The NHS. A health system run for vested interests, not for patients

What is happening within the NHS, and other national health services around the world, does not make sense - unless and until you realise what is driving events. First, let's put various observations about the NHS out there for consideration. Similar observation apply to most health services around the world.

1. NHS Funding. The NHS is always struggling to stave off bankruptcy. However much money is poured into the organisation patient demand always outstrips resources. I have written about this recurring NHS crisis for many years - it has become one of my regular tasks every winter!
2. NHS doctors are on their knees. Indeed, physician burnout has become a global crisis, according to this Lancet article. There are not enough doctors, many of whom are retiring early because of the pressures, medical schools are having difficulty filling their training places, and the number of new doctors does not match the number of outgoing doctors. So the workload for those remaining increases. The average number of registered patients per doctor in England has risen to 2,087, an extra 56 people compared to last year. It has been rising like this for many years now. Registered patients in England increased by over 723,000 (1.2%) between July 2018 and July 2019, but the number of doctors fell by 441 between March 2018 and March 2019.
3. Patient Safety. It is recognised within the conventional medical establishment that this situation, which is happening around the world, is putting patient safety at serious risk. Doctors are warning that the increasing numbers of patients they have to see each day is 'concerning', and that this is putting patient safety under threat.
4. Homeopathy. At the same time the NHS is seeking to reduce (from next-to-nothing to nothing) the amount of money that it spends on homeopathy. The same in happening in France, where reimbursement for homeopathic treatment is set to end in 2021. And German health insurers are now being urged to do the same thing, threatening the livelihoods of 7,000 qualified homeopaths. Australia is doing the same, and no doubt there is, or there will be, pressure in many other countries to do likewise.
5. Many homeopaths run busy practices, but most homeopaths could increase the number of patients they see every week. So why are they not being asked to take up some of this burden, in the interests of the mental health of doctors, and the safety of patients?

This sequence of circumstances does not appear to be rational. And indeed it is not. No health service would face this situation and not take sensible common-sense action to relieve doctors of some of the burden they face. It is proof, if proof is still needed, that the NHS is run by, and for powerful vested interests, namely the conventional medical establishment, and in particular, the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Not only do they want to maintain their monopoly, they want to avoid another medical therapy from the recognition that this would give them.

So the NHS is not being run for patients, and moreover, there is evidence that this is the case. There have been innumerable studies that have shown clearly that patients love homeopathy - when they are able to get access to it. I outlined a number of these studies from a variety of countries in this blog. And there is also evidence that access to homeopathy provides good patient outcomes. One such study which looked into this, concluded as follows:

               "Patients seeking homoeopathic treatment had a better outcome overall compared with patients on conventional treatment, whereas total costs in both groups were similar.'

So if doctors offered their patients a referral to a homeopath the likely

outcome for both doctors and patients would be beneficial.

It will not happen though, not yet anyway. The failure, and eventual collapse of conventional medicine, will have to be much closer before such common sense decision making comes to the fore in the provision of the NHS, and national health services around the world. 

In the meantime, homeopathic treatment will increasingly become a treatment available only to those patients who can afford to pay for it - something which is entirely alien to the inaugural principles of the NHS.

Gene Silencing. A new 'wonder' treatment is announced that will transform medical treatment.

Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with the format of this blog! It's all so boringly familiar!

• The conventional medical establishment announces a new 'wonder' drug treatment.
• Our mainstream media meekly/slavishly reports what they have been told, without demur or questioning.
• Isn't it wonderful, we are told, this new treatment will transform the treatment of a serious disease or other, and give patients new hope for the future.
• Yet there is also a studious censorship of any information about the known and reported side effects of the new treatment.

The new form of 'wonder' treatment is called 'gene silencing', which earlier this month was approved for use in England by the NHS. The drugs can reverse a potentially fatal disease called amyloidosis, which causes nerve and organ damage, but has 'huge potential' in the treatment of other 'genetic' diseases, like Huntington's. Doctors are claiming that gene silencing will make diseases, that were formerly untreatable, treatable.

Hands up if you have heard of 'amyloidosis' before! Apparently it affects as many as 150 people in the UK, and the NHS webpage describes the disease as follows.

               "Amyloidosis is the name for a group of rare, serious conditions caused by a build-up of an abnormal protein called amyloid in organs and tissues throughout the body. The build-up of amyloid proteins (deposits) can make it difficult for the organs and tissues to work properly. Without treatment, this can lead to organ failure."

So here is yet another 'rare' disease, yet another disease that conventional medicine can describe, but cannot identify a cause. The NHS says that "... amyloidosis is caused by an abnormality in certain cells found in the bone marrow, called plasma cells". What has caused this abnormality? No explanation is forthcoming!

