Obat Diabetes

Most people accept conventional drugs and vaccines because they believe them to effective for the purpose they are being taken, and also safe.

By and large patients believe them to be safe because each drug, and each vaccine, has gone through a process that has found them to be effective and safe. The logic, for most patients, is simple:

"We are not medically trained, so we trust what our doctors tell us. We trust them because they are assisted and guided by the NHS. And in turn, the NHS is funded by the Department of Health, and the Government. 

"Surely, we reason, this is assurance enough that the medication we are given by our GP is both effective and safe".

We are further assured that conventional drugs and vaccines go through a process of testing and monitoring which is designed to ensure that they are suitable for us.


Yet is this trust well placed? Is the Conventional Medical Establishment one that can be trusted with our health, and our lives? Can we rely on it to protect us from dangerous drugs and vaccines?

Or has the Conventional Medical Establishment placed itself entirely in the hands of the big, profitable and highly influential drug companies? Have financial and economic interests perverted conventional health care, and removed the central focus from patient safety to the viability of Big Pharma?

Lucija Tomljenovic, in her paper, "The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?" certainly suggests that our trust is misplaced. In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:

• Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;

• Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;

• On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations; 

• Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies; 

• Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits; 

• Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted; 

• Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues; 

• Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage; 

Many people, young and old, healthy or not, will be under pressure to have the flu vaccine. It happens every Autumn. Conventional health authorities, including our own trusted GP's, will imply that the vaccine is effective, and they will tell us that it is safe. Other organisations, even your church, may also join in the promotion! So what is the evidence?

First. How serious is influenza? And do we really need protection from it?
Influenza used to be a killer disease, particularly in times when poor housing and poverty reduced our resistance to it. The Conventional Medical Establishment still believes that the flu is a major killer, particularly when they want us to have the flu vaccine!  So the dangers of influenza are massaged: we are subjected to a kind of 'dodgy dossier', Iraq style!

Influenza Deaths: The Hype vs. the Evidence. This article outlines how selling big flu mortality numbers assist in selling the vaccine. It asks whether there are 200,000 or just 30,000 hospitalisations in the USA through flu. It shows how flu deaths are inflated by including many other conditions in the figures. And it shows how deaths through influenza have been dropping for many decades now.

This article examines similar information - and concludes that the threat of influenza is not as real as the conventional medical establishment wants you to think! The CDC, accused of lying here, is the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, based in the USA. This is what they say about themselves.

"For over 60 years, CDC has been dedicated to protecting health and promoting quality of life through the prevention and control of disease, injury, and disability. We are committed to programs that reduce the health and economic consequences of the leading causes of death and disability, thereby ensuring a long, productive, healthy life for all people.

Noble aims indeed, but 'lying' about the seriousness of influenza is not mentioned as part of their task. So if they have, why have they done so? The CDC are just one of those supposedly 'independent' health organisations that actually speak with, alongside, and always in harmony, with the Big Pharma companies, and promote their values and objectives.

What official government, and supposedly independent health bodies say, therefore, cannot be trusted. We first need to know their links with Big Pharma, both in financial and personnel terms.

Second. Is the flu vaccine effective?
Even if the threat of influenza is not as serious as we are usually told, it is still an unpleasant disease. So does the vaccine reduce the risk of suffering serious influenza? It would appear that only the Conventional Medical Establishment believes this. Most evidence points in quite another direction!


This study published in the Cochrane Library found no evidence of benefit for influenza vaccinations. It also damns the quality of flu vaccine studies by saying that the vast majority of trials were inadequate.


This study refers to 'authoritative reviews' that reveal there is a 'conspicuous absence of conclusive evidence' about effectiveness of influenza vaccines in the following groups: 

• children under 2, 
• healthy adults, 
• the elderly, 
• and healthcare workers who care for the elderly.

The flu vaccine is worthless. This article brings together a large number of statistics, studies and observations about the lack of effectiveness of the flu vaccine. It also looks at some of the dangers of the flu vaccines.

What is probably equally alarming is that the Medical industry has admitted that current flu shots are useless - so despite their sales pitch promoting it, at least parts of the industry itself, perhaps the more honest parts, admit that the flu shot is useless. The article states that the flu vaccines currently used "do not actually promote natural immunity", and asks the important question: "if current flu shots do not boost the immune response, then what, exactly, are they good for"?

"Not much, according to a recent study published in The Lancet. Though the mainstream media widely reported that the study's findings showed an effectiveness rate of 60 percent for flu shots, actual data in the study reveal that flu shots help about 1.5 out of every 100 adults. This, of course, translates into a measly 1.5 percent effectiveness rate".


Yet there is another issue. The value of flu vaccines is not just a matter of whether they are effective, but do they actually make matters worse!


