ConMed and the Creation of Illness (Part 2)Chapter 5 (Part 2): the more money spent on NHS-ConMed, the more illness and disease that is generated. It isn't just that spending money on NHS-ConMed fails to make us better - it actually makes us sick.by Steven Scrutton9 September 2011 
An Epidemic of Chronic DiseasesSo if we are spending more on NHS-ConMed, what is the state of national health? The early objective of the NHS was to deliver improved health to the nation - a worthy objective that would have been worthwhile almost regardless of cost had it been achieved. However, there is no evidence that NHS-ConMed is delivering improved health. No matter what period of history examined the situation is familiar. As NHS-ConMed treatment has increased, it has been overwhelmed by the ongoing, and ever-increasing demands of sick people. LongevityOne unquestioned assumption frequently made is that people are living longer than before, and that the sole reason for this is advances in medicine. NHS-ConMed tells us this with monotonous frequency - to justify what they are doing, and to claim responsibility for the success. Yet both the assumption and the reason underlying it need to be carefully examined. The assumption is based on statistics - which we know can be used to prove almost anything! The trick with longevity statistics is to select as a starting point an historical period when life expectancy was very low. The Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions in the UK provide NHS-ConMed with such a starting point. The squalor and deprivation of 19th century urbanisation, and the disruption of rural communities, was ideal for their purpose - life expectancy averaged only about 40 years. Victorian public health measures during the latter part of the 19th century made considerable progress in raising life-expectancy from these artificially low levels. Running alongside these measure was an economy that was creating a burgeoning middle-class, with the improved housing and diet that went alongside. Even working class people gradually benefited from the the Factory Acts in terms of working conditions, and so on. This combination of social and economic developments improved longevity statistics enormously. And all this was achieved without any major input from ConMed. This is rarely recognised however. The assumption is, no doubt because NHS-ConMed has told us so often and with so much apparent certainty, that it is the health care they provide that is helping us live longer. So two factors should be considered whenever NHS-ConMed claims that medicine has increased our life-expectancy. First, outside these areas of poverty and squalor, amongst the more affluent middle and upper class circles, and in the more stable rural areas, there is ample evidence that people lived long lives, well into the 70's, 80's and even 90's. In other words, life expectancy in the 18th and early 19th centuries was directly related to social status and wealth. Walk around any Victorian cemetery, look at the ages that people (those who could afford headstones) died, and see for yourself! Second, life expectancy statistics were severely skewed by infant and child mortality rates. In Victorian times it is estimated that about 3 in 20 babies died before their first birthday, although again this is a figure skewed by massive social class variations. Add to that the employment of very young children working in very hazardous situations, these factors had an enormous impact on a 'average' life expectancy of the population as a whole. So during the industrial revolution it was not the lack of health care services that killed people (except perhaps that many were separated from their former traditional healers in the countryside), it was the social and environmental conditions in which large numbers of people had been forced to live and work. And major improvements in life expectancy after this resulted from improved social and environmental conditions. It was certainly not the result of ConMed's medical care as this was largely out of reach of the poorer classes, that is, those who were dying young. The main, perhaps the only triumph of NHS-ConMed has been in making us believe that they have been responsible for increased longevity - quite regardless of any evidence to support such a claim! Their public relations has, indeed, been formidable. The Creation of IllnessIn view of NHS-ConMed's propaganda about its ability to 'eliminate', or 'conquer' disease, an analysis of what it has actually achieved makes sobering reading. 1. Do drugs cause disease? Direct links that are accepted. First, let us establish that NHS-ConMed drugs do cause, or create disease. In recent decades a new medical phenomenon seems to have developed. Many new diseases have appeared, apparently from no-where. Usually they are given complicated, sometimes bizarre names, and come complete with convoluted, highly complex explanations. So where do they actually come from? Why is it that we are now being 'struck down' by diseases that were once either uncommon, or never known before? The activities of NHS-ConMed drugs are rarely examined in this respect, but drug DIEs need to be considered as an explanation. Traditional medicine tells us that DIEs are an inevitable reaction to an assault on the body by toxic NHS-ConMed drugs. In seeking to force the body to do what it does not want to do, or would not do naturally, they are undermining and subverting the natural homeostasis of the body. So traditional medicine tells us an increase in chronic disease is predictable when illness is suppressed, and suggests that NHS-ConMed may have caused this an epidemic of chronic disease, and the created these new and little known diseases. The BNF supports the view that drugs cause DIEs, although it would not admit doing so. So the suggestion