Search This Blog

Tuesday 11 June 2024

Antidepressant Drugs. Record Prescriptions, but only 1 in 6 will have withdrawal symptoms!

The Lancet Psychiatry journal published a study on 5th June 2024. It found that only one in six people who stop taking antidepressants will experience withdrawal symptoms. The GP magazine, Pulse, thought that this was a good outcome.

            "This is a much lower proportion than other studies have suggested, with previous estimates that over half of patients experience symptoms".

The research found that one in three patients reported at least one withdrawal symptom such as dizziness, headache or nausea. But as 1 in 6 patients experienced the same when they stopped taking a placebo drug, it suggested that ‘approximately half of all symptoms experienced … might be due to negative expectations (the "nocebo effect”) or non-specific symptoms which may occur at any time in the general population’.

So the report concluded that about 15%, of patients experienced one or more withdrawal symptoms as a direct result of stopping antidepressants, with around 3% experiencing ‘severe symptoms’.

Pulse said that this was the first ‘meta-analysis’ on the incidence of antidepressant discontinuation symptoms, analysing 79 randomised trials, which included data from over 21,000 patients, of which 72% were women. 

So, conventional medicine now believes that the 'withdrawal symptoms' were not as bad as was previously thought, certainly after the 'nocebo effect' was used to eliminate about 50% of reported symptoms. But never mind, let's accept this, and apply it to the number of people who are taking antidepressant drugs.

According to the BMJ in 2019, the NHS prescribed a record number of antidepressants in 2018, and that the number of prescriptions for antidepressants in England had almost doubled during the previous decade.

            "Data from NHS Digital show that 70.9 million prescriptions for antidepressants were given out in 2018, compared with 36 million in 2008".

  • Therefore, in 2008, 6 million people in England alone suffered from antidepressant withdrawal symptoms; and over 1 million experienced 'severe symptoms'.
  • In 2018, nearly 12 million (11,816,333) people suffered from antidepressant withdrawal symptoms, with over 2 million experiencing 'severe symptoms'.

So this is presumably acceptable then? At least it seems to be acceptable to the Conventional Medical Establishment which seems quite willing to continue prescribing an ever-increasing numbers of these drugs.

The Pulse article also told us that the number of people suffering withdrawal symptoms was steadily increasing, year-on-year; and since then we have been told that as a direct result of the Covid-19 pandemic the number of people who are taking antidepressant drugs (around the world) has risen even more rapidly,  by 25%.

Perhaps I should calculate a new more up-to-date figure, but these numbers are almost meaningless once we realise that each single person within that total number are individuals, someone who is suffering as a direct result of taking pharmaceutical drugs. If the medical fraternity is pleased about this we can rest assured that the 12 million +++ patients are certainly not pleased.

There is a solution at hand, but it is a solution that will likely be ignored. In 2010 Dana Ullman (a leading homeopath) published article in Huffington Post, "Homeopathy. A Healthier Way to Treat Depression" in which he compared the safety and effectiveness of homeopathy alongside the dangers of pharmaceutical drug treatment. It surely is a must read for anyone with mental health problems!

In this same article Ullmann refers to a study that showed antidepressant drugs were ineffective, essentially useless. This is a direct quote from that article.

            "In early 2010, major media reported on a significant review of research testing antidepressant medications. What is unique about this review of research is that the researchers evaluated studies that were submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), though the researchers discovered that many studies submitted to the FDA were unpublished (they found that the unpublished research consistently showed negative results of antidepressants)".

            "This meta-analysis of antidepressant medications found only modest benefits over placebo treatment in published research, but when unpublished trial data is included, the benefit falls below accepted criteria for clinical significance".

So the 12 million +++ have suffered the serious side effects of antidepressant drugs, including links to suicide and violence, plus the (now discounted) withdrawal symptoms that result - all for nothing!

This is exactly what patients get from conventional medicine: a lot of problems, adverse reactions: but not many positive outcomes!

