Wednesday, 22 February 2012

Failure of Conventional Medicine. Cost of Medical Failure to Big Pharma

Big Pharma drugs have been causing disease and death now for centuries, not least during the last hundred years when so-called 'evidence-based', or 'scientific' medicine has dominated medical practice. One important question is - do drug companies just get away with it? Are they just too powerful and influential to control? Can they continue to cause such havoc in the lives of so many people and their families without being called to account?

The answer is mixed. On the one hand, drug companies are being prosecuted, regularly, in the courts, especially in the USA; and they have to pay out compensation to their victims. Here are a few recent examples:

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) agreed to pay $3 billion to resolve US investigations into its sales, marketing and pricing practices going back over a decade. And  there is more information about this court case, and what it entailed, here.

GSK were also fined $90,000 in an Argentine court - for killing 14 babies in an illegal vaccine trial. The company undertook the trials here, as the article explains, as they would have been illegal in the USA, or the UK. They were apparently conducted with babies from poor, illiterate families.

Pfizer had to pay a fine of $45 million for its menopause drug, Prempro. This article explains how, at the height of the litigation, Pfizer faced more than 10,000 claims that their drug caused breast cancer, and that the company had already begun to settle some suits, putting aside $840 million to do so.

Pfizer are also being sued for birth defects, allegedly cause by their anti-depressant drug, Zoloft. A group of parents have cited medical studies that shows that anti-depressant drugs, like Zoloft, can double the risk of heart defects, that Zoloft itself was inadequately tested, and they have accused the company of negligence, fraud, and misrepresentation.


Merck agreed to pay a fine of just under $1 billion for its drug, Vioxx, pulled from the market in 2004 because it caused heart attacks. The size of this fine will be discussed below, but it follows earlier payouts by the same company, for the same drug, of nearly $5 billion. Yet just how much damage to life has been done by just this single drug. This article asks the question - who killed more Americans? Al Qeda by crashing aeroplanes into the World Trade Center? Or Merck pushing its anti-depressant drug, Vioxx? See the article for the answer!

Johnson and Johnson are also preparing to make out-of-court settlements about its anti-psychotic drug, Risperdal, and this after a civil investigation that has lasted nearly 10 years. It will cost them an estimated $1 billion.

And payments have also been made to the victims of the GSK swine-flu vaccine, Pandamrix.  The vaccine has caused outbreaks of Narcolepsy in countries such as Ireland and Norway.

Yet, on the other hand, whilst these compensation figures, imposed on Big Pharma companies for drug and vaccine induced injury and death, might appear large, they are, in fact, very small. They are certainly tiny in relation to to the harm and distress caused by Pharmaceutical drugs. And tiny, too, in relation to the profits these drugs create.

There is a view that Big Pharma drug companies are just too big, too powerful, too influential to control. This is the view expressed by the Alliance of Natural Health in this article that focuses on Merck, and its now banned drug, Vioxx. As it points out, despite overwhelming evidence that the company knew about the dangers of the drug, and deliberately withheld this information, the company was made to plead guilty to just one 'misdemeanor'. It was not taken to task on deliberately misleading patients about a drug that killed. 50,000 patients sued the company, which was made to pay a fine of $321 million - roughly about $6,000 each!

And as this article says, the disease and death caused by Big Pharma drugs are usually dealt with by small fines. The executives of the companies are never held criminally responsible for their actions, and their devastating consequences.

Even governments pay out damages, albeit secretly, when they are implicated into imposing drugs and vaccines on people that cause they damage. This video describes how the USA government paid parents for vaccine damage caused to their children, and interviews one of them. These payments seem to suggest that governments are aware that drugs and vaccines are causing damage, but that they want to keep this knowledge from us, the patients!

And the damage caused by pharmaceutical drugs, and the claims made by those who have suffered from them, continue unabated.  Indeed there are now lawsuits beginning in the USA for a drug that damaged mothers many years ago, but have now been implicated in causing breast cancer in their daughters. Just how dreadful is this? Drug damage, it would seem, now affect not only the generation that take the drug - but the next one too! The drug companies are, of course, denying any connection with the drugs.

