Tuesday, 30 April 2013

Human Rights and Health Freedom

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signatory of the US Declaration of Independence, and a committed believer in, and worker for human rights, made this prediction about medical freedom as long ago as 1776:
          "Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to doctors and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic."
Now, in 2013, we are beginning to face the reality he foresaw. Conventional medicine, led by the big pharmaceutical companies (Big Pharma), is now organising itself as an 'undercover dictatorship'. Our individual medical freedoms are under increasing attack, with the concept of "healing" having been replaced by the "treatment" of disease, usually through expensive, highly toxic drugs and vaccines, and by invasive surgery. 

Drug-based medicine dominates national health services throughout the so-called 'developed' world. The conventional medical establishment, in the USA particularly, but with Britain not far behind, is dominated by Big Pharma companies, who are increasingly calling for medication to be ‘compulsory. And in doing so they appear to have the support of media organisations, including national press and the BBC.

Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in response to the ‘Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund’ lawsuit over an interstate raw milk ban in 2010, was quoted as giving this opinion.
“There is no generalized right to bodily and physical health”. 
It is, perhaps, frightening for us to realise that they are probably quite correct in their opinion! Medical freedom is not firmly established in any of the main statements on Human Rights. Indeed, although most Human Rights documents cover Freedom of Speech, Thought, Conscience and Religion, the right to a free trial, and so on, Health Freedom is not specifically mentioned in any the following documents:
Threats to Health Freedom
The need for Health Freedom to be added to the key list of Human Rights is becoming daily more obvious, and can perhaps best be seen in these internet articles, merely a selection of articles that demonstrates what is going on throughout the world, mainly (but not exclusively) in the USA, Europe and Australia:
The list is endless. So although BigPharma, drug-based medicine dominates medical practice, the conventional medical establishment is still not happy. It seems to be insisting  that we must all take their medicine - whether we want to or not. Their mission appears to be that they have to 'save' us - because they think they know better than we do. 

It is the stuff of all political dictatorships!

Why people want to 'opt out' of Conventional Medicine
There are many reasons for a substantial and growing number of people choosing to refuse Big Pharma drugs and vaccines.
  • Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are not safe, and many are positively dangerous, and sometime lethal.
  • Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are not as effective as the claims made for them, and many of them have been withdrawn as ultimately they have been found to be useless.
  • Big Pharma drug companies do not tell us the whole truth, or anything like the full truth, about their drugs and vaccines. On many occasions, especially during the last decade, they have been caught acting fraudulently and dishonestly, both in their testing and marketing of drugs and vaccines.
  • Governments, the NHS, even our doctors, have consistently failed to give us full and honest information about the drugs and vaccines they endorse, and particularly about their disease-inducing-effects (DIEs).
  • The mainstream media have consistently failed to investigate the claims of the Conventional Medical Establishment, and to tell the public about the known health consequences of taking conventional drugs and vaccines.
  • Although one of the major outcomes of conventional medicine are euphemistically called 'side-effects', there is now little doubt that medical drugs and vaccines are causing serious disease. And they are also responsible for killing large numbers of people too.
So opting out of conventional drug-based medicine is not just a reasonable position for patients to take, it is a sensible one too. So for health services and politicians to force people to have this type of medicine, and for the mainstream media to support this, is patently a breach of our human rights.

Patient Choice
Patient Choice is now the policy of all the main political parties in Britain. And they all agree that patients should have their choice of treatment through 'informed consent'. This policy is eminently sensible, and it is one that would (if properly implemented) uphold our Health Freedoms. 

Unfortunately, the policy is not being implemented - for two main reasons.
  • Patients are not being told about the shortfalls and dangers of conventional medical drugs and vaccines by the NHS until thousands of patients have been damaged. Nor does the mainstream media seem prepared to investigate, or play any role in letting us know about the dangers.
So whilst the Government, the Department of Health, and the NHS is saying that patients should, indeed, choose the way they wish to be treated ("No decision about me without me", as their White Paper stated), they have left it to local NHS Commissioning bodies to determine whether they can, or will make such treatment available to patients in their area.

