Amy Lansky has just had the wonderful article below published on Dr Mercola's site at
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/12/22/Why-Skeptics-Love-to-Hate-Homeopathy.aspx She explains succinctly why Homeopathy is being attacked by those frightened that allowing the public to use it more will destroy their lucrative "illness businesses", and how with its remedies she and her husband slowly cured their child of autism (which was probably the result of vaccines).
Amy L. Lansky, PhD http://articles.mercola.com/imageserver/public/2009/December/Amy1-1-03.jpg
www.impossiblecure.com
Perhaps the most derided of alternative medicines is my own favorite – homeopathy. Over the past few years, detractors have focused their efforts in the United Kingdom and have succeeded in crippling homeopathic hospitals and clinics funded by the National Health Service, as well as the practices of many homeopaths.
A few well-placed editorials in prominent newspapers have done the trick, despite the fact that Prince Charles and the rest of the royal family are ardent supporters of homeopathy.
It now seems that some of these folks are taking their show on the road. Two key UK players, Michael Baum and Edzard Ernst have published a commentary in the November 2009 issue of the American Journal of Medicine [1] in which they state, “a belief in homeopathy exceeds the tolerance of an open mind. We should start from the premise that homeopathy cannot work and that positive evidence reflects publication bias or design flaws until proved otherwise.”
Not surprisingly, their commentary also reflects a complete ignorance of homeopathy and the range of studies that support its effectiveness. For example, their article incorrectly uses the term “potentation” instead of “potentization” for the method used to create homeopathic remedies (more on this later). The authors also insist on citing a single negative meta-analysis study that has already been shown to be methodologically flawed [2], while ignoring many positive studies in respected publications, including two other meta-analyses that showed positive results [3—8].
So why do the skeptics love to hate homeopathy? Perhaps because it is one of the most threatening alternative modalities – financially, philosophically, and therapeutically. Actually, homeopathy has been a threat to allopathy ever since the 1800s, when German physician Samuel Hahnemann developed the homeopathic system.
Founder of Homeopathy
Hahnemann, a respected doctor and chemist who helped to pioneer the importance of hygiene as well as homeopathy, was forced to move frequently during his life because the local German apothecaries objected to the fact that he created his own medicines rather than use theirs.
A fierce battle was also waged against homeopathy in the United States during the 1800s, where homeopathy had achieved a strong presence by 1840. In fact, in 1847, the American Medical Association (AMA) was formed specifically to fight the battle against homeopathy.
Most homeopaths of the 1800s were former allopaths who had abandoned their brethren because they found Hahnemann’s system to be more successful in battling cholera, typhus, yellow fever, diptheria, influenza, and other epidemics of the 1800s. In retaliation, the preamble to the AMA’s charter forbade its members to associate with homeopaths or to use their medicines, and many doctors were expelled for failing to comply.
But does homeopathy really pose such a threat to conventional medicine today? To see how the little David of homeopathy could take down the Goliath of big pharma, we need to take a closer look at what homeopathy is all about.
Like Cures Like - - Law of Similars
Homeopathic practice is based on a single law of therapeutics called the Law of Similars. This law states that a substance that can cause the symptoms of a disease can also cure it. In fact, that’s exactly what word “homeopathy” means: similar (“homeo”) suffering (“pathy”). For example, one reason that the remedy Coffea Cruda (made from coffee) can be curative for insomnia is that coffee can cause sleeplessness. Interestingly, allopaths sometimes utilize the Law of Similars, but are unaware of it when they do and are perplexed by the phenomenon.
Ask any conventional doctor why Ritalin (a substance that would normally cause hyperactivity) can treat hyperactivity in children, and they’ll scratch their heads in confusion. Ask a homeopath, and it’s a no-brainer: the Law of Similars.
The reason why homeopaths run into trouble with the skeptics, though, revolves around how homeopathic remedies are prepared. Obviously, many of the substances that can cause the symptoms of disease are toxic. This inherent toxicity poses a challenge if you want to administer these substances safely.
In an effort to deal with this problem, Hahnemann tried various methods of diluting his medicines so that they would become less harmful to his patients. This proved unsuccessful until he also incorporated vigorous shaking or succussion into the process. The result was a method that he called potentization, in which a substance is serially diluted and succussed over and over.
Much to Hahnemann’s own surprise, these ultradilutions – so dilute that they cannot possibly contain a single molecule of the original substance – were still potent therapeutically. In fact, they were even more potent than low levels of dilution.
Of course, this was and still is too much for the skeptics to bear. It turns much of accepted science on its head!
What the skeptics keep ignoring, however, are an increasing number of scientific studies that indicate that some kind of signature of the original substance is embedded in a potentized ultradilution. In a 2007 paper by Professor Rustom Roy, the founding director of the Materials Research Laboratory at Penn State and one of the world's leading experts on the structure of water, it was demonstrated that lab instruments could pick up energetic signatures in ultradilutions that were not only specific to individual homeopathic remedies, but to specific potencies of these remedies [9, 10].
Indeed, science has backed up the phenomenon of potentization for over 20 years. In 1988, Nobel Prize nominee and medical researcher Jacques Benveniste turned the course of his life upside down when he discovered that ultradilutions could retain substance-specific properties. In particular, he found that a certain antibody could be serially diluted and succussed beyond the point where a single molecule could remain, but still cause the same effects [11].
Naturally, the skeptics quickly attacked Benveniste. But he continued his work and further demonstrated that the electromagnetic signature of an ultradilution could be recorded electronically, transmitted via Email, replayed into water, and still achieve the same substance-specific effects in the laboratory [12]. Eventually, Benveniste’s results were replicated [13]. Most recently, a 2009 paper by Nobel Prize winner Luc Montagnier underscored the power of ultradilutions too [14].
Drug Companies are Running Scared
Now think about it. This is what Big Pharma is scared of.
What if an expensive drug could be potentized to create billions of effective doses at essentially no cost? It would destroy big pharma entirely. Medicines that cost essentially nothing? Nontoxic ultradiluted medicines that cause fewer side effects? How could the coffers of big pharma be sustained? Forget about the Law of Similars. It’s potentization – the process of creating effective ultradilutions – that big pharma is scared of! No wonder Baum and Ernst got the word “potentization” wrong. This one word is the small stone that could take Goliath down.
Of course, homeopaths add fuel to the fire. The fundamental philosophy of homeopathy implies that the primary tools of allopathy are harmful. In particular, homeopaths believe that suppressing symptoms with anti-pathic drugs – drugs that oppose the symptoms of a disease rather than mimic them – cannot cure and can even do harm. If a symptom is suppressed – for example, if a seasonal allergy is suppressed by an antihistamine – it is only temporarily palliated.
A patient still has allergic tendencies and his or her symptoms will eventually return. That’s why suppressive drugs must be taken again and again. And of course, big pharma loves that! It’s good for business.
Deceptive Cures
Unfortunately, if a substance succeeds in completely suppressing a symptom, there may be an illusion of “cure,” but the real result is more sinister. Another key tenet of homeopathy is that the true result of suppression is a deepening of the underlying disease state – because the energy of the disease is now forced to manifest in a more serious way.
That’s why repeated application of cortisone cream to eczema can lead to asthma. That’s why the suppression of arthritis pain can lead to heart disease. That’s why teenagers who take acne drugs sometimes develop suicidal depression.
Doctors call this phenomenon a “side effect” or a “natural disease progression.” But that’s because they don’t understand the effects of suppression or the signs of true cure.
Over the past two hundred years, homeopaths have discovered that homeopathic medicines – drugs that mimic a person’s symptoms rather than oppose them – can lead to genuine cure of chronic disease, not mere palliation or suppression. Rather than creating a deeper disease, a homeopathic medicine that is similar to a patient’s disease can not only cure it, but reveal previously suppressed layers of disease that can be treated too.
That’s why good homeopathic treatment can often cure asthma – and also reveal and treat previously suppressed eczema. That’s why it has the potential to cure arthritis and chronic bladder infections, not simply palliate them with endless medications. Indeed, homeopathy can effectively treat acute diseases like influenza and bacterial infections too. With its ability to successfully treat both chronic and acute disease with low-cost medicines, homeopathy really could be a threat to big pharma, given half a chance.
Ideal for Poor Countries or Rich Ones with Declining Economies
Poor countries with less access to expensive drugs have already discovered this. That’s why homeopathy is the second most widespread form of medicine in the world. In India, homeopathy is a full-fledged medical system with its own medical schools and hospitals. Homeopaths in India successfully treat the full range of diseases, including AIDS, cancer, and malaria.
In Cuba, a poor country with a health care system that often does better than our own, homeopathy is being used more and more. In 2008, 2.5 million Cubans were given a homeopathic remedy to prevent Leptospirosis, an infectious disease also known as swamp fever.
This disease has plagued the country for several years in the aftermath of flooding, but the year in which homeopathy was used, in contrast to previous years, there were no fatalities and very few cases of the disease [15].