needs to be examined, and initially, this can be done by looking at 'diseases' and 'disabilities' that NHS-ConMed drugs are known to have caused, and which even NHS-ConMed does not deny. Thalidomide. The Thalidomide scandal of the 1960's produced hundred's of children with deformed limbs. If drugs can cause such abominable effects on a foetus there is no reason to doubt that other drugs can have similar, albeit less obvious effects on the functioning of our bodies. The impact of Thalidomide was one that NHS-ConMed could not deny. It was difficult for them to suggest similar babies with such gross deformities had been born before, and parents had not noticed! Nor could they suggest that other factors, such as nutrition, or environmental pollution, or stress caused the problem. It was known that the drug had caused the problem, and there was no alternative but to accept blame. So are there other diseases that have emerged to suggest a direct relationship between NHS-ConMed drugs and disease? Foetal Anti-Convulsive Syndrome (FACS). This 'new' illness, according to the British Epilepsy Association, has affected 37,500 British children. FACS produces a range of neural, behavioural, and physical disorders, and can include conditions such as cleft palate and spina bifida, learning difficulties, behavioural problems and abnormalities in movement, speech, vision and hearing. So what is FACS, and where does it come from? Yet another new, strange and rare disease with no known cause? Well not really, the cause is well known. These children were damaged in the womb when the mother has taken anti-convulsant drugs, such as Epilim and Carbamazepine. So FACS is, in fact, another NHS-ConMed 'mistake', another situation where the 'science' of drug testing and regulation has proven to be no safeguard to public safety. At the time of writing this condition has had little publicity, but this, in itself, is something that should be a matter of public concern. Why are we not being told about such disease? What is preventing this information becoming more widely known? 2. Illnesses thought to be 'conquered' NHS-ConMed built its reputation not on creating disease, but its ability to overcome certain conditions once considered to be 'killer diseases'. Such claims have been the foundation upon which the reputation of ConMed was built so it is important to look at reality of such claims?
However, it is becoming clear that the war antibiotics have waged on bacteria is being lost. Bacteria are resisting the assault, and new 'drug-resistant' strains of this, and other diseases have now been discovered - against which they are entirely ineffective. The belief that TB had been eradicated began to disappear when these new drug-resistant strains began to emerge in the 1980's. But it is more recent events, since 2006, that have indicated that NHS-ConMed drugs no longer work.
Now whooping cough is re-emerging again, particularly, it would seem, with children who have already been vaccinated! 3. The Epidemic of Chronic Disease We have seen (in Chapter 4) how homeopathic concepts such as 'Like Cures Like', and the 'Suppression of Illness', suggest that the impact NHS-ConMed would be to create additional disease, and in particular, that there would be a rise in chronic disease (that is, diseases that are not immediately life threatening, but which are both ongoing and persistent). This is exactly what has happened. 'Modern' chronic diseases have now reached epidemic proportions. NHS-ConMed denies responsibility for their rapid rise, even though the increases mirrors the increased drug taking during the period of the NHS. Such a connection is indeed entirely 'circumstantial'. There is, of course, 'no evidence' that would be accepted as evidence - and support for financing studies into the question would not be approved! Mental Health. If drugs seek to 'force' the body into compliance, and if the body resists in such a way that DIEs occur, then one of the body's principle organs, the brain, might be expected to suffer most as it is the most sensitive, and in many ways, the most vulnerable of all human organs. And this is, indeed, what we find. The statistics for depression, suicide, and related mental health conditions, have risen alarmingly, and in particular, there has been a marked rise during the later half of the 20th century. Have NHS-ConMed drugs played a part in in increase? BNF provides official evidence that many drugs can cause 'depression'. WDDTY (October 2005) listed these drugs, which includes some of the most used drugs of the last 60 years - all associated with generating depression.
And in terms of the link between depression and suicide there is now the 'scientifically proven' connection with NHS-ConMed drugs such as Vioxx> and Seroxat. Autism. Autism is a lifelong disability affecting the way that the sufferer communicates and relates to other people. People with autism have impaired social interactions, communication and imagination. Autism is not a single disease, but consists of a 'spectrum' of conditions, referred to as Autistic Spectrum Disorders, or ASD. As well as describing classical, or low-functioning autism, it also includes 'high-functioning' conditions such as Asperger's Syndrome. Autism has seen a staggering increase throughout the 'developed' world in recent decades. The Autism Society of America says that it is the fastest growing developmental disability in children, with a growth rate of between 10-17% per year. It states that during the 1990's the population of the USA grew by 13%, disabilities increased by 16%, and Autism by 172%. In the UK, ASD has more than doubled over the last 10 years, and on the National Autistic Society's website http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=235, these statistics are given relating to 'autistic spectrum diseases'.
