I would also love to see Ananda More's film about homeopathy in Vancouver

See her succinct article here. It fills my heart with good stuff.

Attack of the Killer Pseudoskeptics

I’ve hit that rite of passage – that thorn in the side of every homeopath in the public eye.  When anonymous, self-proclaimed skeptics start to harass you with email, Twitter, and Facebook posts that refer to poorly-designed studies in order to prove that homeopathy doesn’t work. These people are demonstrating blatant hypocrisy when they use cherry-picked, fundamentally flawed studies to support their unscientific perspectives while simultaneously accusing homeopaths of the same.  If the same standards or faulty methods were used to study pharmaceutical medicine, we would find very few medications that could be termed evidence-based!

What do I use the term “pseudoskeptic”? Well, first, because they love to use the word “pseudoscience” as a derogatory umbrella term for any research whose results don’t fit into their limited paradigm. Second, because a real skeptic is someone who critically analyzes the data from both sides with an open mind, a true scientist unprejudiced to finding the unexpected. Pseudoskeptics pretend to genuinely have an open mind in order to hide their actual agenda of ridiculing and discrediting. They fail to apply the same critical eye to research that defends the orthodox perspective.

So the most recent link I’ve been receiving and have seen on social media is the following:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/homeopathy-therapeutic-dead-end-systematic-review-no-evidence-it-works-a6884356.html

The above article refers to a study published by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Now before I pass you to the experts and their explanations as to why this study is fatally inadequate, I would like to quietly point out that the study was never published in a peer-reviewed journal – mirroring the skeptics’ favourite line of attack when it comes to homeopathic studies.

I would like to raise the question as to why studies like the one above receive so much media attention, while peer-reviewed, quality studies that have a positive outcome for homeopathy are completely ignored by mainstream media? For example, how many of you non-homeopaths out there are familiar withDr. Robert Mathie’s systematic review of individualized homeopathy – the only meta-analysis of homeopathy to consider model validity in its study design? This means that he only included studies in which homeopathy is studied in the way homeopaths actually practice in the real world. No other meta-analysis has done that!

Now let’s listen to what the folks at the Homeopathic Research Institute have to say about the NHMRC’s systematic review of homeopathy (read in blue). You can read their extensive concerns about the study here.

We maintain that the conclusions of the NHMRC report are inconsistent with the evidence.

The inaccuracy of the NHMRCs conclusions stem primarily from one fundamental flaw at the heart of this report – the NHMRC reviewers considered the results of all trials for one condition together as a whole, even though the individual trials were assessing very different types of homeopathic treatment.

To illustrate this flaw, the NHMRC reviewers asked, “Is homeopathy effective for condition A?’, working from the premise that a positive trial showing that one homeopathic treatment is effective is somehow negated by a negative trial which shows that a completely different homeopathic treatment for that same condition is ineffective. This is a bizarre and unprecedented way of assessing scientific evidence. In conventional research the question asked would be, “Is treatment X effective for condition A?”, not “Is conventional medicine effective for condition A?” based on combining the results of all drug trials together. Some treatments work, some don’t. The whole point of medical research is to establish which treatments are useful and which are of no value. This is no different in homeopathy.

So, this is like saying, Let’s see if pharmaceutical medicine is good for headaches. In my hypothetical systematic review we’ll examine a study that shows NSAIDs work for headaches, then look at another study that shows blood pressure medication doesn’t, and another study that says statin medicines don’t help headaches. I then conclude that pharmaceutical medicine is not effective for treating headaches.

Secondly, we are deeply perplexed as to the reasons for the exclusion of some of the best evidence for key clinical conditions. In brief:

• Jacobs et al performed meta-analysis a meta-analysis of the treatment of childhood diarrhea using homeopathy in 2003, N=242 in placebo controlled trials, p-value = 0.008. This meta-analysis was excluded … why? [Link]
• Wiesenauer & Lüdtke conducted a meta-analysis into the treatment of hayfever in 1996, N=752 in placebo controlled RCTs, p-value <0.0001. This meta-analysis was excluded. Again we ask ourselves why? [Link]
• Schneider et al conducted a meta-analysis of non-inferiority trials of homeopathy compared to usual care for the treatment of vertigo, N=1388, non-inferiority was clearly demonstrated. Again excluded, again why? [Link]

Now let’s hear Dana Ullman’s critique of the study’s parameters. Dana is referring to a BMJ blog entry foundhere:

What this BMJ article conveniently failed to report and what the Australian government’s press material failed to acknowledge was that ANY study that with less than 150 subjects was deemed “inadequate” by this report, and thus, the dozens of studies that have shown the efficacy of homeopathy in treating many ailments were totally thrown out and ignored, including many “high quality” randomized double-blind, placebo controlled trials that have been published in The Lancet, BMJ, Cancer, Pediatrics, Chest, Rheumatology, Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, European Journal of Pediatrics, and many others!