So hands up if you know about any other 'new' and 'rare' diseases that have similar symptoms - 'nerve and organ damage'. As usual, my suspicion is that these 'new' and 'rare' diseases, which damage our nervous system and our organs, are the result of adverse pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines reactions. Why else is there so many of these 'new' and 'rare' diseases? Why else does conventional medicine have no explanation of causation?

Yet the introduction of new (and no doubt expensive) pharmaceutical treatments is a different matter altogether. And this new treatment is now going to interfere with another aspect of the human body - our 'rogue' genes that lead to the build-up of these sticky, toxic proteins in the body.

Doctors are now going to interfere with our genetic make-up. 

The reason for doing so emerges from conventional medicine's understanding of illness and disease. Our bodies don't know what they are doing, they are harming us, so it is a good job that our doctors now know better. They can put things right that our body cannot do for itself. Conventional medicine always does this - identify what is going wrong in the body, and then intervene - stop it from happening.

• Painkillers kill pain
• 'Blocker' drugs block bodily processes
• 'Inhibitor' drugs inhibit bodily processes
• a multiplicity of 'anti-' drugs seek to change a multiplicity of bodily functions

This is the BBC's explanation about gene silencing works.

               "A gene is part of our DNA that contains the blueprint for making proteins, such as hormones, enzymes or raw building materials. But our DNA is locked away inside a cell's nucleus and kept apart from a cell's protein-making factories. So our bodies use a short strand of genetic code, called messenger RNA, to bridge the gap and carry the instructions."

So how does this new drug, called patisiran, work?

               "... it kills the messenger in a process known as RNA interference. This effectively silences the rogue transthyretin gene and lowers levels of the toxic protein in the body."

The BBC (and much of the other coverage in the mainstream media) then went on to say that studies, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed patisiran "halted or reversed" the disease. It is, of course, important to have scientific proof of these new treatments.

Yet there is other knowledge about the drug patisiran that we were not told about - that it is already known to cause serious side effects. These are listed in the Drugs.com website, alongside a warning that "this is not a complete list of side effects and others may occur". Even so, some of the many listed side effects are so serious we are told we should "get emergency medical help if you have signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficult breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat".

As usual the mainstream media does not think that we (mere patients) should have this information. The 'good' news is heralded, described variously as "amazing', and 'exciting', with 'huge potential', The 'bad' news is censored, and the patient as usual is left unable to make an informed choice.

It might take several years before the full enormity of this new treatment, this interference with our body, comes fully to light. Conventional medicine has already interfered with our natural immune system, and we are suffering from a multiplicity of 'auto-immune' diseases as a result. Now our doctors want to interfere with our genes, and I suspect they have absolutely no idea about the long-term, unintended consequences of doing so.

Vaccine Propaganda. The Censorship of Debate. Yet there is still 'low trust' in vaccination! How lies lead to intransigence and fixed positions

There are key messages about vaccines and vaccination that we all need to know. Indeed, the conventional medical establishment absolutely insists that we should know and understand these messages. What are these message?

• Vaccines are entirely safe.
• There is 'overwhelming scientific evidence' that vaccines are the best defence against dangerous and deadly infections. 
• The vaccines work, and they are overcoming disease. 
• They are protecting billions of people around the world.
• And regular, increasingly frantic warnings are given about the return of 'deadly' diseases like measles around the unvaccinated world.

So the conventional medical establishment insist that we must all get vaccinated. And the mainstream media not only supports this position, it actively censors any message, or messenger, that runs contrary to it.

Yet despite this concerted efforted it would seem that there is still a low level of trust in vaccination!

So why is it that everyone is still not convinced? It is not the cost of vaccines, usually heavily subsidised in one way or another throughout the world.

The Wellcome Trust has conducted the biggest global study into attitudes about immunisation, involving more that 140,000 people from over 140 countries. It suggests that confidence in vaccines is "extremely low" in some regions, that the number of people who said they had little confidence in vaccination was, on average, around 20% - and in many places much higher.

• As far as safety is concerned, 7% said they did not think vaccines were safe, and a further 14% were uncertain.
• As far as effectiveness is concerned 5% did not think they were effective, and another 12% were uncertain.

This level of confidence is considered to be such a problem the World Health Organisation has called 'vaccine hesitancy' one of the top 10 threats to global health!

This is quite an amazing situation, but not for the reasons doctors and the media are telling us. The conventional medical establishment states its position, unequivocally, repeatedly, and this position is never openly questioned. The mainstream media supports this position - unreservedly and unquestioningly. Any views to the contrary are rigorously censored. Anyone who disagrees with the 'official' view remains unheard, lambasted, and without any right of reply. The anti-vaxxers are just not listening to the 'science' of vaccines, at best 'complacent' about the seriousness of the infections, and the important protection that vaccines offer. And at worst anti-vaxxers are peddling unscientific and uncorroberated misinformation on the internet.

So the question is - where does the 20% get this 'misinformation', why do they believe it, and why are they resistant to the view of the medical establishment?

