Monday, 22 August 2011

Homeopathy and Patient Choice

My last blog gave rise to some quite unpleasant remarks about Marjorie Titchen from 'homeopathy denialists', remarks that at best were completely devoid of any care or concern for her situation, and at worst totally callous. I have not published most of them, although I toyed with doing so in order to indicate the frame of mind of the anti-homeopathy dialetic, and the unpleasantness that it so often entails.

Perhaps the most distressing remarks were those that showed a total absence of concern, and the callousness of attitude, towards Mrs Titchen, and her situation:

     "I assume Marjorie is just doing fine without her sugar pills" is not only uncaringly callous, but completely ignores the fact that homeopathy was the therapy that controlled her arthritis over a decade ago.

The remarks also demonstrate that homeopathy denialists want to deny choice because of what they believe, and are not interested in what other people want for their health care. They clearly want everyone to be constrained within their own narrow and limited understanding of what medicine is safe and effective, and what medicine's are not.

     "....superstitious forms of treatment.... sugar pills.... have no place in the NHS"
     "...wasting public money on useless treatments.." regardless of whether people ask for them.

And them, anyone who wants to avoid the dangers of conventional medicine, and prefers the safety and effectiveness of homeopathy, are (as usual) derided. Homeopath's, apparently, make a living through

     "... other people's gullability and desperation".

In other words, Marjorie is asking for homeopathy because she is gullable and 'desperate'! This is groslly insulting. The fact that she has studied her condition for many years, and has come to clear, and informed decisions about how she wants to be treated (and how she does not want to be treated) is discounted - with abuse.

Several remarks demonstrate that denialists do not understand a remarkably simple fact - that we all pay for the NHS, every single one of us, and therefore should have the right to choose how we are treated.

     "Doctors are not retailers, there to dish out whatever a patient asks for - for free".

Homeopathy denialists want to dictate to everyone how we are all to be treated. It appears that whilst they, the denialists, presumably ConMed supporters, believe they should have the medicine they want, everyone else must have it too - whether we want it or not! They support the ConMed monopoly within the publicly-funded NHS. They support the paternalistic bureaucracy of the NHS.

Denialists are clearly autocrats rather than democrats. They are opposed to personal freedom. They not only want to deny us access to the medicine of our choice. They don't even understand why we want to have that choice.

There are two petitions about homeopathy on the government petition website at the moment. One asks that patients have a choice of treatment for their illness. The other demands that the NHS stops spending money on homeopathy. If you are a democrat, who believes in personal choice in the cars, or washing machines you buy, or the supermarket we shop in, please sign it. By doing so you will support the idea that we should be able to choose how we are treated when we are ill. The website can be found at:


Remember, unlike the denialists, we are not trying to force anyone to accept any form of medicine. We want to support everyone's right to make an informed choice.


