Monday, 25 November 2013

Elvis' Cruciate Ligament damage. An expensive operation? Or Homeopathy?

Elvis is an 8-year old black Labrador, a lovely dog, very friendly, very laid-back, very undemanding. Everyone loves him, not least me!

Then, on 3rd November he had an accident, he was hit by a car, was thrown across the road, and ran back into the wood we had been walking in, traumatised. I spent 2 hours looking for him, in pitch darkness. Eventually he came hobbling up to me, head down. I got him home and gave him Arnica for the shock, and for the bruising that he must undoubtedly have.

Elvis spent a restless night, clearly in considerable pain and discomfort. I gave him Arnica, in high potency, throughout the night, and even put some in his drinking water. He seemed somewhat easier in the morning, even wagging his tail. We took him to the vet, where he was examined and then X-rayed. When we picked him up the vet diagnosed serious cruciate ligament damage to his rear left leg. The recommendation was that he went to a specialist vet for an operation. The estimate for the operation was £1,500.

To a homeopath, ligament damage immediately means the remedy 'Ruta Grav'. I began giving Elvis this, in high potency, alternating this with Arnica. After two days he was brighter, eating and drinking normally, and tentatively walking about in the garden. The improvement was quite dramatic and so I suggested that rather than putting him through a traumatic operation I continued treating Elvis for two weeks. This was agreed within the family. I continued giving him Arnica and Ruta Grav, but after several days added Calc Carb as a 'constitutional' remedy. This also seemed to add to the speed of his recovery.

Indeed, his recovery was rapid, beyond my expectations. We kept him quiet, and did not take him for walks initially. Within a couple of days he was most put out when my dog was taken for a walk, and he was left behind! Within two weeks it was clear not only that he did not need an operation, but that he was walking and trotting quite normally, and entirely without pain. Elvis rarely ran at the best of times before the accident, but during one walk in the wood towards the end of the fortnight we came across a young dog who just wanted to play. Elvis was happy to oblige by chasing him - without any great discomfort, as far as I could see.

When he trotted, if you watched very closely, he threw his left rear left very slightly outwards; but even this was improving at the end of the two week. There are two significant things to consider in this story.
  • First, very clearly, the power of homeopathy to deal with even the worst injuries, in this case an injury that a conventional vet thought required an expensive operation.
  • Second, equally clearly, was the lack any similarly effective conventional treatments. All Elvis was offered were strong painkillers, followed by an operation. This was the only option we were given.
Conventional vets have a treatment monopoly in Britain. For example, no Homeopath is allowed to treat animals in this country. I can treat my own animal but I would be breaking the law the treat anyone else's animal, and charge for doing so. It is a monopoly that the Conventional Medical Establishment would like to extend to the treatment of humans!

So let's compare the treatment options for Elvis - in terms of effectiveness, safety and cost.

Effectiveness.
  • Homeopathic Arnica dealt with the bruising, and Ruta Grav dealt with the inflammation effectively, allowing Elvis to get back to normal more quickly than I thought was likely or possible. Any ligament damage will probably self-heal with the aid of gentle exercise.
  • A cruciate ligament operation, especially for a dog of Elvis's age, would have meant a considerably period of discomfort and recuperation, even if the operation was entirely successful.
Safety.
  • Homeopathic remedies are safe, and free of side-effects and adverse reactions.
  • Any operation constitutes a risk, and contrary to common assumptions, are not always successful. Homeopathy avoided the need to take these risks.
Cost.
  • The total cost of conventional treatment for Elvis would have been close to £2,000, and probably much more.
  • The cost of homeopathic treatment, even if a Homeopath had to be paid for his/her services, would not have been more than about £200. 
Yet the main thing is that, following a nasty operation, Elvis is well, and enjoying life in his own, inimitable way!

Wednesday, 20 November 2013

Health Freedom under threat in Australia

There is a very serious threat to health freedom throughout the world. The big pharmaceutical industries (BigPharma) are seeking to maintain their virtual monopoly in health care in two way, first by preventing anyone speaking out about the serious harm caused by their drugs and vaccines, and secondly, by attacking alternative medical therapies. They are supported in this by the Conventional Medical Establishment, and by governments and politicians throughout the world.

This blog is taken entirely from an email I received recently from Alliance for Health Freedom in Australia (AHFA), and is self-explanatory.

There is a petition to sign, and it is most important that everyone who is interested in Health Freedom signs it. Click on this link - it takes just a few seconds.

The NSW watchdog about to be turned upon an unsuspecting public.

The NSW Parliament is about to make laws that gag freedom of speech. Even China and Russia don’t have laws like this.