Does the annual flu vaccine increase your chances of getting flu? This article actually examines this question. It found that the vaccines actually compromised natural immunity, and can double the chance of actually contracting 'another type of flu'.

This article confirms this finding, Flu Vaccine INCREASES Risk of Serious Pandemic Flu Illness, focusing on information from the Canadian media. This article, Study finds flu shot really did make people sicker, goes over similar information.

And finally, when there is an epidemic of flu, this study indicates that it is those people who have been vaccinated who are struck down by it! In what they call 'the dirty little secret of the vaccine industry', "most people getting the flu right now are the same people who were vaccinated with the flu shot".

"The CDC refuses to release any statistics on this, of course, because then the total hoax of the flu shot would be exposed. But I've been making phone calls to a large network of friends and professional contacts, and they're all telling me the same thing: Of the people they know who are getting sick, about two-thirds routinely get flu shots!
Reading all this evidence together strongly suggests that the flu vaccine is, indeed, useless. Yet, if the vaccines were just useless that would be bad enough. However, what is becoming increasingly clear is that they are also extremely injurious to our health.


Third. What diseases can the influenza vaccines cause?
The Conventional Medical Establishment will not tell us about any of this. Take a look at the NHS Choices website on Influenza, which, quite remarkably, does not say anything about the side-effects, or adverse reactions to the vaccine! Yet, as the following articles indicate, the flu vaccines appear to be one of the most dangerous being offered to us.


Children’s flu vaccine weakens immune system. Our immune system is central to the maintenance of our health. Even conventional medics know this - but here they are promoting a vaccine that has been linked to weakening it - thus leaving us more vulnerable to all kinds of illnesses and diseases.

This article outlines a study that found that the flu vaccines triples rates of hospitalisation of children in the USA.

Narcolepsy: I have recently dealt with the problem with the disease - already admitted by our government, and announced in the British Medical Journal. Narcolepsy is becoming a serious problem, which looks likely to produce a serious epidemic of this previously rare disease, if the vaccines are not withdrawn or banned soon.

This article focuses on a study that found that flu vaccines can damage your heart, as well as fetus' and infants, and asks whether the "theoretical benefits really outweigh the known harms".

This article says that Americans who had flu vaccine ran risk of developing 'paralysis disorders'. This refers mainly to Guillain-Barre Syndrome, or GBS - widely and increasingly linked to vaccines.


".... researchers found that among the 23 million people who were vaccinated during the scare, an additional 1.6 cases of GBS were observed per one million people vaccinated".


Febrile convulsions have also been linked to one flu vaccine in Australia.
"The rate of febrile seizures following Flavax ..... was estimated at approximately 1 per 100 doses administered among children aged six months through four years old."

As a result of this amazing rate of harm, the Australian government (who in recent years have supported mandatory medication) withdrew the vaccine - but only for children under 5 years old!



Fourth. Death?
There appears to be little doubt that the flu vaccines can cause death, and indeed, it can almost certainly cause death to a greater degree than influenza itself!

This article sets the scene about the 'deadly risks of the flu vaccine. Flu shots are medical procedures that come with deadly risks.


"In searching the year 2011 on the CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System website - (http://vaers.hhs.gov/index) - it was found that 51 deaths were caused by the flu vaccines, along with 232 life threatening events, 116 permanent disabilities, 739 hospitalizations, 109 prolonged hospitalizations, 4,039 ER visits, and 6,221 "not serious" reports. According to the National Vaccine Information Center, fewer than one percent of all adverse vaccine reactions are ever reported. If this is true, you can add two zeros to any of the above figures to be closer to actual numbers..... Flu shots kill and maim. As stated above, 30% of flu vaccinations come with adverse reactions, and about 6% of all adverse reactions bring with them serious health events - including death". 

Yet rather than making this a matter of stark and impersonal statistics, these following examples demonstrate the more human aspects of these 'deadly risks'.


Death by Flu Shot. 7 Year-Old Receives Flu Vaccine; Dies 4 Days Later. Here is an alarming story, and a deep family tragedy from the USA.

Healthy 7 Year Old Girl Dies in Mother’s Arms After Flu Shot.

Three deaths linked to flu vaccines in Ireland

But perhaps the most frightening statistic relating to deaths caused by the flu vaccines is the 4,250% increase in fetal deaths reported to VAERS after the Flu Vaccine was given to pregnant women. You will see that on the NHS Choices website there is some mention of pregnant women. But they do not make any mention this awful statistic.

The duplicity of doctors and other health professionals.
So have you made up your mind? Do you think having the flu vaccine is something worth doing?

Well, doctors and other health professionals appear to have made up their minds - and most of them, two-thirds, are actually refusing the vaccine - despite frantic efforts to 'encourage' and cajole them into doing so. Most UK medics refusing flu vaccines - Medical Officer resorts to bullying.

