Search This Blog

Wednesday, 5 August 2020

Coronavirus COVID-19, media censorship, and the non-debate on health issues

The mainstream media has provided us with over 5 months of interminable 'debate' about the coronavirus COVID-19. Except, of course, there has been no real debate, just the constant re-stating and reinforcement of one single message - the government message - the message of medical 'science' - the message of conventional medicine.
  • There is no treatment available
  • Only when a vaccine is produced will we have any protection
  • So wash your hands
  • Keep social distance
  • We have to lockdown the economy
  • Followed by all the nonsense instructions that accompanies these policies
There has been similar non-discussions in the past. Let's consider and compare the coronavirus debate with just one of them - perhaps the Vietnamese war, or the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Whilst the war in Vietnam was being waged there did appear to be a discussion, but in reality there was none.
  • the Vietcong is a dreadful, murderous enemy; and they must be defeated at all costs
  • (for which read "the virus is a dreadful enemy and must be defeated at any cost")
  • we should have pursued certain accepted/acceptable policies earlier; or later
  • (social distance and lockdown policies were imposed on us too late, or lifted to early)
  • we got this policy wrong, it should have been (very slightly) different - harder or softer
  • (we should not have allowed horse racing meetings, or football matches to proceed; and we should not have returned older people from hospital to nursing homes)
  • we should have given our troops the correct equipment, sooner, and more of it
  • (our front line staff lacked the protective equipment they needed)
  • the bombing campaign, and the use of agent orange was ineffective, or counter-productive
  • (should we wear masks, or not)
  • we need more troops, more munitions, more and more of everything, to defeat the enemy
  • (the virus cannot be defeated without a vaccine, we desperately need a vaccine; it is our only hope)
Only when large numbers of people began to question the Vietnam and Iraq wars did the real debate take off, when the mainstream media could not but report that there was serious opposition - another point of view.

Should we be in Vietnam, or in Iraq at all?

Similarly, there will be no real debate about coronavirus COVID-19 until the same fundamental question is asked.

Is the policy being pursued sound, or sensible?
Is it working, will it ever work?
Is the policy the best, or the only way to respond to the epidemic?

If there are more effective ways of dealing with COVID-19 there is no point discussing whether social distancing, lockdown policies, or the wearing of face masks have been carried out adequately, or in a timely fashion. We would be discussing an irrelevance. And that is what we are doing. We are discussing the implementation of a policy - but we are not discussing whether the policy itself is the best response to the pandemic.


PS.
For a list of questions we should be asking about coronavirus COVID-19, go to this link. For a list of my blogs asking these questions, go to this link.




Tuesday, 4 August 2020

Asthma. Why do doctors not follow official guidelines on treating this condition?

Some time ago NICE (the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) recommended that doctors stepped down the use of asthma drugs in what they described as 'stable patients'. This was sensible advice given. They said, quite clearly, that there was no benefit in giving more drugs, more inhalers, as they could cause serious adverse effects; and reducing them would save the NHS money.


Instead, patients with asthma are increasingly being prescribed 'higher-level' treatment, often without clear clinical need, and a large proportion never have their medication stepped down - despite the clinical and cost benefits of doing so. These are the findings of UK research undertaken between 2001 and 2017. As MIMS reports:

               "They found that prescriptions of higher-level medication, such as medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, or inhaled corticosteroids with add-on medication such as long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs), increased from 49.8% in 2001 to 68.3% in 2017.
Among patients prescribed their first preventer, one third were prescribed a higher-level medication. Half of these had no reliever prescription or asthma exacerbation in the preceding year, suggesting the prescribers were not following clinical guidelines. Of the patients first prescribed inhaled corticosteroids with one add-on treatment, the majority (70.4%) remained on the same medication during a mean follow-up of 6.6 years."

What is worse the research found that 1 in 8 patients (13%) who were prescribed medium or high dose inhalers already had conditions that could be worsened by corticosteroids, such as diabetes, glaucoma or osteoporosis. So is this gross negligence by doctors?