• Their information is not coming from their doctors. 
• It is not coming from the mainstream media. 
• And serious efforts are now being made to censor the anti-vaccine information on the the internet.

Yet despite this concerted and co-ordinated propaganda 20% of the population are no convinced.

The problem is, of course, that some people do actively question this conventional medical wisdom. Most of them, according to the Wellcome Foundation survey, come from "higher-income regions". Is this because people from these regions are more questioning people, less subject to establishment pressure? The following reasons are certainly important.

• Many people have experience vaccine damage directly, and their family, friends and colleagues will have become aware of vaccine damaged individuals. 
• Some patients do actually insist on reading the Patient Information Leaflets (PILS) that come with each vaccine, and these list at least some of the dangers of vaccines.
• Other people have taken the trouble to examine official summaries of adverse vaccine reactions on the internet.
• An increasing number of people are aware of vaccine injury compensation schemes, not least in the USA and Britain, that regularly pay out large sums to vaccine damaged patients.

None of this information fits snuggly with the official "vaccines are safe" view. When someone has seen the evidence (mostly from conventional medical literature itself) about vaccine harm they are aware that doctors are not telling them the truth, that they are being intentionally mislead. People are not being told the truth. The conventional medical establishment is, in fact, lying to us.

So vaccine hesitancy is not going to go away, it is on the increase. And it is not just that resistance is harden, it is causing an increasingly intractable situation, on both sides of the argument.

1. Once people know they are being told lies by the conventional medical establishment they will not find it easy to believe anything they are told in future. They will not trust the source that has told lies about that, or any other subject.
2. The conventional medical establishment, which has created the lie, cannot afford to admit that it has been lying. It will have to defend the lie, their credibility will depend upon it.

The mainstream media, too, must also be feeling the threat to their credibility.

• Why has journalism been so vacillating and quiescent? 
• Why has it chosen to side with the pharmaceutical companies?
• Why has it not been prepared to do its job - to question and investigate?
• Why has the so-called 'free press' failed to tell its readers, viewers and listeners the truth? 
• Why has it censored the case against vaccines?

So in the coming months and years the media too will have increasing difficulty defending what it is now doing - endorsing the lies of conventional medicine - and failing to engage in the real health debate that is going on out here.

How effective is conventional medicine?

This blog's primary purpose is to encourage patients, 

sick people, to examine closely how safe and effective their medical treatment is, and to consider safer alternatives.

When conventional medicine is investigated in this way, the most disturbing finding is that it is an inherently dangerous form of medical treatment. So it is perhaps not surprising that it is the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that is the focus, and not their effectiveness.

Doctors always admit that their treatment always comes with risks (although these are usually heavily discounted). But these risks, we are told, are far outweighed by their benefits (although these benefits are usually heavily exaggerated). And (we are told) all conventional medical treatments are based on evidence, on science. In other words, they are assumed to be, and have been proven to be effective. So how true is this claim?

In 2012 the British Medical Journal's 'Clinical Evidence' website attempted to give us an answer to this question.

               "We want to identify treatments that work and for which the benefits outweigh the harms, especially treatments that may be underused. We also wish to highlight treatments that do not work or for which harms outweigh benefits. For the research community, our intention is to highlight gaps in the evidence – where there are no good RCTs or no RCTs that look at groups of people or at important patient outcomes."

A laudable objective indeed, and Clinical Evidence went to considerable lengths to find the evidence. About 3000 treatments were selected that had been evaluated in research for analysis, and divided them into categories for their effectiveness. This is the resulting graph.

• So just 11% of conventional medical treatments were considered to be 'beneficial'.
• Another 24% were 'likely to be beneficial'.
• Another 7% traded off benefits and harms'.

(And I suspect that these figures may be based on an optimism that conventional medicine is invariably guilty of)

However, the rest of the treatments, 58%, were "unlikely to be beneficial" - or worse.

When the study was first published it came as a shock to the conventional medical establishment. They did nothing about it, of course, and have done nothing about it during the years since it was published. The problem is that if conventional medicine did not have these 'ineffective' treatments to offer patients their cupboard would be almost completely bare.

So conventional medicine did what it always does. They ignored the evidence. They carried on regardless, as if nothing had happened. Perhaps no-one would realise.

So when patients go to see their doctor, or visit their local hospital, they should realise that the treatment they are offered is more likely to be ineffective than effective.

Indeed, the only thing that can be certain is that the treatment given, ineffective as most of it might be, will still have the dangerous side effects and adverse reactions likely to harm rather than improve our health!

So next time you see your doctor, ask him how effective his/her treatment is, which of the above categories it falls into. (S)he will not know because the 3000 treatments, and the categories into which they were placed, remains unknown.

CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE AND RUSSIAN ROULETTE

Will it be effective?

Will it be harmful?

Will it kill you?

No-one really knows, and certainly no-one will tell you!