If the HCCC has its way, in future, any member of the public that questioned the commonly held medical consensus or gives advice could be gagged and have legal proceedings taken against them. This is a very slippery and dangerous legislative slope.

Please read the terms of reference for this Committee and then read on…
Please also sign the petition to the NSW Parliament

The Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) was originally set up to protect the public from dangerous medical practices They were to be an independent overseer that could adjudicate whenever there was a question of someone being harmed by medical treatments – an all-too common event in Australia. According to their website, they describe themselves as being: “an independent body to deal with complaints about health service providers in NSW.”

Since they were established, however, the HCCC seems to have been perverted into a caricature of its original purpose. Instead of protecting the public from dangerous medical practices, – it apparently wants to protect mainstream medical establishment and drug companies from the public.

Interestingly enough the HCCC don't seem to be too concerned that western drug based medicine makes claims for treatments and therapies with little or no evidence. And lets not mention the falsified studies and ghost written articles.

The BMJ’s website "Clinical Evidence" reports that, of the 3000 treatments they have surveyed, only 11% of medical treatments are rated as beneficial, and 23% likely to be beneficial (they don’t know for sure), while 67% are of unknown or of unlikely effectiveness or harmful.

Yet the HCCC has decided its the mums and dads and the general public that should be regulated and debate shut down and not the medical establishment or drug companies...

The HCCC refused to investigate Graeme Reeves, the Butcher of Bega, despite complaints from more than 500 women he had sexually abused and mutilated. They also refused to investigate the hospital responsible for the death of Don Mackay, a quadriplegic whose horrific death was caused by gross negligence by that facility.

Yet they spent an entire year and, we conservatively estimate, several million dollars, illegally ‘investigating’ the Australian Vaccination Network (AVN).

The AVN vs the HCCC – David vs Goliath

The AVN is a group of parents and other members of the public who question the science used to market and promote the effectiveness and safety of vaccination as well as champion informed consent. They also use scientific studies and data to support their claims.

In 2010 the HCCC took aim at the AVN, and demanded they put a disclaimer on their website stating that their information was not to be used as medical advice (a disclaimer the AVN had always had on their webpage) and that their information was solely anti-vaccine – a statement which was not true and did not represent the AVN’s position. The AVN took action against this attempt to silence them and brought the case against them to the Supreme Court of NSW. The AVN prevailed. The AVN were able to prove that the HCCC’s actions were illegal. They proved that the HCCC had also acted arrogantly and at great cost to the public purse in their relentless pursuit of this small, community-based group.

A great deal of intelligent legal advice had clearly demonstrated that the HCCC were acting outside of their jurisdiction in either investigating or citing the AVN. The fact that the HCCC continued to pursue this course of action is indicative of the way in which they have operated for at least the past decade. The law does not seem to be any obstacle to the HCCC.

It was a huge embarrassment for those wanting the AVN silenced to lose this case. A well-funded government behemoth going against a tiny parent-run support group and losing. Such an uneven battle might be expected to go the other way, but in this case justice was served and the AVN won.

Perhaps egos were damaged by the AVN victory because, since that time, the HCCC has been trying its hardest to finish what they started – forcing the AVN and any other organisation discussing the problems with vaccination to close down and stop talking about these issues. In addition, they now seek to stop anyone, anywhere from disseminating information which is in any way critical of mainstream medicine.

Can you imagine what would happen if the HCCC had such future powers of censorship that it is seeking now, in the days of Thalidomide that created birth defects in babies, or the recent VIOXX scandal in which over 50,000 people died world-wide from taking the rheumatoid arthritis drug. The dangers of VIOXX were well known by members of the public long before the drug companies and governments acted, and this information was promulgated by the public. The HCCC would have powers to stop the dissemination of this information.

We may not be able to make any claims for Homeopathy even if two Nobel Scientists do make these claims and scientific studies do confirm some effectiveness, because medical consensus says that there is no evidence.

And will the HCCC close down websites and create internet filters so people in NSW do not have access to health information around the globe? The AVN is not the only website that questions vaccination safely and effectiveness, there are a multitude of websites asking the same questions and presenting the opposing scientific arguments. Here are over 300 scientific studies that question the effectiveness and safety of vaccination. How will the HCCC stop internet traffic to this site or others?

Will the HCCC stop independent film makers from making documentary films that question such topics as vaccines or other related topics.

New powers for the HCCC would allow them to shut down any public debate with regards to the recent scientific controversy relative to Statin drugs and Cholesterol. The ABC Catalyst program ran a two part series questioning the cholesterol-heart disease myth. The medical establishment have already blamed the Catalyst program for possibly causing death and injury by reporting the issue

ABC Catalyst - Heart of the Matter Part 1 - Cholesterol Drug War

ABC Catalyst - Heart of the Matter Part 2 - Cholesterol Drug War

If the HCCC has its way, in future, any member of the public that questioned the commonly held medical consensus or gives advice otherwise could be gagged and have legal proceedings taken against them. This is a very slippery and dangerous legislative slope.