Conventional medicine is allowed to peddle pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have serious adverse effects, that can cause serious patient harm, chronic disease, and death. And it might be expected, this being so, that doctors would take great care to follow the official guidelines on their prescription.

Yet unfortunately for patients (those who continue to place their trust in pharmaceutical medicine) this is often not the case. And it is so not just in this case of these asthma guidelines. In the same edition of MIMS, they reported that doctors should not prescribe analgesics for chronic pain.

Doctors will also ignore this guidance. How do I know? Doctors have nothing else to prescribe! They may be aware that paracetamol, ibuprofen, other NSAID painkillers, benzodiazepines and opioids should not be offered to people with chronic primary pain "because there is little evidence that they made any different to people's quality of life, pain, or psychological distress"; but when they are faced with a patient in chronic pain they will almost certainly continue to prescribe them. They will find it hard to tell a patient in pain that there is nothing they can do, nothing they can offer. So take the painkillers, and when they don't work, when they make the pain worse, come back and see me again. At least it gives the doctor a few week's grace. They have done something!

This is where conventional medicine now finds itself. The drug cupboard is bare. Doctors can prescribe few drugs (if any) that are safe. Or few drugs that make any significant difference to patients who are sick. And this applies to all illnesses. We are witnessing the failure of conventional medicine.

So rather than admit failure, doctors continue to prescribe the same old failed and harmful pharmaceutical drugs.

NICE will continue to provide guidelines for doctors about the drugs they cannot prescribe, albeit belatedly for the patients who have already been harmed by them. But they cannot tell doctors what they should be doing instead - because they have no alternative.



Wednesday, 29 July 2020

Coronavirus COVID-19 and Homeopathy. Early evidence from India that it has been effective

There is early evidence coming through that the use of homeopathy in parts of India has been successful in the prevention and treatment of Coronavirus COVID-19. The research can be found here, and its conclusions are as follows:

               "The major objective of the study was to find out the efficacy of Arsenicum album 30C for upregulating the immunological markers among residents of COVID-19 related hot spots in Pathanamthiatta district of Kerala state. The study found out that, the potentized homoeopathic medicine, Arsenicum album 30C is effective for upregulating the immunological markers such as absolute CD4 count, absolute CD8 count, absolute CD3 count, absolute lymphocyte count and CD4:CD8 ratio among the residents of COVID-19 related hot spots. It also found that, COVID-19 pandemic has created different levels of subjective distress as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at residents of hot spot areas in Kerala. The study recommends that, the homoeopathic medicine, Arsenicum album 30C can be used as a preventive and as an immune booster against COVID-19 prophylaxis in the state. It can be also employed as a medicine in the COVID-19 First Line Treatment Centres (CFLTC) in the state."

The Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment will now have to seek to deny, dismiss, discount, ignore such information, and be assured it will do just this over the weeks and months to come!

If they fail to do so there are important and difficult questions that will be asked
  • why did conventional medicine, in most other parts of the world, not seek assistance from homeopathy (and other natural medical therapies) in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19? 
  • and why did they prefer to watch, and allow 100's of 1000's people die of the disease when they admitted they had no effective treatment?
The answer is obvious to anyone who thinks about what has been happening to us during the past few months. 
  • We are prepared to wreck the world economy in order to prevent difficult questions being asked about the number of people who have died under conventional medical care. 
  • But the conventional medical establishment (which includes government, and the mainstream media in most countries of the world) are not prepared to admit that natural medical therapies are effective, and can save lives - IF this highlights the failure of conventional medicine to do the same.
And of course this new evidence does highlight just this.