Further, unless there were at least three studies conducted by three separate groups of researchers, with each study having over 150 subjects, the results were deemed to be “unreliable.”

By not acknowledging these arbitrary guidelines, the BMJ and the Australian government are showing “bad faith” and are purposefully seeking to misinform the medical community and the general public.

Based on these definitions of what “adequate” and “reliable” research, the vast majority of conventional drugs on the market today would also be deemed to be INEFFECTIVE and UNPROVEN.

In fact, when the BMJ’s “Clinical Evidence” analyzed common medical treatments to evaluate which are supported by sufficient reliable evidence, they reviewed approximately 3,000 treatments and found only 11% were found to be beneficial (1). It should be noted and emphasized that the BMJ deemed 20 subjects to be a more reasonable guideline (2). If using the similar guidelines as the Australian government, only between 1% and 5% of medical treatments would be deemed to be “effective,” and virtually every surgical procedure would be consider “unproven.” Is Glasziou or the BMJ asserting that virtually all of medical treatment and surgical procedure be deemed unproven and ineffective? If not, then why use unrealistic and arbitrary guidelines for evaluating homeopathy? Are some extremely serious biases in evidence here instead of good science?

Also, Paul Glasziou doesn’t seem to understand the real implications of his assertion that any study that has a P-value of .05 would suggest that this treatment had a 5% chance of occurring by sheer random chance. Based on the BMJ’s review of clinical research in the entire field of medicine having less than 5% efficacy, it could easily be assumed that many of these studies may have happened by chance, thereby suggesting that there is virtually no evidence for the entire field of medical treatment.

For the record, Dr. Glasziou has conveniently ignored the many studies testing homeopathic treatment that has significantly better than a p-value of .05. Chest published a study on the homeopathic treatment of people with COPD with a p-value of 0.0001 (3). David Reilly and his team at the University of Glasgow conducted a series of four studies on patients with various types of respiratory allergies, two of which were published in the BMJ and one in the Lancet. Although their studies included over 200 patients, no single study included more than 150 patients, and therefore, ALL of the evidence from these high-quality trials were completely ignored, even though a review of the four trials found a p-value of 0.0007 (4). Even an editorial reviewing Reilly’s research has acknowledged that it is highly unlikely that these results are due to random happenstance (5).

Or wasn’t it convenient that the Australian government’s report ignored a study on the homeopathic treatment of people with pancreatic cancer that showed that 39% of patients with this extremely serious chronic illness survived five years (6), even though no other study has ever found a five-year survival rate of greater than 1%. For the record, this study was not even considered by Dr. Glasziou’s report because it reviewed only 44 patients and was not a placebo-controlled trial, and yet, I challenge Dr. Glasziou or anyone to report results anywhere that can be comparable.

Courts of law do not determine guilty or innocence only based on double-blind or placebo controlled trials. They report on all evidence.

References:

(1) What conclusions have Clinical Evidence drawn about what works, what doesn’t based on randomised controlled trial evidence? BMJ, 2015. 

(2) Nuts, bolts, and tiny little screws: how Clinical Evidence works. BMJ, 2015.

(3) Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, et al. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941. 

(4) Taylor, MA, Reilly, D, Llewellyn-Jones, RH, et al., Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial Series, BMJ, August 19, 2000, 321:471-476. 

(5) This week in the BMJ. Homoeopathic dilutions may be better than placebo. BMJ 2000;321:0.