Ignoring Homeopathy. Another way to avoid breaking up the pharmaceutical monopoly of health care in Britain?

Patients love homeopathy - when they are allowed access to it!

In April 2018 I wrote a blog outlining the fact that patient loved homeopathy. I referred to a considerable number of studies from Britain and around the world that demonstrated it. One of these studies was the evaluation of the complementary and alternative medicines pilot project undertaken in Northern Ireland, published in May 2008.

You might like to know what has happened to this report. Absolutely nothing! It is gathering dust on the shelves of the Department of Health in London. Why? It came to the wrong conclusions, it reported that people actually liked homeopathy, and other natural medical therapies. So let's go down memory lane and find out what the people of Northern Ireland were allowed to discover.

The pilot study determined that alternative and complementary (that is, natural) therapies offered significant health benefits for patients. It also found that it made significant savings in health costs. And that of all the therapies used in the project homeopathy did the best of all!

You might think that patient satisfaction, and reducing NHS costs would have been attracting to the NHS, and the Department of Health. But far from it....

If was a disastrous conclusion. Health benefits to patients? Reduce spending on drugs and other conventional medical treatments? The pharmaceutical industry would certainly not have liked this, and they must have lobbied government intensely to ensure that the report went no further! No doubt they would be forced to move all their factories to eastern Europe - or something similar.

Several other natural therapies were involved in the pilot - including acupuncture, chiropractic, osteopathy, reflexology, aromatherapy and massage. But it was patients who received homeopathic treatment that had the greatest improvement, 79%, followed closely by acupuncture, 77%, then chiropractic or osteopathy, both 56%.

The report must have been an existential threat for the pharmaceutical industry, and indeed the entire conventional medical establishment!

Moreover, these were not just a few isolated treatments, involving a handful of minor illnesses. Doctors in Northern Ireland had referred patients to the pilot project who had not responded to conventional medical treatment. The drugs had just did not helped over the years. In other words they were TEETH patients (Tried Everything Else Try Homeopath). The report listed all the following illness and diseases that were treated in the pilot. 

• Arthritis
• Joint, back and neck pain
• Fibromyalgia
• Myalgic encephalitis (ME) or chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)
• Stress related problems
• Anxiety
• Panic attacks
• Depression
• Insomnia
• Anger and aggressiveness
• Headaches and migraines
• Shaking and trembling
• Chest infections
• High blood pressure
• Obesity
• Psoriasis

Perhaps many doctors had referred these patients because they thought natural medicine would be unable to help them. After all this is what doctors had been taught. This is what they have been telling us for years (and continue to tell us). This is the assumption that the mainstream media never questions.

So perhaps the doctors thought - let them have a go at these incurable patients, we have tried, and nothing works for them. Then people will see that natural therapies have nothing to offer either.

So the conventional medical establishment must have been surprised and disappointed when patients began to report improved health, and a feeling of enhanced well-being. The pilot study produced a high level of positive patient outcomes, for instance...

• Over 80% of patients reported an improvement in their symptoms and physical health
• 67% recorded and improvement in their general wellbeing
• 55% reduced their use of painkillers

Indeed most patients reported improvements in some symptoms that conventional medicine always finds to be the most intractable, including...

• Relief of long-term or chronic illness
• Reduced pain
• Improved mobility
• More energy
• Better emotional stability
• Reduced health concerns
• Less time off work
• Patients returning to work

What a surprise that must have been to the Department of Health! What a threat to the arrogant domination of the conventional medical place-men who work there! But what could they do? Argue against the findings of the study? Announce that the patients were misinformed? Or worse, agree to increase NHS funding of natural therapies?

No, by far the best response was to ignore it, to file it away on some shelf to gather dust, and hope that no-one would refer to it again. And this is just what the Department of Health did in 2008. When your prejudice is under threat, ignore the evidence. When your science proves to be wrong, don't acknowledge the truth. It is a strategy that medical science always uses.

Since then successive Chief Medical Officers have had nothing but venom to say about homeopathy. Dame Sally Davis called homeopathy 'rubbish' in 2013. In spite of this, in 2014, the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, asked her to commission expert reviews on three homeopathic remedy studies. In response Dame Sally dismissed homeopathy as a waste of time and money. Her response.....

               "I am perpetually surprised that homeopathy is available on the NHS"

So in 2018 the Department of Health has seen fit to take further steps to reduce spending a homeopathy. Never mind patient choice, or patient outcomes. Never mind about inconvenient evidence. Homeopathy is rubbish. That's what the conventional medical establishment thinks, that is what they say, and anything that runs contrary to that - just ignore it.

AND IT DOES SEEM TO WORK!

AND WE SHOULD REMEMBER THIS WHEN NEXT WE ARE TOLD THAT 

CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE IS 'SCIENCE-BASED'.

Robert F Kennedy. A politician prepared to speak the truth about vaccines.