But here’s the rub. Homeopathy is harder to practice than allopathy. There are no cookie-cutter cures, especially for chronic disease. (Luckily, however, effective treatment of epidemic diseases like the flu is easier; see Resources.) Each patient’s health pattern is unique, so each patient must be treated as an individual.
A homeopath must find a single remedy (among thousands of possible homeopathic remedies) whose associated symptoms match those of the patient – not just their main complaint, but their entire symptom picture that includes emotional, mental, behavioral, as well as the physical symptoms of the entire body. It’s a daunting task. A practitioner who practices classical homeopathy (the kind of homeopathy I advocate) typically needs at least two hours for an initial case interview and may spend just as long deciding upon a remedy.
And sometimes it takes a homeopath several tries to find just the right remedy – the one that homeopaths call the simillimum. This process also requires patients to engage in their own treatment, because symptoms are gathered not by machines or by using tests, but through direct communication between patient and homeopath.
Of course, this is not something big pharma, conventional doctors, or insurance companies would be happy about. No expensive medicines or tests or equipment needed? No five-minute appointments reimbursed at $300 a shot? A medical system that requires long appointments, time for case analysis, and patients who must participate in the healing process? Not very lucrative.
How I Broke Out of the Mold and Reliance on Failed Medical Therapies
Of course, I used to be a lover of conventional medicine like most people. Back in the early 1990s, my husband Steve Rubin and I were both computer researchers in Silicon Valley and followed our doctors’ instructions obediently, loading our kids up with every recommended vaccine on schedule. Our allopathic trance began to break in 1994 when our 3-year-old son Max began to show signs of autism.
I first read about homeopathy in the January 1995 issue of Mothering Magazine, which contained an article about the successful homeopathic treatment of ADD and other children’s behavioral problems [16]. Steve and I decided to give it a try and found a practitioner in our area. Within a week we began to see small and subtle improvement in Max – improvement that became a slow and steady trend. After two years of treatment, he was testing normally and was released from eligibility for special education benefits.
His speech and language therapist told the county representative that she had never seen an autistic child recover like Max had, and she fully credited homeopathy for his recovery. By the time he was eight, nearly all signs of Max’s autism were gone. Today he is 18, a freshman at a leading university, completely autism free, and without restrictions of any kind.
Needless to say, this experience was both mind-boggling and life-transforming. I began to study homeopathy myself and ultimately wrote what became the best-selling patient education book in the USA – Impossible Cure: The Promise of Homeopathy [17] – a comprehensive introduction to homeopathic history, philosophy, science, and experience, sprinkled with dozens first-person cure stories for a variety of ailments, along with a chapter about Max’s cure.
In the end, I left my work in computer science and devoted myself to letting others know about the healing powers of homeopathy. I got involved in the successful campaign for health freedom legislation in California too [18]. Steve also got involved and developed the National Vaccine Information Center’s online interface to the VAERS database [19] (the CDC’s public record of vaccine injuries). I guess Max’s healing led us both to become alternative medicine activists, and we haven’t looked back.
Conclusion
So why not take a look at homeopathy for yourself? Make it your New Year’s resolution to find a good classical practitioner and to learn more about this amazing medical modality. The skeptics manage to create a lot of smoke in an effort to hide homeopathy from public view. But where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Find out about how this powerful healing system – a system that packs a lot of firepower into an infinitesimal punch – can help you and your family.
Resources
(1) Impossible Cure: The Promise of Homeopathy – www.impossiblecure.com.
This website includes: book ordering information; autism help page; free archive of Amy’s show on AutismOne Radio – There’s Hope with Homeopathy; Cure Stories Database; helpful links.
(2) National Center for Homeopathy – www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org.
Leading open-membership organization for homeopathy in the USA that organizes the yearly national conference. Membership buys a quarterly magazine, Homeopathy Today, monthly eNewsetter, online chats with leading experts, extensive online resources and social network. Website includes many free resources, including practitioner and resource referrals lists and flu treatment information.
References
[1] Baum, Michael and Edzard Ernst, “Should We Maintain an Open Mind about Homeopathy?” The American Journal of Medicine, Vol. 122, No. 11, pp. 973-974 (November 2009).
[2] Shang, A. et al. “Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy Placebo Effects? Comparative Study of Placebo-Controlled Trials of Homeopathy and Allopathy,” The Lancet, 366, pp. 726-732 (2005).
An extensive refutation of the results of this study, including statistical analyses and evidence of foul-play, can be found here
[3] Linde, K. et al. “Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials,” The Lancet, 250, pp. 834-843 (1997).
[4] Kleijnen, J. et al. “Clinical Trials of Homeopathy,” British Medical Journal, 302, pp. 316-323 (1991).
[5] Jacobs, J. et al. “Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Trial in Nicaragua,” Pediatrics, Vol. 83, No. 5, pp. 719-725 (1994).
[6] Bell, I.R. et al. “Improved Clinical Status in Fibromyalgia Patients Treated with Individualized Homeopathic Remedies Versus Placebo,” Rheumatology, 2004b; 43 (5):577-82.
[7] Taylor, M.A. et al. “Randomised Controlled Trial of Homoeopathy Versus Placebo in Perennial Allergic Rhinitis with Overview of Four Trial Series,” British Medical Journal, 321, pp. 471-476 (2000).
[8] For more trials, see www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org (under Articles, click Research).
[9] Rao, et al. “The Defining Role of Structure (Including Epitaxy) in the Plausibility of Homeopathy,” Homeopathy, 96, pp. 175-182 (2007).
[10] Rao, et. Al. “Characterization of the Structure of Ultra Dilute Sols with Remarkable Biological Properties,” Materials Letters, Vol. 62, Issues 10-11, pp. 1487-1490 (2008).
[11] Davenas, et al. “Human Basophil Degranulation Triggered by Very Dilute Antiserum Againt IgE,” Nature, Vol. 333, No. 6176, pp. 816-818 (1988).
[12] Aissa, J. et al. “Transatlantic Transfer of Digitized Antigen Signal by Telephone Link,” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 99:S175 (1997).
[13] Brown, V. and M. Ennis. “Flow-Cytometric Analysis of Basophil Activation: Inhibition by Histamine at Conventional and Homeopathic Concentrations,” Inflammation Research, 50, Supplement (2), S47-S48 (2001).
[14] Montagnier, Luc, et al. “Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences,” Insterdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci, 1:81-90 (2009).
[15] http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/successful-use-of-homeopathy-in-over-5-million-people-reported-from-cuba/
[16] Reichenberg-Ullman, J. “A Homeopathic Approach to Behavioral Problems,” Mothering, Number 74, pp. 97-101 (1995).
[17] Lansky, Amy. Impossible Cure: The Promise of Homeopathy. R.L. Ranch Press (2003).
[18] www.californiahealthfreedom.com.
[19]www.medalerts.org.
About the Author
Amy L. Lansky, PhD was a Silicon Valley computer scientist when her life was transformed by the miraculous homeopathic cure of her son’s autism. In April 2003 she published Impossible Cure: The Promise of Homeopathy, one of the best-selling books on homeopathy in the USA (www.impossiblecure.com).
Amy is an executive board member of the National Center for Homeopathy (www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org). She speaks and writes internationally about homeopathy and hosts a monthly radio show on Autism One Radio (www.autismone.org).
Related Links:
Ever Wonder Why Homeopathy Works?
New Evidence Supports Science Behind Homeopathy
Mother Describes Her Son's Cure From Autism in "Impossible Cure: The Promise of Homeopathy”
Wednesday 23 December 2009
Wednesday 16 December 2009
FDA dupes Interpol to achieve illegal kidnapping and deportation of herbal formulator Greg Caton
See http://www.naturalnews.com/027750_Greg_Caton_FDA.html for another report on how the US authorities are twisting the law to their own ends to illegally extradite from another country (Ecuador in this case) a harmless US citizen who was selling proven cancer curing herbal remedies. The reach of Big Pharma (aka the Evil Empire) through its surrogates in the US administration is international.
One more good reason for the next UK Government to cancel the current extradition agreement with the US which was ludicrously applied recently to Gary McKinnon, the hacker searching for information on UFOs on US Army and Pentagon computers. And no wonder that more and more people across the world feel that the USA authorities have lost the plot on most everything they touch nowadays.
One more good reason for the next UK Government to cancel the current extradition agreement with the US which was ludicrously applied recently to Gary McKinnon, the hacker searching for information on UFOs on US Army and Pentagon computers. And no wonder that more and more people across the world feel that the USA authorities have lost the plot on most everything they touch nowadays.
Tuesday 15 December 2009
Officials cover up wind farm noise report
An informative article at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6954565.ece
"Civil servants have suppressed warnings that wind turbines can generate noise damaging people’s health for several square miles around.
The guidance from consultants indicated that the sound level permitted from spinning blades and gearboxes had been set so high — 43 decibels — that local people could be disturbed whenever the wind blew hard. The noise was also thought likely to disrupt sleep.