Nearly limitless powers
The HCCC can truly be said to be above the law in NSW. To the best of our knowledge, they are one of only two bodies in the country which are not subject to subpoena (a court order to produce documentation) or Freedom of Information (GIPA in NSW) claims (the other is the Australian Crimes Commission), so they are able to operate in secret should they wish to do so.

But these powers were obviously not enough for them because after their loss in 2012, they appealed to the NSW Parliament for a virtual blank cheque to investigate, cite and punish the AVN and any other organisation or individual who goes against government health policy. Now, not only can they choose to investigate any complaint from anyone about the AVN or others, even if they have never dealt with or been harmed in any way by these organisations – the HCCC can also file their own complaints and then, investigate and adjudicate them. Judge, jury and executioner – that is the power Parliament granted to the HCCC – all to ‘get’ the AVN

But it STILL wasn’t enough

Several days ago, we became aware that the Parliamentary Committee for the Health Care Complaints Commission is once more considering increasing the already ludicrous level of powers the HCCC possesses.

According to the Medical Observer:
“Meanwhile, a NSW parliamentary committee has launched an inquiry into the HCCC’s powers in relation to unregistered health groups. That inquiry is also a response to the HCCC’s conflict with the AVN.”

Even though the impetus for this inquiry seems to have been the HCCC’s loss to the AVN, The Promotion of False or Misleading Health-Related Information or Practices (Inquiry) goes far beyond anything this organisation has previously asked for or been granted and targets anyone who speaks about, researches or uses any form of natural therapy instead of mainstream medicine or disseminates information to friends, family or public, contrary to the commonly accepted medical dogma.

Hypothetically, you might know a friend or member of the public who is considering chemotherapy for cancer. You might tell them that ascientific study in 2004 shows that chemotherapy is only 2.3% effective. Yet this persons doctor tells them that they should have chemotherapy. You may then be prosecuted by the HCCC.

It is a medical establishment and pharmaceutical drug company’s dream come true and this should be a grave concern to anyone in Australia who either uses or dispenses holistic treatments or other treatments that do not conform to the established medical paradigm.

It is also crossing well over the line of the constitutionally-guaranteed right to politically free speech since the recommendations discussed appear to be seeking punishment for and sanctions against any individual or organisation that even talks about these issues.

Terms of Reference (ToR)
The terms of reference (ToR) can be reached at this link. They are only one page long and I urge everyone to read them carefully as it is chilling that any government body can even consider these sorts of restrictions to our basic and inalienable freedoms. China and Russia do not have legislation that makes freedom of speech illegal in regards to medical practices, research and debate yet the NSW Parliament don’t seem to see a problem with this.

They describe information that is critical of or would make others question mainstream medical treatments as being ‘false and misleading’ and therefore a punishable offence. The ToR state that people should not be allowed to give out information which could make people question accepted medical practice nor should anyone be allowed to discourage another from using medical therapies in favour of any natural treatments or other treatment.

The ToR covers the powers the HCCC currently has to cite and punish individuals they consider to be promoters of ‘false or misleading health-related information’ and how these powers can be used to take action against these individuals or organisations. Remember, this does not appear to be motivated by any harm to the public by natural therapies or any other treatments – as the Bain report in NZ showed, there is little to no harm being caused by natural therapies and a great deal by government-approved Western-medical practices. Instead, this committee is simply discussing how to stop people and organisations from being allowed to discuss health topics freely.

Submissions to the Committee
Submissions from the public are due by the 13th of December – that is less than 1 month from now. And whether you live in NSW or elsewhere, your submission could do an awful lot to show the NSW Parliament that people in the community support health rights, and oppose suppression.

We cannot tell you what you should say, nor are we allowed to share any submission with you (that is not allowed per the terms of this inquiry), but you can read submissions from an earlier HCCC Inquiry here to give you an idea of the format and types of information others have presented and to give you a head start in making your own contribution to this important debate.

In addition, you can download a document from the Parliament website here that will instruct you on the necessary procedures for submissions to Parliamentary committees.

Why you should make a submission
It will take all of us writing in to prevent this grave injustice from going forward. The intention of this inquiry is very clear – putting a stop to information which is not sanctioned by the current drug and allopathic medical model.

If you are a non-medical health practitioner, you need to make a submission soon, or you may face serious problems if you wish to practice in Australia. If your peak body (ATMS, ANTA, AHA, CAA, COCA, etc) is not making submissions, you need to alert them to this dangerous situation. They can help protect your business, your livelihood and the rights of your patients.

