Normally I only post once a day, if that....BUT
FYI Blogaroonies -
For two weeks, January 6-19, 2008, T.J. Maxx stores throughout the United States will hold an in-store promotion to raise money for Joslin Diabetes Center's High Hopes Fund to help advance the fight against diabetes. This is the second year in a row that T.J. Maxx has hosted the promotion.
There are 850 T.J. Maxx stores nationwide. Last year's promotion raised more than $290,000 for the High Hopes Fund.
So now not only do you get the "Maxx for the minimum," but you get to raise some "dead presidents' for Diabetes. Could this mean that shopping for shoes could actually be considered a tax deduction?
Oh sweet mystery of life!
"First do no harm". A test Conventional Medicine regularly fails
Primum non nocere, or "First do no harm" is supposed to be a central feature of medical practice, enshrined within the Hippocratic Oath. Regular readers of this blog will know that conventional, drug/vaccine dominated medicine flouts this rule all the time, often with disastrous effects on our health and well-being.
Yet "First do no harm" is also a film made in 1997, starring Meryl Streep. It is a film about a young boy who develops epilepsy, and the efforts of his mother to seek safer and more effective treatment for him after conventional medical treatment proves to be not only ineffective, but seriously harmful, dangerous and life-threatening.
Yet "First do no harm" is also a film made in 1997, starring Meryl Streep. It is a film about a young boy who develops epilepsy, and the efforts of his mother to seek safer and more effective treatment for him after conventional medical treatment proves to be not only ineffective, but seriously harmful, dangerous and life-threatening.
This is a well-known, and oft-repeated situation. Most people will probably have witnessed something similar with people they know after the medical treatment.
The patient starts with a simple, often trivial complaint, and they take conventional drugs to treat it (or vaccines to prevent it), and far from being a benefit, the 'side-effects' of the treatment actually causes more serious harm to health, and more serious illness. (See my ebook, Drug Induced Illness).
So it is interesting to follow the progression of this particular story, which is based on actual events.
The reason for Robbie (the child) developing epilepsy is not mentioned. Epilepsy is known to result from a simple Vitamin D deficiency. Or it can be caused by stress. But conventional pharmaceutical drugs, like cough medicines, anti-histamines, antidepressants and antibiotics, are also known to cause epilepsy!
The patient starts with a simple, often trivial complaint, and they take conventional drugs to treat it (or vaccines to prevent it), and far from being a benefit, the 'side-effects' of the treatment actually causes more serious harm to health, and more serious illness. (See my ebook, Drug Induced Illness).
So it is interesting to follow the progression of this particular story, which is based on actual events.
The reason for Robbie (the child) developing epilepsy is not mentioned. Epilepsy is known to result from a simple Vitamin D deficiency. Or it can be caused by stress. But conventional pharmaceutical drugs, like cough medicines, anti-histamines, antidepressants and antibiotics, are also known to cause epilepsy!
Diagnosis
Robbie is subjected to a variety of tests - a CT scan, a lumbar puncture, and an electroencephalogram, and he is diagnosed with epilepsy.
The problems with the diagnosis of epilepsy is that is is notoriously unreliable. The British Medical Journal reported in 2003 (326: 355) that epilepsy was misdiagnosed in about one-third of cases. It is interesting to note what what the magazine, What Doctors Don't Tell (WDDTY) said about this BMJ article:
Antiepileptic Drugs
Immediately, drugs were prescribed for Robbie, beginning with Phenobarbital. This is an 'old' anticonvulsant drug with well known Disease-Inducing-Effects (DIEs), including cognitive impairment and behaviour problems.
When this drug failed he is moved on to Phenytoin (Dilantin), a drug known to cause decreased co-ordination, mental confusion, and many other serious DIEs. For a list of the serious DIEs caused by this drug, click here.
Then, when this drug did not work, he was given Carbamazepine (Tegretol). The DIEs of this drug are probably even worse, and a list can be found by clicking here.
It is not just that these drugs did not work. Ineffectiveness is certainly one common feature of conventional medical drugs. But causing actual bodily harm, and serious harm to health, is another. After each drug it becomes quite clear that Robbie's health is actually getting worse, and that the cause of this deterioration was his medication. His epilepsy gets worse, and he develops a serious rash, known as Stevens-Johnson syndrome.