Politicians are supposed to lead, to inform us about what is happening in our world, to warn us of potential or existing dangers, and to present the possibilities that exists for the future.

Yet as far as health is concerned this does happen. There is no health debate. There are few politicians willing to challenge the dominant assumption - that the pharmaceutical industry is winning the war against disease - that drugs and vaccines are entirely safe - and that natural medicines do not work, and should not be available within national health services.

There is one exception - Robert F Kennedy, Jr. He recently made a speech in Albany, New York, USA that brilliantly and concisely encapsulated the arguments against vaccines, arguments our doctors, and the mainstream media refuse to discuss, and which are increasingly being censored now on the social media.

You can watch the speech at this link (but do so before You Tube gets around to censoring it) or you can read the speech below. You will recognise the arguments. I have been making them on this blog for the last 10 years, although there is much additional and more detail information that will amaze you.

     "Thank you for coming on such a rainy day.  The pharmacist walked by and I don’t blame him for being angry because this is the biggest threat to their business plan.  The vaccine industry when I was a boy was $270 million dollars.  I got three vaccines and was fully compliant.  Today it is a $50 billion dollar industry and 20% of pharmaceutical revenues.

     "But that’s at the front end.

     "At the back end are all the chronic diseases that the FDA says they think are associated with vaccines.  A hundred and fifty diseases are now listed on the product inserts.  The reason they’re listed on the product inserts is because the FDA has made the determination that these injuries are more likely caused by a vaccine.

     "This is the chronic disease epidemic.

     "I have six kids.  I had eleven brothers and sisters.  I had over fifty cousins.  I didn’t know a single person with a peanut allergy.  Why do all my kids have food allergies?  Because they were born after 1989.

     "If you were born prior to 1989, your chance of having a chronic disease, according to HHS (Health and Human Services) is 12.8%.  If you are born after 1989, your chance of having a chronic disease is 54%.  And the FDA has said to the vaccine companies, you need to take a look at these diseases.

     "And what are these diseases?

     "They’re the neuro-developmental diseases, ADD, ADHD, language delays, speech delays, tics, Tourette Syndrome, ASD, and autism.  The auto-immune disorders, Guillan-Barre, multiple sclerosis, juvenile diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis.  The anyphylactic diseases, food allergies, rhinitis, asthma, and eczema.  All of these exploded in 1989.

     "Congress ordered the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to find out which year this disease epidemic started.  And EPA did that study.  They said it started in 1989.  There are a lot of culprits.  Many new things.  We have cell-phones.  We have PFOA (perfluorooctanic acid).  We have ultra-sound.  We have glyphosate.  We have many other things.  Our kids are swimming in a toxic soup.

     "We’re not saying all of those illnesses came from vaccines.  But there is no intervention that is so exquisite and precisely timed as what happened when we went in 1989 and changed that vaccine schedule and raised the levels of aluminum and mercury, tripled and quintupled them.  We went from the 3 vaccines that I had, to the 72 my kids had, and to the 75 that kids are going to get next year.  And there are 273 new vaccines in the pipeline.

     "I went in and met with Adam Schiff.  I’ve been a democrat all my life.  What’s happening in the democratic party disturbs me greatly.  But I was astonished when one of the leading democrats in our country, Adam Schiff, went to the internet titans, to Facebook, to Google, which has a $668 million dollar partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, the biggest vaccine maker in the world.  They make drugs and mine your personal data so they can sell you more drugs.  Schiff went to Pintrest, Facebook, Instagram, Amazon, all of them, and told them they need to start censoring information and complaints about a pharmaceutical product.

     "I said to Adam Schiff, “You know these are greedy companies.  You know they’re homicidal.”  Any democrat will tell you that.  The four companies that produce all 72 vaccines that are mandated for American children, every one of them is a convicted felon.  Since 2009, those four companies collectively have paid $35 billion dollars in criminal penalties and damages and fines for defrauding regulators, for falsifying science, for bribing doctors, for lying to the public, and for killing lots and lots of people.

     "Vioxx, a drug made by Merck, they knew it would cause heart attacks.  They sold it as a headache pill.  They didn’t tell people, you won’t have a headache, but you might have a heart attack.  Of course, if they had, not too many people would have bought it.

     "So, they decided to keep it a secret.  They killed a hundred and twenty thousand people minimum, probably five hundred thousand people.  So I said to Adam Schiff, “What kind of cognitive dissonance does it require, to believe that this company, which is lying and cheating and killing with every other pharmaceutical product it makes, has found Jesus when it comes to vaccines?”  Everybody knows you can’t sue a vaccine company.  That’s why we had this gold rush explosion of vaccines beginning in 1989.

     "They have no incentive to make their product safe, other than their moral scruples, of which we know they have none.

     "What most people don’t know is that vaccine companies have an even more important exemption.