If you use any form of natural therapies (and over 2/3 of the Australian populace does), then you must also be making a submission – it does not need to be long – giving the Committee your opinion of these proposed new powers for the HCCC.

Everyone should be doing this and everyone should be forwarding this information to all and sundry.

Contact your own Member of Parliament in NSW (you can find their contact details at this link) and ask them where they stand on freedom of speech and health rights.

Write to your local newspaper (anywhere in the country) and ask when they will be doing a story on these efforts to penalise those who use and practice natural therapies. Let them know in no uncertain terms that you are expecting a balanced story too!

Call talkback radio programs and tell them about this inquiry and ask them to let others know about it too. Do anything and everything you can to spread information about this inquiry and to stop these changes in legislation from going ahead.

Because the truth is – if you don’t do this today – you won’t have the right to do it tomorrow.

Contact details for the Committee:
chccc@parliament.nsw.gov.au
Address for written correspondence:
Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission
Parliament House
Macquarie St
Sydney NSW 2000
Fax: (02) 9230 3309

Written submissions can be uploaded via the Parliament website by clicking on this link or sent to (remember, the deadline is December 13th, 2013):

Committee on the Health Care Complaints Commission
Parliament House
Macquarie St
Sydney NSW 2000
Fax: (02) 9230 3309
And the website can be found at this link – information will be updated as the inquiry progresses.

Please also sign the petition to the NSW Parliament


Tuesday, 19 November 2013

Narcolepsy and flu vaccine: drugs may harm us: but Big Pharma takes no responsibility

Narcolepsy is a serious medical condition that causes excessive drowsiness, falling asleep at inappropriate times, and serious disruption to sleep patterns, and lifestyle. At its worst in can become cataplexy, which effects muscle control, and often the total loss of muscle control.

It has hitherto been a rare condition; but it is due to increase as it comes to us as a result of accepting the flu vaccine.

Who says? The government, who in September 2013 admitted that evidence from the Health Protection Agency has confirmed that the Swine Flu vaccine, Pandemrix, can cause the disease. NHS Choices have not come to terms with this yet as when it outlines the causes of Narcolepsy it fails to mention the flu vaccine! And, of course, our Big Pharma compliant media has not bothered to draw attention to the fact either!

This is yet another example of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines causing disease: not illness, not adverse reactions, not side-effects: but actual, long-term disease. What I have called the DIEs, or the Disease Inducing Effects of conventional medicine. So, having given us the disease, what is the NHS going to do about the condition? Not very much, it would seem.

          "There is no specific cure for narcolepsy, but you can manage your symptoms to minimise the impact the condition has on your daily life". NHS Choices.

This is yet another example of the conventional medical establishment 'successfully' causing a disease - but can then do nothing about it!

Now, again unreported by the media, 38 people in Britain have begun a class legal claim against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the manufacturer of Pandemrix. If successful, the lawyers representing the group believe each of the claimant, if successful, could receive about £1 million in compensation.

Good for patients? Bad for GSK?

Well, no, not really. If GSK lose the case it is the government, through the NHS, that will have to pay up. This is the result of an 'indemnity agreement' between GSK and the Department of Health which means, in effect, that any compensation claims resulting from the vaccine, or any legal costs arising from the court case, must be paid by the government.

So what does this mean for patients, for the taxpayer, and for the conventional medical establishment?

For those patients who now suffer from Narcolepsy in means:
  • they were persuaded to accept a vaccine because of a health scare, generated by the conventional medical establishment, that never happened;
  • that whereas they were perfectly healthy prior to the vaccine, they are now suffering, probably for the rest of their lives, with a life-changing and debilitating disease;
  • that the NHS has no treatment that can help them.
For the taxpayer, it means that:
  • we have had to pay for a dangerous vaccine for an epidemic that did not happen;
  • we will have to pay for the treatment (however ineffective) of patients who have been given the disease;
  • we will have to pay any court costs arising from the class action;
  • we will have to pay for any compensation awarded by the courts.
For the drug company, and the conventional medical establishment, it means that:
  • they successfully convinced us about an epidemic swine flu crisis that never happened, a crisis that was designed to scare us into accepting the vaccine, on their advice;
  • they (GSK) will pocket from the profit made by selling the NHS a vaccine that was not needed, and which has now been admitted caused serious disease;
  • they (GSK) will not have to suffer any financial or legal consequences for giving us yet another harmful and dangerous vaccine;
  • they will not have to experience any adverse publicity as our mainstream media is unwilling to tell the public about what is happening with conventional drugs and vaccines
The Pharmaceutical business is clearly a good one to be in! It may be causing havoc to our health. But we, as taxpayers, continue to pay for their drugs and vaccines. Governments are prepared to give drug companies immunity for any harm or damage they may cause. And our Media are not prepared to publish any information that suggests the conventional medical establishment is imposing on us a form of medicine that is unsafe, ineffective, hugely expensive - and damaging the health of patients.