The parents begin to understand that their son may become a vegetable as a result of the drugs he is being given, particularly when he goes into 'status epilepticus' - a continuous convulsive seizure that had to be stopped as a medical emergency. This was done by giving Robbie increasing doses of Diazepam (Valium) even though it does no good, even when given intravenously!
Eventually he is given Paraldehyde. In the film this drug is said to have possible fatal 'side-effects', and was seen to dramatically melt a plastic cup in which it had been placed! On this website, one of the DIEs is given as convulsions!
At some point we really should be asking what this medicine is all about, and whether the doctors who are using it really know what they are doing!
At some point we really should be asking what this medicine is all about, and whether the doctors who are using it really know what they are doing!
The failure of drugs led the neurologist in the film to suggest that Robbie should have surgery, involving the removal of the top of his skull, and inserting electrodes on the surface of the brain - to get a more accurate location of any seizure focus. His mother is aghast.
Meryl Streep, the mother, undertakes some library study, and through this discovers another treatment - the Ketogenic Diet. She suggests this to the neurologist, who says 'there is no evidence' to support it. By this the doctor meant that there have been no Randomised, Controlled Tests (RCTs) undertaken on it. The treatment, she said, was supported only by 'anecdotal' evidence - by which she meant that although individuals have been cured by the diet the drug companies had not carried out RCTs on it, and so, for the neurologist this was not 'evidence.
Later in the film, the neurologist was reminded of the uncomfortable fact that there were no RCTs on many of the drug treatments she had already used for Danny!
Later in the film, the neurologist was reminded of the uncomfortable fact that there were no RCTs on many of the drug treatments she had already used for Danny!
There is, of course, lots of money involved in peddling pharmaceutical drugs, but few profits, if any, for cures which involve diet. So such alternatives are not favoured by the conventional medical establishment.
Robbie's mother determines to get her son to the John Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, where the Ketogenic diet was being used.
First she tried to secrete him out of the hospital, but was stopped, and warned that by doing this she could risk losing custody of her son, as the courts (heavily influenced by 'conventional medical advice' of course, might believe she is putting her son's health at risk by refusing conventional medical treatment.
However, with the help of a retired doctor, and a sympathetic nurse (far more help than would be available to the average parent) she does manage to take Robbie to Baltimore, and he is given the Ketogenic diet. The seizures begin to improve, and are eventually eliminated, and his mental faculties are restored.
Apparently the factual basis of this story arises from the experience of the film's editor, and the main question is asked was why he was not told about this treatment. He was apparently outraged that nobody had informed him of the diet, even when it was clear that the drugs were not working.
The Ketogenic diet was first develop by Russell Wilder, at the Mayo Clinic, in 1921. Although it was initially popular, it decline when new, 'effective' drugs (like Phenytoin) were discovered in the later 1930s, early 1940's - that is, the drugs that were used in the film with Robbie!
Wikipedia claims that, since the film, the diet is now being used in 75 epilepsy centres, in 45 countries. However, NHS Choices have a different story to tell!
Wikipedia claims that, since the film, the diet is now being used in 75 epilepsy centres, in 45 countries. However, NHS Choices have a different story to tell!
"Anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) are usually the first choice of treatment. About 70% of people with epilepsy have their seizures controlled with AEDs".
So let it never be said that the NHS, our doctors, and the Conventional Medical Establishment generally, do not use drugs whenever there is an opportunity to do so! Moreover, let us observe here that even when there are safer and more effective alternatives that can be used, drugs still remain the preferred option! Indeed, diet is mentioned on NHS Choices almost as an after-thought!
"Sometimes, a special diet is used for children whose seizures are difficult to control and do not respond to drug treatment.
"Sometimes, a special diet is used for children whose seizures are difficult to control and do not respond to drug treatment.
Patients seeking treatment within the Conventional Medical Establishment - beware!
Freckled Finger Tips
My fingers tips are freckled with dots.
Dots that rest on callouses
Calluses caused by continually pricking them with a lance
Which pierces my finger tips for a blood drop
A blood drop that is placed on a strip
A strip that is placed in a machine
A machine that's a quick study
5 seconds later a number appears
If the number is high, I feel tired and guilty
I bolus accordingly
If the number is low
I already know before it appears,
I shake, sweat, and feel light headed
My appetite is insatiable
Quickly I grab the juice box
And I try my best to remember the rule
15 carbs at a time to treat a low blood sugar - yeah right!
