by Dawn Lester & David Parker

Anti-Hypertensives

The establishment definition of hypertension refers to, “high blood pressure i.e. elevation of the arterial blood pressure above the normal range expected in a particular group.”

There is a great deal of concern within the medical establishment about elevated blood pressure, because it is said to force the heart to work harder in its efforts to pump blood through the arteries and around the body. This extra work is said to cause excess strain on the heart and blood vessels and lead to health problems, especially heart disease. It is claimed that elevated blood pressure above the range considered to be ‘normal’ is a reliable indicator of an increased risk for the occurrence of a heart attack or a stroke.

The medical establishment clearly considers high blood pressure to be synonymous with hypertension; as also indicated by the May 2019 WHO fact sheet entitled Hypertension, which states that, “Hypertension – or elevated blood pressure – is a serious medical condition that significantly increases the risks of heart, brain, kidney and other diseases.”

Dr Richard D Moore MD PhD, however, disagrees with this view and states in his book entitled The High Blood Pressure Solution that, “There is a lot more to hypertension than just elevated blood pressure. The increased blood pressure is a marker, or a sign that something is out of balance.”

A salient point made by Dr Moore is that a stroke can occur in the absence of elevated blood pressure, which means that the relationship is not as direct as the medical establishment claims it to be.

The May 2017 WHO fact sheet entitled Cardiovascular Diseases states that, “Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are a group of disorders of the heart and blood vessels…”

The fact sheet refers to the scale of the problem and states that, “CVDs are the number 1 cause of death globally…”

In addition, the Hypertension fact sheet states that, “Hypertension is a major cause of premature death worldwide.”

It is clear that diseases of this nature are indicative of extremely serious health problems; but, like all other diseases, their nature is misunderstood by the medical establishment.

The original theory about blood pressure claimed that an elevated level was the underlying health problem; an idea that arose as the result of observations in which elevated blood pressure correlated with certain ill-health conditions. These observations were developed into the theory that elevated blood pressure was a causal factor for various health problems, such as heart attacks and strokes.

The medical establishment solution for raised blood pressure, as with virtually all other health problems, inevitably involves the use of drugs that are intended to lower blood pressure to a ‘normal range’. The achievement of a blood pressure reading within that normal range is perceived to be a successful outcome of the treatment and one that is able to reduce or even eliminate the risks of the associated health problems. The original theory about blood pressure was, however, based on a mistaken assumption, as Dr Moore explains, “But we now know that rather than being the primary problem, high blood pressure is a symptom of an unhealthy imbalance in the cells and tissues throughout the body.”

Unfortunately, the ‘we’ of Dr Moore’s statement does not refer to the medical establishment, which continues to maintain the position that elevated blood pressure requires medication so that it can be lowered to fall within the range regarded as ‘normal’; as indicated by the information provided by the WHO fact sheet.

The ranges of blood pressure readings considered to be ‘normal’ for each age group have undergone a number of revisions since they were first created; at each revision the ‘normal’ range has been reduced. The basis for these changes is the continuing, but erroneous, assumption that elevated blood pressure is the cause of health problems and that the reduction of a person’s blood pressure reading will also reduce the risks of the health problems associated with it.

The medical establishment claims that the most effective method for lowering blood pressure to the ‘normal range’, is through medication with anti-hypertensive drugs to be taken over the course of long periods of time; and often become lifelong. The continual downward revisions of the ‘normal’ ranges result in an ever-greater proportion of the population perceived to have elevated blood pressure and therefore ‘at risk’; this results in an ever-increasing number of people who are prescribed anti-hypertensive drugs and also, inevitably, in vastly increased profits for the pharmaceutical industry.

The most recent large study that has been undertaken to investigate the problems associated with high blood pressure, indicates that another revision to an even lower ‘normal’ range is likely to occur in the near future. This study, called SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), was designed to answer certain questions, as explained on the website. One of the questions was, “Will lower blood pressure reduce the risk of heart and kidney diseases, stroke, or age-related declines in memory and thinking?”

This question indicates that the study intended to investigate other health problems in addition to heart disease and stroke, the two that are most often associated with elevated blood pressure. The UK NHS suggests that kidney disease is one of a number of conditions that can cause high blood pressure.