Wednesday, 13 November 2013

Swine Flu - a crisis engineered by Big Pharma?

This blog is based on the 'Daily Health Alert' from Agora Health, dated 13th November 2013.

What did happen though is that Big Pharma managed to push drugs like Tamiflu and dangerous fast-tracked and untested vaccines by the millions, raking in billions of pounds.

It's despicable and very disturbing. Not only because the medical authorities, experts and doctors who we are supposed to trust blatantly lied to us, but also because these side effect ridden drugs and vaccines have left many people with permanent health problems.

A new study reveals that doctors and researchers with connections to pharmaceutical companies inflated the dangers of the 2009 Swine Flu 'pandemic' to help promote the drugs and vaccines developed by Big Pharma.

At the time, the mainstream and their Big Pharma cronies accused those (like us) who warned the public that Swine Flu was nothing more than a health crisis created by Big Pharma to sell their snake oil, of scaremongering and conspiracy theories.

The study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, shows that between April and July 2009, 35 of the 74 danger evaluations made by academics in the media originated from specialists who had strong connections to Big Pharma.

In 2009, the government even stockpiled Tamiflu when it was feared the H1N1 Swine Flu virus might clear the planet. According to the research findings, those advertising the use of antiviral pills, like Tamiflu, were eight times more likely to have ties with pharmaceutical companies, compared to those who did not encourage the use of these drugs.

The researchers raised concerns about the links of experts with drug companies who, were also on scientific advisory committees, including the World Health Organisation's (WHO) Emergency Committee... No wonder the WHO was so quick to declare the H1N1 Swine Flu outbreak a public health emergency... with many mainstreamers, like Prof Oxford, a virologist at Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, hysterically warning the world that up to 750,000 people would die of Swine Flu.

Of course, none of this happened. Yes, sadly there were deaths but not even close to the numbers predicted by so-called 'health experts'. In fact, a year later, in June 2010, the worldwide H1N1 death toll stood at 17,853. Compared to the annual death toll of ordinary seasonal flu (between 250,000 to 500,000), the H1N1 deaths made up a measly 5 per cent of that amount… Hardly the pandemic the mainstream expected!

A recent major study of four-to-18-year-olds by the Health Protection Agency, found that around one in every 55,000 of the Pandemrix Swine Flu vaccines was associated with narcolepsy. A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline, the makers of Pandemrix, said it had details of around 900 people from 14 countries who had narcolepsy and were vaccinated.

This is a shining example of why you need to join our Campaign For Safer Medicine. 

And this is another reason I wanted to blog this - I would like everyone who has concerns about the harm and damage caused to patients by Big Pharma drugs and vaccines to sign this petition


According to the FDA’s own figures, prescription drugs seriously injured 471,291 Americans in 2010 alone, of which 82,724 were killed outright…

The situation is no better in the UK, or anywhere else that is dominated by conventional, drug-based medicine.

So please register your personal disgust at the sleazy practices of the pharmaceutical industry. By signing the petition you'll also be instrumental in forcing governments to sit up, take notice, and change the law relating to drugs trials and full disclosure of information.


Why Homeopathy? The treatment of Earache, Otitis Media, Glue Ear


Otitis Media, commonly known as glue ear, is the inflammation of the middle ear, causing earache, and often fever, especially in young children. The condition usually clears itself within 2-3 days, but during this time the pain and discomfort can be intense, and deeply distressing.

The Conventional Medical Treatment of Earache
The NHS Choices website recommends that no treatment is necessary within 72 hours of earache starting as most cases will clear up within 72 hours. It says that you can “relieve the child’s symptoms of earache and high temperature by painkillers, such as Ibuprofen and Paracetamol” (but not aspirin for children under 16 years). Click on the highlighted links to see some of the serious harm these painkillers are now known to cause.

Antibiotics are the only other drugs mentioned, but not, it would seem, with any confidence in their effectiveness. The website states that the “use of antibiotics to treat ear infection is not recommended because:
  • there is no evidence they speed up the healing process
  • many middle ear infections are caused by viral infections so antibiotics are often ineffective
  • every time you use antibiotics to treat a non-serious infection it increases the likelihood of bacteria becoming resistant to it, meaning more serious infections could become untreatable
Indeed, it says that Antibiotics are only recommended “if your child has a serious health condition that makes them more vulnerable to infection, if the child is under the age of three months, your child’s symptoms show no signs of improvement after four days”.