Inevitably the reason for the meteoric rise of an entirely new disease is disputed, particularly by NHS-ConMed. The increased use of pesticides has been cited as one possible cause. But more bizarre reasons are cited. The National Autistic Society has said that much of the increase may be due to an increased awareness of the condition! This is quite an extraordinary explanation. It suggests that parents in previous generations were either too stupid to observe that their children were somehow 'different' in responding to the world, or perhaps that they were so lacking in care that they did not bother to report the fact! And of course, such an explanation opens the way for NHS-ConMed to take the credit for its ability to diagnose the condition - that the increase is the result of their cleverness at being able to recognise the disease! But there are other explanations, albeit ones that NHS-ConMed find uncongenial. For instance, it has been suggested that vaccinations, and particularly the Thimerosol (a derivative of mercury) contained in many vaccines, and routinely given to children, can cause ASD. Certainly the rapid increase in autism mirrors the increase in mass childhood vaccination. But suggesting this has meant that several distinguished physicians have lost their careers and employment within the NHS-ConMed establishment - so it is clearly a 'delicate' issue to raise (see Andrew Wakefield). One may be excused for wondering why this should be! Once more we have to 'follow the money' (Chapter 3), and realise that honesty often suffers where profitability is an issue. Alzheimer's Disease It is almost exactly 100 years ago that neurologist, Alois Alzheimer first described the disease. His patient was a woman who developed dementia in her 50s and died in 1906. Now Alzheimer's disease is the most common form of dementia, and it is estimated that 24 million people around the world suffer it. By 2040 it is projected that there will be some 81 million (Alzheimer's Disease International), with much of the incidence being in the 'developed' world (that is, that part of the world that consumes most ConMed drugs). In the UK, the Alzheimer's Society calculates that the number of people with dementia is steadily increasing. Yet the growth in dementia is more meteoric than steady. The Alzheimer's Research Trust states that 163,000 new cases of dementia occur in England and Wales each year, that is, one every 3.2 minutes, with dementia now affecting over 750,000 people. Nor is it a disease just affecting older people. Over 18,000 people under 65 years now suffer from dementia. Indeed, a feature of the disease in recent decades has been that its incidence has been with an increasingly younger age group. The Alzheimer's Society calculate that dementia affects 1 in 20 people aged over 65 years, and 1 in 5 people over 80 years of age. BNF highlights many drugs associated with 'confusion', and with most disease epidemics of recent times, the grown of Alzheimer's disease mirrors the growth in drug consumption. Yet typically NHS-ConMed refuses to acknowledge any responsibility, and instead adopts many excuses.
Such arguments discount the intelligence, knowledge and awareness of people in past times, and completely ignores the fact that people suffering from dementia are getting younger. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) The number of children with ADHD have been increasing rapidly for many decades. ADHD children are highly impulsive, they can speak and act without thinking what they are saying or doing. They are often excessively talkative, find it difficult to listen, or to conduct meaningful 2-way conversations. They are restless, continually over-active, gaining their attention is difficult, and concentration can seem impossible. This behaviour is not the same as children behaving 'badly'. It is more extreme, more challenging than normal. The children are less responsive to normal parenting discipline. They behave the same at home, at school, and in other people's houses. They are usually untidy, disorganised and forgetful. With age their restlessness can lead to feelings of frustration, making their problems worse. There is widespread suspicion that ADHD is a condition caused by drugs and childhood vaccination. Having created the condition it is then treated by other NHS-ConMed drugs, notably Ritalin. Once the ineffectiveness of Ritalin became clearer, and when the startling DIEs of Ritalin gradually became more accepted, a 3rd level of drug treatment was required. This was usually anti-psychotic drugs. So the generation and treatment of ADHD has represented a highly lucrative enterprise for Big Pharma. Violence. Whilst many people would not recognise violence as a disease, it is certainly becoming an epidemic in modern society - particularly the mindless, gratuitous violence that is too often seen today on the streets of our towns and cities, and even in the schools and colleges of the USA. Are we witnessing more social violence today? There is a popular perception that violence is on the increase - although it needs to be recognised that this would be difficult to prove. But there is a growing perception that violence is increasing, and the beginnings of a suspicion that psychiatric and antidepressant drugs, and even anti-smoking drugs like Chantix, may be implicated as a possible cause (see the href="http://www.cchr.org/" >Citizens Commission on Human Rights website - a non-profit organisation founded in the USA in 1969 to investigate and expose violations of human rights in psychiatric treatment). Cancer. There is evidence of cancer from the very earliest times, including Egyptian papyri that described breast cancer dating to 3000-1500BC. It has been studied during every period of history. But during the 20th century cancer became the most feared of all diseases, the Big 'C', a disease whose name is not to be mentioned! There are innumerable forms of cancer, including