Search This Blog

Thursday, 5 June 2025

AI and the Health Debate

Artificial Intelligence will ensure that health issues are dominated by the views and opinions of the Conventional Medical Establishment, with minority views sidelined, marginalised and even abused.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) will be (and is already being programmed and written) by the rich and the powerful in society. Thus AI will reflect the views, opinions, prejudices and vested interests of the most influential and powerful forces in society. AI will not reflect the views of every-day people, and certainly not minority interests. The same will be true of any and all sectors of society, social, economic and cultural, where there are differences in opinion. Minority views will be misrepresented.........

I no longer post full blogs on this website, owing to Google's policy of censorship. The full article can be read here.

https://safemedicine.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-health-debate

Tuesday, 3 June 2025

The Vaccine Controversy

Do you believe that the controversy over the safety and efficacy of vaccines is a recent one?

I posted this blog on this forum in 2010! And it goes even further back - to the 1880's.

And the issue continues: testimony to the power of pharmaceutical propaganda, the compliance of conventional medicine, government and media.

I no longer publish new blogs on this forum, because of the censorship that is being exercised. So I invite you to read the full blog here.
https://safemedicine.substack.com/p/opposition-to-vaccines

Tuesday, 20 May 2025

Don't get injured with prescribed drugs. You will receive no support.

Blogger has 'deleted' this post because they said it did not conform to their censorship rules - which mean that it is too critical of the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment! It is an important subject. Many people take drugs and are harmed but they find it difficult/impossible to get any assistance from the medical profession, and are too often left to suffer. 

But I am pleased to tell you that you can now read it - courtesy of my new website on Substack. This is the URL, click on it, and read without the need of wondering whether it has been censored.

https://safemedicine.substack.com/p/do-not-get-injured-with-prescribed.

All my other blogs on blogger, all 15 years of them, have now been copied over to the new website - and I am busy trying to negotiate how to use the new site.

I will continue using this blog, but I would be grateful if you could follow me on Substack; there is a button at the bottom of the article in which to do so. 

Thanks for all your support on this platform.


Thursday, 15 May 2025

Blogger: A Censorship Organisation?

I regret to say that the website that hosts this blog, "Blogger" is, or has become, a censorship organisation. I say this regretfully as I have been posting on this blog since 2018. But it seems increasingly likely that this blog will be soon be banned entirely - this has already been threatened by "Blogger".

(So if you follow me, or would like to do so, can you now do so on this link:  https://safemedicine.substack.com

The recent facts about Blogger's censorship activity against this blog are as follows:

On 31 May 2024 my blog "The Contaminated Blood Scandal and Covid-19 vaccines. The only difference is 50 years!" was deleted.

On 15th January my blog "Covid-19 Vaccines: have two vaccines already been banned? And are we allowed to know" was deleted.

On 5th May 2025 three of my blogs, (i) "The Largesse of the Pharmaceutical Industry: Why did doctors recommend that we take Covid-19 vaccines", (ii) "Measles Vaccine Campaign targets 'Unprotected Millions'", and (iii) "Don't get injured with prescribed drugs: you will be alone with little support" were all deleted.

I asked for all these decisions to be reconsidered. One of the deleted posts ("Don't get injured.....") was indeed reconsidered and reinstated on 9th May 2025.

However, quite amazingly, on 13th May 2025 "Don't get injured....." was again deleted! 

Deleted! Reviewed! Deleted again!?!

What sort of 'review' or 'reconsideration' was this? And on what basis have these blogs been deemed to have "violated' Blogger's "misleading content" policy in the first place? 

I am more sad than angry about this as I suspect the problem did not involve humans, but some AI computer programme! Perhaps a programme allied to, and written by people with a vested interest in pharmaceutical medicine.

My regular readers will be aware that I do not 'mislead'. If I make a statement, however challenging, it is based on evidence, my blogs always refer to that evidence, and always seeks to provide the reader with reference to that evidence.

So I will continue to use "Blogger" to post my blogs on medicine, until such time as the entire site is taken down. We all have to realise that censorship is happening regularly around the entire world. Big Corporations (not least Big Pharma) use their supporters to 'report' critical articles, and might damage their vested interests. And the media, clearly including Blogger, are pressurised into taking action. 