The question is, how much longer will this charade of drug damage, and compensation claims, continue - and all in the name of health?

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Failure of ConMed (12). Antidepressants

The dangers of antidepressants are beginning to be well-known - at least outside the ConMed Establishment. Meanwhile, within it, they seem to be being given out liberally, without adequate or sufficient warning to patients.

In my book, 'The Failure of Conventional Medicine', I outlined the problem with antidepressant drugs. But even since writing this, a couple of years ago, what we now know about the dangers of antidepressants have increased and multiplied.

The Increased Prescription of Antidepressants
First, the number of people taking antidepressants is increasing at an alarming rate. This recent article, from the Guardian newspaper (usually slavishly pro-drug, and anti-CAM), states that there has been an increase of 20% in the last 3 years alone, with over 43 million prescription in 2009-2010. Unfortunately, in this article, and elsewhere in the mainstream media, there is little mention of the serious adverse reactions, and the DIEs (disease-inducing-effects) they cause.

It is also becoming clear that many (if not most), (if not all) do not need to be on antidepressant drugs. This study says that 70% of people on antidepressants are not even depressed! So why are they being prescribed? Perhaps it is just that they are good for Big Pharma profits - which is what seems to be driving most health issues at the present time.

The value and effectiveness of antidepressant drugs
There are now many studies that show these drugs to be ineffective. This article, for instance, suggests (in rather more careful language) that antidepressants are totally useless. There are many others!

This one describes a study that has found antidepressants to be not only ineffective, but that they make you even more depressed!

So with this background, what are we now learning about antidepressant drugs?

The links with Suicide
The link between antidepressants and suicide is now well documented. This article goes through the number of people taking these drugs, the numbers of people considering suicide, the ineffectiveness of antidepressants, and the evidence that they can actually increase suicidal tendencies. It also points out that other Big Pharma drugs can increase the risks of suicide, including the anti-smoking drug, Chantix, an anti-acne drug, Accutane, certain epilepsy and cholesterol-reducing drugs, and Tamiflu.

The links with Violence
Apologists for drug-based medicine hate individual stories about the adverse reactions to drugs. They call them, and dismiss them, as 'anecdotal'. In contrast, I describe them as examples of how Big Pharma drugs can damage and destroy people's lives! Take this one, for instance. A teenager is taking the well-known anti-depression drug, Prozac, and when he had his dosage increased he kills a 9 year old girl, apparently 'for the thrill of it'.

And in Canada, as this story of another drug-induced death seems to indicate, taking Prozac now appears to be an adequate excuse for murder! Yes, a young boy kills his close friend; and the reason given, and accepted by both judge and prosecution, is that the killer was taking this drug! And of course, there is no mention here, either, about whether such drugs should be prescribed in the first place!

So can these, and other similar stories, be dismissed as anecdotal, one-off occurrences? And just how many of these 'anecdotes' do we need before the ConMed Establishment, and Big Pharma, admit there just might be a problem?

In considering this, what needs to be borne in mind is that 1 in 25 adolescents in America are now on antidepressants. So if these drugs do cause gratuitous acts of violence, what will we end up with? A violent society? And this is certainly appears to be what is developing.

This webpage looks at the 'nightmares' created by one type of antidepressant drug, SSRI's, and then links to a long list of literally hundreds of incidents, where acts of extreme gratuitous violence has been associated with antidepressant, and other drugs, like antipsychotics.

And incidentally, whilst we are focussing on SSRI's, have you ever been told they cause severe high blood pressure in babies - when their mother's take these awful drugs?

Unfortunately for us, none of this appears to be admitted by the ConMed Establishment. Certainly, as has been seen, more and more patients are being prescribed these drugs, without being told by their GPs, or anyone else, about their DIEs.