The report said the best way to protect locals was to cut the maximum permitted noise to 38 decibels, or 33 decibels if the machines created discernible “beating” noises as they spun.
It has now emerged that officials removed the warnings from the draft report in 2006 by Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP), the consultants. The final version made no mention of them.
It means that hundreds of turbines at wind farms in Britain have been allowed to generate much higher levels of noise, sparking protests from people living near them."
"Civil servants have suppressed warnings that wind turbines can generate noise damaging people’s health for several square miles around.
The guidance from consultants indicated that the sound level permitted from spinning blades and gearboxes had been set so high — 43 decibels — that local people could be disturbed whenever the wind blew hard. The noise was also thought likely to disrupt sleep.
The report said the best way to protect locals was to cut the maximum permitted noise to 38 decibels, or 33 decibels if the machines created discernible “beating” noises as they spun.
It has now emerged that officials removed the warnings from the draft report in 2006 by Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP), the consultants. The final version made no mention of them.
It means that hundreds of turbines at wind farms in Britain have been allowed to generate much higher levels of noise, sparking protests from people living near them."
Monday 14 December 2009
Gardasil triggers MS symptoms in Australia
Remember my 13th Oct Post about the possible risks of Gardasil -
"I think there's a strong possibility that Gardasil was the catalyst that set off the ALS [Lou Gehrig's Disease]," Dr Harper says. "It could have been the straw that broke the camel's back in a child who was already predisposed to the condition."
Well now, consider this at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26476824-5003426,00.html.
"THE cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil has triggered multiple sclerosis (MS) symptoms in some girls after being inoculated.
Doctors said the victims were either teenagers or women in their early 20s who may have been predisposed to MS or who had a prior history of symptoms.
St Vincent's Hospital neurologist Dr Ian Sutton reported five cases in a journal article in January. Another five have since emerged.
"Gardasil vaccination is not the cause of MS; whether or not it was a trigger for episodes of inflammation in the brain in these rare cases is unclear," Dr Sutton said.
All cases were in women aged under 26, the target group of a vaccination program that began in 2007.
Symptoms began within three weeks of vaccination and lasted from weeks to months.
"We have raised the question: has the vaccine modified what may have occurred anyway or just been an additional trigger?" Dr Sutton said.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) last week said six million doses of Gardasil – created by scientist and former Australian of the Year Ian Frazer – had been distributed in Australia, and 1476 suspected adverse reactions had been reported to the regulator.
"The TGA is also aware of a small number of cases in which neurological symptoms, similar to those experienced in patients with a dedemyelinating disorder such as multiple sclerosis, have been reported shortly after HPV (human papillomavirus vaccination)," the regulator said.
The cases involving neurological symptoms have been investigated by an independent panel.
The vaccine has been tested on more than 30,000 women worldwide, its manufacturer CSL said.
"In spite of reports of some neurological symptoms occurring after vaccination, when those have been investigated no causative relationship with the vaccine has been determined," company spokeswoman Rachel David said.
You will need to take that last sentence with more than just a pinch of salt. Even where adverse reactions including death occur on the same day as the giving of a vaccine shot, manufacturers will typically say the two can't be linked until there are so many such reactions that their denials become so absurd that the regulators are forced to step in and call a halt to more vaccinations. Sadly for many parents the regulators ALWAYS step in too late. Remember the 500 who contracted Guillain Barre paralysis and neurological defects after the disastrous 1976 swine flu vaccine in the USA? That vaccine programme was stopped too late.
"I think there's a strong possibility that Gardasil was the catalyst that set off the ALS [Lou Gehrig's Disease]," Dr Harper says. "It could have been the straw that broke the camel's back in a child who was already predisposed to the condition."
Well now, consider this at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26476824-5003426,00.html.
"THE cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil has triggered multiple sclerosis (MS) symptoms in some girls after being inoculated.
Doctors said the victims were either teenagers or women in their early 20s who may have been predisposed to MS or who had a prior history of symptoms.
St Vincent's Hospital neurologist Dr Ian Sutton reported five cases in a journal article in January. Another five have since emerged.
"Gardasil vaccination is not the cause of MS; whether or not it was a trigger for episodes of inflammation in the brain in these rare cases is unclear," Dr Sutton said.
All cases were in women aged under 26, the target group of a vaccination program that began in 2007.
Symptoms began within three weeks of vaccination and lasted from weeks to months.
"We have raised the question: has the vaccine modified what may have occurred anyway or just been an additional trigger?" Dr Sutton said.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) last week said six million doses of Gardasil – created by scientist and former Australian of the Year Ian Frazer – had been distributed in Australia, and 1476 suspected adverse reactions had been reported to the regulator.
"The TGA is also aware of a small number of cases in which neurological symptoms, similar to those experienced in patients with a dedemyelinating disorder such as multiple sclerosis, have been reported shortly after HPV (human papillomavirus vaccination)," the regulator said.
The cases involving neurological symptoms have been investigated by an independent panel.
The vaccine has been tested on more than 30,000 women worldwide, its manufacturer CSL said.
"In spite of reports of some neurological symptoms occurring after vaccination, when those have been investigated no causative relationship with the vaccine has been determined," company spokeswoman Rachel David said.
You will need to take that last sentence with more than just a pinch of salt. Even where adverse reactions including death occur on the same day as the giving of a vaccine shot, manufacturers will typically say the two can't be linked until there are so many such reactions that their denials become so absurd that the regulators are forced to step in and call a halt to more vaccinations. Sadly for many parents the regulators ALWAYS step in too late. Remember the 500 who contracted Guillain Barre paralysis and neurological defects after the disastrous 1976 swine flu vaccine in the USA? That vaccine programme was stopped too late.
Saturday 12 December 2009
GP Dr Tim Robinson - why Homeopathy works in my practice
I've been meaning to post the letter below from GP Dr Tim Robinson for some time. It was published on www.pulsetoday.co.uk a few months back and has of course brought the usual cabal of homeopathy's critics out of the woodwork to criticise him for doing something which works for his patients.
Good for him. He follows in the line of many doctors through the last 200 years who have incorporated whatever elements of natural medicine work for them into their practices.
Homeopathy doesn't poison people and its remedies have gently cured millions of people of their ailments for over 200 years. Conventional Medicine, so-called, sadly too often harms those it seeks to treat and its proponents have too large a share of information control in health matters. We are unlikely to change their minds. In the words of Ogden Nash "I cannot help mentioning that the door of a bigoted mind opens outwards so that the only result of pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly." However, we should continue to try and ensure that our fellow humans have the right in return for the taxes they pay to full, undistorted information on health matters, freedom from coercion, and the right to choose the treatments they believe will help them best where these are economically possible.
Dr Tim Robinson's letter:
"I have been incorporating homeopathy into my general practice for almost 15 years.
I have found homeopathy effective as an alternative to conventional medicine for problems in all the systems: respiratory, digestive, skeletal, hormonal, skin and mental/emotional health. It is also extremely useful in situations in which conventional medicine is ineffective or non-existent such as bruising, recurrent cold sores, chilblains, leg cramps, glandular fever, growing pains, teething, infantile colic and children with bedwetting and sleep problems.
Incorporating homeopathy into my general practice has also reduced my referral rate to secondary care, as well as saved my drug budget. Along with these advantages I believe that I have benefited through dealing with my heart-sink patients more effectively. Homeopathy has enhanced my communication skills and resulted in a greater ability to connect with my patients.
The provision of a homeopathic service in routine general practice is very straightforward. As with all consultations the patient presents their particular problem or set of symptoms from which I make a diagnosis and decide upon a management plan for the case. If I consider homeopathic treatment is an appropriate, safe and valid alternative I offer my patient the choice at that point.
I usually point out that although we homeopaths don’t yet know how it works, years of homeopathic experience support its effectiveness. When I am offering the homeopathic choice I back it up with the fact that it won’t do any harm and if it doesn’t work we still have conventional medicine to fall back upon. Patients are usually receptive to this and grateful for the choice.
Homeopathic prescribing is perfectly possible within the standard 10 minute GP consultation time. The prescription is usually based upon one of a number of possible prescribing strategies. For example some specific conditions respond to specific medicines, such as Arnica for bruising or Cocculus for car sickness. I may also prescribe on ‘local’ features of a condition i.e. those features that are individual to the case, for example joint pains that are better for heat and movement (Rhus Tox rather than Bryonia).
Homeopathy has received a lot of slating over the last few years. Our critics discredit homeopathy by saying that patients improve (yes, they admit they do improve) because of long and repeated consultations. As I have described, my homeopathic consultations are mostly seen within standard 10 minute GP appointments. The additional psychotherapeutic effect that can be gained from long consultations does not apply in this situation.