The website goes on to describe the “common side effects” of Amoxicillin, the antibiotic normally used.
+ skin rash
+ feeling sick
+ diarrhoea

Additional conventional treatment described on the website is: 
the fitting of Grommets, tiny tubes inserted through the eardrum to help drain the fluid, putting in place by an operation requiring general anaesthetic.
Myringotomy, a surgical procedure where the surgeon makes a tiny cut into the eardrum to relieve pressure on the middle ear, and allows the surgeon to drain away excess fluid inside the middle ear.

The Homeopathic Treatment of Earache
There are a number of remedies that can be used to treat ear-pain. The advantage of homeopathy is that the remedies can be safely used at an early stage of earache without the need for the use of painkiller, and can can continue to be used right through to resolution.

These descriptions of the main remedies used in earache, or otitis media, have been taken from the Homeopathy: The Amazing Medicine website.

ACONITUM is prescribed for earaches that start suddenly, often after exposure to wind or cold and are accompanied by high fever, agitation and restlessness. The child´s face is red, hot and flushed and expresses anxiety.

BELLADONNA is recommended for ear infections in which the pain varies rapidly in severity but is usually worse on the right side and is accompanied by fever, facial flushing, nightmares, and sensitivity to light

CHAMOMILLA is one of the great remedies for otitis media in young children in which there is terrible pain; the child has one cheek red and the other pale, is very irritable, shrieks in pain and can only be comforted if she is cradled in the arms .

MERCURIUS is a remedy for acute and recurrent otitis with greenish or yellowish discharge in the ear. It usually affects right ear, and is accompanied by discharge and hearing loss. The child feels worse at night, and also usually has strep throat, sinusitis or bronchitis.

PULSATILLA is the remedy most often used both in cases of acute and chronic otitis media. The otitis is usually preceded by a cold. The left ear is commonly affected, and the pain is felt as if the ear is going to explode. The patient feels worse in a warm room and better outdoors. The child is very clingy and tearful.

One useful source of information on Otitis Media, and earache generally, can be found at 

Randomised Controlled Tests (RCTs)
There have been several RCTs and comparative trials on the use of homeopathic remedies in the treatment of earache.


This study suggested that homeopathic ear drops were moderately effective in treating otalgia in children with AOM (acute Otitis Media) and may be most effective in the early period after a diagnosis of AOM. Pediatricians and other primary health care providers should consider homeopathic ear drops a useful adjunct to standard therapy.

Further research comparing homoeopathy to standard care is warranted. Assuming recovery rates of 50 and 30% in homoeopathy and standard care groups respectively, 270 patients would be needed for a definitive trial.

By measuring the duration of pain, the duration of fever, and the number of recurrences after one year, the homeopathy group was found to be superior in all three areas.

Tuesday, 12 November 2013

Tamsulosin: prostate drug found to cause Hypotension

Tamsulosin (brand names Flomax, Jalyn, Tamsin) is a conventional medical drug used in men for treating an enlarged prostate (benign prostatic hyperplasia). The drug was first marketed in about 1996, and the FDA, the USA drug regulator, approved a 'generic' version as recently as 2010.

But now doctors in the UK have been told by their trade magazine, Pulse, that they should warn their patients that Tamsulosin can cause severe Hypotension.

Well, it only took the conventional medical establishment, and the pharmaceutical industry who profited, 17 years to reach that conclusion!

What this means is that doctors have been prescribing a drug with serious adverse reactions to patients, and patients have been taking them, without any knowledge that it could be harmful to health! Indeed, this conclusion is confirmed if you look at current website descriptions Hypotension is not given as a 'side-effect', for example, Medline Express, or Drugs.Com

The new findings were published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) following research in the USA. The Pulse article quotes Dr Jonathan Rees, a GPSI in urology, as saying that the study:

          "challenges our assumptions about the low risk of postural hypotension with newer 'uroselective' alpha blockers".

In other words, hitherto the drug has been assumed to be 'relatively safe'! As I commented on the Pulse article:

          "It is good to see that this evidence of 'severe side-effects' is at last known - at least 17 years after it began to be prescribed. I wonder if medical science, and drug regulatory agencies might begin finding out such serious adverse reaction BEFORE given them to patients in future?

The history of BigPharma drugs suggests that this is quite impossible. Time and time again patients are subjected to pharmaceutical drugs first, being told that they are 'safe', only to be told many years later of severe adverse reactions (which are not just 'reactions', but actual chronic diseases, or DIEs). What this means is that if anyone is taking a conventional drug, assuming that it is safe, is putting themselves at risk of serious harm.

Monday, 11 November 2013

Fosamax. Harming Patients: and waiting to be banned?