Rich and powerful vested interests have always controlled the media agenda in this way. So it is difficult to write about the patients harmed by the contaminated blood scandal, and similarities now with patients harmed by Covid-19 vaccines. It is difficult to point out that two Covid-19 vaccines have been withdrawn, effectively banned, because of patient harm. It is difficult to point out that there is evidence that doctors are paid to prescribe pharmaceutical drugs. It is difficult to point out that measles is now a mild disease, and to question whether vaccines are necessary. It is difficult to point out that patients who have been harmed by drugs/vaccines have an almost impossible tiask to convince the medical establishment that this is so, and to get compensation.

Perhaps all this information is "misleading", as Blogger has told me. If so the most appropriate response, within a democracy, is to counter the information with arguments and facts. In this way we are all assisted in making an informed choice - which is an important element in health freedom. It is certainly not democratic to remove/censor the information.

So this blog is prior notification to my regular readers that there is a problem - I suspect that unless I stop being critical of the pharmaceutical medical establishment this entire blog will soon be taken down.

There are clearly things we are not supposed to know about; and the medical establishment has enough influence and power to stop us hearing about them!


Monday, 12 May 2025

Medical Breakthroughs (when the principles of homeopathy are followed)

Over the recent holiday weekend, the British mainstream media featured a strange story of a man who had injected himself with snake venom, and that his body was now "almost immune from it", and that "he was donating his blood to science".

The story was presented with incredulity; but the homeopathic community would not have thought it at all unusual! And his blood would not have been donated to science!

A similar story was featured by the BBC earlier that week: a man whose peanut allergy nearly killed him; but now he eats them every day for breakfast.

        "But then his mum heard about a clinical trial at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London that would change her son's life. It would test whether adults like Chris with serious peanut allergies could be desensitised by training their bodies to tolerate the very thing that could kill it, calming down the immune system when it would usually over-react".

Yet this 'new' treatment for nut allergy is not a 'new' treatment offered by conventional (drug-based) medicine. I wrote about this same 'breakthrough' in 2014 in this blog, again based on more 'incredulous' BBC reporting.

I wrote another blog, on a similar subject, in 2015 when conventional medicine announced (through the mainstream media) that it had found a 'new' treatment - this time for dust mite allergy.

In the same year, I wrote this blog about a 'new' conventional medical treatment for superbugs, notably C-Difficile.

And yet again, in 2016, I wrote this blog about a 'new' treatment for multiple sclerosis.

So what do all these 'conventional medical treatments have in common? As I said in those earlier blogs, what conventional medicine is doing is using the primary medical principle of homeopathy.

Homeopathy is based on the ancient principle of "Like Curing Like", that small, dilute amounts of a substance that is causing illness and disease can cure that same illness and disease. It was a principle used successfully in ancient Greece, and by many people throughout the ancient and medieval world. Homeopathy uses snake venoms as remedies - but not in doses that might be harmful or lethal to the patient. The contribution of homeopathy is that the dilution of substances strengthens, rather than weakens, the medical effect of the substance used. It cures, but does so safely.

Conventional, pharmaceutical medicine is based on drugs that kill (eg., pain killers), block (eg., beta blockers), inhibit (eg., ACE inhibitors), suppress (eg., appetite suppressants, immunosuppressants), and oppose (eg., antagonist drugs. The are all 'anti-...' drugs), anti- something that is happening to the body of a sick patient. This adversarial approach to the body does not work; it has never worked; and will never work. It is this approach to medicine that causes side effects (at best), adverse reactions (at least), and epidemic levels of chronic disease and death. It is why pharmaceutical medicine is failing - so badly.

The Conventional Medical Establishment has spent the last 30 years attacking Homeopathy: they say it does not work; it cannot work; it is placebo; it is quack medicine, and the like. It is denied to patients on the British NHS. It is denied to patients around the world in which drug companies have control of state-supported medicine.

Yet when conventional medicine stumbles on a treatment that is based on the principle of homeopathy, 'like curing like', it has the audacity to crow about it, to describe it as a 'breakthrough', and without acknowledging the source and inspiration of the 'new' treatment.

This is a dishonest approach to medicine; but then why should anyone (given the history of pharmaceutical medicine, outlined here) expect honesty from the conventional medical profession. To do so would surely be a triumph of hope over experience!


Thursday, 20 March 2025

Health and Politics

Our health is NOT a 'political' issue! 

I have often said this before, not least in recent years when many Americans (particularly) have begun asking on social media whether health care is better under Democratic or Republican regimes. It is not (or it should not be) a party political issue, it should be a matter solely of personal 'patient choice'.