(6) Chatterjee A, Biswas J, Chatterjee A, Bhattacharya S, Mukhopadhyay B, Mandal S. Psorinum therapy in treating stomach, gall bladder, pancreatic, and liver cancers: a prospective clinical study. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:724743. An abstract of the above study was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology

I tried to shorten Dana’s comments, but I found it all pretty relevant. So, in conclusion – you have to take everything from the pseudoskeptics with a grain of salt. The only way to sift through all the nonsense is to be able to identify what makes for good science and what makes for scientism. Unfortunately, with all of their convenient omissions, obfuscations, and failure to comprehend basic statistical principals, they don’t make that very easy.

Ananda

http://magicpillsmovie.com/pseudo-skeptics/

Just One Drop - the story behind the homeopathy controversy by Health Action Network Society (HANS)

Just One Drop - In Vancouver, October 17th, 2017

by Health Action Network Society (HANS)

Description

Part of the Health Action Film Series, JUST ONE DROP tells the little known story of homeopathy: the most controversial system of medicine. To many, homeopathy seems implausible. They fear it is purely a placebo effect or worse, a form of deception or quackery. Yet, homeopathy has been around for over 200 years and is used by millions of people around the world. The film explores the controversy, reveals the rich history, dispels myths and misconceptions, and asks whether or not homeopathy been given a fair shake.

Panel discussion to follow screening.

The Just One Drop trailer may be viewed here.

https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/just-one-drop-the-story-behind-the-homeopathy-controversy-tickets-37436307002

CEASE Therapy for PANDAS, ASD, Aspergers, ADHD and more

In this fascinating and touching documentary Dr. Tinus Smits (†2010) explains his treatment method, and parents of ill children tell their experience with vaccine damage and the amazing improvements with Dr. Smits' therapy. It includes dramatic before-and-after stories of children cured of vaccination damage. 25 years ago he stood in front of the class, teaching French.

Dr. Iris Bell M.D. Ph.D. does it again!

Research in Homeopathy:

If anyone is ever asking you to back up your interest in homeopathy with 'Evidence-based Research' or 'clinical proof' or RCT (Random Control Trials) scientific research, please help them by referring to this list or also by sharing this email. Here is a link that displays a pdf of a Reference List of 138 pages worth of Homeopathic Research. This list was curated by Dr. Iris Bell M.D. Ph. D. and Peter Gold in 2015. Much more research has been published since this collection almost two years ago. Hope this helps lead anyone to any type of research with regards to the use of homeopathy and homeopathic remedies. Anyone is welcome to download this pdf file and use it or pass it on. http://www.homeopathy.ca/pdf/HomeopathyResearchEvidenceBase_10-29-15.pdf

Homeopathy - Medical Mondays→

Anti-rheumatoid and anti-oxidant activity of homeopathic Guaiacum officinale in an animal model

Amrita Sarkar, Poulami Datta, Asok Kumar Dasa, Antony Gomes

Laboratory of Toxinology & Experimental Pharmacodynamics, Department of Physiology, University of Calcutta, 92 A P C Road, Kolkata 700 009, India

aNational Institute of Homoeopathy, Salt Lake, Kolkata, India.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2013.08.006

Background

Homeopathy is a popular form of complementary and alternative medicine. Guaiacum extract is said to be useful for pain and inflammation, but there appears to be no scientific evidence to support this.

Aims

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the anti-rheumatic and anti-oxidant activity of homeopathic preparations of Guaiacum officinale (Gua) on experimental animal model.

Design

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was induced in male albino rats by Freund's complete adjuvant (FCA) at a dose of (0.25 mg heat killed Mycobacterium tuberculosis/ml of emulsion). Gua mother tincture (MT) (prepared from the latex part of the plant) (MT), Gua 30cc and 200cc were purchased commercially from King Company, Kolkata, India. Male albino Wistar rats (130 ± 10 g) were divided into 6 groups: Sham control; Arthritis control; Standard treatment indomethacin (0.25 mg 100 g−1 p.o. × 5 alternative days), Gua MT (1 ml kg−1 p.o. × 5 days) treated; Gua (30c 1 ml kg−1 p.o. × 5 days) treated; Gua (200c; 1 ml kg−1 p.o. × 5 days) treated. Anti-rheumatic activity was examined through physical, urinary, serum parameters. All the results were expressed in terms of mean ± SEM (statistical error of mean n = 6) at each dose level. The level of significance was determined through one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