Friday, 19 August 2011

No Choice for Marjorie in the NHS

We are rightly proud of our health service. The principles of the 1947 NHS Act still apply, in the most part, that any citizen, when sick, will have access to health treatment - regardless of his or her ability to pay. 
But is everyone getting access to the type of treatment they want?
All the main political parties now parade ‘patient choice’ as an important objective for the future of the NHS. The previous Labour government, in its White Paper, (“Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: a new direction for community services. January 2006)” confirmed this. Patricia Hewitt, Health Secretary at the time, stated this:
          “(more) people (are) wanting a different approach to services, looking for real choices, more local care, taking greater control over their health, supported to remain independent wherever possible”.
The new coalition Government’s White Paper, “Equity and Excellence: liberating the NHS. July 2010” says this:
          “We want the principle of "shared decision making" to become the norm: no decision about me without me. International evidence shows that involving patients in their care and treatment improves their health outcomes, boosts their satisfaction with services received, and increases not just their knowledge and understanding of their health status but also their adherence to a chosen treatment. It can also bring significant reductions in cost, as highlighted in the Wanless Report, and in evidence from various programmes to improve the management of long-term health conditions.
Yet is this anywhere near close to reality within the NHS?
Marjorie Titchen is 93 years old. She lives in Bournemouth, where she continues to run a small hotel. She says that she will retire when she is 100 years old! By this time she will have paid taxes for over 80 years, so she has certainly paid her dues, and her entitlement to health treatment should surely be unquestioned. 
Yet she has been fighting now for several years for treatment for her osteoarthritis. But the Bournemouth and Poole PCT has refused to consider it. Why? Because Marjorie wants to see a homeopath, and the PCT insists that they will allow her access only to conventional treatment. 
Marjorie refuses to accept conventional treatment, and her arthritis is getting worse. She says she has heard too much about the ‘adverse reactions’ to drugs, and does not want to go down that route. 
Even her GP supports her - but still the PCT remains unmoved. She has made representations, and formal complaints; she had written to the Department of Health; she has talked to her MP; she has highlighted her case in the local media. All to no avail.
The PCT refuses to budge on its paternalistic belief that it knows best. Their primary defense appears to be that there is ‘no evidence’ that homeopathy is effective in treating osteoarthritis.
Wrong, says Marjorie! She developed osteoarthritis over 12 years ago, and was referred to homeopathic treatment by the PCT at that time. This relieved her pain, and for several years she was pain free. So as she says, she is living proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy.
Wrong, says the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, referring to the research that has been carried out into arthritis that shows it can be effective in the treatment of the disease. 
This includes research that found homeopathy provided a level of pain-relief superior to a conventional drug, used as a control. This research, carried out in 1998, also found that homeopathy produced ‘no adverse reactions’.
So what is happening here? Mrs Titchen wants to access homeopathic treatment. Her GP supports her. Her homeopath is willing to treat her, as he did, successfully, several years ago. Homeopathic  treatment is not expensive, indeed, it is less expensive than the conventional treatment she is being offered. 
Yet the PCT still sees fit to make the purely bureaucratic decision to deny her the treatment she is asking for.
The NHS is dominated by conventional medicine, and it has become a monopoly. The bureaucrats in charge of PCTs in most areas don’t want to consider homeopathic treatment because they don’t want us to breach their monopoly. They also don’t want to allow homeopathy to prove more effective in the treatment of diseases, such as arthritis, than the favour medicine - in which, of course, they have a personal vested interest.
Government policy on patient choice is a mess. It talks about ‘patient choice’ but what it allows to happen within the NHS runs contrary to this objective. When the Department of Health is asked to comment on this kind of situation, it says that the decision rests at the local level, with the local PCT, which has to take ‘local needs’ into consideration. No doubt this is part of their laudable policy to devolve NHS power from the centre to local areas. But devolving power from London to local PCTs it acts against patient choice, as can be seen in Marjorie Titchen’s case.
The Bournemouth and Poole PCT, and its bureacracy has decided not to offer Mrs Titchen homeopathy. It know better than Marjories, her GP, and her homeopath. Such a decision is anathema ‘patient choice’, and all patients looking for drug-free treatment are certainly not getting the medicine of their choice.

Wednesday, 10 August 2011

The Guardian caught

The mainstream media has been attacking anyone espousing 'drug-free' medicine. Foremost in the firing line has been Homeopathy. And foremost amongst the mainstream media attacking Homeopathy has been the Guardian Newspaper.

Now, the Guardian has been caught doing so.

          "In a first for journalism, the UK’s Guardian national daily newspaper has been caught falsifying their own newspaper’s public record in a bid to airbrush the facts about vaccine-caused-autism.  Whilst some other media outlets have adopted the approach of ignoring the evidence and writing and broadcasting one-sided reports, this time The Guardian newspaper has been caught changing it.  The Guardian removed the evidence – gone without a trace – from their online newspaper.
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/uk-guardian-caught-falsifying-record/#comment-5031

It is not surprising that the cover-up has been discovered when the Guardian was looking at the Vaccination-Autism link. Big Pharma cannot allow people to realise that the link is strong, if not definite. And those in the pocket, or in the pay of Big Pharma strive hard not to publicise, or discuss the links.

