptoms… and had cholesterol levels in the normal range?"

     "Moreover, studies also show that most people with high cholesterol almost NEVER have a heart attack. If they did, heart attack rates would be TRIPLE what they currently are!"

The problem with this kind of evidence is that it does not sell pharmaceutical drugs! The cholesterol myth has been the main reason for the enormous commercial success of Statin drugs. Therefore, the conventional medical establishment is loath to tell us, and our doctors are probably not allowed to do so.

It is, of course, one thing to take a drug that is useful. It is quite another to take a drug that is known to have serious side effects, drugs that to use a less pejorative term, causes illness and disease.

Our doctors have been telling us for years that Statin drugs are entirely safe. Indeed, many doctors have thought they were so safe they wanted all of us to take them! But my website on Statin drugs outlines the damage that useless Statin drugs can cause.

     "In 2010, a Nottingham university study was published in the British Medical Journal, and reported here in Reuters. It found that people taking Statin drugs have a higher risk of liver dysfunction, kidney failure, muscle weakness and cataracts. The study was a large one, covering over 2 million people in Britain, but the author's of the report were reported as saying that the study was unlikely to affect of Statin drugs!"

     "The link between Statin drugs and Diabetes is also strong. Diabetes is now at epidemic levels, and is usually dismissed as being the result of what we eat. But Statin drugs appear to play a significant role in this too."

     "Memory loss, confusion and dementia are now also linked to Statin drugs. The FDA,(US drug regulator) states on its website, dated 20th January 2015,  that "it has been been investigating reports of cognitive impairment from statin use for several years" and that "the agency has reviewed databases that record reports of bad reactions to drugs and statin clinical trials that included assessments of cognitive function. The FDA report talks about memory loss, forgetfulness and confusion that "span all statin products and all age groups".

Statins have been called the greatest medical fraud of all time, and perhaps in time this is how they will be recognised, and the conventional medical establishment will see fit to tell patients, honestly and truthfully, about the harm Statin drugs cause. However, despite all the evidence, it will probably be a long time before our conventional doctors are allowed to tell us, and the pharmaceutical industry  has the honesty, based on the scientific information already available to it, to withdraw and ban this too-profitable drug.

Tuesday, 29 December 2015

Homeopathy and Brain Haemorrhage. Why such an abusive skeptical response?

Recently, I read an article about the treatment of brain haemorrhage with homeopathy. It was an amazing article written in the Hpathy website by Manfred Mueller, a homeopath, who presented several cases of brain haemorrhage, or stroke. On the basis that stroke victims, and their carers, might like to know how effective homeopathic treatment can be with this condition, I decided to tweet it, without comment, on 24th December 2015.

The article described several cases that Manfred Mueller had treated.
  • A woman called Eleanor, aged 70, who had suffered a stroke. She was described as “semi-conscious” and unable to speak. She could only respond by making sounds and shaking or nodding her head. She had developed pneumonia with a fever, and was on three types of conventional drugs. It describes the course of homeopathic treatment she was given, and describes her almost complete recovery.
  • A young girl Rachel, aged 10, who had fallen and had brain surgery for a subarachnoid haemorrhage, after which she went into a coma. It describes the homeopathic treatment he gave her, and the obstruction he received from the conventional medical staff he encountered. Treatment ended before an outcome could be followed through because Rachel’s mother was imprisoned for child abuse.
  • Bill, aged 65, had fallen from a ladder hitting his head, suffering also a fractured rib, a punctured lung, and other injuries. A scan found that he had suffered a subarachnoid haemorrhage. After receiving homeopathic remedies for some time, he decided against the operation conventional doctors were recommending. He had another scan, and much to the doctors surprise the haematoma had gone!
  • Claire was a 42 year old mother of two who was treating herself for a head injury. Her self treatment, and the treatment given to her by Manfred Mueller, was described, and she made a full recovery.
The response to this article from skeptics, or homeopathy denialists, was quite amazing, and I quote them here. Anyone with a delicate disposition should skip the next two paragraphs, which are direct quotes from the denialists - people who do not want you to know that homeopathy is a safe and effective medical therapy.