In other words, patients can choose what form of treatment they prefer; but the NHS bureaucracy can, and are determining whether we can have it or not!

This is NOT patient choice. It is particularly not patient choice when we then realise that 'local NHS commissioning bodies' are dominated by conventional doctors trained in, and fully committed to conventional, drug-based medicine!  

Give a Ford car salesman the right to determine whether we can buy a Volvo, and he is more than likely to say 'No'!

As British citizens, we have already paid for, and are entitled to health treatment. So it is particularly galling to realise that many people are being denied access to what we want, and forced to take what we do not want, by a medical monopoly within the NHS

Paternalism within the NHS is alive, well, and flourishing. And it is this paternalism, this idea that conventional drug-based doctors, and only these doctors, who know what is good for us who are currently depriving us of our health freedom.

Informed Consent
If Health Freedom is a 'human right', if there is to be 'Patient Choice' in healthcare provision, we need to remember one, very important thing:

"What "YOU" think about what "I" choose as medical treatment is quite immaterial;
and what "I" think about what "YOU" choose is, likewise, entirely irrelevant."

Those of us who wish to 'opt out' of conventional drug-based medicine are often told that medicine has to be 'evidence based'. By this, they mean that scientific trials, and in particular 'Randomised Controlled Trials', or RCT's. are essential. Unfortunately, RCT's are at the very heart of drug-based medicine, and this 'science' has not protected patients from the harm and dangers of conventional drugs and vaccines.

But 'informed consent' is important. Without it, patients will not be in a position to decide what treatment they wish to have when they are ill. The need for reliable and accurate information about the variety of treatments that are available is vitally important to patient choice, and health freedom. This places a heavy responsibility on national governments and health services. In order to inform us, properly, they must be obliged to provide us with information, and do to do so fairly and impartially.

At the moment the NHS provides patients only with information about conventional (drug/vaccine-based) medicine, and even then, only a partial view focusing on its benefits. What this means is that many, if not most patients, believe that there is only one form of treatment, and they know nothing of the dangers. 

Rarely are they told that the conventional drug and vaccine- based treatment might be harmful, and as a result, patients are unable to exercise and real health freedom, and their human rights are not being fulfilled.

Health Freedom as a Human Right
The right to the health treatment of our choice is a fundamental human right, and should be enshrined within all the statements describing these rights.

Health freedom needs to be enshrined within the practices of the NHS. The medical monopoly with the NHS needs to be broken, not least because it was never the intention that it should become a monopoly supplier of one type of medicine.


Monday, 29 April 2013

Vaccines: the research evidence

The Conventional Medical Establishment wants us all to get vaccinated - against a growing number of illnesses and diseases. In most cases, we are told these vaccines are 'entirely safe'. But they are not! Categorically, they are not!

What is the evidence for this unequivocal statement? In previous blogs I have tried, in a piecemeal manner, to put together some of the evidence, but GreenMedTV have put together on this web page (click here) all (or at least most) of the research evidence for the adverse reactions they have been found to cause. It is a huge list, and this how they describe this evidence.

          "The research below represents under-reported, minimized and otherwise overlooked peer-reviewed data on adverse effects associated with vaccination."

This is how the evidence has been collected together, and presented to the US government. Remember that in the USA, more so that the UK, there are much stronger move by the conventional medical establishment to make these toxic, and harmful vaccines, mandatory!