So one of our major, and hitherto most respected newspapers, The Guardian is actually trying to stop you getting important information.

It will be interesting to see how the Guardian responds. It is losing readership steadily, and a major reason for this is that people can no longer trust it to tell the truth. Certainly, I no longer read what was once 'my' newspaper because I saw the lies the paper was telling about Homeopathy. If it could print anti-homeopathy pieces, and refuse to publish anything in response, how could I trust it to tell me the truth about other important issues?

And why should I, or anyone, buy a newspaper if it wasn't able to publish balanced, and impartial news?

If anyone has any doubts about whether they are being told the truth about health - by the Guardian, by the BBC, or by any other mainstream media outlet, read this piece.



Thursday, 4 August 2011

131 Children Vaccinated at Gunpoint in Malawi

And still the denialists deny it! Please see the comments on my previous post.

It would seem that there are some people who would defend anything that Big Pharma, or those allies of Big Pharma (like Bill Gates) does.

I have been accused of 'making things up' and 'repeating untrue rumour'. Isn't that awful of me? Well, here are some more reports of the same, dreadful incident.


I doubt that will not be sufficient for some people. But all I am saying is this:

What a dreadful, dreadful medicine that seeks to force people into having vaccination, medication they do not want.

Compulsory Medication

When big corporations get too big, too greedy, too desperate to make profit, they will go to any lengths to sell their products to us - even if is detrimental to our health. This is, in fact, the position of the Big Pharma companies now - and it has been some many years.

One of our greatest, and most important freedoms is the right to choose what medical therapy we use to keep us healthy, and to make us better when we become sick. Big Pharma, and their allies, are trying hard to overcome resistance to their drugs and vaccines - by forcing us to take them.

The situation is much worse in the USA than it is in the UK. There, children are being removed from their parents - because their parents are refusing to allow them to be vaccinated. See, for example, the "I support Maryanne Godboldo" campaign on Facebook. Her children have been removed from her care, and she is currently facing criminal proceedings, for this very reason.

Perhaps the most extreme example of Big Pharma, and the ConMed Establishment generally, over-reaching itself, and causing serious human rights transgressions, is over vaccines being given to young African children at gunpoint in Malawi. Apparently the families had actually fled the country in order to prevent the vaccination.  See, for example.
http://newsone.com/world/ggaynor/gates-foundation-ordered-african-vaccinations-by-gunpoint/

* What sort of medicine is it, that can be offered, free of charge to people, but who refuse it?
* What sort of medicine is it that seeks to force people to take medication, when they do not want it?

Indeed, what sort of medicine is it that can be offered, free, refused; and then for people to go out in search of more effective and safer medical therapies, like homeopathy, that usually has to be paid for?

The reason is, of course, that ConMed is dangerous, and ineffective - and increasing numbers of people are becoming aware of this. Moreover, some people are prepared to go to great lengths, and considerable personal inconvenience, to refuse it.

All this damning evidence against ConMed is alive and well in the UK. The NHS is trying desperately to prevent people having homeopathy treatment, to the point of refusing patients treatment - even when they are entitled to treatment. See, for instance the "Patient Choice, Homeopathy and the NHS" group on Facebook that I am organising.

If you wish to know about the growing failures of conventional medicine, you are invited to subscribe to my new weekly e-newspaper, "The Failure of Conventional Medicine" at
http://paper.li/f-1310656332.

This e-newspaper will feature articles taken from the internet, about matters not normally published or discussed in the mainstream media (which, of course, is dominated by Big Pharma and ConMed). If you believe that the corruption and failure of Conventional Medicine is a small, and occasional matter, the e-newspaper will disabuse you!