Search This Blog

Thursday 31 August 2023

How Strong is your Baby's Immune System?

This is a question that all prospective and new parents need to ask, as a matter of some urgency. Yet it is a question not asked nearly enough, and too often the answers focus on the importance of vaccine immunity.

The strategy for maintaining and strengthening our natural immunity as children and adults is well known, particularly by those whose understanding is not dominated by the “only vaccines will protect us” ideology of the pharmaceutical medical establishment.

It is a strategy that focuses on diet, exercise, and life-style choices - and the avoidance of pharmaceutical drugs, which I have written about here. Click here for more details about this strategy.

Maintaining and strengthening natural immunity is important throughout our lives, so I would recommend that every new and prospective parent learns about the important principles to which this blog referred. But I am aware that this blog did not deal with the immune system of babies and infants. It should have done as it is slightly different, not least because a baby's immune system is not fully developed when they are born, and for a few months afterwards.

In the Womb

The foetus, especially during the last 3 months of pregnancy, is protected by the mother’s antibodies through the placenta, and this protection continues through to when the baby is born. During birth, the baby picks up the mother's antibodies during its passage through the birth canal. The importance of natural birth has become more apparent in recent years. Babies born vaginally have different gut bacteria (their microbiome) than those delivered by caesarean. It has been discovered that vaginally born babies obtain most of their gut bacteria from their mother, caesarean babies have more bacteria associated with the hospital. This suggests that vaginal birth gives babies a better natural immunity, although whether this persists into later health is not known.

However, it is important to note that the effectiveness of this protection from the mother depends on the mother’s own level of immunity.

Immediately after the Birth

After birth, the mother passes more antibodies to the baby from the colostrum, and then during breast feeding. Breast feeding, for as long as possible, is one of the best ways of protecting the child from infections. Breast milk contains the proteins, fats, sugars that help build and strengthen the baby’s immune system. 

So when a mother comes into contact with an infection, again depending on the strength of her natural immunity, she will make antibodies to help her fight it, and these are then passed on to the baby through the milk.

It is important to stress the importance of breast feeding because in (too many) parts of the conventional medical establishment, especially in certain periods of the recent past, the vital part breast milk plays in developing a baby's immunity has been heavily discounted. 

Formula milk is just NOT an adequate substitute. Nutritionally it might be an acceptable alternative where it is necessary, but it does little or nothing to strengthen the child's immune system.

The Infant

As the child becomes more self functioning, and the immunity received from the mother declines after just a few months, they will start to make their own antibodies. As they come across infections, children will increasingly rely on their own natural immune system.

Yet a baby's immunity is a delicate matter, and there are some important things that can be done to protect them further - all similar to the things we should continue throughout our lives.

1. A healthy diet; with lots of fruit and vegetables; the avoidance of processed foods, including processed baby foods; and don’t ‘treat’ them with (too many) sugary drinks and sweets. Read up more on diet and nutrition from natural medical websites, or consult with a local natural health practitioner or nutritionist.

2. Good sleep is important, as this enables the child to refresh and recharge. A tired baby is more vulnerable to infection.

3. Keep the child active and stimulated, both their minds and their bodies. Exercise is always good for us, regardless of age; and physical and mental fitness is an important part maintaining and strengthening a healthy immune system.

4. Reduce levels of stress wherever possible; for instance, make sure that the baby knows that he/she is loved, and is being protected.

5. Avoid pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. In particular, don’t believe the vaccine propaganda we all get, ad nauseam, from the conventional medical establishment. If in doubt, read the patient information leaflets that will outline the adverse reactions of the vaccine, if only some of them - the one’s accepted by the drug regulators. For example, you will not find anything about autism; or about allergies; two of the biggest dangers of vaccination. 

And antibiotic drugs are equally to blame for the decline in our children’s health - largely because they disrupt the stomach’s microbiome, the bacteria, fungi, viruses, and other microbes that naturally live inside us, and fulfil an important role in our immune systems, enable the proper digestion of food, and produce the energy and vitality that helps us stay healthy.

I hope this gives you some idea of the things you can do to help your baby stay healthy; but a word of warning; point 5 above is very important indeed - but you will rarely hear about it from anyone within the conventional medical establishment, including the mainstream media.

Tuesday 18 July 2023

Donanemab: Another Wonder Drug. So many heralded! But what happens to them?

