Tuesday, 30 December 2014

Re-education on vaccines - a must-see video and some scary reminders

http://tv.greenmedinfo.com/vaccine-risks-and-facts/  (I hour 30 mins)

This is a very measured and well researched presentation by Dr Ray Obomsawin on the failures of vaccines. Very informative. He's done an excellent job of showing vaccination was not the reason smallpox, polio etc were eradicated or reduced to very low levels, and in overviewing the available evidence for linking vaccination with the rise of diabetes and other diseases. All doctors should be asked to watch it.

A few snippets out of it:

BCG and Pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine have led to diabetes increase. The Japanese authorities stopped making BCG mandatory and the diabetes rate fell by 50% in a very short time.

Even horses (!) feeding on nothing but grass are now getting diabetes - clearly due to the increased vaccination schedules.

(At 1:05:41) the shocking rise in infant death rates after flu jabs for infants was introduced.

The increase in dementia which may be due to the flu vaccine - people think that mercury has largely been removed from vaccines but in fact it is still in flu vaccines. And of course aluminium adjuvant is still in most vaccines. 


(A recent article from the NaturalNews website. Statements about laws are referring to US law) 

"Vaccinating a child or not is an important decision that every parent must make. But not all parents understand the true risks involved, risks that could leave a child debilitated for life, or even kill him. The pro-vaccine mafia is quick to sweep all cases of vaccine-related injury and death under the rug as extremely rare anomalies, but many a parent of a vaccine-injured child will be the first to tell you that, if she could do it all over again, she wouldn't have let her kid get jabbed.

If your doctor, your child's school administrator, or a friend or family member is pressuring you to inject your child with genetically modified (GM) viruses, heavy metals and preservatives, and you're not sure how to make the best and most informed choice in the matter -- or even how to respond back to these people intelligently in order to shut them up -- consider the following 10 reasons not to go the vaccination route[1]:

1) Vaccines don't work. When printed on a poster or repeated ad nauseam by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the embedded claim that vaccines prevent communicable disease and impart lasting immunity might sound nice to the low-information masses. But the science simply doesn't reinforce it, with outbreak after outbreak proving that vaccinated people are the most immunocompromised, and are always the ones contracting the diseases against which they were vaccinated.

Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych addresses this and many other vaccine facts in her powerful book Vaccine Illusion, which destroys many modern myths surrounding vaccination. Not only do vaccines not impart lasting immunity, but they actually destroy the body's natural immune capacity, leaving many vaccinated individuals immuno-debilitated throughout their lives.[2]

2) Vaccines have never been proven safe or effective. Every single study used as "evidence" that vaccines are safe erroneously compares side effects from one vaccine to side effects from another vaccine, effectively canceling them out. None of them compare the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals, which would be the true test of vaccine safety.

"True, scientific, double-blind placebo studies have never been conducted on vaccines to determine their safety," explains VacTruth.com.

3) The first vaccine was a complete failure, which the industry tried to cover up. Little do most people know that the first vaccine ever produced, for smallpox, was a complete disaster. The health consequences in those who received it included syphilis and death, though a concerted effort was made at the time to cover up these outcomes and push vaccines anyway because they're highly profitable.[3]

4) Vaccines are highly profitable for drug companies, which aren't held liable for damages. Let's face it -- vaccines are a major cash cow for the drug industry. Not only are vaccine companies completely shielded from liability when their vaccines injure or kill children, but they are typically "sponsored" by government agencies that push them on families and children using outrageous and unfounded scare tactics.[4]

5) All vaccines contain deadly chemical additives. The average pediatrician would be hard-pressed to provide package inserts outlining vaccine ingredients to their clients prior to pushing vaccines. But parents need to know that all vaccines contain deadly, neurodamaging chemicals like aluminum, mercury and formaldehyde. Many vaccines are also loaded with monosodium glutamate (MSG), antibiotics and even genetically modified organisms (GMOs).[5]

6) Unvaccinated children are generally healthier. International studies looking at the health outcomes of unvaccinated children compared to their vaccinated peers have repeatedly shown that the unjabbed are generally less afflicted with allergies, autism, behavioral disorders, autoimmune dysfunction and respiratory ailments.

Concerning the flu vaccine, for instance, a study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that individuals jabbed for influenza are 550 percent more likely to have respiratory problems.[6]

7) Vaccines cause lifelong, incurable diseases in some children. It's one thing to have localized swelling or temporary fever symptoms following vaccinations. But if your child is one of the unfortunate ones who develops permanent nerve damage in the form of Guillain-Barre Syndrome, for instance, he or she could require lifelong care and treatment for vaccine damage. If you choose to vaccinate, are you prepared to potentially have to reorient your life in the event of autism or brain damage?[7]

8) Vaccines kill children and adults. Though young children and babies are most prone to incurring permanent harm from vaccines, adults are also at risk. One prevalent example of this is the infamous Gardasil vaccine for HPV, which to date has injured and killed tens of thousands of adolescents and teenagers.[8]

"US children are given far more vaccines at younger ages compared to other countries," explains VacTruth.com, noting that vaccines are also linked to the fatal condition SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), which the medical establishment blames on genetics or child abuse in order to protect the vaccine sham.

9) Vaccine companies can't be sued if you or your child is harmed by vaccines. If vaccines really are as safe as the jab-pushers constantly claim they are, then why was the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act passed in 1986, exempting vaccine and drug companies, as well as health practitioners, from liability in the event of injury or death?

In 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed that injured parties can't sue vaccine companies for injury or death related to vaccines [9]. Is this really a risk that you want to take with your child?