For instance, Liz, Queen of Bogans (??) responded on the same day.

“… you are a deluded and dangerous cunt. May you get coal in your stocking you predatory arsewipe”.

Sebastian Armstrong seems to agree with this, although apparently not knowing about the content, or even the subject of the article I had tweeted!

“… (My) targeting child cancer patients with homeopathy misrepresentation was disgusting.”

Yodaj3di sought to defend the article, and my tweet, suggesting that such abuse cannot be justified. Paul Derbyshire, Sebastian Armstrong came back defending their abuse.

“… choice is not important unless informed by the truth not #homeopathy lies.”
“… homeopathy is fraud. Proven bullshit. Embarrassed for you.”
“… if you actually believe in homeopathy then you are logically corrupt.”
“… just to let you know homeopathy is fraud.”

Note. For anyone interested, I have left a longer version of this rather pointless, and endless ‘debate’ at the end of this blog.

This kind of response is typical of skeptics, or homeopathy denialists. Yodaj3di tried to engage them in a conversation, to get them to accept that such abuse was inappropriate, that anyone who wanted to know about homeopathy should be allowed to hear about it. Sandra Courtney expressed her disgust, and reported the abuse to Twitter. Neither is likely to be effective in discouraging skeptics from abusing homeopathy! I have reported on skeptic abuse on several occasions on this blog.

‘Quack’! Just another personal attack from a homeopathy denialist.
Skeptics insist Homeopathy doesn't work. So what do they have to say?

There are several points to be considered about skeptics, or homeopathy denialists, in order to understand what they say, and why they are saying it.

Bad language and abuse usually comes from people who have no arguments. Certainly it usually comes from people who are unable to argue their case with reason and logic - in other words, scientifically!

Skeptics are in chronic denial. In particular they are unwilling to accept that there are people with serious (and indeed non serious) illnesses who have been cured by homeopathy, and that this has been happening every day, throughout the world, for the last 220 years.

Ignoring or denying this evidence is deeply ‘unscientific’. Science involves (or should involve) observing what is happening in the world, not denying it. Science should then seek an explanation for what has been observed. Skeptics, to the contrary, say that there is no explanation for homeopathy, therefore it cannot happen, it is just trickery or fraud!

Actually, in recent years great strides have been made in identifying the working mechanism(s) of homeopathy, diluted substances can be scientifically identified, and about 200 trials have proven that homeopathy does work. Again, skeptics merely deny this, and continue to say ‘there is no evidence’ quite regardless of the evidence!

Instead, skeptics (who claim to love science) place their faith in the ‘science’ of RCT’s, or ‘randomised controlled tests’, that they describe as the ‘gold standard’ of proof. Yet skeptics not only ignore (or deny) the RCT evidence supporting the fact that homeopathy works, they also ignore the fact that people are being harmed, damaged and killed by conventional pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have been ‘scientifically’ tested and approved as safe, presumably to their satisfaction.

Skeptic denial serves only one purpose. The skeptic community is a small, but particularly nasty part of a massive conspiracy that seeks to prevent a real debate on health and medical treatment in our society, dominated as it is by huge economic, financial and commercial interests, not least of which is the pharmaceutical industry. The conventional medical establishment is now so rich, so powerful, so pervasive and dominant in our social life, that it has gained complete control of governments, politicians, national health services, and the mainstream press and media organisations.

Most people believe that drugs and vaccines are the best route to health because this is all they have been told for many decades.

What this means is that the internet is the only vehicle available to alternative medical therapies, such as homeopathy, to inform people that this is not so, that there are alternatives, and that these alternatives are both safer and more effective.

However, there is another reason why a real health debate is important, and urgently needed. Conventional medicine is failing.

  • Conventional hospital are full to overflowing. Doctors surgeries cannot cope with the health demands of patients. 
  • Many forms of chronic disease, arthritis, autism, cancer, dementia, diabetes, heart disease, et al, are all now at unprecedented levels. 
  • One of the main reasons, perhaps the main reason for this sickness epidemic, is that conventional pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are not only ineffective, they are also a primary cause of these diseases.

