Thursday, 31 May 2012

Fight for Homeopathy - Now!

Homeopathy is regularly having to defend itself - from attacks from supporters of the Conventional Medical (ConMed) Establishment. Actually, we have become quite used to it. Hahnemann himself, 200 years ago, was under regular attack from the ConMed practitioners of his day! It is what happens, I suppose, when an effective and safe medical therapy is in 'minority', but threatens ConMed, which has always struggled to find treatment that was not totally ineffective, or dangerous - and it is now in serious trouble.

When ARH members were discussing the 'consolidation' of the Medicines Act recently, one of our members wrote in with a heart-felt plea - to reject this particular attack, one of a series over recent years, and not to allow matters to rest. This is what she said:

Dear all!
I've been reading all your comments about Medicines Act Consolidation in the few past days, sometimes with disbelieve, but mostly with great concern, not just for homeopathy, or our businesses, but for the future of the humankind. 

I am very worried because some of you do not realize what is going on, and propose for waiting, and being decent and polite, and quiet above all.

I beg you not to be quiet, and not to wait! I beg you to shout, to write to your MPs three times a day, to go to the press and media, to go to the streets before it's too late.

You may think I'm being paranoid, but I live in Serbia, a country where it is too late already, where yesterday people elected a fascist for a president, where I practice homeopathy, illegally, because only (conventional) medical persons can practice.

I have practiced homeopathy for last 13 years, with over 2 years working with Helios, and some time practicing in Wales. I've also lived through starvation, war and bombing, none of which was my choice, but I used every possible way to stand against it. Mind you, one of Serbian dictators was overruled by the noise we all made by the whistles. Maybe it wasn't decent, certainly it wasn't quiet, but it worked against Milosevic.

There isn't a place on this planet where you can be safe or where you can avoid the consequences of not doing what is in your power to do NOW. Otherwise, what's next, who's next? 

* Compulsory vaccinations?
* GMO food?
* Poisoned water?
* Killing the people and animals, killing life? 

It is YOUR choice? If not, do something now, please.

Marija Mihajlov sent her 'love and hope to all' - but she sent us more than this through her message. She reminded us that we, as Homeopaths, cannot be content to treat people, and heal their illnesses and disease (although, of course we must continue to do so). We cannot just allow our opponents, and the vested interests they support, to attack us without responding vigorously.

Our health freedom is at stake here. Already, children are being removed from their parents because they refuse to allow them to have a vaccination. Already, a British MP is calling for compulsory vaccination. And in most parts of the UK, local NHS bureaucrats are stopping patients from gaining access to homeopathy - insisting they take ConMed drugs instead!

And perhaps Marija is right. If we meekly accept any of these things, we will not be facing an NHS which has become a monopoly supplier of ConMed treatment; but an NHS that goes one stage further;  and NHS that insists we do not even have the right to refuse dangerous vaccinations and drugs.

In 1776, Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence, foretold something of what is now happening:

"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to doctors and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic."

Medical freedom is increasingly under attack. You will note that one major objective of the 'Homeopathy Denialists', is to oppose 'Patient Choice'. They state that Homeopathy does not, and cannot work, ignoring all the evidence that surrounds them that it does, and insist that we are treated with toxic chemicals and surgery - because they are based on their version of 'science'.

So I ask you all, in Marija's words:

I beg you not to be quiet, and not to wait! I beg you to shout, to write to your MPs three times a day, to go to the press and media, to go to the streets before it's too late.

Steve Scrutton
Director, ARH

Friday, 18 May 2012

Health Debate (4) The Cost-Effectiveness of Big Pharma drugs

This blog was first published at the Homeopathy Safe Medicine blog

The cost of ConMed treatment is exorbitant, and always has been. Given its ineffectiveness, and also its inherent dangers, the issue of cost-effectiveness should now be considered. We have a National Health Service (NHS) that has cost us in excess of £110 billion in recent years. From its inauguration in 1947, costs have risen year-by-year - usually alongside claims that the service is 'under-funded'.

We also have a situation where the numbers of people suffering from chronic diseases, like Arthritis, Cancers of all types, Dementia, Depression, Autism, and disease linked to heart, kidneys, liver, have all increased, often exponentially. We suffer chronic disease now at epidemic levels.

If we then consider (just) the known, and admitted side-effects, adverse reactions, and disease-inducing effects (DIEs) of Big Pharma drugs, the link between increased expenditure on conventional medical (ConMed) treatment (largely drug based) and increasing costs becomes clear.

But, of course, this essential feature of the 'health debate' is rarely discussed by the mainstream Media. Nor is the performance of ConMed ever compared with other medical therapies, like homeopathy.