I audited my homeopathic prescribing over a year and demonstrated the wide range of conditions that homeopathy can be prescribed for (1). I assessed the outcomes from the homeopathic treatments by scoring the degree of improvement. I was pleased to find that 78% of those patients treated noted an improvement. These results support the use of homeopathy within my NHS general practice. It was also pleasing to find that this improvement was of the same magnitude as other outcomes studies performed in homeopathic hospital outpatient clinics. (2, 3, 4, 5)
Despite the consistency between these independent outcomes studies, the sceptics are still unconvinced. It is often said in the media that there are no clinical trials in homeopathy that show a positive effect. This is simply untrue. A total of 138 randomised controlled clinical trials have been done, in 71 different medical conditions – 60 had a positive outcome, 68 weren’t statistically conclusive and only 10 were negative. We openly admit that the medicines are often so dilute there are none of the original molecules left in it but how do you explain that these same medicines have a measurable effect in laboratory experiments with allergy response blood components? (6,7)
The sceptics also claim that patients improve (yes, they still state that they improve!) because we only treat conditions that get better on their own with no treatment. Those of us who have been treating patients with homeopathy for long enough will know that we successfully treat many long-term conditions that have previously shown no sign of improvement over long periods of time.
We are also accused of deliberately misleading our patients; as I described earlier, I deliberately tell my patients that we don’t understand how homeopathy works and leave it to them to decide between conventional and homeopathic treatment.
My final annoyance with the sceptics is that they accuse us of being dangerous and treating inappropriately by discouraging childhood immunisation and recommending homeopathic vaccination. Members of the Faculty of Homeopathy are all statutorily registered healthcare professionals who operate within very clear policy guidelines which unequivocally advocate conventional medical immunisation.
The Faculty of Homeopathy offers training at various levels, the first of which is a short course leading to the Primary Health Care Examination. Passing this exam enables you to join the Faculty as a Licensed Associate and to use basic homeopathy in your general practice.
In an ideal world there would be even greater provision of homeopathic treatment in the GP setting. I know that it would bring great benefits to our patients, ease the NHS drug bill and pressure on hospital services. It would also increase the enjoyment and effectiveness of practising as a GP; the quality of life of all parties involved would be enriched.
For more information about training in homeopathy, go to www.facultyofhomeopathy.org"
References:
1. Robinson TW. Responses to homeopathic treatment in National Health Service general practice. Homeopathy 2006; 95: 9–14.
2. Spence D, Thompson E, Barron S. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year university hospital based outpatient observational study. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 5: 793–8.
3. Clover A. Patient benefit survey: Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital. British Homeopathic Journal, 2000; 89: 68–7.
4. Richardson WR. Patient benefit survey: Liverpool Regional Department of Homoeopathic Medicine. British Homeopathic Journal, 2001; 90: 158–162.
5. Sharples F, van Haselen R, Fisher P. NHS patients’ perspective on complementary medicine. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2003; 11: 243–248.
6. Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, et al. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation. Inflammation Research, 2004; 53: 181–188.
7. Chirumbolo S, Brizzi M, Ortolani R, Vella A, Bellavite P. Inhibition of CD203c membrane up-regulation in human basophils by high dilutions of histamine: a controlled replication study. Inflammation Research, 2009: e-published, 6 May.
Good for him. He follows in the line of many doctors through the last 200 years who have incorporated whatever elements of natural medicine work for them into their practices.
Homeopathy doesn't poison people and its remedies have gently cured millions of people of their ailments for over 200 years. Conventional Medicine, so-called, sadly too often harms those it seeks to treat and its proponents have too large a share of information control in health matters. We are unlikely to change their minds. In the words of Ogden Nash "I cannot help mentioning that the door of a bigoted mind opens outwards so that the only result of pressure of facts upon it is to close it more snugly." However, we should continue to try and ensure that our fellow humans have the right in return for the taxes they pay to full, undistorted information on health matters, freedom from coercion, and the right to choose the treatments they believe will help them best where these are economically possible.
Dr Tim Robinson's letter:
"I have been incorporating homeopathy into my general practice for almost 15 years.
I have found homeopathy effective as an alternative to conventional medicine for problems in all the systems: respiratory, digestive, skeletal, hormonal, skin and mental/emotional health. It is also extremely useful in situations in which conventional medicine is ineffective or non-existent such as bruising, recurrent cold sores, chilblains, leg cramps, glandular fever, growing pains, teething, infantile colic and children with bedwetting and sleep problems.
Incorporating homeopathy into my general practice has also reduced my referral rate to secondary care, as well as saved my drug budget. Along with these advantages I believe that I have benefited through dealing with my heart-sink patients more effectively. Homeopathy has enhanced my communication skills and resulted in a greater ability to connect with my patients.
The provision of a homeopathic service in routine general practice is very straightforward. As with all consultations the patient presents their particular problem or set of symptoms from which I make a diagnosis and decide upon a management plan for the case. If I consider homeopathic treatment is an appropriate, safe and valid alternative I offer my patient the choice at that point.
I usually point out that although we homeopaths don’t yet know how it works, years of homeopathic experience support its effectiveness. When I am offering the homeopathic choice I back it up with the fact that it won’t do any harm and if it doesn’t work we still have conventional medicine to fall back upon. Patients are usually receptive to this and grateful for the choice.
Homeopathic prescribing is perfectly possible within the standard 10 minute GP consultation time. The prescription is usually based upon one of a number of possible prescribing strategies. For example some specific conditions respond to specific medicines, such as Arnica for bruising or Cocculus for car sickness. I may also prescribe on ‘local’ features of a condition i.e. those features that are individual to the case, for example joint pains that are better for heat and movement (Rhus Tox rather than Bryonia).
Homeopathy has received a lot of slating over the last few years. Our critics discredit homeopathy by saying that patients improve (yes, they admit they do improve) because of long and repeated consultations. As I have described, my homeopathic consultations are mostly seen within standard 10 minute GP appointments. The additional psychotherapeutic effect that can be gained from long consultations does not apply in this situation.
I audited my homeopathic prescribing over a year and demonstrated the wide range of conditions that homeopathy can be prescribed for (1). I assessed the outcomes from the homeopathic treatments by scoring the degree of improvement. I was pleased to find that 78% of those patients treated noted an improvement. These results support the use of homeopathy within my NHS general practice. It was also pleasing to find that this improvement was of the same magnitude as other outcomes studies performed in homeopathic hospital outpatient clinics. (2, 3, 4, 5)
Despite the consistency between these independent outcomes studies, the sceptics are still unconvinced. It is often said in the media that there are no clinical trials in homeopathy that show a positive effect. This is simply untrue. A total of 138 randomised controlled clinical trials have been done, in 71 different medical conditions – 60 had a positive outcome, 68 weren’t statistically conclusive and only 10 were negative. We openly admit that the medicines are often so dilute there are none of the original molecules left in it but how do you explain that these same medicines have a measurable effect in laboratory experiments with allergy response blood components? (6,7)
The sceptics also claim that patients improve (yes, they still state that they improve!) because we only treat conditions that get better on their own with no treatment. Those of us who have been treating patients with homeopathy for long enough will know that we successfully treat many long-term conditions that have previously shown no sign of improvement over long periods of time.
We are also accused of deliberately misleading our patients; as I described earlier, I deliberately tell my patients that we don’t understand how homeopathy works and leave it to them to decide between conventional and homeopathic treatment.
My final annoyance with the sceptics is that they accuse us of being dangerous and treating inappropriately by discouraging childhood immunisation and recommending homeopathic vaccination. Members of the Faculty of Homeopathy are all statutorily registered healthcare professionals who operate within very clear policy guidelines which unequivocally advocate conventional medical immunisation.
The Faculty of Homeopathy offers training at various levels, the first of which is a short course leading to the Primary Health Care Examination. Passing this exam enables you to join the Faculty as a Licensed Associate and to use basic homeopathy in your general practice.
In an ideal world there would be even greater provision of homeopathic treatment in the GP setting. I know that it would bring great benefits to our patients, ease the NHS drug bill and pressure on hospital services. It would also increase the enjoyment and effectiveness of practising as a GP; the quality of life of all parties involved would be enriched.
For more information about training in homeopathy, go to www.facultyofhomeopathy.org"
References:
1. Robinson TW. Responses to homeopathic treatment in National Health Service general practice. Homeopathy 2006; 95: 9–14.
2. Spence D, Thompson E, Barron S. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year university hospital based outpatient observational study. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 5: 793–8.
3. Clover A. Patient benefit survey: Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital. British Homeopathic Journal, 2000; 89: 68–7.
4. Richardson WR. Patient benefit survey: Liverpool Regional Department of Homoeopathic Medicine. British Homeopathic Journal, 2001; 90: 158–162.
5. Sharples F, van Haselen R, Fisher P. NHS patients’ perspective on complementary medicine. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2003; 11: 243–248.
6. Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, et al. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation. Inflammation Research, 2004; 53: 181–188.
7. Chirumbolo S, Brizzi M, Ortolani R, Vella A, Bellavite P. Inhibition of CD203c membrane up-regulation in human basophils by high dilutions of histamine: a controlled replication study. Inflammation Research, 2009: e-published, 6 May.