The SPRINT study involved more than 9,300 people aged 50 or older, who had a blood pressure reading that was higher than a certain designated figure and who were regarded as having at least one ‘risk factor’. These participants were divided into two groups, one of which received the ‘standard’ blood-pressure-lowering treatment with the aim of achieving a certain target level of blood pressure. The other group received ‘intensive’ blood-pressure-lowering treatment with the aim of reducing their blood pressure to an even lower target level. The purpose was to determine if there were any benefits to be gained by achieving the lower blood pressure levels.

In September 2015, the NIH (National Institutes of Health), which had provided funding for the study, prepared a Press Release stating that the study had been ended a year early because the results were felt to be sufficiently significant. The Press Release begins with the statement that, “More intensive management of high blood pressure, below a commonly recommended blood pressure target, significantly reduces rates of cardiovascular disease, and lower risk of death in a group of adults 50 years and older with high blood pressure.”

This statement would tend to suggest that the study has produced good news; but this would be a mistaken interpretation. One of the findings reported within the initial results was that the ‘intensive treatment’ group experienced significantly higher rates of serious adverse events than the ‘standard treatment’ group. This result ought to have been expected by those people who know that all drugs produce ‘side effects’ and that the use of multiple drugs increases the number of adverse health events.

Dr Moore explains the nature of some of the adverse health effects that result from anti-hypertensive drugs, “Besides lowering blood pressure, all anti-hypertensive drugs can produce undesirable side effects. This is not surprising since they alter basic body functions not only in the blood vessels but in the nervous system and kidneys as well.”

This indicates that kidney disease can be the result of anti-hypertensive drugs, rather than the cause of high blood pressure, as suggested by the NHS.

Drugs, by definition, are intended to interfere with the normal functions of a living organism. The existence of effects in the blood vessels, nervous system and kidneys indicate that anti-hypertensive drugs interfere systemically; their effects are not restricted to the lowering of blood pressure. This further corroborates the statement in the previous section that drugs produce effects in parts of the body that are not the targeted, ‘diseased’ area.

The belief that the body is comprised of separate parts, each of which can be ‘fixed’ without reference to any other parts, perpetuates the idea that the adverse effects of drugs are ‘risks’ worth taking as they ‘fix’ the diseased part; but this is a false belief. Furthermore, patients are rarely advised of the full extent of the risks associated with the drugs they have been prescribed.

The failure of the medical establishment to acknowledge the toxicity of pharmaceutical drugs continues to endanger lives on a daily basis.

In his book, Dr Moore discusses the different types of drugs that are used for the treatment of hypertension and explains their ‘action’ in the body. The first type of treatment that is usually offered to a patient is a diuretic, which ‘works’ by stimulating the kidneys to increase their production and excretion of urine. The purpose of this is to encourage a reduction in the level of sodium in the body, because an increased level of sodium in the body is believed to be a major factor that can cause hypertension.

But, as Dr Moore reveals, it is not the absolute level of sodium in the body that is a problem; instead, the key factor is the comparative level of sodium with respect to the level of potassium. Cells require both sodium and potassium, but they must be in the correct balance with respect to each other for the cells to function properly.

It is not uncommon that diuretics will fail to achieve an adequate reduction in blood pressure, which leads to the recommendation of other more powerful drugs to continue the process. There are a number of drugs in this category, for example, adrenergic inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers. As indicated by their names, all of these drugs are designed to inhibit, block or otherwise interfere with the body’s normal functions; which means that adverse effects are inevitable as Dr Moore explains, “All these drugs have undesirable side effects because they act at several locations and tend to upset the body’s normal balance.”

Although referred to as ‘side effects’, the fact that all drugs enter the bloodstream means that they are able to, and invariably do, interfere systemically; causing a wide variety of adverse effects.

A worrying consequence of the SPRINT study is that, in addition to the possibility that it may generate a new lower ‘range’ for blood pressure readings for all age groups, it will generate a drive for increasing numbers of people to undergo regular blood pressure monitoring, even if they have no existing ill-health problems. The idea that blood pressure increases with age and that this is inevitably associated with increased ‘risks’ to health, already impacts many people over the age of 50, who are encouraged to have regular blood pressure checks. The UK NHS recommends that people aged 40 and older should have their blood pressure monitored annually.