Wednesday, 22 July 2020

MEDIA CENSORSHIP OF HEALTH ISSUES. "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It"

"I Disapprove of What You Say, 
But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It"

This statement is known as the “Voltairean principle”. It has been discussed and explained in some detail at this link. It is a principle that is central to the functioning of any democracy, but everywhere in the democratic world it is now under attack. It is, for instance, totally absent from the health debate, which means that there is no debate - is not happening. This is largely as a result of mainstream media censorship, and increasingly with some of the large social media platforms, including like Facebook and Twitter.

Democracy needs to uphold the Voltairean principle because it is our right to question, to challenge, to investigate - regardless of whether the subject is political belief, government policy, social orthodoxy, private and commercial vested interests, or anything else that can cause controversy.

Any democracy needs to recognise that there are different views, different ideas, different beliefs, different interests; and this becomes particularly important when one view, or one idea, or belief, or one vested interest, becomes dominant.

In a democracy it should always be possible to question the dominant view, to argue a different case. Discussing these differences is part and parcel of any society that wants to consider itself to be free. Yet today there is now every reason to see and understand why it is important to allow the voice of minorities to be heard.
  • It is important to minorities - because only then will they continue to feel that they are engaged, that their arguments are being listened to, that there is room for compromise, for divergence, for pluralism.
  • It is important to elites - because it forces them to understand the views of those who do not share their view, and the level of disquiet and opposition they face. Most authoritarian political regimes have failed to do so, and have eventually suffered the consequences.
  • But most important of all, in a democracy, it is important because dialogue maintains the greatest engagement and consent of all society, it reduces fractionalism, and the development of extremism. "No one listens to me, so I can only get my point of view over by opposing, and fighting for what I believe in".
Any minority denied the ability to debate, to air their views, becomes quickly alienated. And alienation is anathema to to democracy. One of the problems we face today is our belief that we have a 'free' press, where minority views are presented fairly, and are never gratuitously attacked without the right to reply. Unfortunately this is just not the case. To a degree this has always been so.
  • As a child, in the 1950's, I recall the media coverage of the Mao Mao uprisings in Kenya. This concerned a rising of the Kikuyu tribe, described by the media as a violent campaign against British colonial rule. They were castigated by the entire western media. It is accepted now that both sides committed ruthless acts of violence; indeed some 12,000 Mao Mao were killed. But it was Mao Mao atrocities that were highlighted  Yet by 1963 Jomo Kenyatta became the country's first prime minister, after being imprisoned as the leader of Mao Mao between 1953 and 1961. This was the first time I realised that news agency did not tell the whole truth, that they took a partisan view of such situations, and failed to differentiate between terrorism and freedom fighters.
  • 40 years later most of us will remember when Sinn Fein spokesmen in Northern Ireland (including elected members of the Northern Ireland Assembly) were banned by the British government from being broadcast on radio and television between 1988 and 1994. The media complied meekly with the government wish to stop Irish nationalists using the media to explain and defend their position. At the same time both government and media were criticising other governments around the world for press censorship! Eventually, of course, Sinn Fein entered a power sharing arrangement with Unionist parties, and continue to do so.
  • There are many other similar examples, and they continue. The British media takes a position, usually the majority position, and tells us only about this dominant view, and not telling us anything it believes we ought not to know.
There was perhaps only one time, back in the 18th century, when the British press was a real thorn in the side of government, when highly critical, anti-government pamphlets were published which informed people, for perhaps the first time, what was happening to them, and what their 'masters' were getting up to. When we hear journalists speaking about 'press freedom' this is the period to which they refer.Government fought hard to control, repress and censor the press at this time; and the press fought hard to preserve its freedom, the right to report what was happening. So press freedom was indeed 'hard won', and the victory enhanced the rise of democracy, the popular desire for a government that represented the people, their views, and not just those of a wealthy , influential and dominant elite.