Monday 10 June 2024

A new 'double selective' Antibiotic? Is this good news? Or a belated recognition of the patient harm caused by the 'old' antibiotics?

Most people, if asked to identify a pharmaceutical drug that was "safe and effective", would point to antibiotics. So is this announcement more good news for antibiotic drugs?

            "A new antibiotic uses a never-before-seen mechanism to deliver a direct hit on tough-to-treat infections while leaving beneficial microbes alone. The strategy could lead to a new class of antibiotics that attack dangerous bacteria in a powerful new way, overcoming current drug resistance while sparing the gut microbiome".

This is how it is presented in this Medscape article, New-Era Double Selective Antibiotic Spares Microbiome. But hold on, what is this about "sparing the gut microbiome"? What is the gut microbiome?

           " The gut microbiome refers to all the microorganisms living in the digestive system. The microbiome is individual to each person and is important to digestive health as well as to overall health. Studies of the gut microbiome are ongoing, but it’s becoming clear that certain types of bacteria, yeast, and other fungi are more or less beneficial for overall health. People may be able to affect their microbiome with diet and other lifestyle factors".

So it certainly does seem important to 'spare' the microorganisms of the gut microbiome. But wait, does that mean that all previous antibiotic drugs attacked it, harmed it? Rather than being 'good news' is this an admission that hitherto antibiotics have actually harmed something that was "important to digestive health as well as to overall health"?

Over 9 years ago, in 2015, I wrote a blog, "Antibiotics. Not as safe as we have been told?", which outlined just how harmful antibiotics drugs were to our health, outlining some of the known/accepted, and the suspected adverse reactions to antibiotics. 

  • The blog touched on the fact that conventional medicine was aware of the harm antibiotics caused, as early as 1953 (4 years after their introduction).
  • It talked about antibacterial resistance.
  • It outlined how antibiotics were particularly harmful to the health of children.
  • And antibiotics were discussed as the possible or known causes of a variety of diseases, such as obesity, irritable bowel disease, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, liver disease, diabetes, asthma and eczema, heart disease, mental health, and HIV/Aids.
  • All these diseases have risen to epidemic levels during the last 70 years, no doubt in large part to antibiotic drugs that have compromised our gut microbiome.
  • And I asked this important question - did the conventional medical establishment know about the patient harm that was being caused by antibiotic drugs?

Clearly they did, and the development of this new 'double selective' antibiotic is proof of this. Why else would it have been developed, presumably at massive cost?

Yet during the last 9 years, the list of iatrogenic diseases now known to be/thought to be caused by antibiotic drugs have increased to many that seem to have little or no connection with the gut, like Parkinson's Disease

Suddenly, conventional medicine seems to have realised that killing microbes is not a path to health! Hence the new drug. As usual it is hailed as a breakthrough - but the 'bad' news underlying the 'good' news is being ignored, or censored - presumably for 'commercial' reasons!

The new 'double selective' antibiotics may, or may not be safer and more effective than the 'old' antibiotics (that is, those that are prescribed, and still being taken in huge quantities today). But we can be sure that if conventional medicine continues to operate with the secrecy, and lack of transparency, we have witnessed for the last 70 years, we will probably not be aware of this for yet another 70 years!

Natural medical therapies have known about the harm caused by antibiotics for a very long time. They do not believe in the 'germ' theory of illness. They do not set out to attack or kill anything! And this is why natural medicine focuses instead on supporting and strengthening our immune system - in the knowledge that it is our natural immunity that best protects us all from illness and disease.

Wednesday 5 June 2024

Pembrolizumab (keytruda): another "safe and effective wonder drug"! So what is causing the cancer epidemic?

I am reporting on news of yet another pharmaceutical "wonder drug" This drug is called Pembrolizumab, it "melts away" tumours, and "triples the chance of survival for the 10-15% of patients with the right genetic make-up". It was reported in the Guardian on 3 June 2024, and (as usual) on several other mainstream news sources.