10) Natural exposure to disease is the best vaccine. Truth be told, the only way to truly develop vibrant, lifelong immunity is to live your life as you normally would, but without injecting dead (and in some cases live) viruses and chemical adjuvants into your muscle tissue. Natural exposure to whatever diseases are lurking in the world is the only way for the body to develop permanent antibodies that will forever protect against disease.[10] Eating fresh, nutrient-dense organic food and living a healthy lifestyle also helps boost your immune system, allowing you to overcome and develop resistance to diseases naturally.

For a more thorough explanation of vaccination versus natural immunity, visit:


[1] http://vactruth.com

[2] http://www.naturalnews.com

[3] http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org

[4] http://www.nvic.org

[5] http://vaxtruth.org

[6] http://healthimpactnews.com

[7] http://www.nvic.org

[8] http://sanevax.org

[9] http://www.csmonitor.com

[10] https://sites.google.com"

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/048151_vaccination_dangers_children_Big_Pharma.html#ixzz3NQ9SZwGL

Monday, 15 December 2014

Ebola - Guess What? Ozone therapy plus Colloidal Silver and Vitamin C and Glutathione may be the cure

An article out today by NaturalNews informs us of a "natural" cure for Ebola which has saved a doctor in Sierra Leone and is starting to be used there more widely now.

Those in the natural healthcare world have long believed that, given that there was no medical cure for the disease using conventional drugs, then instead of sticking their heads in the sand ('Oh, a lot of sand down here!') or running around like headless chickens, to mix metaphors, mainstream medicine should immediately have tried using natural 'standbys' like colloidal silver, Vitamin C in high dose, MMS solution or even homeopathics. It turns out ozone therapy should also have been on that list.

But old prejudices die hard and the dead hand of the pharmaceutical corporates and their fellow travellers in WHO and elsewhere put a stop to that; there is even evidence that a shipment of nano colloidal silver by the Natural Solutions Foundation to Africa was obstructed by 'dirty tricks'. The pharmaceutical fellas know all about those.

Anyway, if you read the article

IV ozone Ebola cure documented by Dr. Rowen, then systematically suppressed by government

at this link


you'll be able to see the combination of natural remedies which are being used to cure Ebola.

Thursday, 28 August 2014

Vaccines is just a Business like Cigarettes

There is a good short, new video on Youtube done in cartoon fashion explaining the bureaucracy and protective (for the manufacturers) laws behind the Business of Vaccination in the USA which result in redress for those damaged to be very hard to come by. Is that intended? You betcha.

In a Youtube Search window type "do vaccines cause autism rob schneider". You'll understand by the end of it that it's a "Business" that should be dismantled. At the moment of course this Business is doing its best to censor the grisly truth about its 'products' - see http://www.naturalnews.com/046629_scientific_censorship_Brian_Hooker_science_journals.html

Sunday, 24 August 2014

The fish rots from the head down - the ignorance or prejudice of Wikipedia on certain subjects

[Update] Since I posted the link to the article below by Fran Sheffield there has been a very detailed article by Dana Ullman 10/10/14 which can be found at this link
I suggest that anyone asked by an anti-homeopath troll for evidence of homeopathy's effectiveness just tell them to go and read Dana's article. It will save them a lot of time.

Homeopath Fran Sheffield shows how Wikipedia co- founder Jimmy Wales disparages Homeopathy.

After a pharmacy recommended a potentised remedy for his sore throat, Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, vented his thoughts on homeopathy – and his desire to stop it – in a Quora post.
In a surprisingly ill-informed and slanderous manner, Jimmy said:
“..homeopathy is a proven fraud.”
“…makes me ill.”
“Homeopathic remedies of no value whatsoever are legally marketed…”
“Who should I talk to about this in order to encourage the creation of a campaign to stop this? This is not my primary area of interest and so I am not the right person to lead it myself. But I would like to help.”
“It’s a scandal in the modern world”
“We know with full rational certainty that they do not work at all. They are nothing more than placebo sold fraudulently.”
“…the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies, relative to placebos, is 0%. Not effective at all. A useless fraud.”
“This is nothing more than fraud.”
“There have been no properly conducted large scale studies which suggest in the least that homeopathic remedies are any different from sugar water.”
“This is false.”
“Homeopathy does not work at all. It has been shown in an extremely thorough way to be no better than a placebo.”
When someone speaks their mind, there’s a risk that any ignorance or prejudice will shine through. That’s exactly what happened to Jimmy.
When I first reported his comments from the Quora post back on the 6th of February, 2013, they were quickly removed. Fortunately, I had the foresight to save them before that happened. You can still read them in our screen capture below, under More Information.

Wikipedia is a valuable source of information for many, but to retain its integrity it has to be impartial – and this certainly has not been the case with homeopathy.
Since Jimmy spoke his mind all those months ago, Wikipedia’s misleading and inaccurate information on homeopathy has only worsened.
Those who are knowledgeable and qualified to write about homeopathy have repeatedly tried to correct it, but all attempts have been thwarted by anti-homeopathy “squatters” who sit on the page to control its information.

Could Jimmy’s prejudice be responsible?

When Jimmy Wales gave a TED talk in 2009, he said:
“So the biggest and the most important thing is our neutral point-of-view policy. This is something that I set down from the very beginning, as a core principle of the community that’s completely not debatable. It’s a social concept of cooperation, so we don’t talk a lot about truth and objectivity. The reason for this is if we say we’re only going to write the “truth” about some topic, that doesn’t do us a damn bit of good of figuring out what to write, because I don’t agree with you about what’s the truth. But we have this jargon term of neutrality, which has its own long history within the community, which basically says, any time there’s a controversial issue, Wikipedia itself should not take a stand on the issue. We should merely report on what reputable parties have said about it. So this neutrality policy is really important for us, because it empowers a community that is very diverse to come together and actually get some work done.”