Leukaemia, Lymphoma, brain and spinal tumours, embryonal tumours, bone tumours, soft tissue sarcomas, germ cell and gonadal tumours, carcinoma and melanoma - but the most common are breast, bowel, lung and prostate. It is well known that some drugs, initially tested as being entirely safe, have subsequently been proven to be carcinogenic. So at least part of the explanation for the dramatic increase in cancer has to be laid at the door of NHS-ConMed. Perhaps one example will suffice. HRT now has a proven link with the breast and cervical cancer. The drug was dispensed routinely to many millions of women, and unknown to NHS-ConMed, breast cancer increased as a result. When research then linked the drug to cancer, and prescribing HRT was severely restricted, evidence is now indicating that breast cancer rates have been reduced. The Allergy Epidemic. An allergy is the over-reaction of the body's defence mechanism to something that is usually harmless. It can cause symptoms like sneezing, watery eyes, itchy rashes and swelling of the lips and tongue. Allergens are substances that cause an allergic reaction, of which there are many, including many foods and common household materials, and this certainly includes NHS-ConMed drugs including antibiotics. The prevalence of allergies has been increasing rapidly - it is another epidemic. It includes conditions like allergic rhinitis that affects between 25-40% in industrialised countries, allergic asthma (20%) (figures from the UCB Institute of Allergy). The British Allergy Foundation says that 1 in 4 people in the UK suffers from an allergy at some time in their life, and that this figure is increasing by about 5% a year. Almost half of allergy sufferers are children, and they refer to a study conducted for the National Asthma Campaign that found asthma and wheezing in children under 5 years had almost doubled since 1990. For some people an allergy may be mild, a source of irritation, but little more. But for increasing numbers of people allergy can become life-threatening. Anaphylaxis is the most severe and dangerous allergic reaction that can cause swelling of the throat, closing the lower airways, and death. The question is why an increasing number of people, particularly children, suffer allergy from contact with substances that should not cause such a reaction? NHS-ConMed drugs, and the large numbers of vaccinations young children are now subjected too, are implicated. Sleeping medication is known to cause allergic reactions, including anaphalactic shock. Asthma is another ancient disease (written about in ancient Egypt), but one which became epidemic during the 20th century. But it was not a common disease. During the early 1800's asthma was rarely mentioned in medical literature. At that time five patients with asthma constituted a case report. Asthma was first described in the medical literature in the mid-1800's and still considered rare at that time. (Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America). This is certainly not the case now. Asthma has reached epidemic proportions. It has been estimated that 1 in 13 people in the UK suffers from it, and throughout the world, 180,000 die from asthma. Increasingly, asthma is rising very fast amongst children. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). COPD is a general term for diseases that obstruct or narrow the air passages to the lung, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. It is different to Asthma as in COPD there is permanent damage to the air passages that become 'fixed', and the symptoms become persistent. The conditions encompassed by COPD are closely related to smoking and environmental pollution. No doubt this is true. Chronic Bronchitis, for instance, became recognised as a distinct disease in the late 1950's during the great British smogs that killed thousands from respiratory failure. Smoking was also implicated, yet smoking was a common feature of life in the UK long before this this time, and it has to be noted that the diagnosis and rise in COPD more mirrors more accurately the increase in drug consumption than smoking trends. So once again NHS-ConMed drugs are almost certainly a contributory cause of the problem. Coronary Heart Disease. Heart disease has been the leading cause of death in the UK for both men and women for decades. It accounts for about 1 in 5 male deaths, and about 1 in 6 female deaths according to the Office of National Statistics. With cerebrovascular disease (mainly strokes) being the second leading cause of death for both men and women, the coronary system is by far the leading cause of death in the UK. In 60 years of increasing NHS-ConMed treatment there has been little change in this situation, and the impact that many drugs have on the heart are well known. Diabetes. Diabetes is a serious disease that can lead to blindness, kidney failure, heart disease, stroke and limb amputation following nerve damage, and many other diseases. In the early 20th century, the discovery and introduction of insulin treatment was hailed as a significant breakthrough, one that was instrumental in raising the profile of ConMed, and the belief that the application of 'science' to medicine would eventually make the world a healthier place. The problem with insulin, like so many NHS-ConMed treatments is that it a 'mechanical' fix. The body does not produce insulin (or it is unable to use the insulin it does produce) so insulin is introduced artificially. Whilst not criticising the importance of such 'mechanical' fixes in medicine it is wrong to present them as 'cures'. Insulin does not cure diabetes as it does not deal with the cause of the disease, or remedy the body's failure to produce insulin, or to use the insulin that it produces. There has been an epidemic of diabetes in the latter half of the 20th century, and in whilst in terms of causation our modern diet has much to answer for, drugs are again implicated.