The causes of elevated blood pressure are admitted to be poorly understood by the medical establishment; the UK NHS claims that it can result from certain conditions or as the result of certain medications. The CVD fact sheet suggests that there are some ‘behavioral factors’ that can increase the risk of developing heart disease and states, “The most important behavioral risk factors of heart disease and stroke are unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, tobacco use and harmful use of alcohol.”

Although hypertension is usually associated with increased age, it is not a condition that is only experienced by people over a certain age, whether 50 or even 40. It is reported that high blood pressure is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon in young people and even children; especially in association with obesity. Yet, despite the recognition that an unhealthy diet is a factor that increases the ‘risk’ of heart disease, for which the WHO recommends that people reduce their salt intake and increase their consumption of fruit and vegetables, the use of blood-pressure-lowering drugs remains a key aspect of the recommended solution.

Three of the four ‘behavioral risk factors’ listed by the WHO are certainly relevant to health, but they by no means provide a complete explanation of cardiovascular health problems, therefore addressing these factors alone will not solve the problem. Furthermore, ‘health’ is a full body issue; it cannot be achieved by only addressing the functioning of an individual organ or system in the body; even if that organ is the heart, which is vital for life itself.

One of the listed ‘risk’ factors, namely physical inactivity, is not the cause of any disease and so increasing physical activity can neither prevent nor solve any condition of ill-health.

In the attempt to provide a solution to the problem of CVDs, the WHO fact sheet recommends treatments that include aspirin and beta-blockers, as well as those previously mentioned. Aspirin is discussed in the final section here on the topic of OTC drugs.

The focus of this discussion has been on the use of ‘medicine’ to address the problem of hypertension based on the idea that the human body is solely biochemical in nature. But this idea is misleading as the human body is also bioelectrical in nature; an attribute that applies particularly to the heart, which is one of the major organs that function electrically. Therefore, any factors that produce electrical interference can have adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and especially the heart.

A 2013 article entitled Earthing (Grounding) The Human Body Reduces Blood Viscosity: A Major Factor in Cardiovascular Disease explains that red blood cells have a negative electrical charge and this maintains their separation from each other in the bloodstream through electrostatic repulsion. The article also states that if the negative charge on the red blood cells is reduced, the electrostatic repulsion is reduced and this leads to the inability of blood cells to remain sufficiently separated. The result of this impaired functioning is that the cells ‘clump’ together and that blood viscosity increases; the article explains the consequences, “Blood viscosity and aggregation are major factors in hypertension and other cardiovascular pathologies, including myocardial infarction.”

Myocardial infarction is the medical term for a heart attack.

The article clearly supports Dr Moore’s claim that hypertension is more than just elevated blood pressure and provides an explanation for one of the causes of the condition; unfortunately, the medical establishment is largely oblivious of the body’s bioelectrical nature and therefore ignorant of a significant causal factor of ill-health.

Statins

The establishment definition of a statin refers to, “any one of a class of drugs that inhibit the action of an enzyme involved in the liver’s production of cholesterol.”

The reason that drugs are required to inhibit the production of cholesterol is claimed by the NIH, on the Resources web page entitled High Blood Cholesterol: What You Need to Know, to be because, “High blood cholesterol is one of the major risk factors for heart disease.”

The medical establishment theory, which claims that a high level of cholesterol is dangerous and needs to be reduced, is, however, flawed. Interestingly, the establishment definition of cholesterol highlights one of the flaws in this theory because it includes the statement that, “Cholesterol and its esters are important constituents of cell membranes…”

Despite the plethora of recommendations by the medical establishment that people should lower their intake of cholesterol, the total level of cholesterol within the body is not regulated by dietary intake. The overwhelming proportion, approximately 85%, of the body’s requirement for cholesterol is produced by the liver; it is only the remaining 15% approximately that is obtained through the diet. If, for some reason, the diet provides the body with insufficient cholesterol, the liver will increase its production to compensate for that dietary deficiency. It is clear therefore, that it is the body that regulates the level of this vital substance.

Cholesterol is not solely an important constituent of cell membranes; it is also an important constituent of the brain and essential for its proper functioning; as indicated by a 2010 article entitled The Effects of Cholesterol on Learning and Memory, which states that, “Cholesterol is ubiquitous in the central nervous system (CNS) and vital to normal brain function including signaling, synaptic plasticity, and learning and memory.”