Donanemab is the latest of a long list of so-called "Wonder Drug" to be announced by the mainstream media. This one, we are told, is "a turning point in the fight against dementia".

The entire media, and the dementia health charities, use the same wording. Donanemab is being hailed as a turning point in the fight against Alzheimer's disease. This follows a global trial, published in the health journal JAMA, that "confirms it slows cognitive decline" by 35%.

But behind this 'good news' are the usual caveats

  • It does not cure all dementias, only Alzheimer's disease.
  • It is not a cure, even for Alzheimer's - it is claimed only that it slows the progress of the disease.
  • It costs £20,000 per patient per year.
  • It works best when Alzheimer's is diagnosed early, much earlier than most people are diagnosed
  • It has not been approved by drug regulators yet.
  • The drug is known to have severe adverse reactions (mentioned in some, but not all news reports), including brain swelling; plus 3 people died as a result of dangerous swelling in the brain.
  • The drug is made by Eli Lilly; but we are not told who paid for the trials.

Do you remember the drug lecanemab. This made headlines around the world in December 2022, less than 8 months ago. I wrote about it here, "Alzheimers drug lecanemab hailed as momentous breakthrough in the treatment of dementia". What happened to it?

Lecanemab, was rejected by the European drug regulator over both safety concerns, and a lack of any firm evidence that the drug was effective for patients.

Do have a read! You will get a strong feeling of deja vu - with the same optimistic headlines are being repeated, time and time again. So how will Donanemab get on? Watch this page!

But it will probably do little better than the other so called "wonder drugs" that have been heralded during the last 50 years and more! I have written about this, here, in September 2019, in a blog entitled "New Pharmaceutical Drugs, New Medical Breakthroughs. New Wonder Drugs. New Miracle Treatments. No Benefits".

So these "good news" stories happen on a regular basis, and usually end up in the same way - failure. The stories raise people's hope that pharmaceutical medicine will eventually cure us of illness and disease. It has never done so yet. They bring hope, only for hope to be dashed, usually very quickly.

About 15 years ago, I wrote a blog entitled "the Ages of Conventional Medical Drugs", taking them through their usual journey of birth, childhood, adulthood, old age and death. It was first written in my E-Book, "The Failure of Conventional Medicine"

The only thing that has happened since then is that these stages now seem to pass very much more quickly than they used to!

Friday 10 February 2023

Ignoring the main cause of disease: Cancer

"Together we will beat cancer"

This is the very successful, long-time slogan of Cancer Research UK, a charity that has been in operation for over 120 years, and just one of hundreds of health charities around the world. It's website says.

        "Cancer is relentless. But so are we. Whether you fundraise, pledge to leave a gift in your will or donate. Every part supports life-saving research. Play your part and together we will beat cancer.​"

And many millions of people have played their part - organising events, making donations, getting sponsored for swimming, walking running, cycling, et al. The charity has raised £trillions in this way. Their strategy, they say, is to focus on making discoveries, driving progress, and bringing hope to those affected by cancer.

So how successful has this strategy been?

The problem is that, despite all this charitable effort, by Cancer Research UK and others, is that cancer levels have continued to increase to epidemic levels, particularly during the last 100 years.

And in a recent report, Cancer Research UK has told us, clearly and unequivocally, that the cancer epidemic will continue to grow.

        "The number of people in the UK who will be diagnosed with cancer will increase by a third by 2040, according to new figures.

        "This will take the number of new cases every year to more than half a million, rising from 384,000 per year now to 506,000 in 2040.

The chief executive states that “today’s analysis provides a stark reminder of the challenges the NHS in England is set to face in years to come. Cancer patients are already facing unacceptably long waits for diagnosis and treatment, and staff in cancer services are working very hard”. 

The charities chief clinician stated that "the NHS risks being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of new cancer diagnoses” unless the government takes action”.

So why have these charitable efforts to "beat cancer" been such a clear and obvious failure? My submission is that one of the main reasons for this failure is that one of the main causes of cancer is being totally ignored - pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

Over time I have read many articles that outline "the causes of cancer", many describing the causes of cancer under the headings (i) toxins, (ii) infections, and (iii) biological factors. According to the medical research company American Medical Research, toxins are responsible for 70-75% of cases, infections about 20-25%, whilst genetics cause less that 5%.

Obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, lack of exercise, an unhealthy diet, air pollution, the ageing process, ultraviolet and ionising radiation, and viral and bacterial infection, are all regular mentioned.

Obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, lack of exercise, an unhealthy diet, air pollution, the ageing process, ultraviolet and ionising radiation, and viral and bacterial infections are all usually mentioned on these lists.

Yet when it comes to toxic chemicals, or carcinogens, pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are rarely mentioned. Iatrogenic causes of cancer, or anything concerned with conventional medicine, are ignored!

Yet there is ample evidence to identify iatrogenic causes, particularly pharmaceutical drugs, as a major cause of cancer? So if Cancer Research UK cannot accurately identify a major cause of cancer, how can they expect to overcome it, and find treatment that can successfully treat it? 

The evidence that implicates pharmaceutical drugs is overwhelming, and I have written about this in more detail here. The list of drugs known to cause cancer is a long one; and all the evidence is contained within conventional medical literature itself. So Cancer Research UK should be fully aware of the association between the following drugs and cancer. They are all widely prescribed by doctors, and have been for decades.

  • antidepressants,
  • antipsychotics,
  • benzodiazepines, and other hypnotic drugs,
  • amphetamines, and other stimulant drugs,
  • anticonvulsant drugs,
  • HRT (Hormone Replacement)
  • the Contraceptive Pill,
  • statins,
  • antibiotics,
  • proton pump inhibitors,
  • ACE inhibitors,
  • and many, many others, outlined here.

Cancer can also be caused by many other treatments provided by conventional medicine, including some creams, breast implants, X-ray and scanning technology.

There is strong circumstantial evidence too. Cancer has grown to epidemic levels, and continues to grow, and it does so alongside the massive growth in the consumption of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines over the last 100 years.

So why does Cancer Research UK ignore one of the main causes of cancer? Why do they never mention it? In fairness they are not the only charity that does not do so. Most other medical charities and patient support groups do likewise when they deal with the illness/disease on which they focus.

The problem is that Cancer Research UK, and most other medical charities and patient support groups, are now dominated and controlled by pharmaceutical interests.

And Big Pharma has no interest in pointing a finger at themselves. They do not want the safety of their drugs and vaccines assessed. They are happy to look at anything else; but everything else is probably a less significant cause of cancer.

There will be, and can be, no diminution in the incidence of cancer as long as there is no recognition of one of the main causes of cancer - for which there is an easy and obvious cure: avoid taking the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines known to cause it!

Thursday 15 December 2022

Fergus Walsh. BBC Medical Editor? Or Big Pharma Salesman?

Fergus Walsh is officially the BBC's Medical Editor, but he has been its medical correspondent since 2004. It would appear that his main job, either on behalf of the BBC, or the pharmaceutical industry, is to provide propaganda for new 'breakthrough' drugs and vaccines that will 'transform' or 'revolutionise' the treatment of a particular illness or disease. Here are just a few or Walsh's published pieces, of which there must now be many hundreds!

Newborns to get rapid genetic disease diagnosis (2022)

BioNTech: could Covid vaccine technology crack cancer? (2022).

Alzheimer's drug hailed as 'breakthrough'. (2022).

Take-at-home treatment for spinal muscular atrophy (2021).

How breakthrough coronavirus drug dexamethasone was found (2020).

Coronavirus: encouraging results in vaccines trials (2020).

Gene therapy first to 'halt' most common cause of blindness (2019).

Breakthrough treatment for MS patient (2016).

Gene editing technique could transform future (2016)

Windpipe Transplant Breakthrough (2008)

You will see that all these pieces, and so many, many more over the past two decades, have a similar format. *It's a terrible disease. *The drug/vaccine is a revolutionary breakthrough in treatment. *Medical science confirms the drug works, and will be successful. *The treatment is not available now, but will be in one/two/three years time. *The drugs adverse reactions are usually not mentioned. 

Walsh's promotion of these drugs/vaccines is entirely free for the drug industry, by a broadcaster that should not advertise! Another problem with Walsh's optimism about pharmaceutical drugs is that it raises the hopes of patients, only to dash them again when ultimately they are prescribed, and prove to be useless in practice, or worse than useful because of their adverse reactions.

This does not matter because Walsh's pieces also have another characteristic. They are never followed up. The 'good news' story is about the future. It is never about today. And tomorrow never seems to happen!