     "They are exempt from safety testing their products.  It is the only medical product.  The reason is that it’s an artifact of the CDC’s legacy as the public health service, which was a quasi-military agency.  The CDC took it over in the late 1970s.  That’s why people at the CDC often have military rank, like the Surgeon General.  The vaccine program was initiated as a national security defense against biological attack.  Because of that they wanted to make sure we could get vaccines out to the public very quickly if Russia sent anthrax over here.  They wanted to remove all the regulatory impediments that would prevent the quick deployment of that product.

     "So, they said, if we call it a medicine, all medicines have to be safety-tested under the law, double-blind placebo, and follow-up for five years.  They said, we can’t do that.  We’re going to call them something different.  We’re going to call them “biologics.”  And we’re going to make it so they don’t have to be tested at all.

     "And when the industry exploded in 1989, they took advantage of this loophole when they brought all of these new products to market.  Not one of the 72 vaccines on the schedule mandated for our children, have been tested with a placebo.

     "That means that nobody can scientifically tell you what the risk profile of that product is.  Nobody can tell you that product is going to save more lives than it will take.  There is no scientific basis whatsoever.  How can we as a society, a government, a democratic party, be mandating products for our children when we cannot tell what the risk is of that product?

     "Now, all of the vaccines on the schedule, and all medical products, are required to list whatever safety testing they do.  Not one of these has ever used a placebo. But some of them do safety testing anyway, like the polio vaccine, for maybe 48 hours.

     "The hepatitis B vaccine that is given to every child in this country on the day it’s born, they observe for 5 days.  That means if a child dies on day 6, it never happened.  If a child has a seizure on day 6, it never happened.  If the baby gets food allergies and is diagnosed three years later, or autism or an auto-immune disease, it never happened.  That way they can say it’s safe.

     "The weird thing is that there was one vaccine, the MMR vaccine, that all of this hoopla is about, it’s the only vaccine that has no safety testing listed on the insert.  And for many years, Del [Bigtree] and I have been saying, “that’s weird.”  Do any exist?  What happened?  So we sued HHS.  We said, “where is it?”

     "Three weeks ago they gave us the safety testing.  There were 800 kids.  Normally you have 20,000 kids or subjects in one of these.  There were 800 kids in 8 different categories.  For a drug they are going to give to billions of people.  The testing lasted only 42 days.

     "But 50% of the kids who were involved in that study had gastro-intestinal illnesses, serious ones, some of them for the full 42 days.  50% had respiratory illnesses, some of them for 42 days.  This is a product that is worse, according to its own record, than the illness it’s pretending to prevent.

     "Maybe there are people here who are anti-vaxx.  I am not anti-vaxx.  I just want safe vaccines.  And I want robust science.  And I want transparency in government.  And I want independent regulators who are not owned by pharma.

     "At the FDA, which is supposed to protect us against these products, receives 75% of its budget from the industry.  The World Health Organization (WHO) receives 50% of its budget from pharma.  The CDC is a pharmaceutical company.  It has about $5 billion dollars a year that it buys and sells vaccines.  And individuals within HHS who worked on those vaccines at taxpayer expense, if they worked on them, they’re allowed to get royalty payments.

     "Every vial of Gardasil that’s sold, there are people within HHS, high-level individuals, who are collecting $150,000 a year in royalties. And HHS and NIH own part of that patent and are collecting money every year.  These are not regulatory agencies.  They are appendages of the industry.

     "They don’t want to hear about this.  The reason they call you and me anti-vaxx is it’s a way of shutting us up.  So they don’t have to debate these very serious issues about vaccine safety.  So they don’t have to debate the science.

     "And they’ve bought off the press.  They put $25 billion dollars a year into advertising.  We’re the only nation in the world, other than New Zealand, that allows pharmaceutical advertising on television.  And they’ve been able to buy the press in this country.  They’re not only selling ads for their drugs, but they’re also dictating content.

     "Now they’re telling us they’re going to censor Facebook because they want to get rid of misinformation about vaccines.  We’re just talking about science.  We’re giving them peer-review.  You’ll never hear peer-review from a vaccine proponent.  What you’ll hear are appeals to authority. What does that mean?  It means that vaccines are safe because CDC or WHO says they’re safe.

     "But do you know who the ultimate authority is?  It’s the Institute of Medicine.  That is why Congress named the Institute of Medicine to be the ultimate authority on vaccine safety.  And do you know what the Institute of Medicine says?  It says there are 150 diseases that they think are caused by vaccines, and the CDC has been directed to study them.  They said that in 1994.  CDC refused.  They said it again in 1998.  CDC refused. They said it again in 2011.  They say it every year.

     "The Institute of Medicine says we have no idea whether these vaccines are causing this huge chronic disease epidemic.  That is the ultimate authority.  Not WHO.  Not CDC.  And the only way they can deal with these arguments is by shutting us up.