What a shame Wikipedians, and Jimmy himself, have not honoured these noble intentions. Instead of neutrality, Wikipedia has been allowed to take an ugly stand on homeopathy that misleads many.

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, left the organization several years ago due to concerns about its integrity. He said: [This quote is my expansion of what Fran Sheffield wrote and is taken from http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=286]
"We do not think that Wikipedia is “good enough.” We think humanity can do better: Wikipedia is full of serious problems. Many of the articles are written amateurishly. Too often they are mere disconnected grab-bags of factoids, not made coherent by any sort of narrative. In some fields and some topics, there are groups who “squat” on articles and insist on making them reflect their own specific biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles. Vandalism, once a minor annoyance, has become a major headache—made possible because the community allows anonymous contribution. Many experts have been driven away because know-nothings insist on ruining their articles. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales acts as a law unto himself, not subject to a written constitution, with no official position, but wielding considerable authority in the community. Wales and other Wikipedia leaders have either been directly involved in, or have not adequately responded to, a whole string of very public scandals. The community takes its dictum, “Ignore All Rules,” seriously; it is part anarchy, part mob rule. The people with the most influence in the community are the ones who have the most time on their hands—not necessarily the most knowledgable—and who manipulate Wikipedia’s eminently gameable system."    

When this happens, as it has with homeopathy, we are all the poorer for it.

An old proverb says, “The fish rots from the head down.” Is this what we have seen with Wikipedia? Homeopathy, and those who look to Wikipedia for their information, deserve much better.

Homeopathic remedies success as prophylactic alternatives to vaccines

The background to the story about how the protagonists of the currently conventional medical approach (allopathy) have for so long successfully suppressed the truth about the historic success of homeopathic remedies in treating epidemics and their use as prophylactics against disease has yet to be told by a partial and disinterested media. But the ingenuity of monopolists with millions of dollars at their disposal when their monopoly is threatened knows no bounds.

For a quick summary you should take a look at the article at


It is written by Fran Sheffield, a battling homeopath in Australia, who like many homeopaths across the world has had to waste her precious time defending the truths about homeopathy's successes in a court of law. Truths which have been recorded for hundreds of years in many instances. And time which could have been better spent treating her patients.

As she says, "It is my firm belief that it had nothing to do with “deceptive and misleading information” or “trade and commerce” but was the culmination of an 8-year struggle by certain groups to remove information on homeoprophylaxis (homeopathy’s ability to protect against epidemic disease) from our website and newsletters and out of the public eye."

The Beginning of the End for Statins

On 17th February 2013 I posted a note emtitled “Statins. You’re probably better off without them”. 

Earlier this year - in March - I switched on Radio 4 in my car and heard an interview in which someone called Rory Collins was attacking Dr Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ (British Medical Journal) for publishing an article critical of statins, which drug we all know is a BIG MONEY-MAKING MACHINE for the pharmaceutical manufacturers (industry estimates $22bn worldwide). Now I don’t hold a candle for Dr Fiona Godlee, or her brother who you may like to know is a GP who believes that “homeopathic remedies are like Smarties” (yes, he was being sarcastic), but at least in the interview Fiona Godlee stuck to her guns and defended the articles, saying some (statins) research understated the risks of side-effects.

Now the plot thickens. Who is Rory Collins? or should I say Prof. Sir Rory Collins? And why did he attack Fiona Godlee? Well, I suspect that the splendid What The Doctors Don’t Tell You magazine, who everyone should be subscribed to, has the answer.

“A research unit that influenced wider statin use in the UK was all the time being funded by drug companies, including £217m from Merck, one of the largest producers of the cholesterol-lowering drug. The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration (CTT), based at Oxford University and headed by Sir Rory Collins, has been very influential in shifting UK health policy, which this year started to recommend statin use for all over-60s.

The new guidelines, issued by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), followed the publication of ‘independent’ studies from CTT that maintained that statins had few side effects but many major benefits.  Sir Rory was also highly critical of studies published in the British Medical Journal that claimed the drugs caused side effects in 22 per cent of users.  He demanded that the papers were retracted, which an independent review panel refused to do. 

All along, Sir Rory claimed that he and the CTT were independent, and that any funding came from charitable sources such as the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research UK.  Even as recently as last March, Sir Rory repeated in an email to the BMJ that the British Heart Foundation was a major funder, and demanded to know who had funded the critical research he wanted withdrawn. But these have been minor funders of CTT and its parent body, the Clinical Trial Service Unit (CTSU).  Over the past 20 years, the two research bodies have received £268m donations, including £217m from Merck, a major manufacturer of statins.

The true picture came to light only after nutritionist and wholefood campaigner Zoe Harcombe uncovered the original documents that outline the CTSU’s funders.”

So it seems the old adage “Follow the Money” is once again very sage advice!

Reflect on the following: Merck’s name crops up again in this post as it did in my last post. As the company that paid a fine of $950m for illegally promoting the drug Vioxx that was later withdrawn when studies found it increased the risk of heart attacks -  http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma  - and which reserved another $4.85bn to resolve the claims by affected consumers, it must be wondering how long it will be before the misselling of the benefits of statins is going to be the next crisis point.

The annual NHS spend on statins is around £450m (£769 in 2004) according to the BBC News (22nd March 2014 - ‘Fears over Statins use are ‘misleading’). That is a collossal amount when compared with the pathetic £4m p.a. which is all that the NHS spends on homeopathics. Especially given that prescribing statins, the object of which is to reduce cholesterol, is almost certainly a bad medical practice and results in a significant percentage of patients getting such agonising muscular pains that they quit in disgust, and other longer term problems (see below) that laymen if given the true facts in advance of treatment would probably say that the potential risks far outweigh any benefits. 