Our brains are the most sensitive, an perhaps the most important of all our organs. They make us what we are, as people, as individuals. Big Pharma drugs, as usual, seek to interfere and change what is going on within our minds. And the consequences appear to be alarming.

Our mainstream media is also quite useless in warning us. This is about how good it gets! The BBC, another news organisation that usually slavishly adheres to the Big Pharma script on health issues, admits that antidepressants can cause falls in older people! Yes, they no doubt do this too. But are we not also to be informed that they can lead to suicide, or that they cause needless and unprovoked violence? There is not a mention of this anywhere!

It would appear that the only winner in all this is the drug companies - selling drugs to people who don't need them - selling drugs that are mostly ineffective in dealing with depression. And all this with total silence, and apparent unconcern, emanating from the ConMed Establishment.

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Can homeopathy treat any illness?

Homeopaths are often asked this question, and the answer is usually 'Yes. If, together, we can find the right remedy for the patient'. See my e-book, "Why Homeopathy?"

The ability of homeopathy to treat any condition rests with the ability of the homeopath to find a substance (and make a remedy from it) that causes 'similar symptoms' to the illness. Homeopaths don't need a conventional diagnosis - just the symptoms of the illness or ailment. This makes homeopathy a remarkably flexible therapy.

I have gathered together here article about the homeopathic treatment of a multitude of illnesses, to indicate the diversity of the illnesses it can treat.

Labour and Childbirth. The top 14 remedies used in pregnancy and childbirth outlined.

Chicken Pox. Useful quick guide, referencing the main remedies used to treat the condition.

Crying Babies (a great article, with remedy pictures).

Alcoholism. This is a study into the treatment of alcoholism using homeopathy, and it shows that one remedy was particularly useful.

Hayfever and allergies.

The winter blues (SAD).

Psoriasis. A study looking at the value of homeopathic treatment.

Shingles.

Crohns Disease. Interesting case, and information about treating Crohns with homeopathy.

Diabetes Mellitus.

The Menopause.
The Menopause (2).

Warts and all!

And if you have multiple health problems. Look at this article, and see one man's experience; where conventional medicine did little, and homeopathy much!

And this is just a very small collection of articles on homeopathy, and what it can treat - there is much more!

Friday, 10 February 2012

The Failure Conventional Medicine. Statins: those nice, safe drugs we should all be taking!

Statin drugs are supposed to be safe. This is what we have been hearing about them from the Conventional Medical Establishment now for many years. They were first introduced in 1987, and quickly became a blockbuster drug. One Statin drug, Baycol, caused over 50 deaths, and was linked to over 1000 cases of muscle weakness. It was quickly (and silently) withdrawn.

Soon, Big Pharma propaganda had convinced us that these drugs were entirely safe. The magazine 'What Doctors Don't Tell You', WDDTY, in January 2007 observed that 'everyone seems to be popping a cholesterold-lowering statin drug these days. They have become part of the daily health regime for millions of people, and they are considered to be so safe that one statin, Simvastatin, is available over-the-counter in the UK without a prescription".

And as late as May 2008, the Independent was able to publish an article - 'Prescribing more Statins could save lives'. The article reported that, in 2007, Professor Roger Boyle, the Government's 'heart tsar' had suggested that every man over 50, and every woman over 60, could be offered a daily Statin to reduce their heart attack risk. It also reported that NICE (the National Institute for Clinical Evidence) was advising that all adults aged 40 to 75 should be assessed for their risk of heart disease - and should be offered Statin drugs.

These were incredible, but quite typical claims that have been made for Statin drugs for over 25 years now. But by the time this article was published the dangers of Statins were known, but well hidden from view.

I have copies of WDDTY going back to the early 2000s - and they were regularly reporting on the dangers of Statins - all studiously avoiding by the mainstream media, Big Pharma, the Government, the NHS, and our own GPs.

