Search This Blog

Thursday, 14 October 2021

Mandatory vaccination or Forced Drugging. Is it happening?

Mandatory vaccination or forced drugging is something people around the world are now facing.

I have had several conversations recently with people who told me that there was no mandating of vaccines, or forced drugging. Their reasoning was that no-one was being forcibly held down and injected. This kind of semantic obfuscation has become typical of what we are being told by doctors and politicians, and the rest of the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME). 

No politician (within the democratic world) is likely to admit to physically forcing vaccination on people: but politicians are seeking to ensure that non-compliance with vaccination will lead to losing their employment, and severe restrictions of social life. According these these 'double-speaking' politicians, this does not constitute mandating vaccines, as this video (from New Zealand) demonstrates (click here,, for as long as it remains uncensored on Facehook). Basically, the video shows New Zealand politicians saying there will be no mandating of vaccines, followed by government statements mandating them, and individuals whose jobs and livelihoods have been threatened!

This is typical of what is happening at the moment - politicians following policies that enforce drugging but having to deny it because it might be unpopular.

This is not the first time that the CME has tried to force drugs and vaccines on us. I have written about two of these occasions recently, the mandating of the smallpox vaccination, and the mandating of the polio vaccines. Both ended badly, not because of the objections of 'democratic' politicians, but in both cases the vaccines were so harmful they were ultimately rejected by the people.

I expect this will be the outcome of the mandating of Covid-19 vaccines - but unfortunately not until they have continued to cause untold patient harm, or before sufficient numbers of people realise how dangerous the vaccines are.

Politicians, and doctors around the world are being led by the nose by the pharmaceutical companies, which stand to profit enormously from forcing these vaccines on unwilling people. Both politicians and doctors are now part and parcel of the CME, entirely willing to be their bidding. And they are enforcing vaccines that have NOT been fully tested, have been 'approved' for emergency use only, and patients have not been fully informed about the serious adverse vaccines reactions that have been reported.

Moreover, politicians (and doctors) are willing to do so quite regardless of many political and medical principles that have been adopted over the years. I list some of them here.

1. Hippocrates oath (-460 // 377): "I will not give anyone poison, if asked, nor take the initiative of such a suggestion."

2. Code of Medical Ethics, Article 36:
Article R4127- 36 of the Public Health Code:  "The consent of the person examined or treated must be sought in all cases. When the patient, in a state of expressing his will, refuses the investigation or treatment proposed, the doctor must respect this refusal after informing the patient of his consequences.′′

3. Nuremberg Code (1947): "The consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights resumed this ban against unintentional experimentation, in its 1966 text, which states: no one may be  subjected without his consent to medical or scientific experiment."

4. Geneva statement for doctors (1948): "I will respect the autonomy and dignity of my patient. I will not use my medical knowledge to infringe human rights and civil liberties, even under force. I will keep absolute respect for human life, from conception. I will consider my patient's health as my first concern."

5. Helsinki Declaration (1996) signed by 45 countries:
Article 25: "The participation of persons capable of giving informed consent to medical research must be a voluntary act. No person capable of giving their informed consent can be involved in a search without giving their free and informed consent.′

 6) Oviedo Convention (1997) signed by 29 countries:

Article 5: "An intervention in the field of health can only be carried out after the data subject has given free and informed consent. This person is given prior adequate information about the purpose and nature of the intervention, as well as its consequences and risks. The data subject may, at any time, freely withdraw his consent."

7. Loi Kouchner (March 4, 2002):
Article 111-4: "Every person shall make decisions concerning his health with the healthcare professional and taking into account the information he provides him / her. The doctor must respect the will of the person after informing them of the consequences of their choices. If the person's willingness to refuse or discontinue treatment puts his or her life at risk, the doctor must do everything to convince him or her to accept the much needed care. No medical or treatment can be practiced without the free and informed consent of the person and this consent can be withdrawn at any time."

8. Salvetti stop (2002): No medical treatment is mandatory in the European Union:  "As a non-voluntary medical treatment, mandatory vaccination is an interference with the right to privacy, guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms." (Salvetti v Italy-ECHR decision of 9 July 2002; No. 42197/98)

9. French Civil Code:
Article 16-1: ′′ Everyone has the right to respect their own bodies. The body is inviolable."

10. Council of Europe resolution 2361 (28 January 2021): advisory opinion: the Assembly urges member states and the European Union:
    Article 731:  "To ensure that citizens are informed that vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to get vaccinated, if he or she does not wish to do so personally."
    Article 732:  "To ensure that no one is discriminated against for not being vaccinated, due to potential health risk or not wanting to get vaccinated.′′

(A word of apology here. I have used a source that put this information together that I can no longer find. If/when I can reference this source I will be delighted to do so).

On the grounds of these political and medical principles alone, mandatory or forced drugging should not be carried out. The fact that doctors are willing to do so today, aided, abetted and supported by the CME; and that politicians of every political persuasion, not least the 'liberal' left, are prepared to sanction it; is utterly and completely disgraceful.