As Zoe Harcombe states at 

 Statins stop the body from producing the cholesterol that it is designed to produce. They literally stop one of our fundamental body processes from being able to function. The intelligent view on statins is that in the very limited arena where they appear to have some ‘benefit’ (men over 50 who have already had a heart attack), they ‘work’ by having anti-inflammatory properties and that the fact that they lower cholesterol (by stopping the body from being able to produce this vital substance) is a very unfortunate side effect.”

When someone in our village was put on statins, then developed dementia in short order and subsequently died, I started reading more about the side effects of statins. There is evidence (though you won’t find it highlighted on page 1 of a search using Google - I wonder why!) that in some people statins can cause cancer, diabetes, acute renal failure, dementia, and many other very nasty or even fatal, ‘side effects’ e.g. “The reduction in cardiac events was compensated for by a more than doubling of (the risk of) fatal stroke” - http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/The_Cholesterol_Times-Issue-3.html

As the author of the latter remarks, “One must wonder how many patients would accept statin treatment if it were described as a way to die of stroke rather than heart disease.”

When there are so many natural substances with no discernible long term side effects known to nutritionists and natural healthcare therapists which have anti-inflammatory properties, the logic of the NHS continuing to spend $450m or more annually on statins just doesn’t make sense. If you are however not yet willing to take the enormous step of thinking in terms of Natural Healthcare after a lifetime's addiction to the chemistry set approach of Twentieth century medicine, take a look at Aspirin http://www.nobellabs.com/images/StatinsVsAspirin.pdf

Thursday, 21 August 2014

"The very term "vaccine" will soon be synonymous with "scientific fraud". "

Wow! If you aren't yet a regular subscriber to www.naturalnews.com you ought to be. Today's breaking news is all about the latest revelation that a pharmaceutical company and their friends in the US CDC (Center for Disease Control) wilfully suppressed data showing the link between the MMR vaccine and autism in black children. A whistleblower in Merck has apparently told all and implicated the former Head of the CDC, who now - ahem - has an executive position at Merck.

Go to http://www.naturalnews.com/046537_vaccine_violence_black_Americans_scientific_fraud.html to read all about it and listen to the video there by Dr Andrew Wakefield, the UK doctor who had his career destroyed by the UK medical establishment (General Medical Council) for daring to speak publicly about a possible link between the vaccine, autism and gastro-intestinal disease.

"This cover-up has continued for the last twelve years, during which anyone who dared mention the word "autism" in the same sentence as "vaccines" was immediately and viciously attacked by the scientific community, vaccine trolls and the mainstream media. Yet all this time, the CDC's highest officers were fully aware that the MMR vaccine autism link was real."

Who is it who can't be trusted now? Andrew Wakefield whose study (which included other authors who were later forced to retract) suggested that the MMR vaccine might have a link to autism and led some say to a decline in vaccination rates in the United States, United Kingdom and Ireland, or those in the conventional medical profession, the pharmaceutical globalists and the UK media who attacked him with such vitriol? 

How many whistleblowers do there have to be before those who so blindly and unshakeably worship at the altar of the Great God Vaccination have the humility to accept that they have been so disastrously wrong about this 'religion' and that those in the natural heathcare profession warning them against this religion's 'side effects' on the jabbed public should have been heeded ?

Those outside the conventional medical profession will be looking on in great interest to see whether there is any allopath or anyone within the media (even the Lancet?) with any integrity left, who will take it upon themselves to publicise the truth as it is revealed in the coming weeks, and suggest how we can start to dismantle this false religion. 

PS. For another cover up operation concerning severe adverse reactions to vaccinations, this time by the JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization) in the UK, scroll back to my post of 13th January 2013 -

“Of particular concern was how the JCVI handled unfavorable data on the controversial MMR vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella. 10 years before Dr. Andrew Wakefield published his study on MMR in The Lancet, JCVI was already fully aware that the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) had identified a clear link between MMR and vaccine-induced meningitis and encephalitis. But rather than come forward with this information and call for further safety assessments on the vaccine, the JCVI instead censored this critical information from the public, and blatantly lied about the safety of MMR for years.”

25 Aug 2014 UPDATE: The whistle blower has now been revealed as William W. Thompson, PhD 
see http://www.naturalnews.com/046597_CDC_whistleblower_secret_letter_Julie_Gerberding.html

Saturday, 19 July 2014

"Ve haf vays of controlling you!" Conventional medicine's latest invasive procedure, the IEM.

Hpathy's editor reports on a new medical device that violates privacy    


One of the problems I’ve always had with allopathic practice is how invasive it is. There is the unnecessary surgery, the toxic drugs and the excessive use of some diagnostic tests like CAT scans. Another aspect of this invasiveness occurs when drug companies redefine ailments such as ADHD, so that even two year old children fall into the diagnostic category. A further example is mandatory vaccination, especially with new or poorly tested vaccines such as the HPV. Now a new medical product, recently approved by the FDA, raises the bar on invasiveness. It’s called an IEM, or “Ingestion Event Marker”. The size of a grain of sand, it’s imbedded in the patient’s medication. Activated by digestive juices, it sends signals to a patch the patient wears, telling exactly when he took a medicine and how much. It doesn’t end there however. The device also reports heart rate, body position, activity level and more. This information is automatically relayed to doctors via mobile phone apps. The stated purpose is to let your doctor know if you took your medicine, but it’s really about control. In one article about the device, the words “non-adherence” or “non- compliance” were mentioned eight times. Whatever privacy rights a patient had would be gone. A doctor on National Public Radio recently commented on the IEM, saying it wasn’t enough to know that patients didn’t take their meds. The next step was to ensure complicity. This he said, would require some kind of internal or external pump that could remotely administer a drug.
Allopathic medicine has always been wrongheaded about healing, preferring suppression to cure. Now, its alliance with the profit-driven corporate world is nudging it toward a dark and dystopian view of medicine and society.
All of this is anathema to the philosophy of homeopathy, which aims to give people more control of their lives. Compared to the world of corporate allopathic medicine, homeopathy is sunlight and a breath of fresh air.
(Video commercial for the IEM)

Tuesday, 10 June 2014

Is there something nasty lurking in your vaccine? You betcha.