If it's in the golden range of Blood Sugar Nirvana
I'm proud and relieved
Until the cycle starts all over again
It never ends
I find test strips everywhere
In places they were never meant to be
The type 3's in my life yell at me regarding my test strip trail
I will never be a hand model...But that's Ok
Life is sweet and I go with the flow
Dots that rest on callouses
Calluses caused by continually pricking them with a lance
Which pierces my finger tips for a blood drop
A blood drop that is placed on a strip
A strip that is placed in a machine
A machine that's a quick study
5 seconds later a number appears
If the number is high, I feel tired and guilty
I bolus accordingly
If the number is low
I already know before it appears,
I shake, sweat, and feel light headed
My appetite is insatiable
Quickly I grab the juice box
And I try my best to remember the rule
15 carbs at a time to treat a low blood sugar - yeah right!
If it's in the golden range of Blood Sugar Nirvana
I'm proud and relieved
Until the cycle starts all over again
It never ends
I find test strips everywhere
In places they were never meant to be
The type 3's in my life yell at me regarding my test strip trail
I will never be a hand model...But that's Ok
Life is sweet and I go with the flow
Militant Skepticism and Homeopathy: what do they have to say?
"The fate of militant skepticism, whatever it may be, will drift apart from the serious business of doing science. After all, no scientific discovery was ever made by negative thinking. There has to be an open-minded curiosity and a willingness to break new ground, while the militant skeptics represent the exact opposite: they are dedicated to the suppression of curiosity and protecting rigid boundaries of 'real' science".
I have noticed that a group of 'Homeopathy Denialists', Militant Skeptics all of them, are now contacting me through my Twitter feeds about Homeopathy. It is not edifying reading, mainly abusive, certainly nothing interesting or informative, and usually not justifying a response. (See also my previous blog outling the activities of these people).
Certainly, the only reason for writing this particular blog is to highlight, through their comments, how little they have to say, how little of importance they have to contribute to the health debate! Here are just a few examples of what they say - usually to my tweeting of new information and research on medical issues!
- @stevescrutton is a blivot. Namely: 2cwt of wet manure in a 1cwt bag (Guy Chapman)
- Hilarious that @stevescrutton thinks toxicity of paracetamol is a secret! Ignorant cunt (Guy Chapman)
- DANGEOURS bullshit (Guy Chapman).
- Homeopathy = bonanza of fallacies (Edzard Ernst).
- Homeopathy Quack Medicine (Edzard Ernst).
- You do know @stevescrutton you are an idiot. Not to mention a congenital liar (Edzard Ernst)
- Scrutton should be in jail for manslaughter. Utter hogwash. ..eg, of danger of believing in homeopathy (David Colquhoun).
- What an utterly stupid and irresponsible thing to even suggest, let alone actually do (Paul Morgan)
- A clueless article! No idea whatsoever (Paul Morgan).
- Maybe you and the Health Danger should do a little research before tweeting. May make look marginally less stupid (Paul Morgan).
- Utter hogwash. Another example of the danger of believing in homeopathy (Paul Morgan).
- No, homeopathy is just placebo. Again, stupid and irresponsible treatment suggestion. Dangerous (Paul Morgan).
- Yep. homeopathy is delusion (Spelling Patrol).
- Do you believe in miracles then? It'd take a full miracle to make either do research or look less stupid (Dragon Blaze).
- Disappointed to see that @stevescrutton is still a thing (?????) (Birmingham Skeptics).
- Homeopathy is for fuckwits and rip off scammers (Cycling Mikey).
So not much enlightenment there, then, and certainly a complete paucity of useful information! Just statements of blind prejudice, expressed by people who seem more able to write abusively than take part in a proper discussion about health issues!
Who are these Homeopathy Denialists? They are people who take every available opportunity to attack homeopathy, and indeed any other 'alternative' medical therapies, such as Natureopathy, Acupuncture, Osteopathy, Chiropractic, and many more. Like this comment...
Homeopathy is the biggest scam next to the blood suckers that claim there is a god" (Lee Spaner).
Why do they oppose Homeopathy?
They claim that Homeopathy does not work, that it cannot work, and that there is no evidence that it works. In order to maintain this position they ignore any evidence demonstrating that it does work, and that it has been, and continues to be responsible for curing millions of patients, throughout the world, for over 200 years now.