Why is this? And what kind of questions should the Media be asking if it had any intention of entering into "the Health Debate"? Perhaps these are just of few of them!
  • Why does the Media not ask searching questions about why Big Pharma drugs are so excessively expensive?
  • Why does the Media not focus on either or both side of the 'cost-effectiveness' question when it comes to ConMed drugs?
  • Why does the Media not ask questions about the link between increasing NHS expenditure, especially on Big Pharma drugs, and the rising levels of chronic disease?
  • Why has the NHS conducted so few comparative studies on the cost-effectiveness of ConMed, Homeopathy, and other CAM therapies?
  • Why are NHS resources spent almost totally on one medical discipline, ConMed? Why does the NHS not spend more money on Homeopathy, and other CAM therapies?
  • Why, despite massive annual increases in NHS spending in recent years, are ConMed health services still overstretched, and often, apparently, quite unable to cope with the demands of ill-health and disease?
When HRT (hormone replacement therapy) was found to cause breast cancer in 2002 (it was actually known to do so many, many years before that), prescriptions for the drug (once said to be a wonder drug, and entirely safe) was reduced massively. There followed, over the next few years, a major reduction in new breast cancer cases in the UK. Of course, the mainstream Media has barely mentioned this (and has since allowed the ConMed Establishment to claim that this reduction in breast cancer is part of its successful campaign against the disease). 

What this means, of course, is that ConMed treatment is not only expensive, in its own right, but it is expensive in that it creates other diseases, and treatment is then required for the new diseases! The pharmaceutical companies have developed a marvellous business structure! Their drugs treat disease; cause more disease; and so they then profit again from treating the new, iatrogenic, diseases.

The cost of some Big Pharma drugs is quite amazing. Several years ago there was a debate about the drug Herceptin, and whether it should be available, free of charge, on the NHS. Herceptin was said at the time to cost some £30,000 per person per year, and was designed to treat women with breast cancer. Many of these women, of course, would have been those who developed breast cancer as a result of taking HRT! The mainstream Media did not point at this time, either that the campaign for Herceptin was funded by the drug manufacturer; or that the drug had been known, for some years, to cause heart problems, and death. And so it continues

For the drug companies it is a profitable business. 

For many patients it is a personal disaster.
For the NHS, and the British taxpayer, it is a spiralling, out of control, bottomless pit.

The fifth part of this series will focus on the epidemic levels of chronic disease that we are now experiencing, and why burgeoning expenditure on ConMed treatments has not been able to cope with these epidemics.

If you would like to be informed when the fifth part of this series is published, why not become a 'follower', and sign up for this blog; or subscribe to it by email - and join the Health Debate.

Monday, 14 May 2012

The Health Debate (3). The safety of Big Pharma drugs

This blog was first published on the "Homeopathy Safe Medicine" blog by Steve Scrutton.

Many consumers of the mainstream Media, in all its many forms, believe that if there was a problem with the Big Pharma drugs, or the conventional medical (ConMed) treatment we were getting on the NHS, or if there was an health issue we should know about, the Media would tell us. Unfortunately, in matters of our health, this is just not so.

The dangerousness of Big Pharma drugs, to our health and wellbeing, has such a long and continuous history it should now be a matter of common knowledge to us all. The fact that it is not well-known is testimony to the abject failure of our Media to tell the truth about ConMed treatment, and its failure to enter fully into "the health debate".

If the Media were doing their job, they would be asking many questions about the safety of ConMed drugs, and it would be seeking to inform is readers, listeners and viewers, about the safety of ConMed treatment generally. They would be asking questions like these:
  • Is the ConMed Establishment telling us (the Media, and the general public) the full story about the dangers of the drugs currently being prescribed by our GPs through the NHS? And if not, why not?
  • The Media would not be content to parrot Big Pharma propaganda in presenting any new drug or vaccine as being ‘safe’? They would be aware of the long, and on-going  history of drug failure, and they would ask more questions about the side-effects, adverse reactions, and 'disease-inducing-effects' (DIEs) of any and all new drugs and vaccines. As it is, the Media rarely, if ever, brings to our attention the history of Big Pharma drug failure on grounds of patient safety.
  • Why is the public not being told at an earlier stage by the Media about the potential seriousness of the problems with each Big Pharma drug? Information about the dangerousness of drugs is usually well known many years before the Media reports it (that is, if they bother to report it at all). Why does the mainstream Media leave it to small magazines like 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' (WDDTY), and internet magazines like 'Natural News' to publicise this information, who have this information often many years before the drug is eventually banned or restricted, and the mainstream Media bother to report it?
  • Why is the mainstream Media failing to ask questions about the dangers to patients of the drugs and vaccines currently being prescribed by the ConMed Establishment? Why are they not investigating, and telling us about these dangers, and how serious they are? When drugs and vaccines are found to be dangerous, why are conventional doctors not asked what patients can, and should do in order to protect themselves?
  • Why does the Media not ask searching questions about the relationship between the serious epidemic rise of chronic disease, in all its many forms, and the Big Pharma drugs and vaccines that are probably a significant cause of such diseases? Why are they not asking questions about whether, and to what extend, ConMed drugs and vaccines are the cause death? Why does the Media fail to investigate the links between these modern epidemics with the massive increase in drug and vaccine consumption?
  • Why does the Media fail completely to ask questions about alternative medical therapies, such as homeopathy, what these therapies can offer, and whether they are safer, firstly, by not causing disease, and secondly, in the treatment of illness and disease?
  • Indeed, why does the mainstream Media consistently seek to criticise, undermine and attack alternative medical therapies - usually in line with the thoughts and interests of the Conventional Medical Establishment?
Drugs are regularly withdrawn from the market, because they have been found to be dangerous. Yet rarely is this reported in the mainstream media. 