The recognition that cholesterol is vital for the proper functioning of many of the body’s vital organs directly contradicts the information promulgated by the medical establishment that cholesterol is ‘dangerous’, and that high levels in the body pose a serious ‘risk’ to health.

An April 2016 article entitled Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis, published in the BMJ, explains that the original hypothesis about levels of cholesterol stemmed from a study called the Minnesota Coronary Experiment that was conducted between 1968 and 1973; but the results of this study were not published. This experiment was a controlled study that, for the participants of one of the groups, involved the replacement of saturated fats with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid, a polyunsaturated fat. This dietary intervention was shown to reduce serum levels of cholesterol and assumed to be beneficial.

The documents and data from this original study have recently been re-analyzed and the results published in the BMJ. The reason that the original study was not published is claimed to be because the researcher did not believe the results he had obtained. The BMJ article states that, “In meta-analyses, these cholesterol lowering interventions showed no evidence of benefit on mortality from coronary heart disease.”

In addition to the lack of evidence that any benefits accrued from the lowering of cholesterol levels, the BMJ article reports that the evidence, “…suggests the possibility of an increased risk of death for the intervention group…”

This is not the only study that has discovered that low cholesterol correlates with an increased risk of mortality, not a reduced risk, as the medical establishment claims.

It is stated that there are two types of cholesterol; LDL (low-density lipoproteins), which is regarded as ‘bad’ and HDL (high-density lipoproteins), which is regarded as ‘good’; but these labels are completely misleading. The idea that cholesterol can be either good or bad is based on a misunderstanding that arose from another study that investigated the effects of cholesterol on laboratory animals. The misunderstanding occurred because it was not recognized at the time that the cholesterol used in the study had been oxidized; it is the oxidation of cholesterol that causes health problems. In his book entitled Health and Nutrition Secrets, Dr Russell Blaylock explains the mistaken perception about the different types of cholesterol, “The reason LDL cholesterol is bad is that it is much easier to oxidize than HDL cholesterol. But oxidized HDL cholesterol is just as dangerous as oxidized LDL cholesterol.”

Oxidation of the cholesterol that constitutes cell membranes will inevitably, adversely affect the cell’s function and, likewise, oxidation of the cholesterol in the brain will affect brain function. These detrimental effects are the direct result of the process of oxidation; a process that produces ‘free radicals’, which are highly reactive particles that can cause damage to any part of the body with which they make contact. Oxidized cholesterol has been shown to cause damage to blood vessels; although free radicals cause damage wherever they are produced in the body.

On the basis of the flawed idea that it is a high level of cholesterol in the body that is the problem, the pharmaceutical industry developed drugs called statins to inhibit the production of this vitally important substance. Inevitably, there are many dangers associated with the use of statins, which, by intention, are designed to interfere with the body’s normal production of cholesterol. The consequences of inhibiting the enzyme in the liver to reduce the production of cholesterol are discussed by Dr Carolyn Dean in Death by Modern Medicine, “That enzyme, however, does much more in the body than just make cholesterol, so when it is suppressed by statins there are far-ranging consequences.”

Statins are proclaimed by the medical establishment to be both safe and effective, yet, like all other drugs, they produce a number of severely detrimental effects, some of which are explained by Dr Dean, “Since the brain has the highest concentration of cholesterol in the body, it’s no wonder that the constant demand for lower and lower cholesterol counts is going to impinge on brain function. Previous studies have shown that statins can result in polyneuropathy, which causes numbness, tingling, and burning pain. Researchers showed that people taking statins were 4 to 14 times more likely to develop polyneuropathy than those who did not take statins.”

Statins are intended to inhibit the production of cholesterol; they are not intended to address the problem of oxidized cholesterol, which means that they fail to address the underlying cause of the problem. There are a number of factors that can cause the oxidation of cholesterol and they include many toxic chemicals that are ubiquitous to the environment, as Dr Dean explains, “In addition, chlorine, fluoride in water, pesticides and other environmental pollutants can also oxidize cholesterol in the body.” Oxidized cholesterol can also be found in processed and ‘fast’ foods.