It is the usual reporting by the mainstream media, anxious to let us know that the pharmaceutical industry (a major source of funding for them) is winning its battle against disease, and cancer in particular. Such reports provides the industry with free advertising and promotion, worth £$millions. All the reports appear to have an identical source - no doubt a 'press release' from the drug company. They describe the drug, also known Keytroda, as:

            "A 'gamechanger' immunotherapy drug that 'melts away' tumours dramatically increases the chances of curing some bowel cancers and may even replace the need for surgery, doctors have said".

All the articles make all the usual pharmaceutical claims for a new "wonder drug". Click on the links to read them for yourself. But one claim, by the trial's chief investigator, and consultant medical oncologist, is worth repeating here - the drug is "safe and effective". Of course it is! All pharmaceutical drugs are - until they are found not to be.

            Our results indicate that pembrolizumab is a safe and highly effective treatment to improve outcomes in patients with high-risk bowel cancers, increasing the chances of curing the disease at an early stage”.

I make my usual sceptical observation, which is based on the performance of past "wonder drugs" - let us wait and see. 

Another article that appears in the same Guardian webpage today seems to indicate how well conventional medicine is doing in the treatment of cancer. "Cancer rates among under-50's in the UK have risen 24% since 1995, figures show". Cancer was once considered a disease of older age. It is no longer so. The article demonstrates that the increase is "sharper than in any age group" and we are told (by experts!) that the increases "likely linked to obesity levels, junk food and inactivity".

What these medical 'experts' must also know, but choose not to tell us, is that cancer is also known to be caused by many, if not most, pharmaceutical drugs. But this, of course, is not mentioned. 

It is on this basis that I predict that pembrolizumab (keytruda) will prove to be neither safe or effective, and indeed may well be withdrawn in a number of years time because of this.

Watch this space for updates!


Friday 31 May 2024

The Contaminated Blood Inquiry. Is the focus of the media response misplaced!

We do not learn from our mistakes. History should teach us that scandals, disasters and fiascos are never recognised at the time, or even soon afterwards, but usually take 30-40, or even 50 years after they happen before they are accepted. We don't seem to understand this, even today, following the publication of the Infected Blood inquiry's final report. This is how the Guardian described the contaminated blood scandal.

            "The scandal has been described as the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS. People treated by the NHS in the UK between the 1970s and 1990s were exposed to tainted blood through transfusions, including during complications in childbirth, or, in the case of haemophiliacs, given contaminated “factor VIII” blood products imported from the US".

I wrote about this scandal here in 2017, in "The Contaminated Blood Scandal. The worst cover-up in NHS history". It certainly has been a cover-up of massive proportions, one that has lasted for over 50 years after the issues were first known.

And now, hiding (as yet unannounced and unrecognised) in the background, is yet another scandal in the making - the Covid-19 vaccine scandal. This has concerned a mass vaccination campaign using a largely untested, and therefore experimental vaccines). And I predict that this scandal might also take another 30, 40 or 50 years before it is fully recognised by the UK's health and political establishments.

This 30+ year gap from 'event' to 'recognition/apology' is not restricted to conventional medicine. The Hillsborough tragedy, the Bloody Sunday massacre, and the Post Office scandal, are all demonstration of this laggardly timescale; and but there are many others. Nor will these scandals be the last; there will no doubt be many others to come!

Yet it is within the confines of the conventional medical establishment that most of these scandals happen. I wrote about several of these medical scandals in Chapter 9, "Medical Errors" in my "The Failure of Conventional Medicine" e-book. And if we are ever going to learn, it is important to understand what is going on, and why these decades-long time-delays are allowed to happen - time and time again.