Friday 11 December 2009
Tamiflu - will our Government get the taxpayers money back?
At http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912u/tamiflu
"This week, the British medical journal BMJ published a multi-part investigation that confirms that the scientific evidence just isn’t there to show that Tamiflu prevents serious complications, hospitalization, or death in people that have the flu. The BMJ goes further to suggest that Roche, the Swiss company that manufactures and markets Tamiflu, may have misled governments and physicians ................
Nancy Cox, who heads the US Centre for Disease Control’s flu program, told us earlier this year she opposes a placebo-controlled study (in which one half of patients would be given Tamiflu and the other half would be given placebo), because the drug’s benefits are already proven. [Comment: Oops! Take a look again at those "not-independent" tests, Nancy]
There are a couple of take-home messages here. One is pretty obvious: Tamiflu may not be doing much good for patients with the flu who take it, and it might be causing harm. The more important issue, however, involves the need for trust in science and medicine. Governments, public health agencies, and international bodies such as the World Health Organization, have all based their decisions to recommend and stockpile Tamiflu on studies that had seemed independent, but had in fact been funded by the company and were authored almost entirely by Roche employees or paid academic consultants. So did the Cochrane Collaboration, at least in its earlier assessments of Tamiflu. Millions of flu patients have taken the drug as a result.
That trust appears to have been misplaced, and a drug touted as beneficial on the basis of flimsy evidence has by now become so entrenched that no one appears willing to conduct the sort of study needed to prove whether or not it can, in fact, save lives."
And, to remind us, from http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_bird_flu.htm
* CLAIM: "Do you know who bought the patent for Tamiflu from ROCHE LABORATORIES in 1996? GILEAD SCIENCES INC."
GARBLED. Gilead Sciences, Inc. discovered Tamiflu in the early 1990s and still holds the patent. Gilead licensed development and marketing rights to Roche in 1996.
* CLAIM: "Do you know who was the then president of GILEAD SCIENCES INC. and remains a major shareholder? DONALD RUMSFELD, the present Secretary of Defence of the USA."
TRUE. According to Fortune magazine, Rumsfeld was Gilead's chairman from 1997 to 2001. It's unknown exactly how many shares he still owns in the company, but the value of his holdings is estimated at between $5 million and $25 million.
* CLAIM: Sales of Tamiflu were over $254 million in 2004 and more than $1 billion in 2005?
ROUGHLY ACCURATE. According to Forbes magazine, Tamiflu sales totalled $258 million in 2004 and were projected to exceed $1 billion in 2005.
"This week, the British medical journal BMJ published a multi-part investigation that confirms that the scientific evidence just isn’t there to show that Tamiflu prevents serious complications, hospitalization, or death in people that have the flu. The BMJ goes further to suggest that Roche, the Swiss company that manufactures and markets Tamiflu, may have misled governments and physicians ................
Nancy Cox, who heads the US Centre for Disease Control’s flu program, told us earlier this year she opposes a placebo-controlled study (in which one half of patients would be given Tamiflu and the other half would be given placebo), because the drug’s benefits are already proven. [Comment: Oops! Take a look again at those "not-independent" tests, Nancy]
There are a couple of take-home messages here. One is pretty obvious: Tamiflu may not be doing much good for patients with the flu who take it, and it might be causing harm. The more important issue, however, involves the need for trust in science and medicine. Governments, public health agencies, and international bodies such as the World Health Organization, have all based their decisions to recommend and stockpile Tamiflu on studies that had seemed independent, but had in fact been funded by the company and were authored almost entirely by Roche employees or paid academic consultants. So did the Cochrane Collaboration, at least in its earlier assessments of Tamiflu. Millions of flu patients have taken the drug as a result.
That trust appears to have been misplaced, and a drug touted as beneficial on the basis of flimsy evidence has by now become so entrenched that no one appears willing to conduct the sort of study needed to prove whether or not it can, in fact, save lives."
And, to remind us, from http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_bird_flu.htm
* CLAIM: "Do you know who bought the patent for Tamiflu from ROCHE LABORATORIES in 1996? GILEAD SCIENCES INC."
GARBLED. Gilead Sciences, Inc. discovered Tamiflu in the early 1990s and still holds the patent. Gilead licensed development and marketing rights to Roche in 1996.
* CLAIM: "Do you know who was the then president of GILEAD SCIENCES INC. and remains a major shareholder? DONALD RUMSFELD, the present Secretary of Defence of the USA."
TRUE. According to Fortune magazine, Rumsfeld was Gilead's chairman from 1997 to 2001. It's unknown exactly how many shares he still owns in the company, but the value of his holdings is estimated at between $5 million and $25 million.
* CLAIM: Sales of Tamiflu were over $254 million in 2004 and more than $1 billion in 2005?
ROUGHLY ACCURATE. According to Forbes magazine, Tamiflu sales totalled $258 million in 2004 and were projected to exceed $1 billion in 2005.
Thursday 10 December 2009
GSK Pandemrix swine flu vaccine
The Patient Information Leaflet, and the notices on the MHRA website http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Safetyinformation/Swinefluinformation/index.htm were changed at the end of last week after reports that (too many) young children were experiencing fever after having the second shot of the two shot Pandemrix vaccine.
The advice now is that children between 6 months and 10 years should only get a single half dose of the vaccine (0.25ml). The one exception is that those in this group who have an impaired immune system get two half doses 3 weeks apart!
Babies under 6 months are not vaccinated, and children over 10 years and adults get a single full dose of 0.5ml, unless they have an impaired immune system when they get 2 such doses.
This logic follows the old rule for vaccines that if the immune system is sluggish and doesn’t produce enough antibodies the first time, you have to have a second go to get the count up otherwise the whole exercise would have been pointless since inadequate immunity would have been gained.
There is however another more commonsense approach, namely that if the body’s immune system is impaired it is unwise to gratuitously shoot additional toxins into it while it is in that state. Too obvious perhaps?
Pandemrix contains
Adjuvant: AS03 to stimulate a better response. This adjuvant contains squalene (10.69 milligrams), DL-a-tocopherol (11.86 milligrams) and polysorbate 80 (4.86 milligrams).
It also contains:
polysorbate 80 (Tween 80)
octoxynol 10
thimerosal (mercury)
sodium chloride
disodium hydrogen phosphate
potassium dihydrogen phosphate
potassium chloride
magnesium chloride
and maybe like most vaccines some things (contaminants) which are hard to detect?
Wikipedia and other sources reveal the following on some of the above ingredients: Polysorbate 80 is a suspected skin and sense organ toxin. Thimerosal is a recognised developmental toxin and a suspected immune, kidney, skin and sense organ toxin. Disodium hydrogen phosphate is an anticaking agent. Potassium dihydrogen phosphate is a soluble salt which is used as a fertilizer, a food additive and a fungicide. It is a source of phosphorus and potassium. Potassium chloride is used in medicine, scientific applications, food processing and in judicial execution through lethal injection. Octoxynol 10, a detergent, apparently typically contains traces of the toxins ethylene oxide, dioxane, C9 phenols, or glycol ether. Detergents and emulsifiers promote tumors and cause cells to leak or explode by weakening their walls, with no mechanism for regulating destructive activity. Detergents are used extensively in cell research precisely because of their ability to break cells open for further analysis.
Well, call me Mr Suspicious, but after that little roll call, I’d prefer an organic bacon sandwich.
The advice now is that children between 6 months and 10 years should only get a single half dose of the vaccine (0.25ml). The one exception is that those in this group who have an impaired immune system get two half doses 3 weeks apart!
Babies under 6 months are not vaccinated, and children over 10 years and adults get a single full dose of 0.5ml, unless they have an impaired immune system when they get 2 such doses.
This logic follows the old rule for vaccines that if the immune system is sluggish and doesn’t produce enough antibodies the first time, you have to have a second go to get the count up otherwise the whole exercise would have been pointless since inadequate immunity would have been gained.
There is however another more commonsense approach, namely that if the body’s immune system is impaired it is unwise to gratuitously shoot additional toxins into it while it is in that state. Too obvious perhaps?
Pandemrix contains
Adjuvant: AS03 to stimulate a better response. This adjuvant contains squalene (10.69 milligrams), DL-a-tocopherol (11.86 milligrams) and polysorbate 80 (4.86 milligrams).
It also contains:
polysorbate 80 (Tween 80)
octoxynol 10
thimerosal (mercury)
sodium chloride
disodium hydrogen phosphate
potassium dihydrogen phosphate
potassium chloride
magnesium chloride
and maybe like most vaccines some things (contaminants) which are hard to detect?