Diseases
Anti Therapeutic Actions
Problem Substances
Additional Keywords
On the GreenMed TV webpage, for each of these lines, a click takes you to specific pieces of peer-reviewed research, from where you can click to see the research itself. For instance, click on research available on the adverse reactions to the MMR vaccine (the one we have all been urged by the conventional medical establishment to have in recent weeks) and you will find 25 pieces of peer-reviewed research evidence that links the MMR vaccine with a whole serious of illness and diseases.
  • Research indicating that the design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies are largely inadequate
  • Several links to research linking the MMR vaccine with Autism, and other "serious neurological disorders"
  • Links with a rare neurological condition, traverse myelitis 
  • Research indicating that autistic children have elevated levels of measles antibodies, indicating that measles vaccination may be causing autoimmunity in these children
  • Links with Multiple Schlerosis
  • Links with febrile convulsions
  • Four separate studies showing links between the MMR vaccine and Purpura
  • Research showing that of patients catching mumps in 1998-1999, 51% has received the MMR vaccine, thus bringing into question its effectiveness
  • Research show that the incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines are under-reported (denied?), and that it might be as high as 43% for certain vaccine combinations.
  • Research showing that measles virus DNA from the MMR vaccine have been found in patients with ulcerative colitis, and children with Autism,
  • Research show that MMR 'catch-up' immunisation in a measles epidemic did not confer protection, and was associated with a variety of new 'side-effects'.
  • Research indicating that the combination of the MMR and the DPT vaccines (given to most children in the UK) leads to a significant increase in the rate of adverse reactions.
  • Research indicating that the MMR vaccine causes autoantibodies to be formed against myelin basic protein contributing to the pathogenesis of autism
  • Research indicating increased mortality, especially in female children
  • and much more!
Despite conventional medicine claiming itself to be 'evidence-based',  and that ConMed is the only 'science-based' medicine, this evidence appears to be routinely ignored by the Department of Health, the NHS, our local GP's, and the mainstream media.  This is highly unscientific. And it is all evidence that patients are being denied.

Clearly, we are not supposed to know about any of this. Our task is to 'take the medicine\, as required of us by the conventional medical profession, But without this information, no patient can make an informed choice about his/her medical treatment. 

So if our doctors are not going to tell us, and the mainstream media is not going to tell us, we all need to read this research for ourselves before we go ahead with any vaccination.



Saturday, 27 April 2013

Measles and the MMR vaccine. Only one 'acceptable' opinion?

Press Freedom was hard won over previous centuries. It is important as it ensures that we can criticise our government, the people who govern us, and in this way maintain the freedoms we have won. And there is little doubt that the press does question and challenge our government and our politicians. This makes press freedom one of the foundations of our democracy.

But what about the Media's ability (or preparedness) to question and challenge the big, powerful, hugely wealthy and influential Corporations?  Does it provide for us the same protection from industrial conglomerates such as:
  • The Petro-Chemical Industry
  • The Defence and Armaments Industry
  • Finance and Banking
  • The Pharmaceutical Industry
  • and many others?
We know that many of these powerful Corporations, and industrial conglomerations, are now much bigger than most national governments, and influential within even the larger and apparently more powerful nations, such as Britain and the USA. "Big Corp's" power and influence rests, of course, on their ability to invest (or dis-invest) in national economies, to create (or destroy) jobs, to advertise, promote and sell their products, and to make links with, and influence other powerful social and economic forces.

Even the largest independent media groups (many themselves large corporate enterprises) are not only reliant on advertising revenues, their boardrooms appear to be full of people from other powerful corporations. What this mwNA is that it is difficult for the media to challenge and question these large and powerful vested interests - without compromising their advertising revenues, and SO their viability. It is always difficult, and sometime quite foolish, to bite the hand that feeds you!

The 'epidemic' of measles in Swansea is a small, but almost perfect example of this. In the last few weeks, the mainstream media in Britain have been quite unable to provide us with anything other than what the Conventional Medical Establishment, dominated as it is by one of the most powerful corporate conglomerates of all, Big Pharma, wants us to know.

In particular, I have been watching and questioning the failure of BBC News to challenge the 'received wisdom' of the ConMed Establishment. Throughout, the BBC has been content to provide conventional medical spokespersons with a pulpit from which to express their views. Rarely, if ever, have they questioned or challenged these views

So let's examine how the BBC has been reporting this 'serious epidemic' of measles? My assessment suggests that these 7 features have dominated its coverage.

1. The Measles outbreak in Swansea is a serious health problem.
This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment.

It must really be questioned whether the numbers involved, still under 1,000 cases, really constitutes 'an epidemic', or a news story that really deserve the attention it has received. In comparison, during the first 3 weeks of 1959, there were 41,000 cases reported in England and Wales. Yet the BBC has never deviated from this alarmist description of the measles outbreak.