There are influential people and powerful organisations implicated in each and every one of these scandals. They invariably, inevitably hold control the information about the situation within their sphere; within industry, within the conventional medical establishment, within government, and/or within the mainstream media. They are people with reputations to defend, and personal wealth to protect. And corporations or institutions with profitability at stake. When it is realised that there is a problem, they defend themselves, vigorously, through many tried and tested strategies:

  • initially they ignore the situation (on the basis that it is best not to discuss the situation in case it attracts unnecessary or unwanted publicity),
  • then they obfuscate (it is best that people are confused, or over-whelmed, rather than certain that something 'bad' has happened),
  • they go into denial, they cover-up (they play for time, defending themselves with arguments like "there is no evidence", or the "correlation is not causality", et al,
  • they discount the importance of the situation (there may be a slight problem, but only a few people people were 'involved; it's not a serious issue), and they excuse themselves by saying that the benefits of what happened far outweighed the risks.

These factors were all in evidence in previous scandals; Thalidomide, Vioxx, Opioid, Primodos, Sodium Valproate, were all defended using these strategies. The infected blood scandal was no different, just the latest example of a medical scandal that took decades before the truth was recognised, and the cover-up revealed.

I suggest that the Covid-19 vaccine scandal is at the very earliest stage of this process. Literally millions of people, around the world, have reported serious adverse vaccine reactions to national drug regulators, and they have not been recognised, investigated or acted upon. There is growing realisation by doctors and others within the Conventional Medical Establishment that there is a serious problem (stemming from the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration), and when the patient harm issues have been raised in Parliament, by a handful of MP's, they have spoken to an almost empty chamber, and received only an obfuscatory response from a government minister. The voluminous reports of serious patient harm from the Covid-19 vaccines are said to be greater than any other vaccine for the last 70 years. There have been 'excess deaths' each and every month for the last 3 years (since the vaccine roll-out), and questions about  links with the Covid-19 vaccines have usually been ignored, or denied. All these suggestions and allegations meet with institutional ridicule and denial, a refusal to investigate further, and the determination to continue with the Covid vaccination campaign.

Any similarities here with the contaminated blood scandal in the 1970's and 1980's? An industry not prepared to abandon a profitable vaccine? A health system unwilling to admit that it has caused serious patient harm? A government that does not want to compensate and pay damages to damaged patients?

The problem is that we might have to wait 30 years to find out! We are in the early stages during which the victims do not receive recognition, sympathy, support or compensation. They are the 'ordinary' people, with limited resources; they are not 'experts', and they find it difficult to penetrate 'the system' which insists there is no problem; and they certainly don't have the funds to take the issue to a court of law. 

On the other side of the fence they face people in positions of great power and influence, backed by powerful institutions. These are rich and powerful people, in extremis, who stick together. They present as a united front to protect themselves, to sing from the same song sheet. Corporate directors, senior government officials, and the mainstream media control the agenda, the information is (and is not) made available to the public.

Indeed, with health scandals in particular, one notable feature of these scandals is that no action is taken to correct the fault. The infected blood products continue to be sold; the opioid drugs are still marketed; Sodium Valproate continues to be prescribed; and even the infamous Thalidomide drug is still being used, today! These sales continue until such time that the scandal becomes bigger, when sales begin to fall, or the hitherto toothless, incompetent drug regulator bans it; or the drug company 'withdraws' it because it has become "uncommercial". One of the Covid-19 vaccines, the AstraZeneca vaccine, has suffered this fate - withdrawn for 'commercial reason' even though  it was never approved in some countries (the USA), was banned in about 12 European countries, and 'withdrawn' from the UK. The 'commercial' reason was that no-one wanted the vaccine because of 'suspicions' that they caused serious patient harm!

Another common thread that runs through most, if not all, these medical scandals is that drug/vaccine/treatment involved usually started life as a "wonder drug", a "game changer" that would transform the treatment of one disease or another. However, each one has moved from being loudly heralded "a miracle cure" to be quietly being dropped as a killer drug.

And then we are led to believe that such a thing has never happened before! 

Even at the very end of medical scandals, as with the 'contaminated blood scandal', the issue is usually discounted as being a 'one-off' issue, a single, isolated and terrible medical 'mistake' that must not be allowed to happen again. Also, they are presented as situations that would not be allowed to happen, not now, because things have changed, medicine has moved on. So, the defective, disease-inducing blood scandal product becomes "the worse disaster in the history of the NHS" - the implication being that something as bad as this has never happened before. And of course the Inquiry will insure that no such thing will never happen again in future!