So when homeopaths deal with illnesses, such as brain haemorrhage, and do it successfully, the skeptics go into denial, they get annoyed because their medicine has nothing to offer, they get abusive when homeopathy does have something amazing to offer patients. And as they have no rational or ‘scientific’ argument to fall back on, they resort to abuse and obfuscation. It is all they have!

It is a tough, unrewarding, and ultimately a hopeless cause they pursue!

A Record of Skeptic Abuse
24th to 26th December 2015

My Tweet.
Homeopathic treatment of brain haemorrhage.

Liz, Queen of bogans
… you are a deluded and dangerous cunt. May you get coal in your stocking you predatory arsewipe

Sandra Courtney
This potty mouth tweet is disgusting. Homeopathy supporters should report. I plan to.

Sebastian Armstrong
… targeting child cancer patients with #homeopathy misrepresentation was disgusting.

That reason can't justify verbal abuse. You know that.

Sebastian Armstrong
… come off it the vile exploitation via lies is accurately described

There's no exploitation when there's a choice. & verbal violence isn't a solution.

Sebastian Armstrong
… choice is not important unless informed by the truth not homeopathy lies

… er, what lies? I only see a link to clinical cases.

Paul, Derbyshire
… homeopathy is fraud. Proven bullshit. Embarrassed for you

Don't be embarrassed for me. why for? That's just projection.

Paul, Derbyshire
… if you actually believe in homeopathy then you are logically corrupt

… that’s a crazy conclusion from the statement ... how did logic take you there?

Paul, Derbyshire
… explain dilution science...

Since it's what you do, I expect you know the science of it. It isn't what I do.

Paul, Derbyshire
… so you put your head in the sand huh

It doesn't bother me not knowing everything. I'm grateful to know at least something.

Paul, Derbyshire
… just to let you know homeopathy is fraud

It isn't, that's my point. It is a healing system, different from allopathy. That's all.

The real difference to me is: we know the limits of allopathy & don't of #homeopathy. They both work.

And you are full of fears and anxieties.

Another piece of guesswork you've got wrong? This is becoming such a habit eh?

I don't guess much. Arguing is my addictive habit. And yours, apparently. Good holiday?

Paul, Derbyshire
... but your facts and thus your argument are totally false. Therefore you lose a lot

Go and be amazed by homeopathy, dude. Live a little!

And it does go on, but it is all trivial stuff, as arguing trying to discuss health skeptics is a pointless and unenlightening task! Which is why I never take part in it!

Thursday, 17 December 2015

Cancer? Bad luck? The environment? Or Big Pharma drug 'side-effect'?

What is causing the epidemic of cancer, of all types, during the last half century and more? This is a topic that appears to be the subject of much debate at the moment. Perhaps little wonder, given the billions people have raised for charity over recent decades for research to find a cure.

The dominant view, over the years, has been that it is something that strikes at random, without reason or cause, a piece of random misfortune, or just sheer bad luck. Researchers at the John Hopkin's University appear to believe this in their study "The bad luck of cancer", published in January 2015. Their mathematical analysis suggested that over two-thirds of cancer were not preventable.

The paper immediately came under heavy criticism (see "Backlash greets 'bad luck' cancer study", published just two weeks later), not just of the authors, but the journalists who were accused of 'misinterpreting' the study's results. The conclusions, it was said, were both flawed, or oversimplified.

So, as usual, medical science appears to be at logger-heads, unable to agree. After all the resources the conventional medical establishment have ploughed into the causes of cancer over the years, no matter how big and profitable the cancer industry has become, there appears to be little or no agreement in what causes it, and certainly no successful treatment!

So perhaps a new study by a team of doctors from the Stony Brook Cancer Centre in New York, and published in the same magazine, Nature, "Substantial contribution of extrinsic risk factors to cancer development" will help. Basically, it questions the 'bad luck' hypothesis, suggesting that this only relates to about 10-30% of cancer cases. In the rest, it is 'extrinsic' and not 'intrinsic' factors that cause cancer. In other words it is environment and not luck that cause cancer.

