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

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
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/dysfunction-at-wikipedia-_b_5924226.html?utm_source=midNovember2014AMA&utm_campaign=2014Oct-Wikipedia&utm_medium=email

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.

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/wikipedia-co-founder-wants-stop-homeopathy/

Reprinted from http://homeopathyplus.com.au/

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

http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/taken-court-part-1/

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 

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowledge/we-have-got-cholesterol-completely-wrong/

“ 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

"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