Fosamax is an osteoporosis drug. Merck, its manufacturer, are estimated to have made more than $3 billion in sales to over 10 million people since it was first approved by the FDA in September 1995. Why has it been a best seller? You can still read about the 'amazing benefits' of Fosamax on the internet! 
          "Living with Osteoporosis. This is an amazing age, when it’s actually possible to help reverse bone loss. This is the age of Fosamax"
and
          "Your doctor has prescribed Fosamax because you’ve been diagnosed with osteoporosis (thinning bones). And although diet, exercise and vitamins are important in maintaining your overall bone health these alone may not be enough".
So how likely is it that you will have osteoporosis? The website tells you that 58% of women between 50 and 59 years of age do. 74% of women between 60 and 69 years of age do. And 92% of women older than 70 do. The implication is, therefore, that most older women should be taking it - or face the almost inevitable consequences!
Yet the magazine WDDTY wrote about the drug as long ago as February 2003 and its DIEs - which it gave as stomach pain, heartburn, nausea, irritation of oesophagus. It stated that 31 people had died of this last DIE, with stomach ulcers and acute hepatitis.
Similarly, Mercola stated in April 2006 that it had been warning against the drug for 8 years (that is, after it had been marketed for just 3 years). They stated that this showed the length of time between a drug problem being identified and action being taken is considerable - and that throughout this time patients are taking drugs without realizing they are dangerous.
On 9th August 2007 Mercola asked whether Merck, the manufacturer, had 'seriously under reported' its risks which were then known to be causing the disease 'osteonecrosis', or Jawbone death (US dentists apparently call it, 'Fossy-jaw'). It is a condition that can cause your jaw-bone to rot and decay. 
The allegation was that Merck knew about the dangers of jawbone death, but hid it from the public - and as a result the company is now facing hundreds of lawsuits in the USA now.
It is interesting to note that as late as February 2003, when the magazine WDDTY listed Fosamax’s DIEs, there was no mention of ostenecrosis at this time. Again, this demonstrates that Big Pharma drugs can be causing harm without it being known, even by magazines that specialize in drawing our attention to the adverse reaction to drugs.
Fosamax is now subject to a substantial number of lawsuits in the USA. One jury has recently awarded $4.5 million dollars to one plaintiff. It has been estimated that there are many thousands of lawsuits either proceeding in court at present, or in process. Merck already faces many thousands of lawsuits in relation to its antidepressant drug, Vioxx; but they have been able to argue that there are many factors other than the drug that can cause the heart attacks associated with it. With osteonecrosis, the link with Fosamax is apparently much clearer, and easier to prove in court.
And Fosamax has now been found to increase the risk of sudden hip fractures; so it has been prescribed for a condition - and actually makes that condition worse!
More recently, in September 2010, Foxamax has been found to double the risk of esophageal cancer.

Rickets: the return of another disease

Rickets is a disease that once caused curved legs and spines in the the malnourished, ill-housed and poverty stricken children of post-industrial Britain.

And it is now returning to haunt a new generation of children in Britain, and elsewhere in the so-called developed world.

The cause of rickets is well-known - a severe deficiency in Vitamin D, which helps our bodies to absorb calcium. It was long-thought to be a disease of the past, not relevant to our modern, affluent society, and for once, the pharmaceutical industry did not claim responsibility for its eradication! The reason for this is simple - people have ready access to Vitamin D mainly through sunshine, but also through oily fish, eggs and dairy products. The disease disappeared in Britain in the 1950's, especially after a campaign to give children cod-liver oil (rich in Vitamin D).

So why in 2011 were there 762 cases reported (and the incidence thought to be higher than this)? It is, after all, an eminently preventable disease. Official (conventional medical) sources give several:

  • children spend more time indoors (out of the sun) playing computer games and watching television.
  • British flour and milk products are not fortified with Vitamin D.
  • Children cover up more from the sun, either because of the fear of skin cancer, or in some cases for religious reasons.
  • The vast increase in the use of sunscreens, and total sun blocks.

The fear of the sun in recent years has been heightened by the much publicised decline of the Ozone layer. Sunscreen manufacturers took hold of this fact, and turned it into fear. And in a brilliant marketing exercise, has persuaded the vast majority of people that sunshine is bad for us, and that we need their sunscreens to protect ourselves from it. 

The result has been the return of Rickets. For once, it is not the Big Pharma interests that are responsible either for the fear, the 'eradication' of the disease, or in its return - but it is certainly another large commercial interest, with products to sell, has been largely responsible for this.

But notice the response of the Conventional Medical Establishment - typically to mass-medicate everyone with manufactured products!