Many people still believe we have press freedom, and this is what mainstream media wants us to believe. Yet what happened was that governments, and the elites they represented, discovered a strategy to win back control. This did not involve censorship or banning the media. It was about taking control of them. Buying them up and asserting editorial control. And this is what happened during the 19th century. Ultimately the 20th century Press Barons emerged, Rothermere, Northcliffe, Beaverbrook, still heralding 'press freedom', but in reality controlling the press for their own purposes, vested interests and class. So gradually media platforms represented the views of the ruling establishment, whilst maintaining the fiction of representing the interests of the people.

Now, our mainstream media dances to the tune of the government, and the dominant social corporate forces that controls it. Even our 'public service broadcaster', the BBC, cannot be too critical. They want their charter to be renewed. 

Now, the most powerful forces controlling governments around the world is the pharmaceutical industry, the wealthiest and most profitable industry in the world, and consequently the most powerful lobby. 

The coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic has provided the clearest demonstration of this, the extent to which the mainstream media is no longer 'free', but conforms to the dominant pharmaceutical view health. Medical science, on the admission of governmentitself, has been in control of government policy. There has been no real debate about health matters for many years prior to this. In 2012 I wrote a seven part series of blogs on the health issues we should be discussing - but weren't (and still aren't) (The Health Debate? (1) Why the mainstream media is refusing to take part). Now, during this pandemic, a new policy has been vigorously applied by the mainstream media, with no opposing views entering into the discussion.

"I Disapprove of What You Say, and
I Will Defend to the Death My Right to Stop You Saying It".

In early April 2020 I suggested some key questions that should be asked about the COVID-19 panic, questions that weren't being asked then, and are still not being asked (Coronavirus COVID-19. The important questions that aren't being asked).
First, the pandemic has allowed government policy to become more autocratic even dictatorial. A variety of severe, usually foolish, often ridiculous and potentially quite disastrous constraints have been imposed
  • on our personal relationships
  • on our mental health
  • on the economy
  • on employment and jobs
  • on our children's education
  • on the justice system
  • and much else. 
Why? One view is that it is preparing us for mandatory drugging, the destruction of patient choice and health freedom.
Second, these government policies have been pursued on the advice and guidance of the conventional medical establishment, stating ad nauseam that its policy is based on 'scientific' advice. If so it has clearly been done to the exclusion of all other financial, economic, educational or other considerations, and quite regardless of the harm that its policies will cause.
Third, the mainstream media has proven itself a willing and compliant mouthpiece for government policy. There has been little questioning, little investigation into its underlying justification, or their likely long-term consequences. This was government policy. It was necessary to respond to a pandemic that was (unquestionably) dangerous. We all had to stick together. There was no room for dissent. Anyone who might speak against government policy (that is, against the views of the conventional medical establishment) remained unheard, denied a voice. Instead there has been constant, unrelenting`wall-to-wall coverage reinforcing one single message, daily government press conferences reported in full, allowing government ministers to repeat monotonously the same message day after day; carefully watched over by the medical scientists whose views dictated government policy.

Fourth, those with any views or expertise that was different, not least those with a background in natural medicine, the importance of supporting the immune system, the consequences of social isolation on mental health, the use of homeopathy in Cuba, and both homeopathy and Ayurveda in India, et al, were all excluded.
    Fifth, anyone who did express alternative views were criticised, attacked, castigated and ridiculed. They were 'conspiracy theorists'. And perhaps it is this hostility to contrary views that is the most alarming form of censorship.

    Natural therapists, especially homeopaths, have not been given a right to reply for over 20 years, years of media hostility, being attacked and ignored. We no longer have any expectation that our voice will be heard within mainstream media. So our relationships are now formed directly with the public; they are local. The internet, and social media platforms have also been used, but now conventional medicine, through its allies in government and the media, is now doing everything it can to censor our voice there too.

    So natural medicine is being treated in the same way as extremist left wing or right wing politics - the IRA in 1970's and 1980's - Mao Mao in the 1950's. Yet homeopaths, naturopaths, et al, are not involved in warfare, they don't cause harm to anyone, nor we do not engage in hate speech. Indeed, we apply our trade in order to help people maintain their health, or to help them get well when they are are sick.