In addition to their increased use as treatments for patients with high levels of cholesterol, statins are increasingly prescribed as preventives on the basis of the idea that this will reduce the risk of developing a CVD. As demonstrated by the study published in the BMJ, there is no evidence that high levels of cholesterol constitute a health problem or even increase the risk of developing health problems. The study in fact revealed the opposite; that low levels of cholesterol produce adverse health consequences and that statins increase the level of harm to health.

The harm that they have been shown to cause is demonstrated by the withdrawal of certain statin drugs from the market following reports about a number of severe ‘side effects’, and even death in some cases. Nevertheless, many statin drugs remain on the market, including some that are known to produce many serious adverse effects, as has been reported by many patients who have taken these drugs. This would seem to be another instance of the benefit being claimed to outweigh the risk; but this is clearly not the case.

One of the serious adverse effects that can result from the use of statins is reported in a December 2015 article entitled Statin Use and the Risk of Kidney Disease With Long-Term Follow-Up (8.4-Year Study) published in the American Journal of Cardiology. This study acknowledges that there had been few studies on the long-term use of statins, especially with respect to the effects on kidney disease. The conclusion to the study states that, “…statin use is associated with increased incidence of acute and chronic kidney disease.”

The reason that these serious health problems were not discovered from the original clinical trials is also explained by the article that states, “These findings are cautionary and suggest that long-term effects of statins in real-life patients may differ from shorter term effects in selected clinical trial populations.”

Yet again, the medical establishment’s lack of knowledge about the human body has created more problems than it has solved in the attempt to reduce the incidence of heart disease. Cholesterol is not responsible for heart disease, therefore attempts to reduce the body’s production of cholesterol will not reduce the risk of heart disease.

Over-The-Counter (OTC) Medicines

The establishment definition of an over-the-counter medicine refers to, “a drug that may be purchased directly from a pharmacist without a doctor’s prescription.”

This means that people can ‘self-medicate’; which has many implications.

One major anomaly that is rarely raised in discussions on the subject relates to the idea that the use of OTC drugs is deemed acceptable to reduce the burden on the ‘health system’, because it means that people do not need to see a ‘qualified’ physician. But all professional medical associations claim that anyone who ‘treats’ illness other than a suitably qualified physician is a ‘quack’. Yet the medical establishment deems ‘ordinary’ people to be sufficiently competent to treat their own aches, pains and fevers with OTC ‘medicines’.

The use of OTC drugs is justified on the basis that they are able to treat ‘minor’ conditions, such as headaches and fevers, and that the cessation of these symptoms indicates that the illness has been conquered and the person is now ‘well’. However, pain and fever can occur as the result of a number of underlying factors, including the use of prescription drugs, that are not addressed by the OTC drugs, which only alleviate symptoms or sometimes stop them, albeit temporarily.

Although the drugs that are available without prescription are limited to certain types and only available in restricted strengths and quantities, the inherent problems with pharmaceutical ingredients and manufacturing processes demonstrate that OTC drugs are similarly toxic by nature and therefore similarly harmful. Their potential dangers are indicated by the fact that these drugs are available in restricted quantities to avoid the adverse effects from the ‘wrong’ dose.

There is a limited recognition by the medical establishment of the potential harm from OTC drugs, as described in an April 2013 article entitled Over-the-counter medicine abuse – a review of the literature published in the Journal of Substance Abuse. The emphasis in the article is clearly with reference to the abuse of OTC drugs, but it does include an acknowledgment of the potential for addiction and of the harm they can cause. A particularly relevant comment in the article is that, “OTC medicine abuse is a recognized problem internationally but is currently incompletely understood.”

This statement shows yet another facet of ‘healthcare’ that is poorly understood, but it also fails to address a fundamental question, which is why ‘medicines’ that are supposed to ‘heal’ can cause ‘harm’; especially those of the restricted types that are allowed to be purchased without a prescription.

In addition to any ‘effects’ caused by each individual drug is a lesser known problem, which is the effects that result from interactions between different drugs. It is a sad fact of life in the early 21st century that a large number of people take multiple prescription medications as well as many OTC drugs; this is known by the term ‘polypharmacy’.

The medical establishment recognizes the existence of interactions and some information may be printed on the package inserts of OTC drugs, which is usually available and accessible after the purchase has been made, unless the customer has consulted the pharmacist, who may be able to provide some information about contraindications.