The health treatment we are offered IS a political issue! 

Most countries have a national health system which is largely, or significantly paid for through taxation. So the health treatment we are offered depends on three important political issues, namely:

  1. How healthcare is organised
  2. How much is spent on it, and 
  3. What the money is spent on

These three matters are certainly based on political decisions. In Britain the huge NHS organisation is wholly paid for by government, to the tune of over £200 billion annually. The NHS accounts for a very large proportion of total resources spent on health care. So the British people, and indeed the citizens of most other countries because similar considerations apply, are highly dependent on political decisions made about health care provision.

So how is politics dealing with health services in Britain (and around other countries of the world)? Let's ask the three questions.

1. How healthcare is organised? 

Whenever there are serious problem with NHS health provision the usual political response is to come up with 'solutions' that focus on how the organisation is structured. So, for example, when a new Tory government came into power in 2010 they created a new organisation, NHS England, which took over the control and direction of health care policy. It removed the NHS from direct ministerial control in the Department of Health. Similarly, when a new Labour government took office in 2024, it decided to change the organisational structure of the NHS - this time by closing down NHS England, and returning control of health policy and implementation to Ministers in the Department of Health!

Organisational restructuring has been a regular feature, particularly during times of serious crisis. And the NHS has been in ongoing crisis now for nearly 80 years! So reorganisation, restructuring, has become a regular feature, a veritable NHS Merry-Go-Round, for all this time!

2. How much money is being spent on the NHS? 

The underfunding of the NHS has been another on-going debate throughout each and every year, and every General Election, of NHS history! It has become a symbol of political virility for political parties to claim that it would spend more on the NHS than their opponents. I have written about this ongoing phenomina in 2013, outlining how electoral success has primarily rested on the ability of political party's to convince the electorate that they would spend most on health care.

The result has been spiralling health care costs, with each new government to spend more to overcome the regular and ongoing NHS crises that have developed over the years.

3. What is the money being spent on? 

The problem is that despite regular 're-organisations', and regular (often massive) increases in spending on health care provision, the NHS in Britain (and similarly health care organisations throughout the developed western world), continues to fall into ever repeating, ever deepening crises.

The political failure of health provision has been the abject failure of politicians to ask this important third question. This constitutes the most devastating political failure of the last century. 

If re-organisation does not work; if pouring more and more money into something has little or no effect; and if the situation clearly gets worse over lengthy periods of time, the very first political instinct should be to ask the three questions:

  1. What are we investing in?
  2. Why are these investments not working?
  3. Should we not be investing in something different?

In the 80 year history of the NHS this has not happened. Nor has it happened anywhere else in the 'developed' western world. And what every single citizen, every taxpayer, should now be asking is why are our politicians are failing in the their primary duty: to ask questions, to investigate, to interrogate, to ensure that taxpayers money is being spent wisely, and to positive advantage.

If our armies were being defeated, our military ships sunk; if increasing numbers of people became destitute, dying of starvation on the streets; if our roads were regularly becoming unusable, our railways malfunctioning; if our telephone or television systems broke down; et al; we can be assured that all three of these political questions would be asked, and answers demanded.

In particular, these questions should be asked if alternative solutions were available, but excluded. Why, we should ask, is all our money being spent on one particular health system (pharmaceutical medicine) to the exclusion of alternatives? As far as health care is concerned, natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism, acupuncture, et al., have been effectively excluded from the NHS. They are no longer available to patients, even for to those who would want choose them. Why does 'patient choice' have no place within our NHS? Would the re-introduction of these therapies have more success in preventing the ongoing, ever burgeoning medical crises? Can studies be devised and conducted that might demonstrate whether this is so?

Instead, each year, £billions more are poured into the NHS, and the NHS spends it on the same thing - yet more drug-based medicine. We can all see the outcome for ourselves: one crisis following another, more demands for yet more £billions! This mean more people on more pharmaceutical drugs, and suffering not only from their (clearly demonstrated) ineffectiveness, but from their serious adverse reactions. Which inevitably means increasing levels of drug-induced chronic disease.

So if politicians are refusing to raise the questions, perhaps the electorate (you and me) should start asking politicians the same three questions.

As Shakespeare says, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" but we need to recognise that this 'rottenness' extends throughout Europe, Britain, Canada, the USA - indeed, to wherever pharmaceutical medicine dominates health care provision. 