     "The vaccine misinformation is not coming from us, it’s coming from them.  How many of you have heard the networks report that 80,000 people died of flu last year?  You know what CDC’s data said? And CDC told the networks that number.  I don’t blame them, but the press is supposed to check.  My father told me, people in power lie.  And you’re supposed to check on it.  You know what CDC’s own data said? 2300 people died of flu, not 80,000.

     "How many of you have heard that the death rate for measles is 1 in 1,000?  CDC told them that.  CDC’s own data says that it’s 1 in 10,000 people and 1 in 500,000 Americans.  That’s what CDC’s data says.  But that’s not what you’ll hear from the networks.

     "Any of you who watched NBC the other night saw Lester Holt.  All of the news shows have become advertisements and they’re all part of this orchestrated frenzy that we’re terrified of measles.  And we’ve got to get this vaccine and we’ve got to pass this mandate.  Lester Holt is sponsored by Merck, which makes the vaccine.  Lester Holt showed a frightening picture on his show of a baby that was afflicted by these terrible measles bumps.  It turns out it was fake.  He had to fake it.  He’s never apologized.  NBC never apologized.  That is misinformation.

     "And Lester Holt is sitting there saying we’ve got to shut down this misinformation about vaccines while he is the primary promoter of that information.

     "This industry has been able to disable all of the institutions of our democracy that stand between a greedy corporation and a vulnerable child.  As Del pointed out, they are the biggest lobbyists on Capitol Hill.  There are more lobbyists than Congressmen and Senators combined.  They give double the amount of oil and gas.  They give four times what defense and aerospace give.

     "They own Congress.  That’s why Congress will not subpoena Bill Thompson, the chief scientist at CDC who says they’ve been lying to us for all these years.  They’ve been destroying data.  And they won’t call him in and question him.

     "They have been able to disable the regulatory agencies through capture.  Those agencies are now sock-puppets for the industries they’re supposed to regulate.  They’ve been able to neutralize the lawyers by making it illegal to sue a vaccine company.  The lawyers and the courts are gone.

     "They’ve been able to neutralize the press, all press scrutiny.  Now, they’re neutralizing the internet.  They’re shutting us down so we cannot speak.  So that nobody has to listen to the truth.  So that nobody has to read the peer-reviewed science.  So nobody has to listen to the questions.

     "The last thing standing between the corporation and that little baby is the mom and the dad.  And this greedy industry cannot stand that mother who is going to stop her little baby from being vaccinated.  From buying their product and then being hooked for the rest of their lives on Adderal, Epi-Pens, Ritalin, the anti-seizure medications, and the Prozac they get at the back end of this insane industry.

     "And what do the democrats say?  Well, there is no such thing as vaccine injury.  It’s all an illusion and these women are hysterical.  And they’re so easily deluded.  But these women know what happened to their child.

     "I would say it’s time for the Democratic party to start listening to women.  And what happened to the central, fundamental plank of the democratic party?  My body, my choice!

     "And why is our party advocating censorship?

     "And why is our party in bed with one of the dirtiest industries in the history of mankind?

     "We need to take our children back.  We need to take our country back.  We need to take our democracy back.  Thank you.

• No, thank you Robert F Kennedy! 
• Thank you for being a politician prepared to tell us the truth about vaccines.
• Thank you for exposing the power and control of the pharmaceutical companies.

When will the conventional medical establishment provide some answers to the questions he has raised instead of trying to censor criticism, and force pharmaceutical drugs and vaccine  on us?

The Under-Reporting of Drug Side Effects. Doctors say they are 'rare' but only between 10% & 1% of adverse reactions are ever reported. So they are not as 'rare' as we are told.

The conventional medical establishment routinely ignores the harm caused to patients by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

A study, reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, (2006; 296: 1086-93), found that although prescribing doctors should report side effects and adverse reactions experienced by their patients many do not do so. In fact, the actual rate of reporting was found to be alarmingly low, about 10 times below the optimum level set by the World Health Organization. The study reported on procedures amongst doctors in Portugal, where 26 adverse reactions were reported per 1 million population, whereas WHO say that this should be closer to 300 report per million people.

The researchers said that this under-reporting was not restricted to Portugal, and that the USA, Canada, Italy, Sweden and the UK, also have very low reporting rates.

Commenting on this study, the magazine What Doctors Don't Tell You said that if the WHO targets were reached, the whole drug industry would 'grind to a halt'. In the Guardian, on 12th May 2006, Sarah Bosely wrote that the BMA had said the Yellow Card scheme (the UK system of reporting drug side effects) was not being used enough. The article quoted BMA figures that found at least 250,000 people went to hospital each year because of the damaging side-effects of medication, and that about 5,000 people die as a result. The BMA urged doctors to be 'more vigilant', and to report any and every suspected side-effects their patients experience. They said that only an estimated 10% of adverse drug reactions were reported through the "yellow card" scheme to the MHRA, and a BMA spokesperson commented:

          "Doctors have a professional duty to report all adverse drug reactions, especially if children or the elderly are involved. Unfortunately too many health professionals are confused about reporting procedures. Doctors must make sure they report any suspected [adverse drug reactions] and at the same time increase awareness among their patients about the reporting process."