Wikipedia and other sources reveal the following on some of the above ingredients: Polysorbate 80 is a suspected skin and sense organ toxin. Thimerosal is a recognised developmental toxin and a suspected immune, kidney, skin and sense organ toxin. Disodium hydrogen phosphate is an anticaking agent. Potassium dihydrogen phosphate is a soluble salt which is used as a fertilizer, a food additive and a fungicide. It is a source of phosphorus and potassium. Potassium chloride is used in medicine, scientific applications, food processing and in judicial execution through lethal injection. Octoxynol 10, a detergent, apparently typically contains traces of the toxins ethylene oxide, dioxane, C9 phenols, or glycol ether. Detergents and emulsifiers promote tumors and cause cells to leak or explode by weakening their walls, with no mechanism for regulating destructive activity. Detergents are used extensively in cell research precisely because of their ability to break cells open for further analysis.
Well, call me Mr Suspicious, but after that little roll call, I’d prefer an organic bacon sandwich.
Wednesday 9 December 2009
Surely a time for banding together, not continuing, as some in ConMed are doing, to argue for a complete monopoly
2009 will be the worst year for the UK economy since comparable records began in 1948. A 4.75 percent contraction is worse, even, than the worst year of the Great Depression.
It has already struck many of those I talk to that against this background Government should be identifying savings from day to day - not waiting until the outcome of the next General Election.
Saving the millions being spent on the useless swine flu vaccine would be a healthy start. A small portion of the money saved could be used to pay for a homeopathic trial - say 100,000 members of the public to be given free a homeopathic swine flu prophylactic and the same number to have the swine flu vaccine. Both groups to be monitored for a number of years for catching swine flu, side effects etc. Each group to be told what they were receiving. None of this double blind nonsense. If placebo helps one approach better than the other, we all want to know about that. May the best approach win! Judging by what happened in Cuba with the anti-leptospirosis campaign, I don't have to be a bookie to calculate which side would have the best odds....
It has already struck many of those I talk to that against this background Government should be identifying savings from day to day - not waiting until the outcome of the next General Election.
Saving the millions being spent on the useless swine flu vaccine would be a healthy start. A small portion of the money saved could be used to pay for a homeopathic trial - say 100,000 members of the public to be given free a homeopathic swine flu prophylactic and the same number to have the swine flu vaccine. Both groups to be monitored for a number of years for catching swine flu, side effects etc. Each group to be told what they were receiving. None of this double blind nonsense. If placebo helps one approach better than the other, we all want to know about that. May the best approach win! Judging by what happened in Cuba with the anti-leptospirosis campaign, I don't have to be a bookie to calculate which side would have the best odds....
Saturday 5 December 2009
Swine Flu - How many are likely to die or have other severe adverse reactions?
It’s been clear for some time that only a fraction of reported H1N1 (swine flu) cases actually are H1N1. Indeed the UK stopped routinely testing all those who reported flu type symptoms back in July so the (probably small) numbers of those actually contracting full blown swine flu are simply not known. Most apparently have just respiratory infections due to other causes. In the US this has been definitively established by Freedom of Information Act requests from individual state authorities when the responsible Government body, the CDC, refused to respond.
So what’s the downside for all those presenting themselves for the swine flu jab? A lot of people might assume that the worst a person could suffer from the vaccine is a sore arm and perhaps a headache or a general feeling of tiredness. Sadly, not so. Severe reactions can include anaphylactic reactions eg severe allergies, convulsions or coma, life altering disabilities such as Guillain Barre neurological disease, and death.
Apparently GSK’s pre-marketing clinical tests show severe reactions in four cases out of 253 people tested, though GSK argue that they think only one of those was vaccine-related. But even 1 out of 253 equals 395 severe adverse reactions in every 100,000 people or 3,950 in every million people! And if they are wrong and the 4 out of 53 is nearer the mark, that equals 15,800 people out of a million. Had they succeeded in getting the Government to jab, say, half the UK population ie 31 million, we could have been looking at between 122,000 and 489,000 severe adverse reactions for the NHS and families of those affected to deal with - just from having the vaccine! All this for a strain of flu which has been described as turning out to have been "milder than seasonal flu".
Did the Government prepare us for this, and did it guess what additional severe adverse reactions might have occurred if many of those vaccinated had already had an ordinary seasonal flu jab which itself could have at least temporarily compromised the human immune system?
The answer is NO. Nobody knows what the cumulative effect of that scenario could be because we are all participating, if we accept these jabs, as guinea pigs in a massive test the true outcome of will be quite unknown for many years down the track as there is no accepted test for deciding to what extent a human’s immune system has been damaged by a vaccine.
The nearest we can get to answering that is to ask the homeopaths. They can treat those who have “never been well since (having a specific vaccine)” with the potentised and highly diluted nosode of that same vaccine, and when the adverse symptoms of a significant proportion of these individuals disappear or are ameliorated by this treatment, then they would conclude that the vaccine was indeed the cause of the pathology treated.
With deaths and serious adverse effects from vaccines made by different manufacturers already being reported from around the world - see http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/12/05/Swine-Flu-Shot-Side-Effects-Beginning-to-Take-Their-Toll.aspx - Sweden, Japan, China, France, US, why aren’t our media giving the UK public all these facts and assisting debate around the wisdom or otherwise of accepting the swine flu vaccine? Is it to do with money?
The media have made hay during the financial crisis, blaming those on big bonuses working for the banks, and MPS for troughing at the public's expense. If the DIEs (disease inducing effects) figures from swine flu vaccination turn out to be anything like the numbers referred to above, it will be the media's turn to hang their heads in shame, and pay whatever price the public demands, for their inertia when presented in advance by so many of us with the information that this pandemic was "manufactured", and the reasons why the swine flu vaccine should never have been inflicted on us.
So what’s the downside for all those presenting themselves for the swine flu jab? A lot of people might assume that the worst a person could suffer from the vaccine is a sore arm and perhaps a headache or a general feeling of tiredness. Sadly, not so. Severe reactions can include anaphylactic reactions eg severe allergies, convulsions or coma, life altering disabilities such as Guillain Barre neurological disease, and death.
Apparently GSK’s pre-marketing clinical tests show severe reactions in four cases out of 253 people tested, though GSK argue that they think only one of those was vaccine-related. But even 1 out of 253 equals 395 severe adverse reactions in every 100,000 people or 3,950 in every million people! And if they are wrong and the 4 out of 53 is nearer the mark, that equals 15,800 people out of a million. Had they succeeded in getting the Government to jab, say, half the UK population ie 31 million, we could have been looking at between 122,000 and 489,000 severe adverse reactions for the NHS and families of those affected to deal with - just from having the vaccine! All this for a strain of flu which has been described as turning out to have been "milder than seasonal flu".
Did the Government prepare us for this, and did it guess what additional severe adverse reactions might have occurred if many of those vaccinated had already had an ordinary seasonal flu jab which itself could have at least temporarily compromised the human immune system?
The answer is NO. Nobody knows what the cumulative effect of that scenario could be because we are all participating, if we accept these jabs, as guinea pigs in a massive test the true outcome of will be quite unknown for many years down the track as there is no accepted test for deciding to what extent a human’s immune system has been damaged by a vaccine.
The nearest we can get to answering that is to ask the homeopaths. They can treat those who have “never been well since (having a specific vaccine)” with the potentised and highly diluted nosode of that same vaccine, and when the adverse symptoms of a significant proportion of these individuals disappear or are ameliorated by this treatment, then they would conclude that the vaccine was indeed the cause of the pathology treated.
With deaths and serious adverse effects from vaccines made by different manufacturers already being reported from around the world - see http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/12/05/Swine-Flu-Shot-Side-Effects-Beginning-to-Take-Their-Toll.aspx - Sweden, Japan, China, France, US, why aren’t our media giving the UK public all these facts and assisting debate around the wisdom or otherwise of accepting the swine flu vaccine? Is it to do with money?
The media have made hay during the financial crisis, blaming those on big bonuses working for the banks, and MPS for troughing at the public's expense. If the DIEs (disease inducing effects) figures from swine flu vaccination turn out to be anything like the numbers referred to above, it will be the media's turn to hang their heads in shame, and pay whatever price the public demands, for their inertia when presented in advance by so many of us with the information that this pandemic was "manufactured", and the reasons why the swine flu vaccine should never have been inflicted on us.
Drug-Makers Paying Off Competitors To Keep Cheap Generic Drugs Off the Market
Just when you think you’ve heard all the wheezes that some pharmaceutical companies get up to to ensure that conventional medicine continues to buy their expensive products, along comes another one. This report comes from http://blogs.healthfreedomalliance.org/blog/2009/12/04/drug-makers-paying-off-competitors-to-keep-cheap-generics-off-market/ .
Over the last few years, some drug-makers have embraced a startlingly simple tactic for fending off competition from generic brands: paying them off. In a nutshell, the company that holds the patent on a profitable drug strikes a deal with the maker of the cheaper generic brand: you hold off on marketing your generic for several years, and in return, we’ll give you a share of our profits on the drug.
So common have these deals become lately that they’ve been given a name: pay-for-delay. The approach — a textbook anti-competitive tactic — is worth billions to drug-makers, because it essentially allows them to buy more protection than their patent confers.