Forcing people to accept pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines does not require the forcible holding down of a patient. It is simply the action of ignoring what someone tells you!


Wednesday, 13 October 2021


How good a memory do you have? Can you remember back to those bad old days when we were all "locked down", unable to have a social or work life.

The official Covid-19 narrative (provided in unison by government, conventional medical authorities, and the mainstream media (MSM) was that Covid-19 was a killer disease; there was no medical treatment, we were all at risk; it was killing thousands of people around the world: so we all had to sacrifice our lives in order to safe; and we had to save the NHS.

After nearly a year of this blanket message, the official narrative changed. There was hope. We could spur ourselves on. Help was at hand. This was the new message.

Daily Express
20th December 2020

The new Astra Zenica vaccine, with its "new winning formula" would be approved early that week. Two million jabs would be ready for the most vulnerable and elderly within a fortnight. Let me quote from this heroic front page article.

            "Britain could be free from severe Covid restrictions by February thanks to a new ‘winning formula’ vaccine. The “game-changing” Oxford AstraZeneca jabs expected to be approved as early as today, paving way for a massed vaccination blitz. Insiders say that the perfected vaccine works better than hoped and will match the best on offer. A source said: “The path to liberation is finally becoming clear".

This message was to help us through the misery of lockdown. And as has always been the case with the official narrative, everyone was singing, in unison, from the same hymn-sheet.

The Sun
27th December 2020

            "The UK could be free of lockdowns by February - after Government officials drew up a list of 15million vulnerable Brits who need the vaccine first. It comes amid news that the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab could get the green light for use as early as Monday - with roll-out beginning in just a week.

So it spurred on on, the worst was over, in just a couple of months we would all be free to resume our normal lives again.

Yet by February 2021, when we should have all been free, the official narrative had been forced to change. The optimism had faded. The vaccine was not working, as we had been promised. So the story changed again.

Mail Online
4th February
Britain could vaccinate its way out of lockdown by April 7th

             "That's the latest date the UK will finish injecting all over-50s if vaccine drive keeps up pace - as ministers claim it's the key to ending restrictions and infections drop again.... MPs are pressing for a road map out of lockdown as Boris Johnson and his advisers continue to act cautiously. Schools look set to begin fully reopening on March 8 but it could be weeks or months until lockdown ends

I could continue with this rather depressing tale; but sadly I would very quickly get bored; and in any case you know what has happened. Hope faced into reality. Freedom has been regularly postponed: this had to happen first: > or that: > we needed two doses of the vaccine; > the NHS still needed to be protected because from unsustainable pressures: > we need a boaster vaccine: > it's all the fault of those nasty anti-vaxxers: > we now need an annual jab; > we need vaccine passports: > we need to force more people to compliance: > we need to have flu vaccines too. And so it goes on.

Whenever we listen to people who speak to us we have to determine whether (i) they are telling the truth; (ii) they really know what they are talking about; (iii) whether we can trust what they are saying; (iv) whether they are lying. We have to do this all the time but we now need to do it over the Covid-19 narrative.

The Covid-19 narrative in the narrative of the Pharmaceutical Industry. It might appear that the drug companies have been silent during this pandemic; but they speak through the government, through official medical channels, and throughout the MSM. This is the measure of Big Pharma's control of the Covid-19 narrative, and health messages generally.

As Marshal McLuhan once told us, "The medium is the message". And the medium through which public information is now coming is controlled by the conventional medical establishment (CME). This is why, at any one time, the dominant message reaching the public is the same. No matter the platform, the source is the same - the CME. And anything outside the official CME narrative has to be dismissed as "misinformation", and censored on social media.

So what is the official narrative telling us today? Is it any more truthful, or more accurate, then the message we were being given in December 2020; or in February 2021?

There are, perhaps, more important questions to ask.

  • is conventional, drug-based medicine, really any closer now to having any sort of control over this virus?
  • more, does it have any control over the epidemic levels of chronic diseases?
  • and why is the official narrative still fail to tell the public about the patient damage that the Covid-19 vaccines are now known to be causing?

Covid-19 will subside. All infectious disease subside - eventually. This is NOT the work of vaccines, it is the work of our innate and natural immunity. Yet. as soon as it can, the CME will claim that it was their vaccines that were triumphant. This always happens; it happened with measles, with polio, and with smallpox, and many more. This might be a lie, but the CME will state it through governments, conventional medical authorities, and the MSM, and they will repeat it often enough for most people to believe it.

Pharmaceutical medicine is not setting us free. It really has no intention of setting us free. If two vaccinations had been sufficient to set us free we would now be enjoying our freedom. If the boaster shots are capable of setting us free, they will set us free. But why should the pharmaceutical companies want to do this, even if they were capable of doing it (and they are not). Setting us 'free' from illness and disease is not a good financial strategy for the drug companies. If they were capable of making us well, if they could cure illness and disease, we would no longer want, or need their drugs. It would be bad for business. They want us sick.