Walsh has been very successful in promoting pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. He was certainly instrumental in promoting the Covid-19 vaccines, not least the AstraZeneca vaccine. He has been less successful in telling us about the outcomes of the drugs he had promoted. For example, to my knowledge he has never told anyone that the AstraZeneca vaccine has been either banned in some countries, or universally abandoned around the world, as in Britain - largely because of the adverse reactions it has caused - reactions that he has never mentioned, and continues to ignore.

So is there any evidence for these successful breakthrough treatments? Can the ongoing travails of the NHS provide us with firm evidence that illness and disease is being reduced, that patients are getting any benefit from these treatments? Or are most of them (like the AstraZeneca vaccine) been abandoned, because they have proven to be either largely ineffective, or just too dangerous.

Conventional medicine throughout the world, and particularly within the NHS, is now dominated by pharmaceutical treatments. No matter how successful Fergus Walsh has been in promoting them, on behalf of the drug industry conventional medicine continues to be stubbornly unable to prevent or treat serious illness and disease. Most chronic diseases are now running a record, epidemic levels - and rising.

Notwithstanding, Walsh continues to come out with these pieces of 'good news' on a regular basis, even at this time when the failure of pharmaceutical medicine is becoming increasingly apparent. His optimism about drugs may not benefit patients but they most certainly benefit the pharmaceutical industry. 

It might be accurate to say that Walsh is one of their most successful salesmen.

For more information about the harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs, and the failure of conventional medicine, go to these links.

Iatrogenic Disease. The Disease Inducing Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs and Vaccines.

The Failure of Conventional Medicine.

Thursday 8 December 2022

A Christmas Turkey? The impact of the veterinary 'treatment' of Bird Flu!

If you are having difficulty buying a turkey this Christmas you might want to ask a simple, but important question.

Why do we cull flocks of birds who have a simple infection?

Conventional medicine, for both humans, animals and birds, has a serious problem with infections. And if you are struggling to find a Turkey for Christmas this year, and/or are amazed at the increased cost of doing so, you are, like so many others, experiencing the consequences of this fundamental medical failure. First, ask yourself this question.......

What sort of medicine would actually kill its patients, and then have the audacity to call this 'treatment', and describe what it does as ‘medicine’?

In veterinary medicine the culling of patients often happens; too often. And it happens with illnesses and diseases that are relatively mild, and from which most of the patients will recover in time.

Avian or Bird Flu: where flocks of birds (including turkeys this year) are forced to live indoors because being outside, in the open air, able to move around freely, is thought to be too dangerous by veterinary medicine! And then all the birds are culled if just one of them becomes ill.

Foot and Mouth: where herds of cattle are routinely slaughtered, considered unfit for human consumption, and buried and burnt in mass graves.

TB: Not only are herds of cattle slaughtered if one of their number is tested for TB, but badgers too are culled because they are thought to cause it (although there is little or no evidence for this).

I wrote more about the 'medical' practice of killing here in 2020.

First, do no harm! Allegedly this is the first principle of conventional medicine, although it is routinely ignored. What more harm can medicine do than to slaughter its patients, to do so intentionally, and to kill them in the name of 'medical treatment'?

I have been arguing that pharmaceutical medicine has been failing for over 15 years now - and surely there is no better demonstration of medical failure than by 'treating' sick patients by killing them?

What sort of medicine would even think about doing such a thing?
    * A medical system that has no alternative, no effective treatment (as otherwise they would surely use it)?
    * A medicine that has little or no understanding of natural immunity, and so does not include it in the treatment strategy?
    * A medicine that is allowed to discount the real costs of its ‘treatment’
             - to the birds
             - to the cost of food (even during a period of super-inflation)
             - where the cost is charged is made only against taxpayers!

Yet there is a further issue. Infections also provide pharmaceutical medicine (of which veterinary medicine is part) with a huge business opportunity, usually via the sale of vaccines. Their strategy is always the same: create as much fear about the illness or disease as possible: then persuade us that only pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines can save us from disaster; and offer them to patients, courtesy of the public purse, free of charge.

Conventional medicine has, to date, resisted resorting openly to this lethal treatment for human patients. However, the strategy remains similar when compared to veterinary treatment.