The Health Sciences Institute has also been saying for years that Statins are unsafe. Indeed, as they say, the known disease-inducing effects (DIEs) of these drugs now include liver damage, acute kidney failure, memory loss, Alzheimer's disease, cancer, muscle weakness (including a condition, rhabdomyolysis, that can be fatal), fatigue, depression, type 2 diabetes and cataracts.

There is now considerable, if not overwhelming evidence, pointing to the dangers of Statin drugs. Indeed there is much more evidence than even I had imagined when I began researching for this blog. This article is perhaps the most useful link - as it provides links to a considerable number of scientific studies that points to the dangers of Statins - from peripheral neuropathy and poly-neuropathy, to neuro-toxicity, to psychiatric reactions, to cognitive function, memory loss, mental effects, to Alzheimers disease, and much more.

One of the most recent connection has been with diabetes. Statin drugs has been found to increase the risk of diabetes in post-menopausal women by a massive 70%. A long-term study in the USA, involving 1000's of women, found that female patients prescribed Statins had 48% greater change of developing diabetes. And this rose to 70% in older women. There is more on this research here. And the research is outlined here.

Equally important, Statin drugs is implicated with many kinds of nerve damage. There is now research evidence indicating that if you take Statin drugs for 2 years or more, nerve damage becomes the rule rather than the exception. An amazing claim indeed.

EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE DANGERS OF HIGH CHOLESTEROL
Yet, to understand the full enormity of the Statin drug scam, we also have to understand about cholesterol, and whether it is (as we have been told) an important contributory cause of heart disease. Remember, the main reason for people taking Statins is that we have been convinced that high levels of cholesterol cause heart disease. Yet there is a major clue that this link may be quite wrong, namely, that as cholesterol levels have become lower, rates of heart disease have not followed suit.

” … between 1994 and 2006 the percentage of men aged 65 to 74 with ‘high’ cholesterol decreased from 87% to 54% … Despite this, the rate of coronary heart disease for this age group stayed about the same … Other age groups have experienced an increase in the rate of heart disease as the number of people with ‘high’ cholesterol has decreased.”

The Big Pharma companies do, of course, have good reason to invent and/or support such a link. Indeed, as this article explains, there are about $29Billion Reasons to lie about cholesterol!

The evidence linking high cholesterol with heart disease is, at best, tenuous. And where there is a problem, it is probably best to deal with it is through diet rather than drugs!

SO WHAT ARE WE TOLD ABOUT THE DANGERS OF STATINS?
There continues to be a deafening silence about the dangers of Statin drugs. The research outlined in this blog is rarely, if ever, reported in the mainstream Media. They appear content going along with the views of the conventional medical establishment, and the drug companies. So as patients we are not told anything beyond a few bland and understated cautions, and the mantra that 'the benefits outweigh the disadvantages'.

The information is not even found on websites selling these drugs, or indeed, in the information contained within the packaging. One study, undertaken by the school of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences (University of Portsmouth), and reported by HRI, asked this question, and discovered the following:

* General contraindications regarding statin use were absent in more that 92% of website advertising Statins.

* Contraindications relating to interactions with other medication were absent in over 47% of websites.

* Warnings about the potential for muscle damage were absent in 37% of websites

* Warnings about the potential for liver damage were absent in almost 50% of website.

The conclusion HRI reached, after looking at this research, was that it was impossible for consumers to make 'informed choices' about the likely benefits and harms of these drugs. Their dedicated blog, 'The Cholesterol Truth', believes that 'statin drugs are nothing but money-spinning concoctions that are putting people's health at risk'. It is difficult to disagree with this summary. They say, further:

"It's ridiculous to think doctors are prescribing drugs that are supposedly preventing a killer disease ... but in turn these drugs also increase the risk of another major disease - diabetes. It's hardly surprising that the number of people being diagnosed with diabetes is reacing epidemic proportions given the widespread use of statins.


Yet this is what we get with all Big Pharma drugs. We take them for one condition, only to find that we soon go down with another disease, often much worse than the original disease.