It was observed that body weight, ankle and knee diameter, urinary parameters (hydroxyproline (OH-P), glucosamine, calcium (Ca2+), creatinine (CRE), phosphate (PO43−)), serum ACP (acid phosphatase)/ALP (alkaline phosphatase)/Ca2+/CRE/PO43−/gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT)/Lipid peroxidation (LPO)/Glutathione (GSH)/Superoxide dismutase (SOD)/Catalase, serum GGT, serum interleukins like IL-1β/CINC-1/PGE2/TNF-α/IL-6, IL-12/IL-4/IL-6 levels were significantly affected. After treatment with Guaiacum in all 3 regimes was associated with normalization of these parameters compared to control group.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that homeopathic G. officinale possesses anti-rheumatic and anti-oxidant activity in experimental animal and these activities may be more significant in higher potencies.

Keywords:

Guaiacum, FCA, Arthritis, Interleukins, Anti-oxidant

Homeopathy Vancouver Friday Fun Fact

“Homeopathy must become the first line of treatment among the masses because it is not only cheap but has no side effects and it treats the patient from the root, permanently.”

— • The Prime Minister of India is promoting homeopathy throughout the country

Homeopathy Vancouver Friday Fun Fact

Dr. Todd Rowe MD (H), CCH, DHt. Homeopathic Program Director of the Phoenix Institute of Herbal Medicine & Acupuncture quotes a study by the New England Journal of Medicine; “revealed that over 50% of patients use alternative medicine here in the United States but 90% never tell their Medical Provider that they are using alternative medicine.”

Homeopathic Remedies for your Hot Summer Holidays

Emergency Remedies to bring to your beach days:

For sensitive skin:

Calendula can be used internally as a homeopathic remedy for sunburns that do not blister but feel hot, burning and itches. Urtica is another commonly used homeopathic remedy that can be taken internally for a typical sunburn with no blisters but itching and burning.

Cantharis is an excellent homeopathic remedy for burns that blister or are about to blister. For any serious burn, cantharis is a potent healing to relieve the pain and promote the healing of second degree burns.

For sunstroke or heat exhaustion; If you've gotten more direct sun than your body could handle at a time you may have headaches, dizziness, weakness, nausea, fever, flushed skin, dry skin and even confusion or fainting. You would definitely need to re-hydrate as much and as soon as possible. Belladonna is a powerful homeopathic remedy that can restore your strength. Belladonna can act fast if it is the correctly indicated remedy. Glonione is another potent homeopathic remedy to have on hand in case of sunstroke. Cuprum metallicum if there is some cramping of your muscles that develops along with the sunstroke.

Homeopathic FAQs: How is homeopathy different from naturopathy?

Homeopathy is a specialized ancient form of natural medicine. Seeing a naturopath is like seeing a GP (general practitioner) of natural medicine. Homeopaths are specialized in homeopathy and therefore will give homeopathic remedies using the whole homeopathic system of medicine, not in an allopathic manner. Naturopaths (and anyone who buys homeopathic remedies at their local health food store) can choose remedies using an allopathic philosophy. However, homeopaths can use remedies incorporating the holistic principles of homeopathic healing learned in their four years of minimum training. You can read more in depth about some of these principles on our blog.

Homeopathy FAQs: What are the benefits of a natural approach to healing?

The process of healing varies from person to person depending on how ill you are, or on your levels of vitality. In the days/weeks after taking the homeopathic remedy you may find that you feel better in yourself - you experience an increase in energy and/or your complaints improve gradually or may even clear up completely.

With an acute or recent illness your improvement may be quite swift. Or it can be a more gradual process, especially if you have been suffering from a long term, or chronic complex illness.

Some people experience a slight worsening, or aggravation after their treatment (healing crisis). This usually occurs within the first day or two of starting a remedy and is a good sign. Aggravations mostly do not last long (part of a day or two), are manageable and are accompanied by an increased sense of well being.

Some Homeopathic Pharmacies are older than conventional pharmacies!

You may experience a "return of old symptoms", in other words symptoms that you experienced in the past may resurface, and these too, are a good sign. They indicate that your body is clearing out an old disease pattern and are generally short-lived. This is always a good opportunity to ask yourself whether your symptoms are familiar, whether they remind you of something you have experienced in the past.

Health problems are symptoms of imbalance - a warning sign from your own body that it is not functioning as well as it could. The earlier you address a health concern, the easier it is to resolve.