Another BMA spokesman said that not all side-effects could be picked up in clinical trials before drugs are licensed and prescribed which meant that greater vigilance was needed by doctors, pharmacists and nurses. In the same article the MHRA (Britain's drug regulator urged healthcare professionals to use the yellow card scheme, stating:

          "There is no need to prove that the medicine caused the adverse reaction, just the suspicion is good enough." 

The article concludes by saying that it has long been known that doctors do not report all the suspected side-effects their patients tell them about, and that 10 years earlier (1996?) the BMA had issued similar guidance to doctors, but with little effect. Sadly, in the decade and more that has passed since this was written, nothing has changed!

So what does this under-reporting of drug side effects mean, in practical terms?

It means that if only 10% of known adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccine are reported they are all 10 times more dangerous than conventional medicine accepts or admits!

It means that there has been a circular argument going on for over 20 years, and no doubt much longer. The side effects of drugs are under-reported by doctors - which means in turn that the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are not fully appreciated. This, in turn, means that drugs are being prescribed on the basis that they are safer than they are.

Yet the under-reporting of drug side effects may be worse than this, perhaps as low as 1%, particularly (but not exclusively) with regard to vaccine damage. This 1% figure comes from USA government reports. In 1986 the USA government relieved vaccine manufacturers of all liability for vaccine injury. They created the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in 1990 which was supposed to collect and analyse the adverse effects of vaccines. The system has has been criticised every since. To address the weaknesses, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gave Harvard Medical School $1 million dollars to track VAERS reporting, and create an automated reporting system overhaul the VAERS reporting system. It successfully transformed the system from a 'passive' to an 'active' one.

The report showed that vaccine injury reports through VAERS were less than 1% of the actual number, that whilst the CDC showed only about 30,000 adverse events in the USA annually, the Harvard study showed about 35,570 adverse events - just in the population of Massachusetts. It calculated that there was an adverse event in 2.6% of vaccinations - hardly the 'rare' event that we are told about by doctors. So, with typical honesty, the CDC buried the study!

               “Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”

It is clear from this that whatever the conventional medical establishment tells us about the safety of vaccines, and pharmaceutical drugs generally, they are not telling us the whole truth. If only 1% of drug and vaccine damage is being reported it means that they are 100 times more dangerous than they admit.

Yet there is another issue - are doctors prepared to tell us the truth when it is they who have prescribed harmful and dangerous drugs to their patients.

In an Observer article, published on 20th January 2008, Dennis Campbell reported that Steve Walker, chief executive of the NHS Litigation Authority, said that doctors must own up to the mistakes they make in order to reduce compensation claims that were totalling £613 million annually at that time. He called for "a new culture of honesty and openness". We are no to this now then we were in 2008!

Cambell continued. Negligence lawyers said the main reason victims take legal action is to obtain more information, so what doctors had to do was simple, to report any error or mistake, more than this, doctors should feel under an obligation to tell patients, to apologise and explain.

          "The explanation bit is really important to many, many claimants. It doesn't matter if it heads off a claim or encourages a claim, people as human beings and patients are entitled to this and they should be getting it. Some patients are dissatisfied by not getting this information already. Some patients and patients' relatives feel short-changed by the system. They believe there's a lack of honesty, of frankness and of candour."

Walker wanted doctors to 'sympathise with the patient or the patient's relatives' and to 'express sorrow or regret' at any death or injury that followed 'substandard care' with pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

          "I feel ..... very strongly that people are entitled to know when something has gone wrong; entitled to an apology if something has gone wrong; entitled to an explanation of what went wrong and why, in words that they will understand; and entitled to the opportunity to ask questions about what happened and why," 

This kind of transparency is not a feature of the conventional medical establishment. Since 2008 medical negligence cases have dramatically increased. This is usually explained within the context of doctors, or some other medical staff, making a mistake or an error. This ignores the fact that every pharmaceutical drug and vaccine used by conventional doctors are inherently dangerous! Defending dangerous drugs and vaccines by blaming the resulting problems on the doctors who prescribe them is fundamentally wrong. The blame needs to be placed within a medical system that supports and encourages their use, and then denies the existance of problems until those problems can no longer be denied!

The article first appeared in my E-Book, "DIE's: the disease-inducing-effects of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines". This e-book shows that it is the dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines being prescribed, and their side effects, that are causing sickness and diseases at unprecedented levels. And that within the conventional medical establishment there is little honesty about the harm that is routinely caused by these drugs and vaccines.

Many people have read this book and found it hard to believe how common illnesses and diseases, many now at epidemic proportions, some never known before the present era, are known to be caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. There surprise is understandable.

No-one has ever told them before!