    Conventional medicine has admitted it had no effective treatment, and clearly it has been able only to watch on as people have died (not of COVID-19 but some underlying health conditions). Perhaps if there had been a real, uncesnored debate on health, the conventional medical establishment might have been able to learn something. Yes, the care offered to the dying has been brilliant, well worth clapping; but the ability of pharmaceutical medicine to treat patiently successfully, to save lives, has been sadly missing.

    Certainly, without censorship, without every effort being made to panic people into believing that this was a 'killer' virus, many more people would have come to their own decision about how best to handle the virus - through the prospect of a non-existent, but potentially highly profitable vaccine, or through natural immunity by supporting and maintaining our immune system.

    When the mainstream media takes sides in this way it is neither helpful to the democratic process, or the political process? When health and political views are censored, when there is an attempt to brain-wash us into thinkingg 'there is no alternative',  non-dominant views or movements do not go away? Censorship draws attention to them - at least to those people who have the ability to question. It makes them even more attractive to those opposed to mainstream wisdom. It merely confirms their views - or even pushes them to further extremes?

    I have seen the process happen within the homeopathic community. Every day we hear that homeopathy 'does not work', 'cannot work', that is 'unscientific', nothing more than 'placebo'. We are gratuitously criticised and abused by the media; yet we grow stronger.

    Nor does censorship help those in power, whose policies are not subjected to the scrutiny that might improve or enhance them, it allows them to carry on in the belief that their policies are correct, that 'there is no alternative'. They can sit back, safe in the knowledge that alternatives messages are not being heard, so they fail to learn about the wisdom and understandings of those who disagree. There is no discussion, no debate, no cross fertilisation of ideas - just the barren repetition of policies that do not work - like the policies pursued over the last few months with COVID-19.

    Eventually, such learning has always happened. Jomo Kenyatta, leader of Mao Mao, eventually came to power in Kenya - with the support of the Kenyan people, and against the wishes of the once dominant colonial power. And peace eventually came to Northern Ireland but only after the British government, and the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland, began to speak and listen to Sinn Fein.

    When the censored have a tenable view, and an important body of support, censorship supports and confirms those views and ideas. They recognise the powerful vested interests that control politicians, governments, and the media, and their determination to persist and oppose becomes greater. History should teach us that when people feel excluded and oppressed they push back in whatever way they can; they will not be brainwashed.

    As far as health is concerned coronavirus COVID-19 has made it clear that we desperately need to learn from natural medical therapies, from homeopathy. Pharmaceutical medicine is demonstrably failing to keep us healthy. Yet for the short-term it remains powerful, and is still seeking to protect itself by using its profitability to control politicians, governments, national health services, and the mainstream media.

    This is what the media censorship of the health debate is all about.


    Wednesday, 8 July 2020

    "Decades of Medical Scandal". The persistent dishonest assertions of conventional medicine that their treatment is safe.

    • A report written at the request of the government that is critical of the medical safety. 
    • The Guardian newspaper, abandoning its more usual slavish support for pharmaceutical medicine, publishing a story that is critical of the conventional medicine. 
    • BBC News actually daring to publish a criticism of the UK's NHS. 
    These facts alone represent an important, highly unusual news story! But still there is much to be said about medical scandals.

    "Denial of women's concerns contributed to decades of medical scandals, says inquiry" .

    The Guardian


    Lives ruined as damage viewed as 'women's problems'.

    BBC News

    The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, chaired by Baroness Julia Cumberlege, was asked in February 2018 by Jeremy Hunt, Health Secretary, to undertake a review into how the NHS responds to patient reports about the harmful side effects of drugs and medical devices. The chair has said this about the report:

                   "I have conducted many reviews and inquiries over the years, but I have never encountered anything like this; the intensity of suffering experienced by so many families, and the fact that they have endured it for decades. Much of this suffering was entirely avoidable, caused and compounded by failings in the health system itself."