Modern ('conventional') medicine is in an unholy mess and part of this is because in many supposedly civilised countries many of those who dispense medical advice are the unwitting tools of those who produce the drugs and vaccinations they daily dispense, and are unwilling or don't have the time to research the side effects properly. Doctors instead rely on what they are told by their suppliers the drug companies, or those in their profession whose views are approved by the medical trade union to which they belong. And most doctors are uninterested in collaborating with those they regard as being in competition with them i.e. homeopaths and other practitioners of 'natural' medicine, to see what better knowledge the latter might be able to offer them. The patients of conventional medicine suffer as a result, and the insidious effect of this is unknown to, or disregarded by, conventional medicine.

One outrageous example of this phenomenon follows from the toxic contents of many vaccinations. Viewed 'from the outside', the current mindset of manufacturers of vaccines still appears to be that they can unilaterally decide what toxins such as aluminium, mercury etc will remain in their products to be injected into every patient receiving them, and the parts per billion of each substance. But as with the reluctance of purveyors of GMO products to inform their consumers of that fact, so with vaccine manufacturers; in practice the latter don't make the precise contents and quantity of ingredients in vaccines known to their consumers before "purchase". And the "consumers" trust their doctors to warn them if something they are about to have jabbed into them could be harmful - often a misplaced trust.

Now it seems from the article below that even if a doctor had decided that he was not going to recommend a vaccine with too much mercury in it - mercury being one of the most toxic substances known to man.... take a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjGsP3pFL-M   -  he wouldn't have a hope of finding out, at least not in Australia, because those whose agenda it is to try and jab everyone would lie about the contents!

(NaturalNews) As Natural News has exhaustively demonstrated this week via ICP-MS laboratory results and vaccine documentation, influenza vaccines manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline still contain 50 ppm mercury.

We find it interesting, therefore, that the Australian government's limit on mercury in complementary medicines is set at 0.5 ppm, as described in this TGA document:


The document explains that "Incidental metals and non-metals" must be less than 5 ppm total, and mercury in particular must be under 0.5 ppm in order to meet the TGA's "acceptance criteria."

Yet influenza vaccines contain 50 ppm mercury -- 100 times the Australian government's limit of 0.5 ppm.

Document discusses need to remove mercury from vaccines

Australia is known globally as an aggressive vaccination-pushing nation which systematically suppresses the speech of anyone who dares question the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

And yet a Natural News investigation has turned up a secure document (1) from 2001 that openly admits the government needed to find a way to remove thimerosal (mercury) from vaccines. (Note: There is still mercury in vaccines given to children in Australia, as you can see below.)

This document, found by Natural News investigators, says the Australian regulator of medicines sought to: 

...promote the general use of vaccines without thiomersal and other organo-mercurial preservatives, particularly for single dose vaccines

There are three options:

* Reduce the amount of thiomersal in finished product (final lot)s.

* Eliminate thiomersal altogether.

* Eliminate thiomersal but substitute it by an alternative preservative.

(NOTE: "Thimerosal" in the USA is the same as "Thiomersal" in Australia.)

The same document goes on to say:

...obtaining vaccines without organo-mercury containing preservatives should be the ultimate goal, it is also possible, in a shorter timeframe, to reduce their concentration in the final product to residual levels, using physico-chemical methods to remove the preservative at intermediate production stages or by omitting or reducing their addition at the formulation step.

And why was Australia so interested in removing mercury from vaccines? Obviously because mercury is a public health risk when injected into the human body.

Australian researchers confirm mercury still found in pediatric vaccines in Australia

A 2010 scientific study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (2) sought to determine whether vaccines administered to children in Australia still contained mercury. The Australian government and medical authorities have been lying to the public, you see, claiming all mercury had been removed from pediatric vaccines.

This study tested pediatric vaccines for mercury in much the same way I tested the influenza vaccine for mercury in my own lab. And the conclusion of the study speaks for itself:

The results of this study reveal that inaccuracies exist in public health messages, professional communications, and official documentation regarding Hg content in at least one childhood vaccine.

In other words, Australian officials LIED about the removal of mercury in vaccines. (Gee, is anyone surprised?)

According to this study, authored by the Faculty of Life and Social Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia, one of the pediatric vaccines contained nearly 10 ppb mercury.

For the record, what Natural News has documented in influenza vaccines is 5,000 times higher than what was detected by these researchers. (About 50,000 ppb.) And in the USA, these influenza vaccines are routinely given to pregnant women and children.

Total lies called "evidence based" medicine

As proof that Australian citizens are systematically lied to about all this, consider this page from the NPS MedicineWise organization which claims to be "Independent. Not-for-profit. Evidence based."

This page flat-out lies to the public, stating:

Q: Do children's vaccines contain mercury (thiomersal)?

A: None of the vaccines on the National Immunisation Program for children under five years of age contain thiomersal.

Thiomersal (or thimerosal) is a preservative that contains a form of mercury. It was used in very small amounts in vaccines from the 1930s onwards, to prevent contamination of vaccines.

Thiomersal has not been used as a preservative in Australian routine childhood vaccinations since 2000.

Evidence based? Apparently this organization is based more on wishful thinking and vaccine voodoo, because the real scientific evidence shows that pediatric vaccines (and flu shots given to pregnant mothers) still contain substantial levels of mercury.