Review of the Film “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe”

I looked at the data that the CDC whistleblower was providing to Andy and Brian and it is the most compelling evidence of fraud I have ever seen in my life. I realized in that moment that I was looking at probably the biggest story of my lifetime. As a journalist, I realized it was a story I had to tell. – Del Bigtree, Producer of Vaxxed from Cover-Up to Catastrophe

Practically from the opening scene, the film Vaxxed grabs our attention and doesn’t let go until it has elicited every ounce of empathy and outrage the human heart is capable of. Back in 2013, William Thompson, PhD, a senior scientist at the CDC was so wracked with guilt about his participation in a CDC study on the timing of the MMR vaccine and autism that he finally picked up the phone and called Brian Hooker, PhD, biologist and autism dad, to tell him where to look for the evidence of CDC deception. Vaxxed is the story of what followed, revealing evidence of collusion, corruption, and fraud at the very agency charged with protecting the public health.

The film was accepted by and then unceremoniously ejected from the Tribeca Film Festival after a firestorm of media attention which almost unanimously condemned the film even though not a single reporter had seen it. The media attention may have turned out to be a blessing in disguise, however, as it has many people who haven’t investigated the topic before asking, Why? What is so special about this film that so many people wanted to kill it? And so it was that the film opened last night to a packed house at Angelika Film Center in New York City. As a long-time New Yorker, there was a particular thrill to seeing this film at this theater. Angelika is my very favorite theater in New York. I have many vivid memories of terrific and thought-provoking films seen there, while surprisingly I have no clear recollection of any films screened at the Tribeca Film Festival.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who started his adult life as a research gastroenterologist studying Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis at the Royal Free Hospital in London, had his career destroyed by a case series he wrote with twelve other eminent gastroenterologists and researchers back in 1998 that suggested the possibility that the severe bowel disease they were seeing in children with autism might be associated with the measles virus found in their guts. Parents of eight of the twelve children in the series reported that their children had been developing normally or close to it until they received the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR). Scientific researchers look for patterns; they don’t spend their time and energy on random guesses out of the blue. If a researcher finds a pattern in what they’re seeing, that’s usually a good sign that there’s something there to investigate. Wakefield et al’s research was merely suggestive and didn’t draw any conclusions, but it clearly touched a nerve in some very powerful circles as this case series is used as a touchstone in virtually any argument involving vaccines and autism.

The fascinating thing to me is that the facts about this research are almost universally mischaracterized in the media to the point that we get comments from people all the time making wildly inaccurate statements like “that doctor was convicted of fraud and sent to jail!”, “Wakefield admitted he made it all up,” or “he performed dangerous and unnecessary procedures on children.” (Wakefield was not a clinician; he performed zero procedures on children, and the person who did perform most of these supposedly “unnecessary” medical procedures, Dr. John Walker-Smith, had his medical license reinstated when a judge reversed the previous GMC finding.) The whole thing would be comical if the effect of silencing debate and investigation were not having such a horrendous impact on so many children’s health.

Dr. Wakefield had already turned his efforts toward documentary filmmaking (a previous effort, Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis?, is among the most affecting and thought-provoking films I have ever seen) when Dr. Hooker called him and told him what Dr. Thompson was saying. Dr. Wakefield encouraged Dr. Hooker to record the conversations without Dr. Thompson’s knowledge to ensure that there was a record of his statements in case something happened to Dr. Thompson to make him change his mind. This was totally legal as both Dr. Thompson and Dr. Hooker were in states where one-party consent is all that is required for recording. Dr. Hooker re-analyzed the data that he obtained at Dr. Thompson’s suggestion, and it was damning. The re-analysis was peer-reviewed and published in Translational Neurodegeneration in August of 2014, then later retracted when the journal received a barrage of attacks similar to what happened to the Tribeca Film Festival.