    The review followed several patient-led campaigns against unsafe and harmful medical treatments which had, as usual, been ignored for many years by conventional medicine. "Just problems women have to accept" was the message. So immediately I must ask some pertinent questions. 
    • What is unusual about these three campaigns? Does it not happen all the time with conventional medicine? 
    • Why have these campaigns been identified - when every single pharmaceutical drug and vaccines, and most non-drug treatments, are known to cause serious patient harm?
    • Why do all these harmful treatments continue to be used, without review?
    • And why do doctors continue to assure us routinely that they are 'safe'?
    • And why has our government, the NHS, our doctors, and the mainstream media hitherto ignored these campaigns, and denied them?
    • And why do they all continue to deny all the other known harms caused by conventional medicine?
    1. Primodos

    Primodos was a hormonal pregnancy test, withdrawn from the market in the 1978 when it was associated with birth defects and miscarriages. I do not remember that this withdrawal received any significant coverage - by anyone. And as usual, the link has always been denied by Schering, the manufacturer (now part of Bayer) and by the entire conventional medical establishment.

    One campaign was led by the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests, whose website claims to "...reveal the cover up by the drug companies Bayer/Schering and Sanofi/Roussel and expose the deliberate suppression of evidence by the current U.K. Regulators, the MHRA and Commission on Human Medicines"

    In 2017 the use Primodos was investigated by Sky News who discovered "how documents were destroyed and information withheld about a drug that may have deformed and killed babies in the womb". Yet, as so often happens, this was presented as a one-off 'error' or 'mistake'; and certainly it did not encourage the mainstream media to look further into the damage cause to patients by pharmaceutical drugs.

    2. Sodium Valproate - the anti-epileptic drug
    Sodium valproate, and other antiepileptic drugs, have long been known to cause serious side effects. These drugs are supposed to be effective for preventing seizures; but it is not a new revelation that pregnant women who take the drug can cause physical abnormalities, birth defects, to the foetus, as well as developmental delay and autism in children. And this is not all these drugs do. They cause serious harm patients in many other ways - there is a long list of known serious side effects.

    Yet doctors continue to prescribe them, and regardless of this review, they will no doubt continue to prescribe thme on the misguided, and unquestioned assumption that 'there is no alternative'.

    3. Surgical Mesh

    Pelvic mesh implants have been used to treat prolapse and incontinence for a long time. Yet many women have been left with internal damage, and agonising chronic pain. As a result, in recent years, its use has been restricted; but conventional medicine has never been stopped using it despite the harm it is known to cause.

    The failure of medical implants is a story that has been ignored, even more perhaps than the failure of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. But the evidence ihas been well  known for a long time, but systematically ignored by government, the NHS, and the mainstream media, despite the patient harm it has caused; mesh, and other implants, have continued to be used.  

    I have blogged about the harm caused by inplants before, in 2018 - but patient damage is something that conventional medicine appears to think is necessary, even inevitable. So do these three stories represent "decades of medical scandal" as the Guardian asserts? And have "lives have been ruined" as BBC News reports. Most certainly, but the issue should not end there.
    • Why is there no government backed review on the unprecedented levels of chronic disease, why they have reached epidemic levels, and the role that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have played?
    • Why do mainstream media organisations continue to refuse to tell their readers/listeners/viewers about the patient damage caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.
    Health Minister Nadine Dorries is reported as saying she is determined to make the changes needed to protect women in the future, that "our health system must learn from those it has failed. We will now give this independent review the full and careful consideration it deserves before setting out our full response." Well, the NHS, and other national health services, have learnt few lessons about patient harm over the last 70 years, and nothing has been done.

    The reason for this has often been mentioned on this blog. Conventional medical treatment might damage patients - but doctors have nothing better, nothing safer, nothing more effective to offer them. So they just continue. What else can they do? Move towards natural medical therapies? They would never, ever do this.