Nor has the BBC ever discussed how 'serious' the illness of measles really is. If it had wanted to add some balance to the hysteria generated by the NHS it might have pointed to at least two sources of information:
  • The consistent statistical decline in deaths caused by measles from the mid- to late 19th century onwards. It is no longer a 'killer' disease, and this could and should have been examined.
  • Conventional medical descriptions of measles prior to the introduction of the MMR vaccination. These do not describe measles in the terms currently being used. For instance, the BMJ, on 7th February 1959, published an article in which GP's expressed their views about the epidemic that year. Most agreed that measles was, at that time, a mild infection, and that they rarely had occasions to treat it with anything other than bed-rest, or an occasional antibiotic!
How times have changed! In an apparent attempt to emphasise the seriousness of the recent measles 'epidemic', the BBC has made much of the single measles-related death that was reported in the area, although since it became clear that the man concerned had more serious underlying health problems, and was actually seen by doctors shortly prior to his death, this association seems to have been quickly dropped, at least for the moment.

2. The 'epidemic' has been caused by parents not taking up the MMR vaccination in the late 1990's
This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment

Other than the blank and apparently definitive assertion that it is unvaccinated children who are now contracting measles, there appears to be a paucity of evidence to support the allegation? And the BBC has certainly never questioned ConMed spokespersons about why they are making this link, and what evidence they have to support it.

Certainly, outbreaks of similar diseases in recent times has shown that it is the vaccinated population, and not the unvaccinated population, that has suffered from these 'epidemic' diseases, and are in general more vulnerable to illness in general.

In this, and much else, the BBC appears quite happy to parrot the conventional medical view that all would be well if only they had been able to treat people in their preferred way

3. The reason for parents not taking up the vaccine is due to ignorance, particularly based on 'misinformation' about the MMR vaccine.
This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment.

From the very beginning of BBC coverage, their reporting was happy to lay the blame for the measles outbreak by referring to Dr Andrew Wakefield, and the concerns he raised about the MMR vaccine in the late 1990's. Despite the repeated replication of his research (which have never been mentioned), and the ongoing concerns about the safety of the vaccine, the BBC have been quite content to repeat the conventional medical view that Wakefield's research as been entirely dismissed.

At no stage has the BBC examined why people are opting out of vaccines. And certainly it has never reported on the experience of many parents who, over the years, have made serious allegations about the MMR vaccine, and the serious harmful impact it has had on the health of their children.

Nor has the BBC been willing to make any reference to the many hefty compensation payments made to parents of children who have been damaged by the MMR vaccine, and to court judgements which have confirmed the association between vaccines and serious illness.

5. The MMR vaccine is effective.
This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment

The BBC has never questioned the implicit assumption of conventional medicine that the MMR vaccine if an effective treatment. Indeed, the BBC seems to have accepted this assumption without question or challenge, and has never questioned the ConMed claim that measles has declined as a direct result of the MMR vaccine.

The BBC has completely ignored the freely and readily available evidence provided by statistics, and the graphs that arise from them, that chart the decline of measles, as a 'killer' disease since the mid-19th century, and which clearly shows that since the MMR vaccine was introduced in the late 1970's, it has had no effect on the rate of this decline.

Nor have the BBC ever questioned conventional medical spokesperson about the evidence that in similar outbreaks of disease (whooping cough, mumps and measles) have affected children who have already been vaccinated against the disease.

6. The MMR vaccine is safe.
This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment

The BBC has never questioned this assumption, and indeed it seems to refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary. They have been entirely clear that there are no links between the MMR vaccine,and Autism, and seem to believe that as long as no-one is given the opportunity to discuss the evidence for this link, it will just go away!

So instead, has the BBC looked at the information that is known, and accepted by the ConMed establishment, about the 'adverse reactions' to the MMR vaccine? Merck, in its MMR package insert provides a long list of illnesses and diseases that are known to be caused by the vaccine, includes the following: pancreatitis, diabetes mellitus, purpura, meningitis, and death. Yes, death!


