Surely it is not just the science about efficacy that is dodgy. It is the growing evidence of significant side effects. These now include liver dysfunction, kidney failure, muscle weakness, cataracts, diabetes and dementia. This concerns a drug that patients have been told for decades is 'entirely safe', that 'everyone should be taking'! Millions are now taking the drug. Pharma has made billions. And have doctors been prescribing this drug on the basis of a hoax? There can surely be only two two responses. One, to admit there is a problem and investigate what has happened, openly and honestly. The other is to do what Pharma usually does, to pay for more research that proves Statins are effective, and entirely safe, and to bury the issue. What worries me is whether patients are going to get to know, and who is going to tell them.
I am pleasantly surprised to read what these 3 doctors say about a referral for homeopathic treatment. It is more reasonable and balanced than many people receive when requesting a referral by a GP.
I have only three things to add. First, patient choice (a policy supported now by all main political parties) and is exactly what it says, it is the patient who should decide the treatment he or she wants. I welcome the remarks made by the 3 doctors about giving the patient information. The choice made should be an informed choice.
Second, the vast majority of doctors are not homeopaths, their knowledge of homeopathy is limited, and they should be advising patients to talk to a suitably trained homeopath. There is, for example, good evidence for homeopathy and to say there is no 'evidential basis' is little more than the repetition of a mantra, and a demonstration of a lack of knowledge.
The third point is that any referral should be seen as an opportunity for some joint working, and some 'integrated' medicine. It is a pity that the hostility of conventional medicine towards homeopathy has prevented this now for so many years.
Is the real problem of Personal Health Budgets the threat to doctor's clinical monopoly to determine what treatment is, and is not available to patients?
Personal Health Budgets facilitate Patient Choice, and Health Freedom, which means that patients might want to access non-pharmaceutical treatment.
I sense an overwhelming air of despair, are there any conventional drugs left in the cupboard that do not harm patients?
I see. Cochrane finds Tamiflu is as good as useless, so Roche funds its own trial to prove how good it is! Where is the 'science' in all this?
But Paracetamol has been prescribed for this for ?? years. Where was the science? Especially considering the dangers of Paracetamol? First, do no harm?
Given the dangers of the vaccine, why is it still being given?
Yes, it is easy to underplay the damage done to patients by painkilling, and other pharmaceutical drugs. It is also easy to make fun of drug regulators when, eventually, and when much harm is done to patients, they take action.
I thought that the Hippocratic oath said "First, do no harm", not "First admit not harm".
Patient safety needs to be placed at the top of the healthcare agenda, and drug regulation should come into place before, rather than after, harm has been done.
I welcome Dr Borbely's partial conversion, and I sincerely hope other doctor's view what she says with an open mind. I suspect most will wish to call her a 'witch', as the BMA did some years ago. Clearly, her experience shows how Homeopathy can save money for the NHS, and would benefit from this open-mindedness. And a 10 minute interview? Most homeopathic doctors in India don't use more time than this. And the experience of Homeopaths throughout the world is that when a medicine works patients don't return. It empties rather than fills surgeries! With doctors under pressure, with A&E under pressure, perhaps some thought needs to be given to the greater use of Homeopathy within the NHS.
It is good to see that this evidence of 'severe side-effects' is at last know - at least 17 years after it began to be prescribed. I wonder if medical science, and drug regulatory agencies might begin finding out such serious adverse reaction BEFORE given them to patients in future?
It is strange to see an article which states that the government agrees that this vaccine causes Narcolepsy, and then to read that "its causes are not yet fully understood".
I must assume that regardless of this, Pandemrix will continue to be prescribed to patients until such time as no further prevarication can be accepted!
I agree, Soroush - no point advertising something that does not work. Actually, I have seen that only about 30% of doctors and nurses actually have the vaccine.
Perhaps you should read the package insert of the MMR vaccine, warning of serious adverse reactions, including death. Who wrote it? Merck, the manufacturer, and it can be found on their website.
Then, come back and tell me, and your patients, that the MMR is safe.
Conventional medicine will ultimately be the loser if it continues to make claims about its drugs and vaccines are untrue - people will find out they are not being given full and honest information. Soroush is correct to point out that the JCVI has known about the dangers of vaccines for over 20 years. As far as the MMR vaccine is concerned, it is not safe, and the manufacturers have admitted as much
The reputation of GPs depends on them having an open and honest relationship with patients. If these dangers are known, patients must be told about them, and the nonsense about these vaccines being 'entirely safe' should be jettisoned.
Any 'Patient Choice' on this matter?
This is great news. So many people will now be able to avoid damaging drugs and vaccines, and use medical therapies that are safer and more effective. It is time that money spent on health was placed in the hands of patients. Perhaps we must all note that we have all paid for the NHS; and it is time that everyone was freed from the present virtual monopoly of ConMed treatment currently available within the NHS.