    * a costly fear campaign, based in the fact the conventional medicine has no safe or effective treatment,
    * hygiene is considered the first essential response in order to kill the infection,
    * lockdown, keeping flocks indoor, in conditions that are both unnatural and unhealthy for the patient,      * then introducing treatments, however dubious; and if they do not work, or if they kill the patient, blame the infection rather than the treatment.

We should all be aghast at the inability of pharmaceutical medicine to cope with bird flu; its lack of treatment, it use of fear and panic to obtain compliance to useless and dangerous treatments. Just as with our recent experience with Covid-19, which imposed severe mental, social and economic losses, especially for the most vulnerable. 

Nor was the virus responsible for the harm. The damage to people's health, the uprooting of people's lives and livelihoods, the destruction of the national economy, especially for the less well-off, have all been caused by the medically driven policies used to deal with the virus - NOT THE VIRUS ITSELF.

Covid-19 will have longer-term consequences too - medically-driven government policies are threatening the ideals of patient choice, health freedom, and personal liberty generally. But at least humans were not culled - except that the Covid-19 vaccines are now known to have killed many thousands people around the world.

Conventional medicine is deeply paternalistic in its attitude towards patients, whether human, animal or avian. The "we-must-save-your-life" attitude of conventional medicine, supported by government; and the utter and complete compliance of the mainstream media in promoting these government/medical policies, is all aimed at taking away personal responsibility. And uppermost in these policies is the utter failure to inform us about how exercise, good diet, and living in good environmental conditions, and much more, can to support and strengthen the immune systems of patients against infections.

So the only living creatures that get a worse deal that humans when faced with an infection are birds and animals. So we can perhaps be thankful that humanity has not been culled as a 'medical' response to relatively mild infections. We just have to put up with a shortage of Turkeys at Christmas, a small price to pay, however expensive the remaining birds might be!

It is often said that "Turkeys do not vote for Christmas". This is probably so. But with equal certainty they would never vote for the medical system that is tasked to look after their health!


The Myths of Conventional Medical Success. The Covid-19 Pandemic - the history is being written NOW

Around the world the fiasco of the Covid-19 vaccines is becoming apparent, at least outside the conventional medical establishment. Over 12 billion doses of these vaccines have been injected into people. An in countries where vaccination rates are higher the worse the Covid-19 situation has become. This has been apparent for some months - Covid-19 cases have been rising where vaccination rates are high, but the upward trend did not happen in less heavily rates apply, like Africa. Africa has had fewer vaccinations, fewer cases, fewer hospitalizations, and a lower death rates.

The problem faced by the 'advance' or 'developed' world has been that it could afford to vaccinate more people, for free. The advantage of less developed areas has been that it could not do so. 

  • Where there has been mass vaccination, there has been a pandemic!
  • Where there has been no mass vaccination, the 'pandemic' has not happened!

This is not a new or unusual situation. We have been brought up to believe that vaccines are safe and effective. They are not - and they never have been. I have written before on the myths of vaccine success, about smallpox, about polio, and about measles

Now I suspect we will soon be hearing that the awful Covid-19 pandemic was also ended because of the success of the vaccines! The lie is already being told.

Since writing these three blogs I have discovered another book on the subject, "The Poisoned Needle: Suppressed Facts about Vaccination". It was written by Eleanor McBean. What makes this book even more interesting is that it was written in 1957. So for polio and measles it was a contemporaneous account of what was happening, both with the polio vaccines, and the early days of the measles vaccines. It is not an historical document. For that reason alone it is worth reading, and what is demonstrated is that at the very time that smallpox and measles were (allegedly) being overcome by vaccines, many doctors (many quoted in the book) were very clearly contradicting the propaganda of the conventional medical establishment.

We are often told that history is written by the victorious, and so provides us with a sectional account of what actually happened. Vaccines were not victorious, with smallpox, polio or measles, but conventional medical propaganda most certainly was. Before reading the McBean book I had little or no idea that there was so much opposition to the vaccines at that time.

Yet the same message comes across as is happening now with Covid-19. 

    * The vaccines were exacerbating the problem.

    * It was not until vaccination programmes declined, and people began to refuse the vaccines, that the diseases began to decline, and were brought under control.

The same thing has happened with the Covid-19 pandemic (as I predicted it would in a blog in early 2020). The Covid-19 vaccines have been an unmitigated disaster; they have not prevented the vaccinated contracting the disease; or transmitting it; or being hospitalised; or dying. 