Prior to beginning the original study, there was a six-month research plan written up. The research plan was intended to make the study unassailable, unlike the CDC’s Verstraeten Thimerosal study which was riddled with problems from the outset (explained beautifully in Trace Amounts, another documentary that came out last year). But, again, researchers ran into trouble right away. When they crunched the numbers, they found two very strong associations between the timing of MMR and autism. In African-American boys, autism was 3.4 times as common in children who had received the MMR before 36 months of age than it was in children who were given the vaccine after they turned three. In addition, children who had been developing normally for the first twelve months of life and later developed autism were more than seven times as likely to have had MMR before the age of three as at later time. As Dr. Wakefield rightly points out in the film, all the children in the study were given the MMR – it was only the timing that varied – and the effects were quite strong. How strong would the effect have been if they had compared children who had the vaccine before 18 months (as is recommended by the CDC in order to be “on time”) with children who had never received the vaccine at all?

But no one knows because the CDC didn’t publish the data. Instead of publishing what they found and doing the follow-on studies that should have been performed, they set about systematically getting rid of the strong signals they had found. Instead of following the unassailable research plan, they figured out a way to plausibly dump 40% of the data by requiring Georgia birth certificates. This reduced the amplitude of the signal itself as well as the statistical power of the study, meaning that whatever signal they did find could be explained away as “not statistically significant.” Not only did they discard the data for the purposes of publication, however, they literally threw the data away. Fortunately, Dr. Thompson, realizing that this was at best unethical and at worst illegal, kept copies of all the data.

This study was eventually published in 2004, four years after it began, and it was immediately taken to the Institute of Medicine, a supposedly independent organization, who used this study to recommend that no more investigation be done on the subject. At the time, the study was referenced in virtually every media outlet as “proof” that “vaccines don’t cause autism.” (Though any scientist worth their salt would know it was nothing of the kind even if it weren’t fraudulent.) Thompson rightfully complained to Dr. Hooker in 2013 that we had already lost 10 years of research because of the CDC’s paralysis around anything related to autism and vaccines. If that’s not enough to make your blood boil, you haven’t been paying attention.

At the beginning of 2009, five years after this study and the Verstraeten study were published, Julie Gerberding left her job as Director of the CDC to take a lucrative position at Merck, the maker of the MMR, running their vaccine division. It’s not hard to see that Merck was quite pleased with the work she did for them.

As a bystander who has watched closely as all the events in the film were taking place, I have been indignant at the wholesale ignoring of the evidence that our children have been sold down the river by powerful and cynical collusion between CDC and corporate interests. Del Bigtree, as a producer of The Doctors, an influential medical program that often received information from the CDC, couldn’t chase the story down himself when it broke, but as a journalist with a nose for a good story, he assumed that within two weeks it would break in every major news outlet. Not only did that not happen, no major news outlet has ever brought up the subject without the obvious agenda of “debunking” the story. (As a matter of fact, my fellow Thinking Mom L.J. Goes and myself are among the very few people who have ever been able to comment on the controversy on mainstream television.) This should have been Pulitzer-Prize-winning material, and yet no one was touching it. That was when Bigtree realized that all of television (and indeed the print media as well) is controlled by pharmaceutical advertising dollars.

It is clear, both here and in the U.K., that what the respective health agencies are protecting is not children’s health, but their vaccine programs. The “collateral damage” of this policy, the broken lives of previously healthy children, is poignantly portrayed in the film by interviews with parents of affected children like Polly Tommey, another of the film’s producers, and Dr. Hooker.

I know many of the people involved in the making of the film, but one of the most potent testimonies came from a mother I don’t know. Shirley Ealey brought her African-American boy-and-girl twins to a well-baby visit where a nurse lined up three shots each, including the MMR. When her daughter reacted by screaming, Ealey was distracted and didn’t notice that the nurse accidentally gave four of the shots to her son. Ealey asked where the missing shot had gone, whereupon the nurse realized she had given Ealey’s son a double dose of the MMR. Ealey was so upset that she whisked her children out of the office without letting her daughter get the remaining vaccines. At the time of the filming, Ealey’s twins were 19 years old. While her daughter speaks three languages, plays classical piano, and is an honor student, her son sits next to her on the couch happily watching Blue’s Clues on his iPad. Ealey’s tears as she contemplates the the stark contrasts in her twins’ development and what her son lost forever at that well-baby visit will haunt me for the rest of my life.