Then again, no government ever tells the truth when it comes to vaccines. Almost by default, vaccines come pre-packaged with lies about safety, efficacy and mercury content. No wonder public trust in vaccines continues to erode...

Join the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network

If you live in Australia and you want to stay truly informed about vaccines, you need to read the AVN website at:


The site is a rich source of truthful, well-researched information on vaccines. For example, you'll find the truth about thimerosal in DTPa vaccines on this page.

AVN has been so effective at reporting the truth about vaccines that its members have received death threats from insane vaccine pushers. Many vaccine pushers are brain damaged from mercury in vaccines, which causes not just impaired cognitive function but also extreme anger and tendencies toward violence. No group in modern medicine is more violent, irrational and dangerous than vaccine pushers.

Parents deserve to hear both sides so they can make an informed decision

Groups like AVN are crucial to the public discussion on vaccines. Governments and vaccine manufacturers only present the issue in a one-sided way, exaggerating the "benefits" of vaccines and utterly ignoring all risks. (They often fake their clinical trials, too, in order to present positive findings.)

Much like Natural News, AVN believes that people should have access to both sides of the debate so they can make informed decisions. We are not opposed to the theory of immunization; we are opposed to the use of toxic chemicals (and heavy metals) in vaccines as well as the rampant fraudulent marketing of vaccines around the world. The vaccine industry, in fact, created this opposition by lying to the public and hiding the truth about vaccine risks and side effects.

Real science, it turns out, is absolutely not welcomed in any discussion about vaccines. Vaccine promoters demand that everyone unquestionable accept all their statements and claims without any sense of skepticism or critical thinking. Such a position is not "scientific," it is dogmatic. The real scientists are those who ask critical questions like, "Why are we injecting pregnant women and children with high levels of mercury?"

SCIENTIFIC FACT: The concentration of mercury in an influenza vaccine is higher than the mercury level found in China's most polluted rivers.

Medicine shouldn't contain poison. This is a fundamental principle which has been utterly abandoned by modern medicine. And then they wonder why more and more people are saying NO to vaccines!

Simply put, until governments and vaccine manufacturers stop lying and start telling the truth about vaccine risks vs. benefits, trust in the vaccine industry will continue to plummet. If the vaccine industry really wanted to re-establish trust with the public, they would first remove all mercury from vaccines then ask independent researchers like myself to test their vaccines in our own private labs so that the confirmation of the mercury removal can be trusted by the public at large.

Then again, the vaccine industry appears to have no real interest in removing mercury from vaccines in the first place. Ever wonder why?

Sources for this article include:
(1) http://www.naturalnews.com/files/TGA-thimero...
(2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20391108

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045449_thimerosal_vaccines_Australia.html#ixzz348k9yUqJ

Monday, 9 June 2014

ASA bias. What every complementary practitioner should know.

Here's a great letter which every homeopathic practitioner should keep a copy of. If the (Biased) Advertising Standards Authority (BASA) ever writes you a letter about your website claims, just send them a copy of that and tell them that as far as you are concerned they have no standing to pronounce on anything to do with homeopathy until they have publicly answered to your satisfaction the points made in Messrs Matthiessen and Bornhoft's letters and weeded out of their organisation all the individuals with anti-complementary healthcare bias (which goes right to the top).

Authors of the Swiss HTA report write to ASA and Secretary of Health

ASA – documented evidence – a story of evasion and bias

Our readers will be interested to read some specifics on how the ASA acts arbitrarily and chooses evidence to suit their own agenda. Nothing could be more apparent than in the case of Homeopathy: Medicine for the Twenty-first Century (H:MC21), as can be seen from the following exchange of correspondence between the ASA and the authors of a Swiss report on homeopathy. Here follows some explanation of the background to the exchange.
One important piece of evidence on the workability of homeopathy submitted to the ASA by H:MC21 (whose advert had been challenged by the ASA) was a copy of the Swiss Health Technology Assessment (HTA) on homeopathy. This provides solid evidence that ‘homeopathy has a history of success in chronic disease’.  

The Swiss HTA was founded in 1999 for the scientific evaluation of medical technologies on the basis of their effectiveness, appropriateness, and efficiency, as well as social and ethical aspects and implications. All government agencies, all University Institutes, several University Hospitals dealing with Technology Assessment and the Swiss Medical Association are members. It is also important to know that homeopathy is integrated into the Swiss National Health system.

The ASA rejected this HTA report outright and stated that ‘the robust evidence we are looking for’ is that of Randomised Control Trials (RCTs). The ASA’s report (which Sir Hayden Philips, the Independent Reviewer of ASA Adjudications, confirmed as having been written under his ‘personal supervision’) bizarrely stated that the HTA contained no such evidence. More bizarre still was the belief of Sir Hayden and his ‘expert’ that the HTA’s main conclusion that homeopathy is safe, effective and cost-effective, was based on a re-working of just one negative analysis (apparently that of Shang, another report on homeopathy which chose to selectively interpret in a negative way a small number of specific studies) -  seehttp://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/7/Homeopathy-Medicine-for-the-21st-Century/SHP_ADJ_139800.aspx.

The authors of the HTA report (Prof. Dr. Peter F. Matthiessen and Dr. Gudrun Bornhöft) responded to the ASA by pointing out to Mr Guy Parker (Chief Executive of the ASA) that their work contained well over one hundred RCTs whilst, on the matter of their conclusions being based on the alleged rewriting of just one study, Sir Hayden had but to glance through the contents pages ‘to reveal the falseness of this absurd claim’.