WDDTY (December 2006) published an article by Dr Lisa Landymore-Lim, who became curious about the explosion of childhood illnesses such as asthma and diabetes in the early 1990’s. She carried out a pilot study of drug-prescribing among juvenile diabetics, and published her initial findings in a 1994 edition of WDDTY. In these articles she outlined her evidence for suggesting a link between the excessive use of antibiotics and diabetes. Arthritis. Arthritis is not a new disease, it has apparently been found in the bones of dinosaurs, so it may even pre-date mankind itself. But although arthritis has been known for centuries, the sheer size of the 20th century epidemic is probably unprecedented. The Arthritis Research Campaign sought to find out how big the problem is as they felt that there was "a paucity of specific and accurate data on the different types of arthritis". So they commissioned two studies, one from MORI, and one from their Epidemiology Unit in Manchester (http://www.arc.org.uk/about_arth/bigpic.htm#12). They found that: Arthritis represents a much more serious, significant and widespread problem than was previously thought. It also showed that almost twice as many people believe they have arthritis than report their condition to their GP. In our MORI poll, 13 million people say they are currently affected by arthritis and joint pain. Yet according to the report by the Epidemiology Unit, this figure is nearer 7 million These are huge numbers, and the figures are increasing. Arthritis is a real epidemic. The number of people visiting their GP for arthritis and related conditions rose by almost 13% between 1981 and 1991. Nearly 9 million visit their GP for arthritis and related conditions. At the heavier end of the problem, 3,242 deaths in the UK were directly attributed to arthritis and related conditions (Office for National Statistics. Review of the Registrar General on deaths by cause, sex and age, in England and Wales, 2000). Moreover, arthritis is becoming increasingly common amongst younger people, including an increasing number of infants. Around 12,000 children in the UK have juvenile idiopathic arthritis, thought to represent about 1 child in every 1000 (Silman AJ, Hochberg MC. Epidemiology of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2nd Ed. Oxford Medical Publications, 2001). All NHS-ConMed treatment does is to 'kill' the pain, temporarily, whilst at the same time increasing the toxicity of the body, and worsening the condition. Many arthritis sufferers find that the more painkillers they take, the more they need, and the stronger drugs are required. It is often a vicious circle of increasing pain and disability. IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Crohns Disease, Ulcerative Colitis<). Irritable Bowel Syndrome is a painful and distressing condition that is becoming increasingly common, affecting about a third of the population in some way, at some time, depending on how it is measured or defined. The symptoms of IBS may include abdominal pain and spasm, diarrhoea, constipation, and more serious forms, such as Crohns’ Disease and Ulcerative Colitis.
The cause of the IBS epidemic has no doubt much to do with the food that we eat, depleted as it is from over-farmed and over-fertilised soils, contaminated by herbicides and pesticides, and heavily processed by Big Food. But NHS-ConMed cannot deflect all the blame. Many common drugs, including some of the most common like aspirin, are known to cause side-effects in the gastro-intestrinal tract - perhaps not surprising as most drugs are taken by mouth and so pass directly through it. Osteoporosis. When introducing a £20m investment on NHS-ConMed scanning equipment and service improvements on 3rd April 2005, the Health Minister Stephen Ladyman outlined the size of the epidemic in osteoporosis, which he described as a "devastating, debilitating condition which increases the risk of fracture when an older person falls".