Perhaps my favorite part of the film is when Bigtree goes back to some of his old colleagues from The Doctors, where he worked for seven years before leaving to help make this film. Bigtree presents the documents to family medicine practitioner Dr. Rachael Ross and pediatrician Dr. Jim Sears, who are both cheerfully and confidently “pro-vaccine” (as always, I find myself irritated by the ridiculous premise that attitudes around a nuanced subject like vaccines can be reduced to the binary states of “pro-vaccine” and “anti-vaccine”) before reading them and both visibly shaken by what they have read afterward. When Bigtree asks what Dr. Ross would say to the next parent who comes into her office asking about the MMR, she says she would tell the truth. She will not be giving it her own children (Dr. Ross had a baby girl in November of 2015), and she worries about what we are doing to children’s brains.

Indeed. She is by no means alone in that.

I recently watched the movie Spotlight about how journalists at the Boston Globe uncovered the tremendously damaging way that the Catholic church was handling sexual abuse charges against their priests. The journalists were blocked time and again by people willing to collude with the church in denying what they clearly knew was happening, but that just made the journalists more determined than ever to get to the truth. They were finally able to publish enough of the truth that they made it impossible for the Catholic church to continue institutional policies that allowed children’s lives to be destroyed.

Because of the current stranglehold that pharmaceutical dollars have on mainstream media, this story is even harder to get out. Just as in that situation, a powerful interest group is working day and night to suppress the facts — they know children’s lives are being destroyed by their policies and they just don’t care. Fortunately, the filmmakers of Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe know that, in this era of increased communication and transparency, mainstream media censorship can only postpone the truth getting out, not prevent it. So they threw their hearts, minds, and souls into this film as a way of circumventing that censorship. And they did a damned fine job of telling a difficult story that needs to be told.

Now it’s your turn to do what you can to get the message out there. See the film. Share information about it on Facebook and Twitter. Encourage everyone you know to see it — especially if they are not already familiar with the facts. Just like the journalists at the Boston Globe did, let’s make it impossible for this powerful organization to continue those policies that are sacrificing children’s lives to some bizarre conception of the Greater Good.

~ Professor

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/vaxxed-cover-catastrophe/

Testimonial

“When I went to see Elena in 2006, I was suffering from depression, panic attacks and was having trouble sleeping. I was missing work and knew I had to do something different than taking conventional medications that weren’t working for me. Elena spent a significant amount of time getting a good understanding of what was going on with me. After the first remedy she chose, my anxiety disappeared and I was myself again; very functional, happy and enthusiastic for life. Five years later, I experienced some similar symptoms and went back to see her and was significantly better the very day after taking my homeopathic remedy.”

— N.P., Vancouver

Testimonial

“When I first went to see El, I was having excruciatingly painful periods. My hormones were all out of whack and I was feeling really run down and tired all the time. Within three weeks of receiving my first constitutional remedy, I was surprised by the changes right away; my cramps were far less intense and only lasted a day, on and off. I also noticed an improvement in the quality of sleep I was getting and overall, I just felt more able to handle my stress and move through emotional obstacles. During the following months I have continued to see improvements on several levels including a healthier cycle and less painful cramping. I’m so glad I found homeopathy and El! The results have been astounding and El has been amazing to work with. I feel genuinely cared for and heard when I visit with her and I believe this is the moment the healing begins! When El chooses a remedy for me I can trust that she has made a well thought out and careful decision. As they say, the proof is in the pudding and the results I’ve had have been astonishing, proof enough for both me and my partner. We plan to start a family later this year and we both feel more at ease about it knowing that we have El and homeopathy on our side.”

— R.T.

Common Questions about Homeopathy; How does it work?

What is homeopathy and how does it work?

Homeopathy is a medical philosophy and practice based on the idea that the body has the ability to heal itself.

Homeopathic medicine views symptoms of illness as normal responses of the body as it attempts to regain health, and is based on the idea that "like cures like." That is, if a substance causes a symptom in a healthy person, giving the person a very small amount of the same substance may cure the illness. A homeopathic dose enhances the body's normal healing and self-regulatory processes (a process known as hormesis).

Your homeopath will use pills or liquid mixtures (solutions) containing only a little of an active ingredient (usually a plant or mineral) for treatment of disease. These are known as highly diluted or "potentiated" substances. There is evidence to show that homeopathic medicines have helpful effects.

Homeopathy was founded in the late 1700s in Germany and has since been integrated into the national health care systems of other countries including the United Kingdom, Scotland, India, France, Cuba, Tanzania, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, and Mexico.