So usually no-one is ever held to account for the scandal. This is the main purpose of the long drawn out history of obstruction and delay. If resolution can be delayed for 30, 40, or 50 years on, the people involved will either be dead, or too old; their scandal-driven profits already spent, or no longer available. The pharmaceutical industry will have re-organised, the old, often defunct drug companies will no longer be around to question, or prosecute. The politicians and civil servants involved with the scandal will have moved on, or died. Even some of the documentation might have been 'lost'. 

So it is the current government (that is, tax payers) who foots the compensation/damages bill, especially when drug companies have been given immunity from prosecution.

Conventional medicine is inherently secretive. This is because it relies heavily on pharmaceutical drug treatments, all of which are known to have serious side effects that can cause serious patient harm. This is at the heart of what makes the NHS defensive in all its dealing with the public. This is why conventional medicine does not, perhaps cannot, function openly, transparently, or honestly.

So there will be more health scandals, and with all the evidence available at this point it seems safe to predict that the Covid-19 vaccines, which are already suspected to have caused so much serious patient harm (heart conditions, cancer, damage to the immune system, to mental health, et al), will eventually grab our attention. But not, perhaps, for another 30 or 40 years!

So how can we identify a scandal 30 to 40 years earlier? I have a couple of tips.

  • Watch for a new 'medical breakthrough', the promotion of a new 'ground beating' medical treatment by both government, and the mainstream media,
  • Listen to who is speaking, and what they are saying. (i) the voice of the 'common' people who claim they have been harmed, but who remain largely unheard, or beaten back, and (ii) the denials and obfuscations of the medical and political establishments.

If these conditions apply then we just might have another medical scandal to witness - if we live long enough to see it unravel!

Thursday 30 May 2024

Elections, Politics and Health Spending?

Health is good; therefore spending on health must be good; therefore democratic politicians at election time, when they want our votes, promise us more health care.

            In Britain, since 1948, the expansion of the NHS has been based on one extraordinary idea - that as health is ‘good’, a vote winner, so spending on health must also be ‘good’. It is this one single idea that has allowed the NHS to grow at such a phenomenal rate!

But what if the additional money is spent on a health care system that does not work; and whose drugs and treatments cause further damage to our health? This is what has been happening in democracies around the world for the last 100 years, or more".

  • we are unwell,
  • we accept ineffective pharmaceutical drugs,
  • they make us sicker,
  • so we demand more health care,
  • and we get more ineffective, sickening health care, which compounds our sickness,
  • ..... so we demand even more to be spent on health care!

Eventually, an ineffective and iatrogenic health care system dominates not only our health, but the national economy; and is now even threatening to effectively 'bankrupt' governments. There is no more money to spend.

I am not going to defend these statements here. I really don't need to - the evidence is happening right now. In the UK and India we are already in the midst of election campaigns in which health spending is dominating the political debate. European and USA elections will follow later in the year. So the proof of the statements made here will be clear for all to observe.

  • We are sick (unasked question: why are we sicker now than we ever have been before?)
  • We want more health care (unasked question: what sort of health care do you actually want/need?)
  • Okay, Okay - we are listening (we want your vote), so we will give you yet more of the health care that is not making you better, and making you sicker).
  • Then we can watch as politicians out-bid each other with spending commitments on moving more resources into pharmaceutical medicine.
  • Listen, very carefully, you might be able to hear the gleeful response of the drug companies as they vie with each other to get hold of more of the new money. Later, we will be able to see that their profits have escalated, again).
  • Ultimately, we will be able to watch how chronic diseases (allergy, arthritis, asthma, autism, autoimmune diseases, cancer, dementia, diabetes, epilepsy, heart/kidney/liver/lung disease, mental health, et al) have continue on their inexorable, epidemic rise to new unprecedented levels.