Big Pharma companies, supported by the Media, politicians and the NHS, continue to push Statin drugs quite shamelessly. This article describes the idea that they should be prescribed for the treatment of flu - something that is described as 'a ludicrous recommendation'.

Quite so. But perhaps recommending Statin drugs to treat any condition is equally ludicrous!

Thursday, 9 February 2012

Homeopathy defends itself from vested commercial interests

Wherever homeopathy is practiced, and it is now practised throughout the world, it is coming under attack. But where the commercial interests of the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME), led by Big Pharma, are strongest, the attacks are strongest. In the UK, anti-homeopathy rhetoric takes many forms:

* Attacks on the scientific evidence base for homeopathy, which is now quite extensive, and increasing.
* Attacks on the evidence of its effectiveness in dealing with sick people, which is now huge.
* Attacks on university course that seek to teach homeopathy.
* Attacks on the ability of homeopaths to advertise what they do.
* Attacks on the handful of homeopathic hospitals in the UK.
* Attacks on homeopathy via the mainstream media, without being given the opportunity to respond.

It is clear that CME, and the Big Pharma companies, just don't want you to know how effective, how safe, and how inexpensive homeopathy is!

Dr Brian Kaplan defends homeopathy in this video - although it is probably true that homeopathy needs defending only against one thing - ignorance!

Certainly, if it was left to patients to determine the medical treatment they wanted, the growth of homeopathy would be even more rapid. This is why Dr Andrew Sikorski, in this article, argues that there should be more public consultation about homeopathy and 'complementary' therapies. Of course, CME will not permit this as they realise not only the ConMed is failing (see series of blogs on this website), but that homeopathy is gaining in popularity.

When people are asked about homeopathy, they are usually impressed. This article covers several situations in which this has been done in recent years. The experience of the Bristol Homeopathic Hospital, described here, is important - because this hospital is now facing two local Primary Care Trust who have unilaterally, and without consultation, decided to refuse to refer patients here anymore. So much for the Government's policy of 'Patient Choice', and the idea that there should be 'do decision about me without me'!

Yet despite the best efforts of CME to undermine it, homeopathy continues to thrive, with increasing numbers of people moving away from drug-based medicine to homeopathy, and other safer, more effective medical therapies.

These figures, from the USA, the home of the largest Big Pharma companies, demonstrate something of this increase in popularity.

And in response to attacks on Australian universities, which offer courses on CAM therapies, this professor states that 80% of people in Australia are seeking alternative treatments.

And no wonder. This Canadian article suggests that some 70% of patients using homeopathy 'experienced improvement'. Most homeopaths I have met have suggested the same sort of percentage - something I suspect the CME would die for!

And it is not just humans that can discover the benefits of homeopathy - animals too respond well. Indeed, as this article states, many vets are now turning to homeopathy.

And again, no wonder. Antibiotics are now failing on our farms. And homeopathy is now being put forward as a safer (for animals, and meat consumers), more effective replacement to them. And see here too.

The time for homeopathy is coming. There is nothing in homeopathy, our detractors often tell us. But there very definitely is something, and something very important, in homeopathy - and despite being under constant attack, more and more people are finding out for themselves! Perhaps the attacks draw attention to us. After all, there is no such thing as bad publicity!





Friday, 3 February 2012

Monsanto. The worst company in the world?

The way that we produce the food we eat is vital. During the last 100 years, or so, food production on our farms have changed. And the result is that we can no longer trust the quality, or even the safety of the food we are being offered by the Big Food companies. It is not just a matter of pesticides and herbicides, the factory farming of animals, the intensification of agriculture, the depletion of our soils - it is about the very seeds we plant. And at the centre of this controversy is the giant biotech company, Monsanto.

Monsanto were named 'the worst company of 2011' by the organisation 'Natural Society'. The won this accolade for "threatening human health and the environment". No mean achievement! Why is this? Monsanto has not only created some of the most dangerous products, such as Agent Orange, dioxin, and recombinant bovine growth hormone, it is now at the very centre of the GMO seed row.