  • So, do the BBC mention this? Absolutely not! 
  • Do they still recommend that we all rush off for the vaccine? Yes, without reservation. 
  • Does the BBC believe they should share this information about adverse reactions with their viewers, listeners and readers so that they can make an 'informed choice'? Most certainly not! 
  • Does the BBC inform us that one version of the MMR vaccine, the Urabe vaccine, was withdrawn for safety reasons in the early 1980's? Certainly not. 
  • Nor do they tell us that Japan has banned one MMR vaccine for safety reasons.
  • Does the BBC seek to speak to the parents of children who believe that their child has been damaged by the MMR vaccine? Of course not. 
  • Have they bothered to speak to organisations like 'Informed Parent', who support these families, and seek to provide new parents with balanced information about vaccination? Of course not.
  • Does the BBC inform the public of the court adjudications in the USA, Italy, and elsewhere, that have made compensation payments the the victims of this, and other vaccines? 
Not a word, not a mention of any of this.

7. Vaccination policy is good, and is the right (if not the only) health policy
This mirrors exactly the views of the Conventional Medical Establishment

The BBC has made it absolutely clear in recent years that it supports conventional medical treatment, and is not prepared to allow any discussion about alternatives, except when it goes out of its way to attack them. As far as the Swansea measles outbreak is concerned, there is no alternative to the MMR vaccine. The BBC has actively promoted vaccines, and regularly given information about the number of new measles cases, the special vaccine clinics that have been set up in the area, and has given an open and unchallenged platform to the ConMed spokespersons to express their opinions, freely and without question.

The BBC has provided no platform for alternative treatments. There is no platform for those people who, like myself, believe in the 'natural' immunity that arises when children are allowed contract illnesses like measles. There is no mention of parents who, like my mum and many of her generation, encouraged children to contract measles, and arranged 'measles parties' to facilitate this.

Within the BBC, it would appear, the conventional medical establishment rules supreme!

8. Should vaccination be mandatory?
This mirrors exactly questions being asked within parts of the Conventional Medical Establishment.

There can be little doubt, from the way questions are being asked by BBC journalists and presenters, notably Jeremy Paxman, that the BBC is taking up a position that favours this view. Indeed, if the BBC accepts so passively all the 7 poinra above, then it may, indeed, be considered a 'common sense' view. If they can ignore the evidence of families who have been damaged by this vaccine, if they can ignore the 'adverse reactions' admitted by the vaccine manufacturers, if they continue to accept without question what they are told by the Cnventional Medical Establishment, than mandatory vaccination might seem to be a sensible and reasonable policy.


Watching, listening to, and reading the BBC account of the measles outbreak in Swansea leaves me with little doubt that whilst Jeremy Paxman, John Humphrys and others question and challenge our political leaders aggressively, they fail entirely and completely to question and challenge the views and practices of the Conventional Medical Establishment. Perhaps they are not allowed to do so (?) And in fairness, they share this failing with the rest of the mainstream media in Britain!

Yet health freedom is every bit as important as political freedom. 

Alongside many other people, I refuse to allow myself to be damaged by conventional drugs and vaccines. I consider them to be both ineffective and unsafe - dangerous in fact.

Just as the BBC should reserve my right to vote in political elections as I please, they should also reserve my right to choose the medical treatments I accept, and refuse. But they do not do so.

The BBC regularly contravenes its editorial policy of fairness and impartiality in matters of health. Our news media should no more give exclusive and unquestioned coverage to one form of medicine, however dominant it has become within the NHS, than it would give exclusive and unquestioned coverage to one political party. I have complained about the BBC's coverage of this Swansea measles outbreak, and the response I have received makes it quite clear that the BBC does not understand, or perhaps does not want to understand, the issues raised by this sort of biased coverage.

The threat to our freedoms no longer comes exclusively from our government and our politicians. It comes also from powerful corporate conglomerates, and not least Big Pharma. The pharmaceutical companies want us to believe that their drugs and vaccines are safe. They want us to believe that only through these drugs and vaccines provide the route to good health, that nothing else works, that we should all have the 'benefits' of conventional medical treatment.

It would appear from their performance over the Swansea measles outbreak that the BBC agrees with this, and is actively promoting it.