    So what does the review recommend? The main one is the appointment of an "independent patient safety commissioner" whose task would be to talk and act "from the perspective of the patient", and "hold the health system to account". Patient advocacy sounds like a good idea. 

    However, like every other attempt that has been made to supervise and control the conventional medical establishment it is unlikely to work. 

    The pharmaceutical industry, as it has done throughout the last 70+ years, both within the NHS and in health services around the world, with medical science and drug testing, and with drug regulatory agencies, will immediately move to ensure that any such commissioner comes under their firm control.

    And government, the NHS, and the mainstream media (asleep on duty as they are) will not notice when this is achieved. They will continue to tell us that conventional medical treatment is safe; that anyone who suggests otherwise is peddling 'conspiracy theories', and that their views are strictly censored. 

    Conventional medical wisdom will continues to be unchallenged, alternative viewpoints will continue to be ignored, censored, and routinely attacked. Only when patients start to say "NO"; only when patients begin to look at alternative medical therapies will the situation change.

    The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, is a start; but it deals only with a minor part of the patient damage that is being routinely caused by the conventional medical establishment.
     

    Monday, 6 July 2020

    The Autism - Vaccine Link. The 157 Research Papers that supporting the link

    The Autism-Vaccine link is hotly disputed by conventional medicine. All pharmaceutical drugs cause serious harm to our health, and doctors don't want you and me to know about it. But pharmaceutical medicine is particularly hostile if anyone dares suggest that there is a link between the autism epidemic and vaccination. They want us to believe that vaccines are entirely safe.

    Yet there are now 157 research papers that support the link. A summary of all 157 papers can be found at this link.

    http://mainevaxchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/VaccineAutismStudies.pdf

    For anyone considering vaccinating their young child this is essential reading. And it should be read as your doctor will not tell you about this - (s)he will insist that all vaccines are entirely safe. They are not.

    Wednesday, 1 July 2020

    Coronavirus COVID-19. Why is conventional medical science in such a mess? Why the political hysteria? Why the total media compliance?

    The coronavirus panic has led to a shambles, the self-infliction of a ludicrous set of social rules and regulation that make no logical sense. COVID-19 is just a virus, albeit one that may have been created in a bio-laboratory somewhere that experiments with mixing animal and human viruses. Yet a more sober assessment of the virus seems to suggest that COVID-19 is no more lethal than any other 'ordinary' flu virus.

    The problem that has caused the shambles is conventional medicine. We should all have been asking the question decades ago - what sort of medical system do we have...
    • that kills cows, and complete herds, when they contract TB?
    • that kills entire flocks of birds when there is an outbreak of bird flu?
    • that kills and burns cattle that contract Foot and Mouth?
    • that fells and destroys trees when they are diagnosed with a disease?
    I have often wondered what would happen if a serious viral epidemic threatened humanity - and now we know! In Britain (and no doubt throughout the rest of the world dominated by pharmaceutical medicine) we have been getting blanket, wall-to-wall news coverage about coronavirus. It is panic stations.
    • The mainstream media in the UK is consulting with health 'experts' - all of them from the conventional medical establishment.
    • The government is consulting health 'experts', all providing (we are told, and one assumes) the best information that conventional medical science can provide. No one from outside conventional medicine is consulted. Anyone with a contrary message are not listened to, they are ignored. It is as if they did not exist.
    So it is not surprising that the conventional medical message about this virus has taken a firm grip on the nation's thinking.
    • Coronavirus is a serious and deadly infection.
    • It is estimated that hundreds of thousands (not just thousands) will die.
    • The government has a responsibility to do anything and everything to protect us.
    • So we must all self isolate.
    • We must undermine normal social relationships.
    • We must lock down the economy.
    Three months into the pandemic and still no-one really knows how long it will last. No one knows whether people will accept social lockdown for any extended length of time. No one knows whether it will lead to serious mental health problems, mass disaffection, or whether there will be rioting in the streets. No one knows what it will do to the economy, to our jobs. No one knows what it will do to our children's education. And so on.