The scale of OTC drug manufacture alone is huge; the FDA web page entitled Drug Applications for Over-the-Counter (OTC) Drugs states that, “…there are over 300,000 marketed OTC drug products…”

The total number of drug products available on the market is therefore clearly enormous. However, the full extent of the potential interactions between all drugs, both prescription and OTC, is entirely unknown, because, although some drug-drug interactions have been investigated, the overwhelming majority of drugs remain untested for their interactions with all other available drugs, both prescription and OTC.

The failure to address the problem of unknown drug-drug interactions is only in a very small part due to the fact that new drugs of all kinds are constantly being introduced onto the market, even though some drugs are removed. The major reason for the lack of full knowledge about the interactions between drugs is because, as previously mentioned, many ‘treatments’ have not been exhaustively tested or independently assessed.

The easy availability of OTC ‘medicines’ suggests that they would have been thoroughly tested for their efficacy and safety; but this is not the case. On the web page about OTC drug applications, the FDA states that they only review the active ingredients, not the individual drugs. But, as previously cited, the FDA only conducts reviews of reports prepared by the pharmaceutical company that manufactured the drug; they do not conduct their own independent tests to determine the safety and efficacy of the active ingredients of the drugs they approve.

This is a major problem within the medical establishment ‘system’, which is increasingly controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. The general public is therefore completely in the hands of the pharmaceutical industry with respect to all of the ‘medicines’ they may take.

A few examples of common OTC drugs will demonstrate some of the hazards associated with their use.

Aspirin

The establishment definition of aspirin refers to, “a widely used drug that relieves pain and also reduces inflammation and fever.”

Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) is a common OTC drug; it is an NSAID (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug). It is also used as a ‘preventive’ for heart attacks and strokes; although for this preventive purpose it is recommended to be taken at a ‘low dose’ and usually under the direction of a physician. Although all ‘experts’ within the medical establishment are generally in agreement on topics relating to appropriate treatments, the Mayo Clinic web page entitled Daily aspirin therapy: Understand the benefits and risks makes the interesting revelation that, “…there’s some disagreement among experts about whether the benefits of aspirin outweigh its potential risks.”

This statement illustrates two points, one of which is the intriguing idea that ‘experts’ do not always agree, thus challenging the ridiculous notion that science is always the result of a ‘consensus’. The other, more salient, point is that it highlights the contradictory notion that a substance can be both beneficial for and pose risks to health.

Some of the ‘side effects’ of aspirin include gastrointestinal problems such as nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain; more serious effects include gastrointestinal bleeding. These effects, which are not ‘side effects’ but directly result from the ingestion of aspirin, should not be surprising because aspirin is recognized to irritate the stomach lining.

It was once quite common for doctors to recommend aspirin for children with a fever. But it was later discovered that when children were diagnosed with conditions such as chickenpox or ‘flu’, the use of aspirin to treat the fever could cause a condition called Reye’s syndrome, which affects the brain and liver and is often fatal.

The ‘active ingredient’ in aspirin is salicylic acid, which is synthesized from a substance found in willow bark that has long been regarded as an effective pain relief agent; it is claimed that Hippocrates used it. Previous discussions have indicated however, that a long history of the use of any substance to alleviate symptoms does not prove that it is beneficial or safe. Some of the substances used as remedies ‘worked’ due to their toxic nature; an emetic is a pertinent example.

It is also important to emphasize that the suppression of symptoms, such as pain or fever, with drugs will never ‘cure’ the problem because they do not address or remove the underlying cause.

Paracetamol/Acetaminophen

The establishment definition of paracetamol refers to, “an analgesic drug that also reduces fever.”

Paracetamol, or acetaminophen as it is also called, became a popular replacement for aspirin when detrimental effects, such as Reye’s syndrome, were discovered to result from its use. However, paracetamol is also associated with a number of detrimental effects and has been officially cited as a major cause of liver failure. It is likely that most people who take this OTC drug for their aches, pains and fevers are completely unaware of its potential danger to their health.

The definition does include a limited recognition of the potential harm that paracetamol can cause in the statement that, “…overdosage causes liver damage.”

Paracetamol is a glutathione-exhausting drug, which is one of the reasons that it is dangerous because glutathione is an essential element for proper functioning of the body and glutathione depletion can result in hepatic and renal failure, hence the statement that it is a cause of liver failure.