Whether it is 85%, 90% or 95% people accepting vaccination, the failure to give them full, accurate and honest information about the dangers of their decision, is not only a dereliction of duty, it is a failure to provide them with an opportunity to make an informed decision. The BBC is guilty of this.

Whether it is 5%, 10% or 15% of people refusing vaccination, to ignore them, and to dismiss their views, is an unacceptable and negligent media response, especially from a public broadcaster. In doing this, the BBC is in breach of its editorial guidelines of impartiality.





Tuesday, 16 April 2013

Measles. The Moral Panic in Swansea?

The outbreak of Measles in Swansea this month (April 2013) has led to a moral panic that has been extraordinary to watch.

First, Measles has been with us for a very long time. It was first described in the 7th century, and eventually differentiated from Smallpox and Chickenpox, in the 10th century. It has been estimated that 220 million people had died from the disease, and this kind of data forms the basis of the modern day ‘scare’ stories that so often hit the headlines today. This outbreak of measles is quite typical of this. It is a panic created by a disease that the BMJ know is no longer a serious, killer illness.
Indeed, the BMJ knew this as long ago as 1959 (7th February, p354), where they speak about the large number of cases recorded in England and Wales (41,000 compared with under 1,000 in Swansea). They asked doctors to comment on Measles and concluded that
          "these writer agree that measles is nowadays normally a mild infection, and they rarely have occasion to give prophylactic gamma globulin".
The reality is, now as then, that although most children will contract measles during their lifetime, for most healthy people it is a disease that the body deals with quite normally, and without complications. It has, however, always been a 'killer' disease to those living in poverty, in poor, damp housing, with a poor diet. This is why the death rates rose so rapidly during the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions of the late 18th, early 19th centuries. And it is why, following the increasing affluence of the Victorian era, alongside the urban public health measure that were introduced, the disease has been on a steady decline.
          "The combined death rate of scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough, and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 per cent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition. In poor countries today, diarrhoea and upper-respiratory-tract infections occur more frequently, last longer, and lead to higher mortality where nutrition is poor, no matter how much or how little medical care in available". Illich.  
Illich wrote this in 1975 - but the idea that conventional Medicine has cured Measles persists, largely owing to the success of its brilliant, self-congratulatory propaganda over recent years.
Listen to the conventional medical establishment, however, and you will be led to believe that it has been antibiotics and vaccines have achieved this result. They have not. The graph shows, quite clearly, that the decline of measles as a 'killer' disease has been consistent over the decades, and the introduction of antibiotics or vaccines have played no visible role in this decline whatsoever.
So why has Measles become a more serious disease over the last few decades, and certainly since 1959 - a time when mother's organised measles parties in order to ensure that their children contracted it naturally? Has it, perhaps, something to do with the promotion of the MMR vaccine? 
Certainly, the purposeful generation of fear in Swansea has been something that the NHS, with the supine support of the mainstream media (led, as always by the BBC, compliant as always to the wishes of the Conventional Medical Establishment) has created.
We are told that those people contracting measles are those who have not been vaccinated in the late 1990's, largely owing to that 'awful' doctor, Andrew Wakefield, who had the audacity to suggest that the MMR vaccines might be dangerous! These children should get vaccinated as soon as possible, to protect themselves from this dreadful disease!
Yet measles is not 'dreadful'. And the MMR vaccine is not safe. So the NHS are telling us to take a medication that is dangerous to prevent an illness that is not serious.
Even the alleged cause of the outbreak in Swansea is far from certain. We have been told that it has arisen from too many children not being vaccinated in the late 1990's. Is this really the case? If so, where are the statistics? Where are the children, aged 13 and just below, who have contracted the disease? We must patiently await the statistics that will ultimately emerge.
The evidence about outbreaks of disease, like this one at Swansea, have hitherto shown that it is the vaccinated, and not the unvaccinated that have been more likely to contract the disease. See, for example, the following links.
If my hunch is correct, the Swansea episode has been another example of a health scare, a panic created in order to sell more drugs and vaccines. If so, the Department of Health, the NHS, our GP's, and our national media, have all been complicit in yet another marketing exercise in favour of the Big Pharma drug companies.