In a recent email communication with supporters, the Organic Consumers Association, they said that "energy-intensive industrial farming practices, that rely on toxic chemicals and genetically engineered crop are not just undermining public health, they're destroying the planet". They give 10 reasons for this contention:

#1 Generating Massive Greenhouse Gas Pollution (CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide) and Global Warming, While Promoting False Solutions Such as Industrial Biofuels, So-Called Drought-Resistant Crops, and Genetically Engineered Trees
#2 Polluting the Environment and the Soil-Food Web with Pesticides, Chemical Fertilizers, and Persistent Toxins, Including Dioxin

#3 Draining and Polluting Wetlands and Aquifers, Turning Farmland into Desert

#4 Poisoning Wells and Municipal Drinking Water, Lakes, and Rivers



#5 Chopping Down the Rainforests for Monoculture GMO Crops, Biofuels and Cattle Grazing

#6 Increasing the Cost of Food, While Reducing Nutrition and Biodiversity

#7 Spawning Pesticide-Resistant Superbugs and Weeds, and Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria

#8 Generating New and More Virulent Plant, Animal and Human Diseases

#9 Utilizing Wasteful Fossil Fuel-Intensive Practices and Encouraging the Expansion of Natural Gas Fracking and Tar Sands Extraction (Which Destroy Forests, Aquifers, and Farmland)

#10 Stealing Money From the 99% to Give Huge Subsidies to the 1% Wealthiest, Most Chemical and Energy-Intensive Farms and Food Producers

It is now estimated that 90% of some US crops are genetically modified, and that most food eaten in the USA contain some GMO ingredients.


The position is not quite so serious in Europe, with countries like Hungary and Germany banning it. Even in the UK we have recently seen some success, with Monsanto withdrawing its Cambridge-based wheat production unit because of consumer resistance.


Monsanto has based its propaganda on a number of promises that have not been met. This 'Global Citizens Report' states that genetic engineering has not increased the yield of a single crop. That instead of controlling weeds and pests GM crops (alongside Monsanto's herbicide, Roundup) have led to the emergence of super-weeds and super-pests. That instead of reducing the amounts of chemicals used in growing crops, they require more. That promises to produce 'drought resistant' crops have not materialised. And so on.

And it also report that "there are enough independent studies to show the GE foods can cause severe health damage".

Part of the problem is the increased use of herbicides, that persist in the soil, leave a residue in GM food, and so go on to poison us when we eat them. The problems of herbicide use are discussed in some detail in this article. And this article explains how these poisons also pollutes our water supply, so that even if we avoid eating GM foods, our water supply, taken from the taps in our homes, can also be making us ill, or even killing us, slowly.

So is Monsanto concerned? It would appear not, as they have stated "there is no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans". We must all, therefore, ask the question. Is the development of GMO crops, and Monsanto's position on testing them,  in the best interests of our health - or is it to protect their profits?

The same article outlines the health dangers known to arise, namely, that DNA in GM crops are responsible for disease-causing inflammation, and auto-immune disorders.

And this may not be the end of Monsanto's aims and objectives for our future, and the future of our environment. This article suggests that they want to kill our bees in order to make way for its 'super-bee'. Far-fetched? Well, someone or something is certainly killing our bees! And the use of pesticides and herbicides are already deeply implicated.

We have to increase our efforts to boycott GMO crops, and the food made from it. But in doing so, there are two things that stand in our way. The first is that Big Food, and Monsanto in particular, don't want us to know when we are eating GMOs. So food labelling is being opposed. No one has asked for GMO food; no one wants it; and so labels will help us to avoid it if we wish to do so. So surely our politicians will help us?

Well, not necessarily. The second problem is the financial influence and power of Monsanto, who are lobbying our politicians with all the money they have available to them!. The question is, will our politicians support us? Or Monsanto?