  • We need to augment our flour and milk with Vitamin D. 
  • We need to give all children free access to Vitamin D.

More useful, more natural advice, and the cheapest advice would be to get children back out into the sunshine in a sensible and reasonable manner. Apparently, the darker skinned we are, the more sunshine we need. But even in this cloudy country we have enough of this 'free' resource to prevent rickets!

Sometimes health is a matter of common sense - not the support of big commercial interests, and manufactured drugs, vaccines, and even Vitamins.


Friday, 8 November 2013

Preventing Colds and Flu's this winter


The winter is approaching, and the season for colds and flu is upon us. This blog has often outlined why conventional flu vaccines are ineffective, and harmful to health. So what should you do you as an alternative.

On the "Why Homeopathy?" website, treatment by conventional medicine, and by homeopathy, are compared on a variety of illnesses and diseases. This blog reproduces what is said about the prevention and treatment of 'flu.

"The 'flu’ can be an unpleasant disease, although for most people who are in good general health, it is not usually a dangerous one. 

The choose of medical therapy for both prevention and treatment is important, as there are serious doubts about both the effectiveness and safety of conventional medical treatment.

Conventional Medical Treatment
For the prevention of 'flu, the 'flu vaccination is recommended (NHS Choices).

However, like most vaccines, the frequently reported adverse reactions to the ‘flu vaccine are often played down, but they certainly include headaches, fever, itching, fatigue; but can cause seizures, and Guillain-Barre Syndrome. But there are many other known dangers attributed to the flu vaccine.
However, the main concern about the 'flu vaccination is whether they are effective. 

For the treatment of 'flu itself, NHS Choices recommends two anti-viral drugs.
  • Tamiflu. NHS Choices mentions that the side-effects of this drug include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain and diarrhoea. However, the FDA (USA) are aware of far more serious consequences of taking this drug. They have received reports of unusual neurological or psychiatric events such as delirium, hallucinations, confusion, abnormal behaviour, convulsions, and encephalitis. The reports, mainly from Japan, identified 12 deaths in children. I cannot explain why patients are not given this information on NHS Choices.
  • Relenza. NHS Choices says that this drug (a similar drug but inhaled rather than taken in tablet form) has few side-effects. However, it is associated with similar neuralgic and psychiatric events. This article, reporting on 7 trials, published by the BMJ, suggests that this drug should not be given to children under 12 years of age. One researcher is reported as saying that "the downside of the harms outweighs the one-day reduction in symptomatic benefits". I am not aware why NHS Choices does not give this information to patients.
The Homeopathic Materia Medica (HMM) 
Many people ask homeopaths for advice about both avoiding and treating influenza, and the following remedies are often used either to prevent, or to treat 'flu.
  • Oscillococcinum: a proprietary (Boiron) brand name for a remedy which is generically known as Anas Barb.
  • Influenzinum-Bacillinum: a combination remedy used by some Homeopaths for the prevention and treatment of colds and 'flu.
Simply by taking a single remedy on a monthly basis, more regularly perhaps for those people most at risk, is something I have done with my family and friends (and with many patients) for many years now - and we have been almost entirely flu-free.

These homeopathic remedies are readily available from Homeopathic Pharmacies, they are safe, and can be used by anyone who wishes to do so.

Randomised Controlled Tests (RCTs) on Homeopathy
Homeopathy has been widely used in the treatment of influenza throughout the world. And its use has been supported by a considerable number of Randomised Controlled Trials. 

The Swiss Government has recently published an extensive and comprehensive report which found homeopathy to be an effective, safe and cost-effective medical therapy. But in particular, the report highlighted a particularly strong body of evidence to support the effectiveness of homeopathy in the treatment of upper respiratory tract infections (and respiratory allergies). The report cited 29 studies, of which 24 found a positive result in favour of homeopathy. Furthermore, 6 out of 7 controlled studies that compared homeopathy with conventional medicine showed that homeopathy was more effective than conventional medicine.

Three studies in particular were large, multi-centred placebo-controlled, and double blind; and each one provided 'statistically relevant results'. They are as follows:
  • Casanova, P; Gerard, R (1992). Bilan de 3 annees d'estudes randomises multicentriques Oscillococcinum / placebo. Oscillococcinum-rassegna della letterature internationale. Milan: Laboratoires Boiron; 11-16
  • Ferley, JP; Zmirou, D; D'Admehar, D; et al (1989). A controlled evaluation of a homeopathic preparation in the treatment of influenza-like syndrome. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 27, 329-335.
  • Papp, R; Schuback G; Beck, E; et al (1998). Oscillococcinum in patients with influenza-like symptoms: a placebo controlled double blind evaluation. British Homeopathic Journal 87; 69-76.