The NHS-ConMed miracle treatment for the condition was HRT, introduced about 40 years ago when it was thought it was possible to treat the condition by augmenting the hormone levels of post-menopausal women. It certainly created many serious DIEs. Yet many NHS-ConMed drugs are known to cause the condition. For example, corticosteroid drugs for conditions such as asthma or arthritis are known to increase the likelihood of contracting the disease. It is also known that people with medical conditions that affect the absorption of foods (Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis) can also get the disease - although it might be suspected that this might concerned as much with the medication they take for these conditions as the conditions themselves. Our immune system is a complex network of specialised cells and organs that have evolved to defend the body against infection and attack by 'foreign' invaders. A well-functioning immune system protects us from a range of pathogens so that they are unable to infect, and cause disease within their hosts. So our immune system has evolved over many millennia, and is constantly changing in order to protect us. Some of the diseases described above that we are experiencing at 'epidemic' levels are auto-immune diseases, not least, for example, arthritis. Yet there also appears to be innumerable 'new' diseases that have arisen because the body's immune system seems appears no longer capable of doing its job properly - protecting us from external attack. Auto-immune diseases arise when the immune system does not recognise its own cells and tissues, and instead of protecting them, attacks them. For some reason, the body turns on itself. There are an increasing number of people described as 'immuno-deficient' - which means that their immune systems are less active than they should be, resulting in people going down repeatedly with recurring, sometimes life-threatening infections. In its description of immunodeficiency, Wikipedia (not usually a critic of ConMed) says: Immunodeficiency can either be the result of a genetic disease, such as severe combined immunodeficiency, or be produced by pharmaceuticals or an infection, such as the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) that is caused by the retrovirus HIV. [my emphasis] Auto-immune disease affects the body in different ways. Directed against the brain it can cause multiple sclerosis. Directed against the gut it can cause Crohn's disease. Auto-immune disease is becoming increasingly common. Some diseases, such as arthritis and diabetes (Type 1), have become epidemic - many older people now consider it a normal, and expected part of ageing. Others are 'new' diseases that are becoming increasingly common. Many others are extremely rare. Together they affect many millions of people throughout the world - especially the developed world, that is, the part of the world that consumes most NHS-ConMed drugs. The sheer size of the problem of auto-immune disease seems to be equalled only by the massive silence when it comes to a medical explanation. NHS-ConMed can often describe 'what is happening' in each of these diseases, often in great detail. What it appears unable to tell us is 'why' they are occurring, in so many forms, in such great numbers. Indeed, the causation of these diseases are more often than not described as 'unknown'. And of course there are no known cures! Yet auto-immune disease is the sort of result traditional therapies would expect from the blunt and suppressive nature of NHS-ConMed drugs - introduced into the body to 'block', or 'inhibit' or 'stimulate' the natural functions of the body. So whilst other explanations might be found by NHS-ConMed to explain these conditions, the Wikipedia definition above might be correct in pinpointing pharmaceuticals, NHS-ConMed drugs, as a major culprit. So let us look at the nature of some of these new diseases and syndromes in more detail. AID's. The most well-known auto-immune disease is AIDs, or Auto-Immune Deficiency disease. This is a complicated illness, and a controversial one. NHS-ConMed have developed an explanation for it, alongside a host of expensive drug treatments of uncertain worth. But there is a large and growing body of opinion that does not accept this conventional explanation. It is not the task of this book to enter into this highly charged argument, particularly as the author has no particular knowledge of the disease, or the controversy surrounding it. But it fits the description of a 'new' disease. For many years there was no treatment for it. Now, the media talks regularly of 'effective' treatment without there ever being significant evidence for such claims. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) is characterised by persistent and extreme fatigue, muscle and joint pain, headaches, flu-like symptoms, sore throat, swollen glands, concentration and short-term memory problems, sleep difficulties, digestive disturbances, dizziness, poor temperature control, and increased sensitivity to light and sound. It is a 'new' disease. Before 2002, when the the condition was eventually recognised, the condition was dismissed as 'Yuppie' flu. Many sufferers had a hard time convincing doctors that there was anything wrong with them. Yet the number of people now suffering from the condition has grown enormously. Action for ME, a UK charity that provides support for sufferers, provide the following statistics:
Up to 25% of people with ME are severely affected, either house or bedbound, and unable to look after themselves. MS (Multiple Sclerosis). The National Multiple Sclerosis Society states that in the USA, there are approximately 400,000 people MS and that about 200 people are diagnosed with the condition every week. Worldwide they believe that MS affects more than 2.5 million people. The Multiple Sclerosis Society (UK) state that MS is the most common disabling neurological condition affecting young adults, and that about 85,000 people in the UK have MS. Other Auto-Immune Diseases. There are a wide variety of less well-known, strange and totally unexplained auto-immune diseases. This list of immune diseases, accepted and suspected, is taken from the Wikipedia website. A common factor for most of them is that they have been known only in relatively recent times, NHS-ConMed can usually describe them, and test for them, but has no explanation about their cause, and no treatment for them. 5. New Disease: the body fights back There is undeniable evidence that the body, and the various germs, bacteria and viruses that, from time immemorial, we have lived alongside in relative peace, are fighting back against the massive onslaught they have suffered from NHS-ConMed drugs for many decades. TB, Syphilis and Malaria. We have already seen how these old diseases are returning - after the claims once made by NHS-ConMed that they had been 'vanquished'. But it is not just the 'old' diseases, the old bugs that are returning. New, more resistant strains have now appeared, capable of withstanding an onslaught of drugs - and indeed, created by them. Superbugs. A new generation of superbugs are killing thousands of people each year in our hospitals, such as MRSA and C-Diff. They have been created exclusively by NHS-ConMed, the result of decades of antibiotic drug warfare. For a time, NHS-ConMed seemed to be winning the 'war' against bacteria - antibiotics seemed to make us better from a wide variety of ailments. But the bugs, once thought vanquished, are now fighting back. They have transmuted themselves in ways that have made them immune to further attack - they are no longer killed by penicillin, or the generations of antibiotics that have emerged since its introduction. The problem has been recognised for many decades, and for a time it seemed as if Big Pharma could continue coming up with stronger antibiotics as the bugs became more resistant. But the battle has been won. NHS-ConMed has not only been defeated, it has recognised defeat by no longer looking for stronger antibiotics to combat the superbugs! NHS-ConMed can now only talk about preventing the transfer of superbugs from person to person, principally by focusing on rigorous and highly sophisticated hygiene measures. The bugs themselves remain, triumphant over their old adversary. Apparently they are here to stay, a legacy of NHS-ConMed! And now super-viruses? Viruses have not been under attack by NHS-ConMed for as long as bacteria, but now super-viruses appear to be emerging in much the same way as super-bugs. Many accounts of super-viruses concern the AIDs epidemic, and new virulent strains of Influenza, such as SARs and Avian Flu. As such, it is difficult to know whether stories about super-viruses merely represent scare-mongering by drug companies to promote and sell anti-viral drugs. For instance, the NHS spent over £1/2 million in 2006 stockpiling the drug Tamiflu in order to combat the 'threat' of Avian Flu. The other alternative is that the new super-viruses do exist, and have been identified by reliable scientific research - in which case, the question must again be asked, what has created these new viruses, and what role have NHS-ConMed drugs played in their creation. More probably, both explanations may be a factor. The super-viruses have been created by viruses that, under attack by NHS-ConMed, have transmuted, and that the drug companies, far from accepting any culpability, sees them as an opportunity for further profits. Lifestyle. An alternative explanation?So we appear to be living amidst an epidemic of chronic disease, alongside the emergence of a multitude of new 'diseases' and 'syndromes'. And with monotonous regularity NHS-ConMed has no explanation for the rise of chronic disease, or for the new conditions - and usually has no effective treatment either. So there should be, at the very least, a suspicion that these modern disease patterns are, at least in part, the result of increased NHS-ConMed drug treatment over the last 60-100 years. Yet in order to be as excruciatingly fair as possible there are other important life-style factors that have impinged upon our health, and which have contributed to the decline in health. Indeed, much illness can be traced back to lifestyle choices we make, choices that can diminish the quality of the 'environment' in which we ask our bodies to live and survive, and which can set the stage for future illness to take hold. NHS-ConMed often use these lifestyle factors as a smokescreen, an alternative explanation for its own failure. So we need to consider these factors and seek to put them into perspective. Environmental PollutionThe physical environment in which we live is undoubtedly less healthy than it has ever been:
We are gradually becoming more aware of the health impact of such environmental factors. Yet just as huge commercial interests support ConMed, each of these environmental pollutants is supported by powerful vested interests too. Their promotion and public relations convince us that we need them, that we are in some way inadequate if we do not have them. And they sell them to us as products that are entirely safe. There is a general pattern here. Science invents new chemical products, new electrical products, new means of transportation, etc., and commercial interests begin to exploit and market them. At the beginning of this process the full impact on health of the new products are rarely fully known or understood. There is 'no scientific evidence' to suggest they might be damaging to health (usually this means just that - there is no scientific evidence one way or the other). Testing for safety has not been done, or it has not been done for long, and certainly not in the breadth and depth that would be able to identify long-term risks to health. So just as it took decades to prove tobacco smoking was harmful to health, it may take an equal length of time to prove whether mobile phone technology is harmful. And so it is with every new invention, every new bit of technological 'progress' we make. Full and reliable safety testing always seem to follow successful marketing, usually by several decades. Rarely, if ever, does it predate it. And by the time there is reliable evidence indicating a health problem there have been created powerful and entrenched vested financial and commercial interests that set out to undermine and discredit it. It is not the intention here to go into these important environmental health risks in depth except to recognise that ConMed is not the only 'scientific' technology that endangers our health. Anyone who wants to maximise and maintain their personal health needs to be aware of such environmental factors and concerns, investigate them, and seek to minimise their impact. NHS-ConMed often claims that it is environmental pollution, in all its guises, that has led to increased illness. Yet whilst this is true to some extent (and to hoist 'scientific' medicine by its own petard) there is no 'scientific evidence' to suggest that this a satisfactory or sufficient explanation for the increased ill-health we are now witnessing. The food we eatFood is intimately involved with health. And the production and distribution of food has been increasingly controlled and dominated by rich and influential vested interests. 