Homeopathy has a long history of effective treatment with patients, with every known illness or disease.
But homeopathy denialists dismiss any 'individual' case of successful treatment or cure as 'anecdotal'. They claim to accept only the evidence provided by ‘Randomised Controlled Testing’ (RCTs) - which they equate with 'science'. However, there are two types of RCT that they refuse to consider:
- They ignore all the RCT evidence that demonstrates that Homeopathy does work - and there are now over 300 that proves this very point.
- And they ignore the fact that each and every one of the disastrous conventional drugs and vaccines, now withdrawn or banned, that are now known to have caused disease and death, have all been 'proven' by RCTs.
Indeed, homeopathy denialists deny even the future possibility of scientific evidence for homeopathy. For instance, 'Dragon Blaze' gave this response to evidence that was explaining the working mechanism of homeopathy: "Not going to happen, as there's no science that could prove homeo, especially not QM". And Bee Rational, who told me that "homeopathy is safe because it has no active, therapeutic ingredient. This is also why it doesn't work.
Clearly, homeopathy denialists support the Conventional Medical Establishment. They certainly claim to support what they call 'evidence-based medicine', and they state unequivocally that only conventional, drug-based medicine is based on 'evidence'. And they clearly don't like anyone who speaks against conventional, drug-based medicine.Are they supporters of conventional, drug based medicine?
"Oh dear, @stevescrutton, you're a homeopath and an anti-vaxer" (Rah).
When I blog, tweet, or use Facebook to provide evidence of the failure, and the dangerousness of drugs and vaccines, even when I highlight the fraudulent activities of Big Pharma companies over the testing, regulation, promotion of drugs and vaccines, there is total, deafening silence.
There are a few, rather pathetic exceptions to this general rule. Paul Morgan attempted to defend Paracetamol.
"Oh dear! Paracetamol OD has been popular suicide attempt method for years! Unbelievably ignorant if you think this is news".
Why Denialism is such a strange activity?
Most people will support the causes they believe in, and the stronger their belief, the stronger their support - quite rightly. The peculiarity of Denialism is that their enthusiasm shows that they are 'against' something rather than 'for' something.
What do Denialists have to say?
When their activity is analysed it becomes clear that they have only one, very simple message - Homeopathy does not work. Yet even when you examine the evidence they use to support their beliefs (they claim to be interested in science) - there just isn't any!
- They use humour (which I admit is sometimes quite funny, if a little pointless, and ill-informed). Alan Henness is particularly inspired by laughter!
- Hilarious drivel
- LOL!
- Here is a list of diseases that can be safely and effectively treated by homeopathy……………………………………………... That is all.
- And this from Antonio Johnson: "Homeopathy is the second most used healthcare system? You mean after medicine?
- And this response from Clay Jones. If homeopathy qualifies as system of healthcare then so is prayer or crossing your fingers.
- Well, I guess we all need to get our water and sugar from somewhere (Mark Chatterly).
- How Homeopathy helps our family to lose money on over-priced sugar (Edzard Ernst).
- Convinced that homeopathy does not work, they proceed to say that anyone who says that Homeopathy does work is making 'dangerous' and 'misleading' statements, which, of course, would be correct (and if they had any evidence to support the initial premise - which they fail to provide).
- No, it isn't. Homeopathy = a failure to act. DANGER (Carnum Marcus-Page).
- have you read the page on whooping cough? dangerous nonsense (Jonathan Mason).
- Whooping Cough. Homeopathy more effective than conventional medical treatment << DANGEOURS bullshit (Guy Chapman).
- Autism and Homeopathy - should not be mentioned in the same sentence (Edzard Ernst).
- Homeopathy and cancer: stupid, malicious or criminal? Edzard Ernst.
- What?! How dare any homeopath quack go near a breast cancer sufferer or any ill person for that matter (Vix+ Comquat).
- I beat breast cancer. I'd like to say Thank you to medical science & a big Fuck you to (Amy Sloman). I know many people who have survived cancer via homeopathy; they would not dream of making such a nasty and abusive comment about conventional medicine, or conventional medics.
- I know of two active prosecutions for Cancer Act. Now is not a good time to push your luck (Guy Chapman).
And Malaria is another disease that gets the homeopathy denialist going! This is the blog that caused the problem for the denialists!