But to end on a more positive note. In a David vs Goliath (Monsanto) court battle in Canada, one farmer actually won! Worth a read. The moral of this story is that we all, each one of us, have to fight this evil giant. And the good news is that 270,000 organic farmers are going to sue Monsanto. We should all wish them good luck!

Thursday, 2 February 2012

The Failure of Conventional Medicine. HPV Vaccination, Gardasil and Cervarix.

Big Pharma vaccines are dangerous. My last blog in the series focused on articles covering many types of vaccines. This one focuses on just one: the HPV vaccines (Gardasil and Cervarix); those given to pubescent girls, allegedly to 'prevent cervical cancer'. 

I am not sure whether these vaccines are just more dangerous that others, or if the damage they cause is more noticeable or apparent in young people rather than with babies and young children. But the evidence against them is now quite immense - although, as usual, the evidence does not get through the censorship exercise in the mainstream media!

There has always been concern about what the evidence, and the quality of evidence, that supports giving this vaccine. This article goes over the paucity of the evidence, both for its efficacy (does it, or will it, do what it says it will do); and is it safe.

So what damage has the HPV/Gardasil/Cervarix vaccines caused?

This articles states that 'at least' 12 schoolgirls in New York have been damaged by a 'mystery illnesses'. The mystery illness is Tourette's Syndrome. And, of course, only to those who don't wish to acknowledge the most likely cause of this condition are really mystified!

This important article outlines the damage done to 213 women who have suffered permanent disability after having the vaccine. The article states that the vaccine is known to cause paralysis, and MS-type symptoms, as well as seizures, blindness, and many other conditions. It goes into some of the detail about the problems being caused by the vaccines, and includes individual videos of young girls whose lives have been devastated by it. It also asks, pertinently, whether some deaths have caused by the vaccine, but explained away as 'a coincidence'.

This VacTruth article does suggest that this vaccine is 'killing us softly'. It states that there is no HPV crisis, that HPV does not lead to cancer, that the vaccine does not prevent cancer - and much else.

Rarely does the mainstream media bother to report the dangers of these vaccines. With perhaps this exception, the tragic story of a 13 year old girl put into a 'waking coma' after receiving the vaccine; the article appeared in the Sun; and here in the mirror. But isolated appearances such as this give the unfortunate impression that these are 'isolated' incidents, and not as common as they are.

The fact is that these vaccines can destroy the lives of young people, and cause devastation within families, when healthy young people are involved in vaccine-induced tragedy. These mums have expressed their views about their damaged children - after a bland (but typical) statement was issued about the 'excellent safety record' of Gardasil.

Yet even Medical Journals, so often quiet in matters concerned the the dangers of drugs and vaccines, are now raising questions about HPV vaccines. This article goes into the questions being asked about the adequacy of testing prior to the vaccines being used, and the ethics behind the testing. However, there appears to be no suggestion that their licenses should be withdrawn!

This article tells the same story - that HPV vaccines are unproven, ineffective, and lack evidence. The article states that:

the latest Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. VAERS statistics clearly show that HPV Vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, have been associated with 22, 619 adverse reactions; 8,926 of those reports requiring emergency hospitalization; and 4,616 cases where the victim did not recover. Death reports stand at 102.


The first State in the USA to use the Gardasil vaccine is now beginning to withdraw it. But this is the exception. Throughout the world, governments and politicians seem to positively, and sometimes aggressively, sanctioning this vaccine. This article also includes data about the vaccines:

VAERS data show that Gardasil has been associated with 24,184 adverse effects since its debut in June of 2006, including seizures, anaphylaxis, paralysis, transverse myelitis, Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), opsoclonus-myoclonus syndrome (uncontrollable movement of the eyes back and forth and jerking movements of the extremities), brachial neuritis, loss of vision, postural tachycardia syndrome, facial palsy, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, chronic fatigue syndrome, blindness, pancreatitis, speech problems, short term memory loss, miscarriage, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune disorders, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, abnormal Pap smears and even cervical cancer.[24][25][26] 


Yes, you read that correctly – VAERS reports 41 cases of cervical cancer following vaccination with Gardasil!