That was made more or less explicit by Frank Balsino, the CEO of Cephalon, which makes the sleep-disorder drug Provigil. In a 2006 interview, Baldino trumpeted recent deals with four generic drug-makers that kept generic versions of Provigil off the market until 2012, declaring: “We were able to get six more years of patent protection. That’s $4 billion in sales that no one expected.”
But pay-for-delay doesn’t work out nearly so well for consumers. Generics are sometimes priced as much as 80 or 90 percent cheaper than the name brands. For instance, the cholesterol drug Zocor costs $164 a month, while a generic version costs just $12 a month. Pay-for-delay deals will cost consumers an extra $35 billion over the next decade, by keeping those cheaper generics off the market, according to a recent Federal Trade Commission study. And it’s the uninsured, who pay out-of-pocket for drugs, that disproportionately pay those costs. In the UK, it would indirectly be every taxpayer who funds the NHS, or those going private.
The Federal Trade Commission is belatedly looking into this practice and hoping to get a ruling from the Supreme Court declaring the deals illegal under existing antitrust law. Meantime, if they wanted them, consumers can’t get cheap drugs.
I would have thought that it would have been a no brainer that the practice was against competition laws, but apparently the point is not settled yet, at least in the US. I wonder which UK companies have made such deals and whether the Office of Fair Trading has made enquiries?
Over the last few years, some drug-makers have embraced a startlingly simple tactic for fending off competition from generic brands: paying them off. In a nutshell, the company that holds the patent on a profitable drug strikes a deal with the maker of the cheaper generic brand: you hold off on marketing your generic for several years, and in return, we’ll give you a share of our profits on the drug.
So common have these deals become lately that they’ve been given a name: pay-for-delay. The approach — a textbook anti-competitive tactic — is worth billions to drug-makers, because it essentially allows them to buy more protection than their patent confers.
That was made more or less explicit by Frank Balsino, the CEO of Cephalon, which makes the sleep-disorder drug Provigil. In a 2006 interview, Baldino trumpeted recent deals with four generic drug-makers that kept generic versions of Provigil off the market until 2012, declaring: “We were able to get six more years of patent protection. That’s $4 billion in sales that no one expected.”
But pay-for-delay doesn’t work out nearly so well for consumers. Generics are sometimes priced as much as 80 or 90 percent cheaper than the name brands. For instance, the cholesterol drug Zocor costs $164 a month, while a generic version costs just $12 a month. Pay-for-delay deals will cost consumers an extra $35 billion over the next decade, by keeping those cheaper generics off the market, according to a recent Federal Trade Commission study. And it’s the uninsured, who pay out-of-pocket for drugs, that disproportionately pay those costs. In the UK, it would indirectly be every taxpayer who funds the NHS, or those going private.
The Federal Trade Commission is belatedly looking into this practice and hoping to get a ruling from the Supreme Court declaring the deals illegal under existing antitrust law. Meantime, if they wanted them, consumers can’t get cheap drugs.
I would have thought that it would have been a no brainer that the practice was against competition laws, but apparently the point is not settled yet, at least in the US. I wonder which UK companies have made such deals and whether the Office of Fair Trading has made enquiries?
Friday 4 December 2009
Ads on my blogsite
Sadly, I haven't found a way to prevent The Evil Empire and Darth Varder from advertising on my blogsite for the very flu jab that my postings have taken care to counsel you to avoid at all costs. I don't get any money from those ads, and I don't want them there anyway - please ignore them!
And those of you in the socalled priority groups eg pregnant women, do avoid the jabs like the plague. Humans were not meant to have killer toxins like squalene, formaldehyde, aluminium, mercury etc jabbed into them, let alone an "attenuated" (maybe dead, maybe not) virus the DIEs (Disease inducing effects) of which can't be adequately tested.
The DIEs of a vaccine may very well take years/decades to appear, like cancer from smoking or liver damage from taking aspirin, and there is NO WAY that any test known to science today, even if it were not by the biased manufacturers themselves, could guarantee that you wouldn't be one of the victims. You can also bet your life that whatever allergy, neurological damage or worse, you get, will (a) be denied as having anything to do with an earlier jab, and (b) you won't get legal aid to sue anybody (this Government has removed that right), and (c) you won't be eligible for even the Govt ex gratia payments available up to £120,000 (they refuse to call it "compensation")for certain vaccine related side effects.
Google the internet for the tragic stories of people suffering from such DIEs before you decide. Surely you wouldn't play Russian roulette with a revolver would you for the uncertain benefit of a year or two only of potential immunity from only one or two strains of a generally mild infection? Ring up your homeopath instead and get them to prescribe you a combination remedy taken from those remedies which have been reported as having helped people avoid or minimise the effects of flu epidemics in the last 100+ years.
PS Have a look at http://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/ for further discussion of DIEs and untested conventional medicine drugs.
And those of you in the socalled priority groups eg pregnant women, do avoid the jabs like the plague. Humans were not meant to have killer toxins like squalene, formaldehyde, aluminium, mercury etc jabbed into them, let alone an "attenuated" (maybe dead, maybe not) virus the DIEs (Disease inducing effects) of which can't be adequately tested.
The DIEs of a vaccine may very well take years/decades to appear, like cancer from smoking or liver damage from taking aspirin, and there is NO WAY that any test known to science today, even if it were not by the biased manufacturers themselves, could guarantee that you wouldn't be one of the victims. You can also bet your life that whatever allergy, neurological damage or worse, you get, will (a) be denied as having anything to do with an earlier jab, and (b) you won't get legal aid to sue anybody (this Government has removed that right), and (c) you won't be eligible for even the Govt ex gratia payments available up to £120,000 (they refuse to call it "compensation")for certain vaccine related side effects.
Google the internet for the tragic stories of people suffering from such DIEs before you decide. Surely you wouldn't play Russian roulette with a revolver would you for the uncertain benefit of a year or two only of potential immunity from only one or two strains of a generally mild infection? Ring up your homeopath instead and get them to prescribe you a combination remedy taken from those remedies which have been reported as having helped people avoid or minimise the effects of flu epidemics in the last 100+ years.
PS Have a look at http://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/ for further discussion of DIEs and untested conventional medicine drugs.
Tuesday 1 December 2009
Codex Alimentarius (Food Code) Scam Exposed
1 Downing Street sent this weasel worded "non-reply" to the recent petition below - The real situation is as outlined in the Clarification which follows from the Alliance for Natural Health website - http://www.anhcampaign.org/
“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to oppose the adoption of the Codex Alimentarius (WHO/UN) proposals for restriction of the presently freely available herb/vitamin/mineral food supplements.”
Details of Petition:
“The principle of self medication with herbal/vitamin/mineral food supplements would be restricted to ‘prescription only’ status, if the Codex Alimentarius is applied in this country. Since the NHS priorities are ill health diagnosis and treatment, the good health preservation that supplements provide will be inaccessible to the majority of our population and the cost to the NHS will increase, and the health of the population will decline.”
The Government’s response
There are no current or planned Codex Alimentarius proposals that require the UK to change the controls on vitamin and mineral or botanical food supplements.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 to develop food standards and guidelines. One of the main purposes of Codex’s work is to protect the health of consumers. Codex texts and guidelines are not enforceable in law and Codex member countries are not obliged to reflect their requirements in domestic legislation.
In the UK, food supplements are regulated under the European Food Supplements Directive 2002/46/EC which came into effect in the UK in 2003 and has applied since 2005. The Directive is implemented into national UK law by the Food Supplements Regulations (England) 2003. There are no plans to make vitamin and mineral or botanical food supplements available on prescription only.
Herbal remedies are subject to separate controls and are overseen by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority. Herbal remedies do not fall within the scope of Codex guidelines.
An outline of Codex, its activities and the UK’s involvement is available at: www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/regulation/Codexbranch/.
----------------------------------
NOW READ THE TRUTH!
Subject: ANH Update: Clarity on Codex confusion
Issue No.31 Monday 30th November 2009
Codex: confusion – or smokescreen?
The British Prime Minister has told more than 60,000 people concerned about the effects of Codex guidelines on food supplements that they shouldn’t be worried. We presume concerned citizens are expected to feel humbled by the wise words of the PM, and should now go about their lives never fretting about Codex again.
The Downing Street petition
As we clarify in our news item on the subject, the Downing Street e-petition to which the PM was responding, was not well worded. But the sentiment in the petition was clear. Being told by the PM not to worry is not only patronising, it also misses the point of people’s concerns that to any thinking person was clearly evident. The petitioners had after all raised the point that the Codex Alimentarius guideline will in due course establish an internationally recognised maximum daily dosage for vitamin and minerals in food supplements. Levels above these are increasingly likely to be viewed as medicinal by governments. The US Food & Drug Administration tells us they wouldn’t dream of implementing the Codex vitamin guideline into US law—but why is the US Codex delegation so intent on nodding this and other nutrition-related guidelines through in cahoots with the European Union?