Drug companies are consistently found guilty in US courts, and heavily fined, as a result of their drugs being unsafe and dangerous. Yet rarely is this reported in the mainstream media.

Drug companies, in recent years, have regularly been associated with corrupt or illegal practices in the testing, promotion and selling of their drugs. Yet rarely is this reported in the mainstream media.

The failure of the mainstream Media to report on these matters is a failure to work in the best interests of its paying customers, who are, of course, also patients and consumers of ConMed treatment. The Media seems completely unconcerned about the damage being done to its readers, listeners and viewers by ConMed! Indeed, the Media appears to be more interested in reporting 'positive' news about conventional medicine, and ignoring any news that is in any way 'negative' to their vested interests. 

It is perhaps time that the Media begins to ask itself the question: in whose interests, are they working when reporting on matters of health!

The fourth part of this series will look at the cost-effectiveness of ConMed drugs and treatments, and looking at the questions the Media fails to ask about this.

If you would like to be informed when the fourth part of this series is published, why not become a 'follower', and sign up for this blog; or subscribe to it by email - and join the Health Debate.

Wednesday, 9 May 2012

The Health Debate (2) The effectiveness of Big Pharma drugs

This blog was first posted on

So what are the elements of the health debate that the mainstream media is refusing to consider, and almost entirely ignoring? What are the questions that an open, honest and 'free' media should be informing us, and asking searching questions about?
The first question that the Media should be researching and discussing with the public concerns the the effectiveness of Big Pharma drugs, and ConMeds claims for them.

Drug Effectiveness
  • Why are there so many ‘good news’ stories coming from the Conventional Medical (ConMed) Establishment? And why is the Media happy merely to slavishly report Big Pharma news releases without serious question. Indeed, why does the Media continually fail to question how realistic, or how honest ConMed's claims are for its drugs and treatments?
  • What is known about the effectiveness of current Big Pharma drugs, and other ConMed treatments, being prescribed to us, in ever-increasing amounts, through our GPs, and the National Health Service (NHS)? Why is research that raises questions about drug effectiveness is routinely ignored by the Media?
  • Are the claims for ConMed drugs and treatments reflected in real patient outcomes? And If such treatments are as effective as the Media is happy to report them to be, why should the levels of chronic disease continue to increase in such epidemic proportions in this country?
  • Why are so many ConMed drugs eventually found to be ineffective, although usually only after being prescribed to patients for many years, often at great expense to the public purse? 
  • Why does the Media not ask why Drug Testing procedures, and the statutory process of Drug Regulation, both regularly fail to discover that pharmaceutical drugs are ineffective, and why are they apparently unable to do so before the drugs were introduced and marketed?
  • Why is it that the Media is content, regularly, to report Big Pharma propaganda concerning new 'medical breakthroughs' that promise effective new drugs - in 5, 10, or even 15 years time? And why does the Media not ask what has happened to the medical breakthroughs, and ‘effective’ drugs, announced 5, 10 and 15 years ago?
  • Why, if Big Pharma drugs are so successful in treating illness and disease, has there been epidemic increases in a wide variety of chronic disease (Arthritis, Heart disease, Alzheimers, Autism, Depression, et al) during the past 50-60 years?
  • Why does the Media not tell us when ConMed drugs and treatments, during their lifetime, are reported to be failing. Indeed, why does the Media often fail to tell us about the failure of ConMed treatments when they are found to be useless, and are withdrawn?
  • If ConMed treatment cannot deal with disease effectively, what can alternative therapies, such as homeopathy, offer patients for treating their illnesses and diseases. How effective are these alternative treatments, especially when outcomes are compared with ConMed drug treatment?
These issues are regularly raised in this blog, and indeed, elsewhere on the internet, and in magazines such as 'What Doctors Don't Tell You'. 