- You're off message. Even @SOHhomeoapthy admits homeopathy can't prevent malaria. Mendacious quack! (Guy Chapman)
- Anti-malaria drug. Liar. It's just not recommended for oral use any more. Do you even read your own nonsense? (Mark McAndrew).
- No dear chap, it's because doctors don't want people to die from the ignorance and lies - unlike you. How's your malaria? (Mark McAndrew).
- In all this, homeopathy denialists always make an implicit assumption - that conventional medical treatments are both safe and effective, and that therefore, to suggest any other form of treatment diverts or prevents patients from seeking it. Of course, what this denies is that increasingly people are turning away from conventional drugs and vaccines, and looking for safer, more effective treatments.
- Whilst all this would suggest that Denialists are making an argument in favour of conventional medical treatment. Yet, as I have already said, they never respond to any criticism that Conventional Medical treatment is at best ineffective, and at worst, highly dangerous to our health.
- And Homeopathy denialists always seem to want to engage in argument at a 'Pantomime' level. So if, for example, I say that "Homeopathy works": they respond with"Oh! No it doesn't!.
And by contacting me directly through Twitter I must assume they want me to continue the argument by saying "Oh! Yes it does!" I always refrain from doing so!
Who funds the activities of the Denialists?
The truth is that I don't know (and really, I must admit, I don't care) who funds these people. Much of their activity, and the views and opinions they express, run in parallel to the aims and objectives of the organisation "Sense about Science" (SaS), which itself is largely funded by Big Pharma money, and which supports both the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines industry, and the GMO food industry.
Yet would the Pharmaceutical industry really want to fund the rather absurd and cretinous activity of Homeopathy Denialists?
If they do it would suggest that Big Pharma is becoming more desperate then they really need to be. In matters relating to health, Big Pharma interests (the Conventional Medical Establishment) already exercises virtually total control over the Government, the Department of Health, and the NHS, as well as the regulatory agencies such as the MHRA, and NICE.
And as far as the dissemination of information is concerned, Pharmaceutical interests still have a large measure of influence and control over the mainstream media, and what they say about health issues, as well as many other influential organisations, including the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
Indeed, the ASA is one of the latest vehicles being used to attack homeopathy ASA is currently seeking to control what Homeopaths can say about what homeopathy can offer to patients. As far as health issues are concerned, the ASA appears to be actively supporting a restraint of trade - certainly as far as the practice of medicine is concerned!
Homeopathy Denialists are making much about the fact that the ASA has recently said that my own personal website breaks their advertising rules. ASA's stance is that they do not believe there is any evidence supporting Homeopathy (mirroring the views of SaS, and the Denialists), and that as a result homeopaths cannot make any claim for 'treating' illness, or 'curing' disease - despite the fact that this is the only thing homeopathy does!
ASA does not accept the evidence of successfully treated, or cured patients (mirroring the views of SaS and Denialists). And ASA does not accept the RCTs that demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy (mirroring the views of SaS and the Denialists). So these are just some of the comments coming my way!
ASA does not accept the evidence of successfully treated, or cured patients (mirroring the views of SaS and Denialists). And ASA does not accept the RCTs that demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy (mirroring the views of SaS and the Denialists). So these are just some of the comments coming my way!
- Still peddling that mendacious nonsense, Steve? How's the ASA viewing it?" (Guy Chapman)
- You are breathtakingly stupid. Trading Standards are now ASA's legal backstop and they CAN AND WILL prosecute Cancer Act (Guy Chapman).
- Yes. ASA need to initiate prosecutions against @stevescrutton for repeated breaches of CAP (Paul Morgan).
- I second @SceptiGuy assertion that you are dim indeed. #Homeopathy is #bunk AND the ASA WILL prosecute (CaPPsiE).
So have I broken the rules of ASA? In terms of the way ASA are currently interpreting their rules in relation to Homeopathy, and other alternative medical therapies, I most certainly am, and will continue to do so. Why?
I will do so in the interests of defending Health Freedom, and promoting Informed Patient Choice.
Homeopathy denialists wish to continue the health monopoly currently enjoyed by the conventional medical establishment. I am opposed to it. Too many people are suffering from drugs and vaccines that are largely ineffective, and certainly dangerous - indeed, drugs and vaccines that our conventional doctors know to be dangerous.
The public has a right to know. And so I will not be silenced by militant skeptics.