The HTA authors further told Mr Parker:

“In conclusion, we state that your writing does not even begin to approach a professional standard. We take great exception to your untenable allegation that we researched this important subject with the superficiality that you suggest, an implication which we consider defamatory.

“It is customary that authors whose work is misrepresented should have the right of a reply to be published in the same location as the attack was published. We therefore demand that you please place our reply on your website, with equal prominence to your own text”.

The HTA authors sent two letters to Mr Parker who declined to answer either of them, delegating the task to a Rob Griggs. ‘Rob’ (as he affably signs himself) wrote:
‘We disgaree (sic) with your interpretation of the wording of our adjudications.  During our investigation processes, we recieved (sic) expert advice on the various studies submitted by the advertisers as evidence supporting their marketing claims.  We stand by that advice and our use of it’.
‘Rob’ was unfortunately unable to shed any light on why, and in what way, the ASA ‘disgareed’ with Professor Matthiessen and Dr Bornhöft, or why it was that the ASA felt entitled to deny the undeniable. As for the ‘recieved expert advice’, Mr Griggs also omitted to mention that the ASA’s ‘advisor’ appears to have had no training, experience, qualifications or indeed knowledge or understanding whatsoever in homeopathy, in clear contradiction of the requirements of ASA’s own Code of Practice. The ‘expert in homeopathy’ has instead pursued a career in conventional medicine pharmacology (with financial interests clearly opposed to homeopathy).

In any normal process of justice, an expert witness is cross-examined by the defence. No such process exists within the ASA; the ‘expert witness’ - hand-picked by the ASA - is just automatically deemed to be correct.

The ASA’s whole process of ‘justice’ gives rise to massive concern. This organisation is a private company, acting not only as its own self-appointed judge, jury and executioner, but more worryingly still, acting also as Counsel for both prosecution and defence, able to censor out anything from the Defence that they don’t wish the judge and jury to see. Not even the show trials of Stalinist Russia or Maoist China went that far.

Returning to Mr Parker‘s refusal to reply in person: could that by any chance have been due to the HTA authors’ use of the word Misrepresentation, a word which can be interpreted either in a general context or in a legal framework (see section two of the Fraud Act 2006)? And should other junior members of the ASA be wary in future of allowing the buck to be passed to them in this way?

 The correspondence in full

Letter from the authors of the HTA to CEO of the ASA Mr. Guy Parker

Dear Mr. Parker,

We have read your ‘analysis’ of our ‘Homeopathy in Healthcare’ Health Technology Assessment: we find your writing frankly disquieting.

In your ‘discussion’ of homeopathy’s success in treating chronic disease, you say, bizarrely, that our HTA contains no 'robust evidence' such as RCTs. In fact, pages 130 - 140 of the HTA, for example, discuss 17 homeopathic RCTs, all conveniently summarized on page 207. Pages 103 – 106 refer to homeopathic RCTs in the hundreds.

It is certainly correct that RCTs are generally accepted as a ‘gold standard’ in conducting clinical trials. This is however only a convention (i.e. an ‘agreement’) and, albeit science based, is not free from a considerable quantity of biases. Notwithstanding that, our HTA book in any event fully satisfies the requirements of RCT research conventions.

Additional to that, Chapter 5 of Homeopathy in Healthcare examines, within the scientific paradigm of Evidence-Based Medicine, the problems and likely inherent bias of RCT methodology. This is a chapter of central importance which we would expect you to take seriously. You are of course entitled to examine and debate the points that we make, provided you do so from a logically and scientifically evidenced rationale. But to sweep this whole debate under the carpet as if it doesn’t even exist is patently unacceptable: to furthermore airbrush out of existence, so it would appear, all the RCT research that Homeopathy in Healthcare contains is deeply disturbing.

Your ‘analysis’ of our work becomes still more extraordinary. You say our ‘main conclusion regarding efficacy was drawn from a reconsideration of a previous meta-analysis of qualifying trials which found no significant difference between placebo and homeopathic treatment’ (seemingly referring to Shang et al).
Even a glance at our contents page would reveal the falseness of your absurd claim: reading our book in any detail at all would verify that our conclusions are, on the contrary, based on an analysis of:

·                 Well over 100 homeopathic RCTs
·                 22 meta-analyses, involving the results of thousands of patients (20 of the 22 found at least a trend in favour of homeopathy - many of them strongly so – while the remaining two were of low validity). 
·                 a detailed study of homeopathy’s success in treating upper respiratory tract infections. Six out of seven controlled studies showed at least an equivalence with conventional-medical interventions, whilst a further 8 (out of 16) RCT studies showed results from homeopathy treatment that were significantly the superior.
·                 studies into beneficial homeopathic effects on animals and plants.
·                 changes which homeopathy has been shown to produce on cells in test tubes. An explanation of any kind of how this can be effected by mere ‘placebo’ has to our knowledge never yet been postulated.

On the other hand, and as a fact, Shang did not examine over 100 trials, but only 8, and the reasons for exclusion of other trials were not explained, contrary to scientific protocol. Selection of any data other than the 8 chosen trials would have produced a marked result in favour of homeopathy, in line with the overwhelming majority of meta analyses [seehttp://www.dokterrutten.nl/collega/ShangIJHDR.pdf  ].
Throughout our HTA 'Homeopathy in Healthcare', the Shang study is mentioned only briefly in the discussion section.Your claim that we based our result on a reworking of Shang is therefore as false as is your statement that Shang carried out ‘a substantial review of over 100 placebo controlled trials showed no convincing evidence that homeopathy was superior to placebo’.