Indeed, they made all these outcomes far worse.

Yet this is not the message coming from governments, from conventional medical authorities, or from the mainstream media. The pandemic is in steep decline, and entirely unsupported and uncorroborated, statements are being made about the "success" of the vaccines role in this decline. There is no evidence for making these claims; indeed all the evidence is suggesting quite the opposite.

    So what will the outcome be? 

    Who will write the history of the Covid-19 pandemic? 

    Will it be the evidence that the pandemic was exaggerated, that the vaccine did not stop it, that the vaccine caused more patient reports of harm than any other previous vaccine, or drug? 

Or will pharmaceutical propaganda be able to persuade future generations that the vaccines saved us?

This Medscape article (part of the conventional medical establishment), entitled "Opposition to vaccines has a long history" states that opposition to vaccine started in the 1860's, against the smallpox disease.

            "To fight this disease, countries implemented the first set of laws ever to mandate vaccination. "When vaccination becomes a political matter, resistance to vaccination does as well. And so, from 1860 to 1870, we see anti-vaccination leagues being established - the first of which appear in England." These leagues against "vaccine tyranny" came about following the United Kingdom's Vaccination Act of 1853, which required infants to be vaccinated against smallpox within 3 months of being born. The smallpox vaccine did not become mandatory in France until 1902, which was "quite late." 

There is little doubt that Covid-19 has been a significant event in the minds and experience of most people. People were offered the vaccines, many took it. They were the offered another dose, but fewer took it. They were offered boosters; but take up declined with each one. People learnt, just as people learnt about the harm caused by other vaccines

But what will history say, who will write the story? Whether the significance of Covid-19 will be sufficient to persuade enough people to challenge conventional medical wisdom (propaganda) is another matter. The conventional medical establishment will not admit that the vaccines they promoted caused harm. The drug companies made too much money from them to do so. Governments gave too many assurances for too long about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, as did the entire mainstream media. 

To admit that the were wrong would be just too embarrassing for any of them; they will stick to their narrative, and seek to write the narrative into our history books.

So what they will all do is what what they have always done. They will deny that they are wrong, they will stick to their narrative, regardless of the available evidence. They continue to repeat the same message - the vaccines are safe and effective. And they will hope that they have enough control over the information that we receive to ensure that, as the events fade from our memory, we will only see and believe the 'history' they will write.

It is our task to ensure they are not successful.

Thursday 1 December 2022

Alzheimers Drug Lecanemab Hailed as Momentous Breakthrough in Treatment of Dementia

Lecanemab has been heralded as good news for a medical system that is rapidly breaking down, Alzheimer's disease at epidemic levels, and the NHS now in terminal decline? 

Headlines in all the mainstream national media yesterday (30th November 2022) certainly suggests that it is. The Alzheimer's Society has described Lecanemab as "momentous"

Yet is it really "good news"? Let's look more closely into what we are being told.

    1. Lecanemab slows down the destruction of the brain by up to one-quarter. 

    2. Lecanemab ends decades of failure in the development of effective drug treatment for Alzheimer's.

    3. Lecanemab could be the first of many more, improved Alzheimer's therapies in the years to come.


Each of the media reports I have seen, including BBC News, the Guardian, the 'I', the Times, LBC, tell us the same thing. No doubt they have all read a pharmaceutical drug release, and have reported it to us without question or serious discussion. Each sought to tell us just how good this news is, trying their hardest to justify the optimism.

However, there are many reasons for caution about this "breakthrough" - if not for downright cynicism!

* Early Onset. Lecanemab, we are told, works only in the very early stages of Alzheimer's disease. It is acknowledged that it would have no effect on those with moderate to severe dementia. And of course it would have no effect on people suffering from other forms of dementia.

* Early Diagnosis. There is no current protocol/technique/procedure to diagnose Alzheimer's in its early stages. I have heard that only 2% of people with Alzheimer's are diagnosed at this state, so many people will have dementia long before it is diagnosed, and the drug is no longer any good.

* The future promise. As usual, the 'good' news about this drug are projected into the future. Lecanemab might be available to prescribe in 2024. And any new "improved" drugs deveoped from Lecanemab would extend this much further into the future.

* Beta Amyloid. Lecanemab is described as attacking the "sticky gunge", called beta amyloid, that builds up in the brains of those suffering with Alzheimer's disease. Yet there is growing evidence (not mentioned) that this 'sticky gunge' is not the cause Alzheimer's, but merely a symptom resulting from the disease.