However, they are rarely, if ever raised or discussed within the mainstream media

The third part of this series will focus on the safety of Big Pharma drugs, and other forms of ConMed treatment. Whilst the effectiveness of treatment is crucial, the safety of treatment is more important. Ineffective treatment raises hopes, and wastes out time. It also costs the country vast sums of money. But if medical treatment is also unsafe, it it causes illness and disease, if it can actually lead to death, then this is even more serious, and the failure of the Media to tell us, more shameful. Part Three will be published soon.

If you would like to be informed when the third part of this series is published, why not become a 'follower', and sign up for this blog; or subscribe to it by email - and join the Health Debate.

Tuesday, 8 May 2012

The Health Debate (1) Why the mainstream media is refusing to take part?

This blog was first published at

“I am taking this pharmaceutical drug for my condition. It is working really well, and has been now for some years. I feel really healthy, indeed back to my old self. So I am quite happy taking the drug as I am sure it is doing me no harm. Indeed, I am happy to take it for the rest of my life.”

Well, when was the last time you heard anyone taking Big Pharma drugs say this with any conviction? Most people have become weary of the serious 'disease-inducing-effects' (DIEs) of most conventional medical (or ConMed) drugs. 
There is a growing realisation that whilst these drugs may appear to be effective over a short period of time, the underlying condition is rarely, if ever, treated effectively. Many people have to take the drug for a lifetime, increasing the likelihood of its DIEs. Many have to take other drugs, often to deal with the DIEs created by the first one. And as drug effectiveness tends to decline with time, or the patient becomes addicted to the drug, the underlying illness is not being addressed.
So patients don't feel well, and they don't get well; indeed, their illness or illnesses seem to get progressively worse.

So it is perhaps not surprising that there is a significant, and growing number of people who no longer have confidence in what the ConMed Establishment (doctors, the NHS, the Government, and Big Pharma companies) are telling us. Instead, they begin to look for safer, more effective, drug-free medical treatment for their illnesses.

This is what constitutes "the health debate". It is going on within families throughout Britain, indeed throughout the entire western world - anywhere where health treatment is dominated by the Big Pharma drugs. 
Unfortunately, however, it is a very quiet debate as it is almost impossible to get any open, or transparent information into the mainstream media about what is really going on out here, in the world of health.
So for people who are looking for safer, more effective, drug-free treatment, it is a ‘debate’ that is just not happening.  

One problem is that the 'alternative medical world', such as the homeopathy community, has only a tiny voice, and it is a voice that is often marginalised and neglected by the Media. And of course, the voices raised against these small communities are loud and powerful, voices that seek to undermine and belittle the health debate, and the search for safe medical therapies. 

Foremost amongst these voices are the Big Pharma companies. Their power, influence and wealth is quite extraordinary. They have achieved almost total dominance within the National Health Service (NHS). In is now difficult to obtain any other form of treatment in our 'free' health service. Most of the 'medical experts’ working in the NHS are trained in, and totally committed to, drug-based medicine. 
And the mainstream media appear to believe these are the only health experts that exist! 

The ConMed Establishment have powerful contacts within our parliament and successive Government. Big Pharma, after all, is an important contributor to the UK economy, a major investor in industry and commerce, and a major employer. The story they want to project is that we are healthier now than we have ever been, and that are living longer - because of the success ConMed treatment.

Our so-called ‘Free’ Press and Media seems to be quite unable, and perhaps even unwilling to question or criticise the ConMed Establishment. Why? Perhaps because of the size of Big Pharma’s advertising budgets! Perhaps because those in charge of 'Big Corp' stick together, and support each other. Certainly, the social social influence of Big Pharma seems to have much to do with its wealth, and what (and perhaps who) that money can buy. Indeed, it seems to have very little to do with the ability to provide us with effective, safe or even cost-effective medicine!

Even the BBC, who are not dependent on advertising revenues, seem to be quite unable or unwilling to speak out - or even to allow a discussion on ‘the health debate’.

Yet despite this deafening silence from the mainstream media, interest in ‘non-drug’ therapies is increasing. People are moving away from ConMed, either through personal experience, or gleaning information from the dribs and drabs of information that the media cannot prevent reporting. Most important, people are resorting to the internet, and to blogs like this one, to find information about health. 

So despite the reluctance of the mainstream media to engage in "the health debate", information about the dangers of ConMed drugs and vaccines, and the people who have been damaged by them, is increasingly out here. The result is that people are now less inclined to believe in ConMed's claims of ‘miracle cures’, and the media's slavish adherence to them. People are becoming more aware that much of the illness, disease and death seen today, often at epidemic levels, has actually been caused by ConMed drugs.

So what are the components of "the health debate". What should the Media be discussing, but are choosing to ignore? I will deal with this in the second part of this series.

If you would like to be informed when the second part of this series is published, why not become a 'follower', and sign up for this blog; or subscribe to it by email - and join the Health Debate.