With all this vaccine-induced mayhem, Sanevax is now calling for approval to be withdrawn - because of the lack of post-licensing monitoring. In other words, there has not been adequate oversight into wht is happening to the young people who receive this vaccine. And in another letter, Sanevax is calling for educators to monitor the dangers of this vaccine - perhaps because, in many (too many) cases, schools and teachers are being used by health authorities to promote it, and even to enforce it.

And now, in some parts of the world, the drug companies are trying to persuade us that boys, and well as girls, need this vaccine! I wonder, is this to prevent boys getting cervical cancer? Or is it more to do with boasting Big Pharma profits? The 'debate' can also be found in this Dr Mercola article.

So will the boys fare any better than the girls? It does not appear that they will, with these 4 deaths already being reported. See here also for more information on this.

The silence of the ConMed Establishment, and the mainstream media about the dangers of vaccines, displays the usual lack of honesty and openness regarding drug and vaccine dangers, and health matters generally. This means that most people do not know, or understand what they are agreeing to, when they are vaccinated, or they agree to their children being vaccinated. The article emphasises this, and gives another example of a young girl, damaged by the HPV vaccine.

But at least one brave doctor, in Austria, has spoken out. The message is the same though. The vaccine is dangerous, and completely useless in preventing cancer. And a group of doctors in France have also stated that the vaccine should be de-listed and suspended because of the dangers.

So how do we protect our young girls from this dangerous vaccine? This article discusses the problem, suggesting that we tell them, quite simply, that the vaccine is neither necessary or effective!

And there are signs that the Big Pharma companies, who see vaccines as a way of earning vast profits, are at last being taken to task. Litigation in the USA is already underway.

And even some politicians are finding the issues difficult; not least when their campaign funds are made up of Big Pharma donations.

We need to protect our children from vaccines, and the HPV vaccine in particular. Recently, the UK government decided to give Gardasil rather than Cervarix. I am not entirely sure why this decision was taken. If there were 'outcome problems' with Cervarix, then a move to Gardasil (on which there is much more evidence of harm) seems to be a triumph of hope over experience!


Neither vaccine is safe. And both should be avoided.

More Big Pharma cuts

It has been announced today that AstraZenica, the giant Anglo-Swedish pharmaceutical company, is to cut 7,300 jobs throughout the world, including in the UK, where it employs 8,000 people. This is part of a continuing trend. Between 2007 and 2009 the company lost over 12,000 jobs. The current programme of cuts, which began in 2010, sees over 9,000 jobs being lost.

All Big Pharma companies are now contracting rapidly. Profits are still huge, but they are falling. There has to be concern and sympathy for all those people who are going to lose their jobs. And, of course, this contraction of the industry is seen my many to be damaging to the UK economy.

Yet in terms of health, it represents the beginning of the end for conventional, drug-based medicine (ConMed). AstraZeneca have admitted that it is losing patients - to competition - and they expect their losses to continue. In reality, their drugs are either coming to the end of their patents (and so are less profitable), or they are failing because they have been found to be either ineffective, dangerous, or both. And they have no new 'wonder' drugs coming through.


Yet the problem for the Big Pharma companies is doubly serious. The 100-year-plus belief that 'science' would ultimately solve the problem of health is certainly in tatters, with little prospect of it being revived. But in addition, as the profitability of Big Pharma decline, and their industrial and commercial power declines alongside, especially to countries such as the UK, so to will the influence that ConMed will have on Government health policy, in the 'monopolistic' commissioning arms of the NHS, and even in editorial censorship that exists within the mainstream media on matters of health.
What this means is that as Big Pharma companies decline, their ability to buy influence and power, and to dominate national health services, will also decline in the future.
A more rational health debate might become possible, a situation is which the variety of medical therapies will be allowed to demonstrate their worth to patients on the basis of their efficacy, effectiveness and safety - and not on the basis of political and industrial muscle.