'Big Food', like Big Pharma, has become sufficiently influential to ensure that we are not told how modern processes of food production can seriously compromise our health. Intensive farming, the chemical and fertiliser industry, herbicide and pesticide spraying, the food processing industry, the use of additives and preservatives, the nature of 'fast' food, and the mass production of food demanded by the major supermarkets, all can have a negative impact on our health. And as with Big Pharma, Big Food has a vested interest in maximising their profits before maximising our health and well-being. They have no interest in us knowing how our food has been debased and polluted, and what impact this has on sickness and disease:
Over-eating rather than under-eating has had a profound affect on our health in an increasingly affluent society. We may no longer suffer and die from under-nutrition, but there is an epidemic of obesity-related diseases, and other diseases closely associated with what we are now encouraged to eat by Big Food. NHS-ConMed seems to be making increasing claims that it is the food we eat that has contributed to increasing ill-health over recent decades. Whilst this is also true to a some extent, it does not constitute a satisfactory or sufficient explanation for the increased illness we are witnessing. And certainly it is not something that should not be used to detract us from focusing on the direct impact of NHS-ConMed. The water we drinkWater is one of the most important factors in health. Indeed it is the main ingredient of our bodies. Yet water is becoming one of the most polluted commodities:
Big Food has also grown wealthy on producing drinks that can compromise our health. The soft drinks industry produces sugar-based drinks, caffeine-based drinks for energy, and non-sugar based drinks made with carcinogenic sweeteners, like Aspartame. The alcohol industry regularly plies us with a multitude of intoxicating drinks. In moderation they do not compromise health. But the enticement to 'binge' on alcohol surrounds us all - even children are now being encouraged to drink alco-pops! There is no doubt that what we eat and drink are important factors to be taken into consideration when considering the decline of national health. But again, they should not be used to deflect from understanding of the full impact of NHS-ConMed. Increased StressNHS-ConMed often attribute increased ill-health to the stress of modern life. It is an understandable explanation only if we recognise that NHS-ConMed is looking for a scapegoat to deflect attention away from it own failure. As a sufficient explanation for increased sickness it is nonsensical. Of course it is true that people have stress in their lives, and it is well known that stress is unhelpful, and can cause illness and disease. But the claim that people today face more stress than in previous generations cannot be justified. Stress has always existed. There has never been a 'golden age' when we lived 'stress-free' lives. The stress today may be different, more about aspiration than day-to-day survival, but it has always been there. NHS-ConMed drugs - their affect now and on future generationsSo whilst lifestyle factors do impact on our health, they are not in themselves an adequate explanation for the epidemic levels sickness and disease from which we now suffer. They should not be used to draw attention away from a serious examination into the impact NHS-ConMed is having on health the health of the nation. As the NHS continues to devote its resources exclusively on ConMed treatment, the nation's health will continue to decline, and disease will continue to grow. This is the principle explanation for the continued and ongoing failure of the NHS. The NHS is not under-resourced. It is not necessarily badly managed. It is just that the NHS is investing in the wrong medicine - a medicine that has never worked, and whose failure will continue because it is based on principles that are wrong. NHS-ConMed fails to understand the essential prerequisites of maintaining and regaining health. Certainly, there is now sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant research into the relationship between modern disease and NHS-ConMed drugs. The epidemic of disease certainly mirrors the massive rise in drug consumption over recent decades. It is unlikely that NHS-ConMed will admit they have played a large part in increased sickness levels, but it is undoubtedly true that alongside increased spending, year on year, decade by decade, there has been a simultaneous increase in sickness, and demand for health services. Demand has continually outstripped supply, and continues to do so. It is unlikely that funding will ever be found to examine the culpability of NHS-ConMed. There may be no proof about the association. But this lack of proof concerns a lack of investigation rather than any shortage of circumstantial evidence. So we are left with a suspicion, based on an assumption. Yet that assumption is well-grounded, first through the insights and knowledge of traditional medicine, and second, by the sheer scale and variety of the disease epidemics we now face. It is necessary to recognise that NHS-ConMed drugs have played their role, and in most cases a leading role, in disease epidemics:
It is also important to recognise that NHS-ConMed have no answers to the problems created by modern health epidemics, and no effective treatments with which to respond to them.
***************************************************************************** *****************************************************************************
|
Word of the Day
Word of the Day
provided by The Free Dictionary
|