If that does not happen, please let me know!


Friday 17 May 2024

Informed Consent to Pharmaceutical Medical Treatment. What information do patients' require?

Informed consent is important in medicine. It is especially important in Conventional (Pharmaceutical) medicine which has a long history of causing patient harm. (Click here for a list of withdrawn and banned medical drugs prescribed by doctors, especially over the last 70 years). Conventional medicine has always emphasised the importance of informed consent. For example, the UK's National Health Service (NHS) states that: 

            "For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision. The meaning of these terms are:
    * voluntary – the decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family;
    * informed – the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead;
    * capacity – the person must be capable of giving consent, which means they understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed decision.”

Yet conventional medicine has a poor record in assuring that the patients have given their "voluntary informed consent" when it comes to the prescription of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Conventional medicine is adept at informing us of the 'benefits' of drugs/vaccines; but they have been less ready to admit to the serious adverse reactions they can cause.

Indeed, in many during the recent Covid-19 pandemic it was clear that conventional medicine was prepared to mandate (force) patients to be vaccinated, without their consent, with vaccines that were (are) by its own admission 'experimental'. Even by the rather 'carefree' standards of pharmaceutical drug testing, were not fully or properly tested.

In December 2023 the USA drug regulator, the FDA, appears to have ditched the concept of voluntary informed consent entirely when it issued a 'final rule' providing an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject, and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety and welfare of human subjects. This is, perhaps, thin edge of a very hefty wedge? Or perhaps, for a fundamentally dishonest industry, it is now trying to find reasons to ignore this principle altogether. Remember, at the time conventional medicine told us that Thalidomide, Vioxx, Avandia, Acomplia, Opioid painkillers, Sodium Valproate, and many others, came with "appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety and welfare of human subjects"! And they killed patients!

Conventional medicine has always been highly secretive about its treatments. Electro-Convulsive Treatment continues to be used on mental health patients (perhaps less now than before) quite regardless of the lack of evidence for its efficacy. But it is the prescription of pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines, and their adverse effects on patients, that most secrecy exists. Remember, "the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead" (my emphasis). The reverse is usually true.

  • Often the patient will not be told about 'side effects' at all.
  • Or they are told only of minor 'side effects'.
  • Or the serious 'side effects' are minimised, discounted, described as "uncommon" or "rare".
  • Or, when the patient suffers a side effect, the doctor assures the patient the drug was not the cause.
  • Or a patient suffers serious harm, and conventional medicine completely denies any link.

I wrote about informed consent in May 2012. This blog was in response to a report that described, in some detail, the problem of medical paternalism (I am a medical professional - I know best - you should/must take this drug - it is "safe and effective" - and I don't expect to be questioned). The report said that:

            "Doctors are deliberately withholding information about the dangers of some routine screening and clinical procedures - often because they fear patients would then refuse treatment".

In other words, doctors were refusing to give patients information which might help them make an "informed choice", that is, a choice different to the decision of the doctor! The report suggested that patients should ask the following questions before agreeing to take any prescription drugs:

  1. How long has the drug been on the market (if less than 2 years ask for an 'older generation' drug)?
  2. Can you confirm I am not taking part in a drug trial?
  3. Is the drug suitable for my age/gender/condition?
  4. Are you using this drug 'off-label' or for the condition for which it was originally licensed?
  5. Are there any special warning or 'black-box' alerts for this drug?
  6. Can you explain to me the known side-effects and the likelihood of me suffering them?
  7. Has the drug been tested among people similar to my own age/gender?
  8. Do you know if the drug has been banned from use in other countries? (Note, many drugs which are banned in one country are still sold and prescribed in others).
  9. Have you given this drug to other patients? If so, have they reported any adverse reactions?
  10. Is the dose you are recommending within the guidelines of the manufacturer for my age/ gender/ condition?
  11. Do you know if the new drug will react with other drugs I am currently taking?
  12. If I start to suffer from health problems when I take the drug, I shall stop immediately, and come to see you again. Do you agree this is the best course of action?