* Delaying the Onset of the Disease. If, as promised, Lecanemab delays the progress of the disease by one-quarter we need to understand exactly what this means. If it takes someone 2 years to progress to 'moderate' or 'advanced' dementia, and drug will extend this period to just 2.5 years.

* Adverse Reactions. Mainstream media announcements of new 'miracle' drugs happen regularly (and rarely/never come to fruition). Rarely are we informed of serious side effects, even if they are known. With Lecanemab, however, we have already told that it is known to cause brain welling and bleeding. Even in the drug trial, alone, 7% of patients had to be withdrawn because of serious adverse reactions.


* Treatment. Apparently treatment is to be conducted by infusion every two weeks, in a hospital setting. This is at a time when when the NHS is under severe pressure, and the additional time and resources this will cause will only add to this. The NHS is already unable to cope with the levels of sickness and patient demands for health care.

* Expensive. We are also told that the drug will be "extremely expensive", thus adding to the rapidly growing costs of conventional medical treatment, and the parlous state of NHS finances.

No doubt worse will follow. As with all pharmaceutical drug trials, the benefits of Lecanemab will (i) likely have been exaggerated, (ii) the adverse reactions to the drug not be known, or they will be under-stated, or not studied. Lecamemab is unlikely to be any different!


Evidence of the failure of the NHS, dominated and controlled as it is by pharmaceutical medicine, is now clearly visible for anyone who wishes to see. Nobody needs to be told about the parlous state of the nation's health, after 80 years of conventional medical treatment. The NHS is falling down around us. 


Yet the mainstream media, even at such a time, continues to pin it's hope on yet another pharmaceutical drug. This constitutes the victory of hope over experience! In terms of the ever-growing Alzheimer's / dementia epidemic, a genuine medical breakthrough would more likely happen if conventional medicine was able to identify what is causing an epidemic that has been getting progressively worse for at least the last 80 years!


This would be possible. Conventional medical literature is able to point us to where this breakthrough might come. It already knows that large numbers of pharmaceutical drugs can cause symptoms such as confusion, memory loss, amnesia, disorientation. These drug side effects are something that the conventional medical establishment are fully aware - but keeps absolutely silent about.


I have outlined on another website just some of this evidence that doctors know that pharmaceutical drugs can cause these symptoms of dementia, alongside just some of the scientific studies that have demonstrated the link.

The problem with this evidence is that it is not welcome to the medical establishment, not least people who have been engaged in the business of prescribing these drugs. For doctors, and other medical practitioners, it is difficult to admit that their medical treatment, used increasingly over the last 80 years, might be a major cause of the dementia epidemic. 


The conventional medical establishment would rather ignore the evidence - AND COME UP WITH YET ANOTHER DRUG TO COVER UP THE HARM CAUSED TO PATIENTS.


So Lecanemab is likely to be yet another dead-end drug. The 'wonder drug' will have little impact on the ever rising numbers of people who are suffering dementia. Nor will it provide any significant help to individual dementia patients. It may raise hopes and expectations. But ultimately it will dash them in a matter of a few years. If Lecanemab follows the same trajectory as other wonder drugs, when its side effects become fully known, it will be quietly dropped.


Remember - this is not the first time that new 'wonder' drugs have been advertised by conventional medicine, through the mainstream media. This link made similar claims for a drug called aducanumab! 

And here is another from 2015 - a drug called solanezumab.


And there have been many more, like these, going back over a decade.

April 2007. "Scientists 'reverse' memory loss".
June 2008. "Dual action Alzhemer's drug hope".
July 2008. "Praise for new Alzheimer's drug".
July 2008. "Alzheimer's drug 'halts' decline.
May 2009. "Drug Trials 'reverse' Alzheimers".


The fate of other, previously heralded "Wonder Drugs" for other illnesses.

Just a selection! Can you spot any that have actually worked?


Acomplia. What happens to all the 'Wonder Drugs' and 'Miracle Cures' of conventional medicine? 


New Wonder Drug for Cancer (or is it really that good?)


Canakinumab. A New Wonder Drug! Promoted by the mainstream media


Multiple Sclerosis. Another miracle cure? Or another dangerous blind alley? 


AND SO IT CONTINUES................