So doctor's the very people who are encouraging us to have the vaccine, are not prepared to have it themselves. You may ask why this is!

The more homeopathy denialists attack homeopathy, the more we should all ask the question - what is their venom all about. I wrote this initially in September 2011, and with the recent attack on Homeopathy by the Chief Medical Officer (February 2013), it remains relevant.

The latest attack comes from part of the Conventional Medical (ConMed) Establishment - the BMJ. Dr Brian Kaplan has written an apt response to this gratuitous attack - and I am blogging it here as it speaks so well about what is happening.

I agree with Brian completely - this is an attack on our liberty. And it is an attack supported and funded by the sectional, and vested interests of the Big Pharmaceutical companies.

"The denialists, detractors and critics of homeopathy were back in action this week.  In a critical letter to the BMJ protesting against the Government seeking advice (sic) from experts on the registration of homeopathic products. Referring to homeopathy as ‘naked quackery’ and ‘pseudoscience’, the letter was written by Susan Bewley (an obstetrician) ‘on behalf’ of a list of names including the usual suspects, Ernst, Baum, Rose etc.) It seems the letter section of the BMJ has become a popular forum for these doctors to spout their vituperative, amateur homilies on medical politics.

So let us look at the history of the politics of homeopathy in the UK. It is important to acknowledge that throughout its history homeopathy has been attacked for the same reasons: Dilutions, implausibility, quackery and now ‘pseudoscience’, ‘bad science’ etc.

19^th Century: Dr F. Quin studies homeopathy in Germany, brings it to the UK, treats the Prince of Wales and builds the London Homeopathic Hospital.  Several other homeopathic hospitals are built in England and Scotland.

1948: The NHS is formed and all the homeopathic hospitals are INVITED to become part of it. This is the reason why homeopathy (unlike aother forms of CAM) is so strongly integrated into the NHS. Homeopathic doctors and their benefactors had built hospitals staffed by doctors specialising in homeopathic treatment prior to the formation of the NHS.

1948-1990: Homeopathy becomes more and more popular both on the NHS and in private medicine. However the opposition movement becomes more determined to end NHS homeopathy. They attack on two main fronts: PR & Media and direct political attack. On the media front, The Guardian newspaper and the supposedly neutral BBC prove to be particularly useful allies to their cause but in the realm of official politics they suffer serious defeats.

December 2009 Political Defeat I: The denialists manage to get a Science and Technology Subcommittee to do an ‘Evidence Check’ on homeopathy. The controversial hearings (signed by very few of the MPs who were meant to take part in it), is addressed by Mike O’Brien the then Minister of Health in the Labour government. He famously describes the draconian anti-homeopathic suggestions of the Committee as ‘illiberal’ and makes it clear that GPs and local health authorities are best placed to decide if their patients should get NHS homeopathy or not.

July 2010: Political Defeat II: The report (with its authoritarian anti-homeopathic and anti-democratic  recommendations) passes to the new Coalition Government for consideration. The new Health Minister, Anne Milton thanks the S&T Committee for their work but then kicks all their reccomendations into touch. Her reasons for doing so are much the same as the Labour minister’s: GPs and localhealth authorities should be trusted to make the best decisions for their patients. An infuriated Michael Baum pores scorn on her in a well-publicised letter to the Lancet concluding with a condescending “Shame on you Minister!”  I was personally astonished by the aggressive, rant-like nature of this letter as Baum had only a few months before called for the debate on homeopathy to return to the ‘realm of polite disputation’.

So summing up:
Government under Labour: supported homeopathy on the NHS.

Government under Coalition: reiterated this support almost to the letter.

Head of State and family: are known to use and have used homeopathy for several generations.

The detractors, denialists and illiberal, wannabe Statist authoritarians  have tried to thwart GPs (rather than dissuade them which would at least be respectable) from referring patients for NHS homeopathy by insisting that their scientism trump due democratic process – but it hasn’t worked. Despite what Ben Goldacre writes in the Guardian, despite the letters to BMJ and Lancet, and despite inexplicable and inexcusable BBC bias against homeopathy, both Labour and Coalition Governments have seen fit to protect the significant minority support for homeopathy in the UK as well as the rights of British GPs to send their own patients for NHS homeopathy if they so wish. In doing so Government has so far managed to resist a serious, concerted attempt to undermine the democratic provision of health care in this country.

The attack on homeopathy has been a veritable Pandora’s Box of vitriol and bias that has certainly damaged British homeopathy by it’s sheer persistence and seemingly well-funded mass pressure at a PR level. It is heartening to know that at least at a pure political level, there has been unequivocal support by both Labour and the Coalition not only for homeopathy, but for something equally as important –  liberal democracy itself. Fortunately the last thing to come out of this particular Pandora’s Box was still Hope.