First, we demonstrate
that the correlation between stem-cell division and cancer risk does not distinguish between the effects of intrinsic
and extrinsic factors. We then show that intrinsic risk is better estimated by the lower bound risk controlling for total
stem-cell divisions. Finally, we show that the rates of endogenous mutation accumulation by intrinsic processes are not
sufficient to account for the observed cancer risks. Collectively, we conclude that cancer risk is heavily influenced by
extrinsic factors. These results are important for strategizing cancer prevention, research and public health
As the BBC suggests, in its article "Cancer is not just 'bad luck' but down to the environment", it is down to factors such as smoking. It is about eating a healthy, balanced diet, maintaining a healthy weight, staying physically active, drinking less alcohol, protecting yourself from the sun, and similar factors.

At least this explanation leads to sensible advice. Yet is even this an adequate or sufficient explanation? 

There is another, well understood and documented explanation for cancer that is not mentioned anywhere, in the studies mentioned here, and in most others. And that is that pharmaceutical drugs cause cancer. So by all means look to your diet, and your exercise, drink less alcohol, and so on. But perhaps the best advice of all is to stay clear of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

Drugs and vaccines cause cancer! This is not new, exciting, breakthrough news! Every doctor knows about it. Every drug regulator throughout the world knows about it. Every medical dictionary knows about it, and any cursory inspection of BNF (the British National Formulary) or MIMMs would highlight that most drugs can cause cancer. Here are just a few, random examples.

  • Hormone Replacement Therapy, or HRT, has been prescribed for many millions of women throughout the developed world for menopausal symptoms before it was implicated in causing breast and cervical cancer. But it is still being prescribed.
  • Cholesterol-lowering drugs, like Statins, are also implicated. As long ago as 1996 the Journal of the American Medical Association warned that these drugs can cause cancer in rodents.
  • Tamoxifen, a drug widely used to treat breast cancer, is actually known to cause cervical and other cancers.
  • Exubera, an insulin inhalant was approved in 2006, but withdrawn in 2007 because it has caused lung cancer.
  • Omeprazole (Prilosec), a heartburn drug, is known to cause abnormal cell growth and stomach tumors in rats, although it appears that no one knows if it does the same for humans.
  • Spironolactone (Aldactazide, Aldactone), a blood pressure medicine, also prescribed for hormonal imbalances and facial hair growth in women, is also known to cause tumors in laboratory rats.
  • Elidel cream and Protopic ointment, topical skin treatments used for ezcema, are now associated with lymphoma and skin cancer.
Of course, open honest communication with the public is not something that the powerful conventional medical establishment is good at. No medical science study, no mainstream media organisation, is likely to highlight that pharmaceutical drugs are a known cause of cancer. No one is going to tell you that if you want to avoid cancer (as we all do), one of the most important things we can all do is to avoid the drugs conventional doctors want us to take, usually for less serious ailments and illnesses. So, let's say it here.

Good health is best maintained by avoiding conventional medical drugs and vaccines.

First, we demonstrate
that the correlation between stem-cell division and cancer risk does not distinguish between the effects of intrinsic
and extrinsic factors. We then show that intrinsic risk is better estimated by the lower bound risk controlling for total
stem-cell divisions. Finally, we show that the rates of endogenous mutation accumulation by intrinsic processes are not
sufficient to account for the observed cancer risks. Collectively, we conclude that cancer risk is heavily influenced by
extrinsic factors. These results are important for strategizing cancer prevention, research and public healthFirst, we demonstrate
that the correlation between stem-cell division and cancer risk does not distinguish between the effects of intrinsic
and extrinsic factors. We then show that intrinsic risk is better estimated by the lower bound risk controlling for total
stem-cell divisions. Finally, we show that the rates of endogenous mutation accumulation by intrinsic processes are not
sufficient to account for the observed cancer risks. Collectively, we conclude that cancer risk is heavily influenced by
extrinsic factors. These results are important for strategizing cancer prevention, research and public health