In some respects, the situation is actually worse than the petitioners claimed, because rather than forcing high dose supplements into a prescription-only category, they force them into medicinal law where such products are likely to be regarded as unlicensed medicines (which are illegal). It will then be down to nutraceutical or pharmaceutical companies to license them. Will companies have either the desire or the financial capability to meet the hugely costly data requirements for drug licensing? Time will tell.
Wider concerns about Codex
What really makes so many people uneasy is the notion that the global food supply is becoming increasingly controlled by a small number of corporations and governments. We have recently updated our Codex pages to explain better to people, in layperson’s terms, how it all works, and why, in some respects, Codex’s remit on vitamins and mineral food supplements is just the thin end of the wedge.
If you’re living in Europe, Codex actually makes little or no difference to your availability of food supplements as this is taken care of by a complex of EU laws, some of which, given the EU’s major influence on the Codex Committee on Nutrition, provide templates for Codex. Some of the key areas to be very concerned about include Codex’s role in approving technologies that are either downright dangerous or create unparalleled damage to the environment. These include endorsing genetically modified (GM) crops, pesticides, food irradiation and the use of synthetic chemical additives in foods.
The most recent issue of The Economist tells us that investment in agriculture has declined relentlessly over the last 25 years. Yet we are meant to feed a population that is expected to grow by another third by 2030 and hit an estimated 9 billion by 2050. And we’re expected to not be worrying about the quality of our food and our access to concentrated sources of nutrients (food/dietary supplements) to make up for its inadequacies? It’s no wonder the UK PM’s friends in the biotech industry are rubbing their hands—they are telling governments they can do the magic, just like they did with the Green Revolution of the 1970s. Successes like this, say expert’s like ANH’s Robert Verkerk, are “unrepeatable” and were in any event far from always the successes they were claimed to be. Trying to make such promises today, armed with the tools of genetic modification is in our view a recipe for disaster.
What you can do
A lot of people rightly feel very frustrated about the difficulty of impacting Codex. Many of us are simply not willing to take the British PM’s advice and stop worrying. There is just not enough trust in the small number of governments and corporations that are wrestling control of the global food supply. Codex and the World Trade Organization have become key tools in the process.
Find out what you can do as an individual. We urge you to not take the advice of the British PM and do nothing!
Read on for other recent news stories:
Downing Street ignores weight of public concern over Codex
ANH clarifies UK Prime Minister's Office response to recent Downing Street Petition over Codex concerns Read More
EC scientific committee ‘unqualified for task’ say international medical doctors group
Irish campaign group VOICE issues press release over fluoride risks to Irish children Read More
ANH Press Release: Food supplement ban in 2010 may contravene EU law
ANH raises serious concerns over planned ban on vitamin and mineral food supplements across the EU in January 2010 Read More
UK herbalists threatened by Government inaction over statutory regulation
Herbalists urged to respond to Government Consultation before November 16th Read More
Our Campaigns Get Involved Donate Now Contact us http://www.anhcampaign.org/
© Alliance for Natural Health, The Atrium, Curtis Road, Dorking, Surrey RH4 1XA, United Kingdom www.anhcampaign.org
Alliance for Natural Health, The Atrium, Curtis Road, Dorking, Surrey RH4 1XA, United Kingdom
“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to oppose the adoption of the Codex Alimentarius (WHO/UN) proposals for restriction of the presently freely available herb/vitamin/mineral food supplements.”
Details of Petition:
“The principle of self medication with herbal/vitamin/mineral food supplements would be restricted to ‘prescription only’ status, if the Codex Alimentarius is applied in this country. Since the NHS priorities are ill health diagnosis and treatment, the good health preservation that supplements provide will be inaccessible to the majority of our population and the cost to the NHS will increase, and the health of the population will decline.”
The Government’s response
There are no current or planned Codex Alimentarius proposals that require the UK to change the controls on vitamin and mineral or botanical food supplements.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 to develop food standards and guidelines. One of the main purposes of Codex’s work is to protect the health of consumers. Codex texts and guidelines are not enforceable in law and Codex member countries are not obliged to reflect their requirements in domestic legislation.
In the UK, food supplements are regulated under the European Food Supplements Directive 2002/46/EC which came into effect in the UK in 2003 and has applied since 2005. The Directive is implemented into national UK law by the Food Supplements Regulations (England) 2003. There are no plans to make vitamin and mineral or botanical food supplements available on prescription only.
Herbal remedies are subject to separate controls and are overseen by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority. Herbal remedies do not fall within the scope of Codex guidelines.
An outline of Codex, its activities and the UK’s involvement is available at: www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/regulation/Codexbranch/.
----------------------------------
NOW READ THE TRUTH!
Subject: ANH Update: Clarity on Codex confusion
Issue No.31 Monday 30th November 2009
Codex: confusion – or smokescreen?
The British Prime Minister has told more than 60,000 people concerned about the effects of Codex guidelines on food supplements that they shouldn’t be worried. We presume concerned citizens are expected to feel humbled by the wise words of the PM, and should now go about their lives never fretting about Codex again.
The Downing Street petition
As we clarify in our news item on the subject, the Downing Street e-petition to which the PM was responding, was not well worded. But the sentiment in the petition was clear. Being told by the PM not to worry is not only patronising, it also misses the point of people’s concerns that to any thinking person was clearly evident. The petitioners had after all raised the point that the Codex Alimentarius guideline will in due course establish an internationally recognised maximum daily dosage for vitamin and minerals in food supplements. Levels above these are increasingly likely to be viewed as medicinal by governments. The US Food & Drug Administration tells us they wouldn’t dream of implementing the Codex vitamin guideline into US law—but why is the US Codex delegation so intent on nodding this and other nutrition-related guidelines through in cahoots with the European Union?
In some respects, the situation is actually worse than the petitioners claimed, because rather than forcing high dose supplements into a prescription-only category, they force them into medicinal law where such products are likely to be regarded as unlicensed medicines (which are illegal). It will then be down to nutraceutical or pharmaceutical companies to license them. Will companies have either the desire or the financial capability to meet the hugely costly data requirements for drug licensing? Time will tell.
Wider concerns about Codex
What really makes so many people uneasy is the notion that the global food supply is becoming increasingly controlled by a small number of corporations and governments. We have recently updated our Codex pages to explain better to people, in layperson’s terms, how it all works, and why, in some respects, Codex’s remit on vitamins and mineral food supplements is just the thin end of the wedge.
If you’re living in Europe, Codex actually makes little or no difference to your availability of food supplements as this is taken care of by a complex of EU laws, some of which, given the EU’s major influence on the Codex Committee on Nutrition, provide templates for Codex. Some of the key areas to be very concerned about include Codex’s role in approving technologies that are either downright dangerous or create unparalleled damage to the environment. These include endorsing genetically modified (GM) crops, pesticides, food irradiation and the use of synthetic chemical additives in foods.
The most recent issue of The Economist tells us that investment in agriculture has declined relentlessly over the last 25 years. Yet we are meant to feed a population that is expected to grow by another third by 2030 and hit an estimated 9 billion by 2050. And we’re expected to not be worrying about the quality of our food and our access to concentrated sources of nutrients (food/dietary supplements) to make up for its inadequacies? It’s no wonder the UK PM’s friends in the biotech industry are rubbing their hands—they are telling governments they can do the magic, just like they did with the Green Revolution of the 1970s. Successes like this, say expert’s like ANH’s Robert Verkerk, are “unrepeatable” and were in any event far from always the successes they were claimed to be. Trying to make such promises today, armed with the tools of genetic modification is in our view a recipe for disaster.
What you can do
A lot of people rightly feel very frustrated about the difficulty of impacting Codex. Many of us are simply not willing to take the British PM’s advice and stop worrying. There is just not enough trust in the small number of governments and corporations that are wrestling control of the global food supply. Codex and the World Trade Organization have become key tools in the process.
Find out what you can do as an individual. We urge you to not take the advice of the British PM and do nothing!
Read on for other recent news stories:
Downing Street ignores weight of public concern over Codex
ANH clarifies UK Prime Minister's Office response to recent Downing Street Petition over Codex concerns Read More
EC scientific committee ‘unqualified for task’ say international medical doctors group
Irish campaign group VOICE issues press release over fluoride risks to Irish children Read More
ANH Press Release: Food supplement ban in 2010 may contravene EU law
ANH raises serious concerns over planned ban on vitamin and mineral food supplements across the EU in January 2010 Read More
UK herbalists threatened by Government inaction over statutory regulation
Herbalists urged to respond to Government Consultation before November 16th Read More
Our Campaigns Get Involved Donate Now Contact us http://www.anhcampaign.org/
© Alliance for Natural Health, The Atrium, Curtis Road, Dorking, Surrey RH4 1XA, United Kingdom www.anhcampaign.org
Alliance for Natural Health, The Atrium, Curtis Road, Dorking, Surrey RH4 1XA, United Kingdom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