However, the report went on to question whether the average doctor would be able to answer many of these questions. In other words, it questions how well informed doctors are about the drugs they prescribe, and how reliant they are on inadequate, and partial information from the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical 'science' that it controls.

And then there is the question about whether medical staff are allowed to provide patients with 'negative' information about conventional medical treatment. The Telegraph has recently published a series of articles entitled "The four-step 'playbook' the NHS uses to break whistleblowers" which discuses how  doctors, who raise patient safety concerns, are confronted with systemic bullying and harassment from their managers and colleagues. 

This raises the important question - can doctors who wish to tell patients the whole truth about medical treatment actually allowed to do so?

The Telegraph articles outline how NHS whistleblowers have had their careers ruined whilc trying to raise concern about patient safety. It outlines how over 50 doctors and nurses have raised concerns about patient death, and poor patient care, and how rather than dealing with the problems raised NHS executives seek to undermine them using 4 specific tactics.

  1. Investigating the whistleblowers rather than investigating the issues raised.
  2. Bullying and Intimidatory tactics against the whistleblowers.
  3. Weaponising General Medical Council referrals to silence whistleblowers.
  4. Demotion, Disciplinary Action, and Dismissal.

Few medical professionals would want to g through this type of persecution? So the assumption must be that most do not go public with the information? So the information that the NHS does not want patient to hear about does not reach the public. And the patient has to make his/her "voluntary informed choice" without this important information.

Does this sound like an open, honest, transparent medical system to you?

Are you undertaking conventional medical treatment, or taking pharmaceutical drugs or vaccines?

Are you being denied information that would help you make an informed choice?

Even patients who were determined to obtain information about the treatment recommended to them. This link describes one woman's battle for medical information. The response she received to her questions show how careful patients must be to protect themselves from pharmaceutical harm; and the extent to which conventional medical authorities will go to ignore, discount and deny important information required by patients who seek to know the full picture about proposed medical treatment.

So 'voluntary informed consent' is not an easy, perhaps closer to impossible for the sceptical patients to elicit - which is perhaps why so many patients are seriously harmed by drugs which were given to make them well. The patient instead suffers serious iatrogenic harm which is then denied or discounted. 

No government, no mainstream news media, will assist you, as they invariably appear to follow the pharmaceutical line. An internet search might provide important information that doctors will otherwise keep secret. But even this is often difficult to find for ordinary, non-medical people to find.

One piece of advice I received when learning to drive a car, many years ago, was to assume that everyone else on the road was an idiot. It was good advice! It has kept me safe.

Similarly, I would advice any patient to assume that any doctor, if not an idiot, will not be prepared, or will not able, or willing, to tell the truth about the medical treatment you are being offered. So scepticism might just help keep you safe from iatrogenic harm!

Post Script

If you agree that informed choice is important in medicine, please have a look at the 'Free Speech for Health' website, and sign their petition.

Monday 13 May 2024

The Largesse of the Pharmaceutical Industry. Why did doctors recommend that we take Covid-19 vaccines?

During the Covid-19 pandemic, everyone was constantly urged/cajoled by the National Health Service, the Government, and the entire mainstream media, to get vaccinated against the virus. This recommendation, so regularly repeated, became known by many as "The Narrative" such was its uniformity and persistence. 

Most people in the UK who were vaccinated in 2021were given the Oxford University AstraZeneca vaccine which has now been withdrawn, effectively banned because of the harm it caused to patients. We were told, via the Narrative, that this vaccine was "safe and effective", indeed more, that the vaccine was the only thing that could save us from the virus.

One of the most important elements of the "The Narrative" was a string of doctors who regularly appeared on the media, reinforcing the pro-vaccine message. They told us we must all get vaccinated, not just to protect ourselves, but to protect other people too. Vaccination became A civic duty. 