Paracetamol can also result in death, which is why it is sometimes used in large quantities by people who have tried, and occasionally succeeded, in taking their own lives. Whilst people believe the maxim that it is the dose that makes a substance a poison, they will continue to assume that small doses are ‘safe’; but this is a false and dangerous assumption, because an accumulation of paracetamol resulting from many small doses over the course of a long period of time can be similarly dangerous.

Codeine

The establishment definition of codeine refers to, “an opioid analgesic derived from morphine but less potent as a pain killer and sedative and less toxic.”

Codeine is an example of a powerful drug that can nevertheless be purchased and used without a prescription. As the definition states, it is a member of the opiate family of drugs that includes morphine and heroin and, like them, can be addictive. Although the definition states that dependence on codeine is ‘uncommon’, there is adequate evidence to demonstrate that it has caused addiction, a fact that is stated in the previously cited article about OTC medicine abuse.

In addition to the possibility of addiction, there are distinct symptoms associated with withdrawal from codeine, which, if people are unaware of them, can be confused with a new kind of health ‘problem’.

It has also been established that codeine is metabolized in the body into morphine, which can be passed by a breastfeeding mother to her baby.

The ‘side effects’ of codeine include symptoms that range from headaches and vomiting to hallucinations, mood changes and impotence. These are extremely unpleasant ‘effects’ from a medicine that is supposed to relieve pain. Most people will, however, be unaware that these new symptoms are the result of the codeine they have taken and may assume it is a new health problem for which they may seek relief from the use of other OTC medicines.

Antacids

The establishment definition of an antacid refers to, “a drug that neutralizes the hydrochloric acid secreted in the digestive juices of the stomach.”

Antacid drugs are another very popular group of over-the-counter medications. They are used for the relief of heartburn or indigestion, which are assumed to be the result of the production of too much acid in the stomach. The stomach normally produces acid as part of the digestive processes and usually does so in the correct volume to fully process the food that has been consumed. However, antacids disrupt the natural level and balance of acid in the stomach, which therefore needs to produce more acid to counteract the effects of the antacid in order to process the food.

The frequent use of antacids will inevitably result in digestive problems and can lead to more serious conditions; the continual consumption of antacids will intensify digestive problems rather than relieve them.

The real problem that causes the symptoms associated with indigestion is that the stomach contains too much food for the digestive juices to be able to process all of it efficiently. Antacids therefore produce the completely opposite effect from the one they are claimed to produce.

The examples discussed above are clearly only a few of the drugs available without prescription. There are of course many more, all of which can be viewed in the same way: in other words: they do not address the underlying causes of the symptoms; they do not result in the return to a state of ‘health’; and they invariably cause additional health problems, some of which are more serious than the original problem they were intended to remedy.

In Summary

It should be abundantly obvious from the discussions in this section that drugs are not only ineffective, but are also harmful. This statement, although challenging to the information promulgated by the medical establishment, can be corroborated by the physicians quoted here, to which can be added the following remarks.

First from Dr Carolyn Dean in Death by Modern Medicine, “Loss of confidence in drug companies is inevitable when drugs are pulled from the market due to dangerous side effects. Numerous recent examples include hormone replacement therapy, causing heart disease and cancer; suicides on antidepressants, Vioxx causing heart attacks; diabetes drugs causing heart disease; statin drugs to lower cholesterol causing heart disease, impotence, and muscle disease; and osteoporosis drugs causing jaw bone destruction.”

There are two pertinent quotes by Herbert Shelton ND DC from his book, Natural Hygiene: Man’s Pristine Way of Life, the first of which states that, “It is necessary, if they [the public] are to be rescued from drug induced degeneracy and death, that the truth about drugs shall be made known. It must become common knowledge that there are no good drugs and that even their apparent beneficial effects are illusions. The symptomatic relief afforded by drugs is as illusory as the snakes the alcoholic sees in his boots.”

The second states that, “…so long as the medical profession and the drug industry…continue to teach the stultifying doctrine that poisons are the proper means with which to build, maintain and restore health, the public can have no different attitude towards drugs than the traditional one which it now holds.”

NOTE: Withdrawal from any drug should always be undertaken with appropriate supervision from a practitioner who is aware of the potential withdrawal reactions that can occur.

Excerpt from What Really Makes You Ill – Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong

See Part II here.