Why should this be?

The pharmaceutical industry is the only one that politicians, throughout the democratic world, allow to have such a dominant, monopoly position within any of the major services they provide. 

The pharmaceutical industry has regularly faced legal convictions for deception, dishonesty and fraud (Thalidomide, Vioxx, Primodos, Sodium Valproate, Blood Contamination, Opioid scandals, et al), but politicians (plus the mainstream media) consistently fail to investigate whether this is a medical system that can be trusted with huge public funds.


All these are serious political questions. So we need to ask our politicians one further question - just how much influence does the industry have on the healthcare policies they support and fund?

Tuesday, 18 March 2025

Ropinirole (Requip) and Gambling: why checking on drug 'side effects' is a lottery

On ITV's "Good Morning Britain" this morning they featured an item about the pharmaceutical drug Ropinirole, and its 'side effect' - creating the need to gamble. The woman interviewed explained how the drug gave her an "irresistible need to gamble", which led to her accruing debts of (I believe) £70,000.

Many people will not know this drug despite taking it! Its more commonly known by its brand name, Requip. But, as usual, the same drug goes under many other different names. It is a dopamine agonist, used mainly for Parkinson's disease and restless leg syndrome. Wikipedia says that in 2022 it was the 163rd most used prescription drug in the USA. It was first approved for use (in the USA) in 1997.

I wondered if this 'side effect' was listed by the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment; so I went to the Drugs.com website, as I have found this often provides the most comprehensive list of known side effects. The urge to gamble was not mentioned. Many other serious 'side effects' were listed and I have listed these at the foot of this blog below. So I ask the following questions.

  1. Would this patient have been warned about this possible 'side effect' before taking the drug? This seems unlikely, as it does not appear on the long list of known effects!
  2. Why can a pharmaceutical drug, which was tested, approved, and marketed for 28 years, cause 'side effects' that remain 'unknown' for so long?
  3. How can patients exercise 'patient choice' about whether to take pharmaceutical drugs if they are not honestly informed about all the possible 'side effects'?
  4. Can patients ever be safe when they agree to take prescription drugs approved by conventional medicine as "safe and effective"?
I then went to the NHS website. To my surprise it did list the gambling 'side effect'.

            "Tell your doctor or specialist nurse if; you start binge eating, gambling or shopping uncontrollably or having an unusually high sex drive – these are signs of impulse control disorder".

So should I retract my criticism? No! This raises yet more questions about taking conventional medical drugs, not least the lottery that patients face should they seek to discover the possible harm that a particular drug can cause. I have listed the 'side effects' outlined in the Drugs.com website below. The NHS website, above, does not list many of that very long list of known 'side effects'!

Why?

Just to confirm this point, take another look at the Wikipedia entry on Ropinirole.

            In November 2012, GlaxoSmithKline was ordered by a Rennes appeals court to pay Frenchman Didier Jambart 197,000 euros ($255,824); Jambart had taken ropinirole from 2003 to 2010 and exhibited risky hypersexual behavior and gambled excessively until stopping the medication.

    So excessive gambling was known about at least 13 years ago - yet it is still not mentioned by the Drugs.com website!

    And risky hypersexual behaviour is not mentioned in either the Drugs.com, or the NHS websites!

Patient choice, and the decision about whether to take any pharmaceutical drug is impossible without full, reliable, honest and transparent information!


The Side effects of Ropinirole (Requip) according to the Drugs.com website

Confusion, dizziness, faintness, lightheadedness, drowsiness, falling, nausea, hallucinations, sleepiness, unusual drowsiness, swelling of the legs, twisting, twitching, or other unusual body movements, unusual tiredness or weakness, worsening of parkinsonism (!), bloating or swelling of the face, arms, hands, lower legs, or feet, blood in the urine, blurred vision, burning, pain, or difficulty in urinating, chest pain or tightness, chills, cold sweats, cough, double vision or other eye or vision problems, fainting, fear or nervousness, feeling of constant movement of self or surroundings, high or low blood pressure, irregular or pounding heartbeat, loss of memory, mental depression, pain in the arms or legs, pounding in the ears, rapid weight gain, sensation of spinning, slow or fast heartbeat, sore throat, stomach pain, sweating, tingling of the hands or feet, tingling, numbness, or prickly feelings, trouble in concentrating, trouble breathing, unusual weight gain or loss, vomiting.