Now it has been discovered the drug companies were paying doctors: "AstraZeneca pays doctors to promote vaccines on ITV". This Expose article examined information from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, which is required to disclose all money that has been paid to healthcare professionals. It found that 2022 disclosures revealed that AstraZeneca had paid doctors for "contracted services". These doctors then appeared on ITV to promote the 'safe vaccine' Narrative, and to downplay concerns about vaccine injuries that quickly arose.

The figures show that AstraZeneca paid "UK healthcare professionals, and other relevant decision makers" over £7 million! They were the most generous company of all, but certainly not the only drug company that paid for these "contracted services". In total drug companies paid out nearly £63 million! The Expose article is well worth reading, in full. The figures appear to be genuine, and to date no-one appears to have refuted them (or indeed even mentioned them).

Most people who watched the testimony of these doctors on ITV, and no doubt other broadcasters too, would have assumed that they were medical professionals who were providing us with the benefit of their clinical experience, giving their considered and unbiased opinions on the vaccines. What they told us, repeatedly, would certainly have persuaded large numbers of people that they should take the vaccine. Indeed it would have been an important part of the information on which the vaccinated based their decision, their "informed consent". Most people still trust their doctors. They believe what they are told, in good faith.

  • However, I never heard one of these doctors mention that they had a conflict of interest, that they had received money from the industry for "contracted services". 
  • Nor did I hear any interviewer ask whether they might have a conflict of interest. 
  • Nor do I know why mainstream news channels asked only these same doctors, time and time again, for their views, but none of the doctors who expressed concern about their safety and effectiveness.

Nor are my expectations high about getting any future information. I do I expect the doctors involved,  ITV, or indeed any other news channel, to answer these questions. I doubt whether there will be any apologies. I doubt whether anyone will even to mention it. I have written about this before, over 15 years ago. We are dealing with a dangerous industry that routinely harms patients - yet they are capable of keeping this from the general public!

Yet there is more. Another Expose article, looking at the same (publicly available) data, has discovered that "Big Pharma have paid UK healthcare organisations £404 million during 2020-2022". So what is this huge some of money for?

According to the ABPI Code of Practice, healthcare organisations are "either a healthcare, medical or scientific association or organisation such as a hospital, clinic, foundation, university or other teaching institution or learned society whose business address, place of incorporation or primary place of operation is in Europe or an organisation through which one or more health professionals or other relevant decision makes provide services".

Apparently the beneficiary organisations do not have to be declared, as Health Care Organisations are not considered to be 'personal data', therefore "a lawful basis is not required to publish organisation names and addresses on Disclosure UK". 

  • But it is perhaps not unreasonable to suppose that organisations that benefit from this pharmaceutical largesse are expected to be supportive, and certainly not too critical, of the industry. 
  • And it is not unreasonable to assume that the beneficiaries will include organisations that supply information about pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines to the general public, like media news organisations, Health Charities, and Patient Support groups.

That is, any organisation which might be expected to provide important health information, who might be persuaded to promote their produce, and who might otherwise be critical of them.

The pharmaceutical industry is certainly prepared to spend a large part of its income and wealth on ensuring that the general public is given only 'positive' information, that what we hear about its products is good, rather than bad news. For an industry that has done so much patient harm over the years this appears to be a good strategy.  - however much harm they might cause.  

For instance, I have written before on this blog about how the pharmaceutical industry provides Health Charities, and Patient Support groups with generous funding. 

In return for this funding, drug companies gain organisations that are supportive of pharmaceutical approaches to health care, uncritical of any adverse reactions treatment may cause, and dismissive or any suggestion that the illness they support might have an iatrogenic, or 'doctor-induced' cause.

The pharmaceutical industry has long been adept at applying huge amounts of their income and wealth on restricting the health information available to us. Indeed, doing so is an important, indeed crucial element in the success of conventional, drug-based medicine. The industry recognises that without controlling what the public is told about the dangers of pharmaceutical medicine, their credibility would soon be fatally damaging.

And it is for this reason that they are prepared to spend very large amounts of money to ensure we are all getting the 'right' message!