In conclusion, we state that your writing does not even begin to approach a professional standard. We take great exception to your untenable allegation that we researched this important subject with the superficiality that you suggest, an implication that we consider defamatory. You accuse us of basing our conclusions largely on a reworking of one deeply flawed paper, the Shang study. Yet this is the one paper on which you appear to have based your own conclusions, which are flatly contradicted by swathes of contrary evidence of which you revealingly make no mention. We find this bizarre. 
It is customary that authors whose work is misrepresented should have the right of a reply to be published in the same location as the attack was published. We therefore demand that you please place our reply on your website, with equal prominence to your own text.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Dr. med. Peter F. Matthiessen                                            Dr. med. Gudrun Bornhöft
cc Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health.
Letter to Mr Hunt, UK Minister of State for Health

Dear Mr Hunt,

We appreciate that you are not personally responsible for the actions of UK university professors, nor of the UK Advertising Standards Authority Ltd. But as Minister of State for Health, we wish to bring to your attention the continuation of falsehoods that have emanated from your country concerning our Health Technology Assessment Homeopathy in Healthcare, which examined and found homeopathy to be safe, effective and cost-effective.

We enclose a copy of our reply to the Advertising Standards Authority  Ltd., also of our earlier published replies to Professors Ernst and Shaw, both of whose writing we considered to be defamatory. We expect ASA Ltd. to publish our reply, just as others have agreed so to do in the past.

We request that you will act in all ways that your power permits to persuade the ASA Ltd, on the subject of homeopathy and our work, to remain within the boundaries of scientific actuality, to correct factual errors already made, and to refrain from issuing defamatory texts on our work in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Dr. med. Peter F. Matthiessen                                                Dr. med. Gudrun Bornhöft

Reply to Mr Parker, Advertising Standards Authority  (ASA) Ltd. (email from 24th July 2013)
Familiarity, objectivity – and misconduct
Counterstatement to Shaw DM. The Swiss Report on homoeopathy: a case study
of research misconduct. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;142:w13594

Letter from to the authors of the HTA report from “Rob” of the ASA

Dear Prof. Dr. med. Peter F. Matthiessen & Dr. med. Gudrun Bornhöft,

Thank you for contacting us.  

You might be aware that the ASA is the UK’s independent advertising regulator, recognised by the Government, Courts and UK Trading Standards Services as the ‘established means’ for regulating misleading and comparative ads in non-broadcast media in the UK.

I’d first like to make clear that it is not the ASA’s role to question the validity of alternative or complementary therapies in and of themselves; nor do we seek to restrict the right of individuals to choose treatment.

We are, however, charged with protecting consumers from potentially misleading advertising.  When advertisers make claims about their products or services, in any sector, they must hold robust evidence to back up those claims.  If they do not, the ASA has no choice but to ensure those ads are amended or withdrawn.

Your work was considered by the ASA, having been submitted by an advertiser as evidence to substantiate claims made in their advertising about the efficacy of homeopathy in treating medical conditions. Having sought expert advice, we considered however that 'Homeopathy in Healthcare' did not move the case forward in favour of the efficacy of homeopathy, in light of conventional standards for efficacy.  

I appreciate that you disagree with this assessment. It would, however, be irresponsible for the ASA, as an advertising regulator, to ignore mainstream scientific and medical opinion when considering claims about products that are used in a medical or therapeutic context.  The ASA’s current position on the evidence-base for the efficacy of homeopathy is supported by the findings of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s report ‘Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy’, published in 2010.  That report included a thorough review of a wide range of evidence on the efficacy of homeopathy (much of it submitted by homeopaths themselves), but it concluded that “there is a lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy”. 

Ultimately, if practitioners are concerned that existing methods for considering the efficacy of treatments or therapies are not fit for the task, they should raise these issues with the relevant expert bodies – for example the National Institute for Clinical Excellence or the Department of Health here in the UK.  

Whenever the ASA makes a ruling, advertisers have recourse both to an Independent Review process and to judicial review, the latter providing a means for advertisers to have our decisions tested in the courts. If through this process our ruling is found to have been flawed, it will be amended, and the new ruling published on our website. 

Thank you for taking the time to contact us. 

Regards,     Rob
Letter from the authors of the HTA report to Chairmain of the ASA, Mr. Guy Parker

Dear Mr Parker,

We refer to the reply we received from Mr Griggs, which we found irrelevant to our Email of 24th July which we addressed personally to you.

We do not comment on other countries’ health policies unless specifically invited by that government to do so, and we said nothing about your ‘position’ on homeopathy. Neither have we made any statement on the Science and Technology (2010) committee report: others such as Lord Baldwin and David Tredinnick MP have done so already -http://www.homeopathyevidencecheck.org/MPs.htm

Our complaint, unaddressed by Mr Griggs, concerned exclusively your organization’s false statements about our work; not a matter of ‘opinion’ nor of ‘policy’, but of plain Misrepresentation of Facts.

You say, on the internet, that our book’s conclusion is based largely on a reworking of Shang: as a fact, this is totally false. You say our book contains no RCTs: as a fact, this is equally false.

Aside from a legal incumbency to present facts truthfully and to correct errors made, I hope we can agree as a question of basic morality that members of the public should not be subjected to false or misleading communications - including yours.

Yours sincerely,
Email to authors of the HTA report from Rob of the ASA

Dear Prof. Dr. med. Peter F. Matthiessen & Dr. med. Gudrun Bornhöft,

Thank you for your further email.  Mr Parker has asked me to respond on his behalf.
We disgaree with your interpretation of the wording of our adjudications.  During our investigation processes, we recieved expert advice on the various studies submitted by the advertisers as evidence supporting their marketing claims.  We stand by that advice and our use of it.  As you might know, advertisers and complainants involved in investigations have the right to request an Independent Review of our decisions.  However, I’m afraid our published processes do not give other parties that right. 
I‘m sorry that you remain unhappy with the wording of our adjudications, but we cannot assist you further at this time.

Best wishes,