    We are on a journey into the unknown - courtesy of the conventional medical science.

    Government and Media are doing what medical science tells us to do. They are the 'experts'. No-one is allowed to challenge their wisdom. What medical science says is sacrosanct, unchallengeable.

    Indeed, I suspect that the current state of fear and panic is such that many people, indeed most people, will not want to read this! They will find such a contrary message hard to accept. When a message is repeated often enough, however irrational the message, people will believe it, especially when they are not 'experts' in the field. This is not surprising perhaps - it is the basis of all advertising and promotion. We tend to believe what we are told to believe.

    The message we are receiving about the coronavirus epidemic, the only message we are getting, is one of fear, enough to make most people hysterical with panic. If conventional medicine wanted us to panic, to be hysterical, it has succeeded. We are doing things we would not volunteer to do in normal circumstances. There is a lack of cool, rational thinking. There is no suggestion that we should not self-isolate, that we should not close down or personal and social lives, or put our economy at serious risk. TINA rules - There Is No Alternative.

    It is certainly a fact that pharmaceutical medicine has no viable response to this (or indeed any other) virus, either preventative or treatment. It has openly admitted as much. So perhaps the only thing they can do is to get us to panic. It is better to stress how awful the virus is than to admit they can do nothing about it.

    And the conventional medical establishment has demonstrated that it is sufficiently powerful, and influential, to control the government, and ensure that the mainstream media does not do its job - to delve, to question, to investigate. The result is that there has been no discussion about the 'closing down' message from anyone. The mainstream media does not challenge medical 'experts' who predict imminent doom. People have accepted that they must isolate, close down their social lives, act in a way that will probably impoverish them, and make us reliant on government largesse.

    Everyone should panic - and panicking we most certainly are.

    Few questions are being asked about where this policy is leading. Is the personal, social and economic cost of conventional medical policy commensurate with the size of the threat we face from the virus? We are being asked to do things we have never done before, never, in human history. Stop socialising with other people; don't visit sick and elderly relatives. Don't get married. Close down every imaginable recreational pursuit.

    How long will it last? How long will people be willing to comply? 3 months, 6 months, to the end of the year, perhaps sometime in 2021.

    We all have to wait. The only prospect is that the pharmaceutical industry will soon come up with a vaccine. And vaccines are, of course, the answer to all health problems. This has been stated regularly, and it has gone unquestioned since the start of the pandemic!

    So are there alternatives? Do we have choices? Does what we are doing make any rational sense? Is the policy of medical science a commensurate response to the threat?

    Yet there is a further question. Why should the conventional medical establishment want us to panic in such a way? Panic arises whenever there is a sense of helplessness, an inability to control a situation that threatens us. And this is the position conventional medicine now finds itself in, and they don't like it.

    After all they always present themselves as health 'experts', a medical system that has the answers to ill-health, that is overcoming sickness and disease. Regular readers of this blog will know that the reality is different. So when faced with coronavirus, when they realise they have no effective treatment, they panic. It's a natural reaction. Their reputation is at stake. And all they can do is to get us to panic by over-emphasising the threat to our health, and appear to be doing something, anything, even if it is to wash our hands, in response to it.

    So whilst pharmaceutical medicine may appear confident, it is anything but confident. It is scared stiff. And they have scared our government into abject fear. And persuaded the mainstream media not to go 'off message'. 

    At no other time, in all human history, has any government, in any part of the world, been prepared to put normal social relationships, and our economy, at such risk. Yet of course we are lucky.
    • If we were birds we would be culled. 
    • If we were cattle we would be slaughtered. 
    • If we were trees we would be felled.
    Or maybe we should start looking at natural medical therapies,
     to see what they can do to save us from complete insanity.