For them, setting us free is a really bad idea!

If we really want of liberty, we will have to look elsewhere!

Saturday, 9 October 2021

The Myths of Conventional Medical Success. Conquering Polio.

Polio is a disease that has been conquered by conventional medicine. 

Or so the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) claims; and such has been the propaganda success of this claim, most people now believe it was the polio vaccines that achieved this outstanding success.

This is the third in a series of blogs on the theme "The Myths of Conquering Disease"

The polio vaccines, alongside the smallpox and measles vaccines, lay at the heart of the widespread faith most people have in vaccines. What becomes clear, when the history of polio vaccines are concerned, is that their role overcoming polio is equally misplaced. Much of the information I will use here is taken from Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History: Suzanne Humphries & Roman Bystrianyk. ISBN 1480216895. The authors provide a comprehensive view of the history of polio vaccinations, and their failure.

Poliomyelitis is a description of spinal pathology, the inflammation of the brainstem and spinal cord. It is not an old disease. Humphries and Bystrianyk (H&B) provides a graph outlining in incidence in the USA between 1912 and 1970; and asks whether a disease that became known as‘the great, or the vicious crippler' came to be known as such an infamous monster.

            "Naturally existing poliovirus was a common bowel inhabitant for millennia, always there, continuously circulating through humans, but never causing paralysis under later when something changed". 

H&B ask the question about what changed, what opportunities arose to afford poliovirus the ability to cause epidemics from the early 20th century, and why paralytic poliomyelitis become an epidemic disease only in the 1940's and 1950's. They conclude that the factors contributing to the polio epidemics were:

  • refined sugar, white flour, 
  • alcohol and tobacco,
  • tonsillectomies,
  • vaccines,
  • antibiotics, DDT,
  • and arsenic.

            "Many thousands of people were needlessly paralyzed because the medical system refused to look at the consequence of these.... and concentrated solely on vaccine research".

H&B also state that polio, as diagnosed in the 1950's, was a number of distinct diseases, including enteroviruses, undiagnosed congenital syphilis, arsenic and DDT toxicity, transverse myelitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and lead poisoning. Specific polio diagnosis was not pursued with laboratory testing before 1958, and that before the first vaccine was deployed, diagnosis of polio was "very loose". But this soon changed - after the introduction of the vaccine.

            "The practice among doctors before 1954 was to diagnose all patients who experienced even short-term paralysis (24 hours) with 'polio'. In 1955, the year the Salk vaccine was released, the diagnostic criteria became much more stringent. If there was no residual paralysis 60 days after onset, the disease was not considered to be paralytic polio".

So one simple change in diagnostic criteria brought about a major reduction in the number of paralytic cases in 1955-1957 "whether or not any vaccine was used". Such are the wonders of medical science, and the manipulation of medical statistics!

Moreover, after the vaccine, "there was a concerted effort to distinguish cases with poliovirus from cases without it", thereby, in another stroke, removing cases of transverse myelitis, viral or aseptic meningitis, Guillain- Barre, and many others. Suddenly, there wasn't as much polio around now! What a wonderful thing the vaccine was! 

Polio was by this time considered to be a dreadful disease, with images of polio victims "locked into our collective memory" in iron lung machines. There were very few such cases, but this was what polio beacme to mean to most people.

There were other images of polio which were the result of other conventional medical treatments that were used prior to the vaccines.

            "We'd take the children to the operating room in those days, straighten them out under anaesthetic, and put them in plaster casts. When they wake up, they screamed. The next day they still cried from the pain. That was the accepted and universal treatment virtually all over the world".

Little wonder, then, that most people were pleased to see the vaccine, and were prepared to welcome it as a brilliant new treatment.

The problem was, however, that poliomyelitis was not a virus!

The disease never acted like a virus. It occurred mainly in summer (most viruses are most most active during the winter),  and affected mainly middle-class and wealthy children (most effect children from poorer families). Unusually the poor seemed to be largely immune to polio. It occurred in local clusters, in certain schools or towns. Nor was the infectiousness of Polio ever demonstrated.

However Louis Pasteur's ‘germ theory’ was in vogue in the 1940's and 1950's, so the CME searched for a virus to blame for the epidemic, even an innocent one, to the virtual exclusion of all other causes and explanations. And this was so even when there was clear evidence that polio was not a viral disease. 

So the conventional medical approach, from the very beginning, was heading in the wrong direction. As usually, the motivation was the pursuit of profit. Potentially there were enormous financial gains for anyone who could isolate the virus, and produce a vaccine. So the voices that questioned this dominant narrative, doctors like Ralph Scobey and Morton Biskind, were ignored.

The research done by Scobey and Biskind was published in medical journals, and presented to the USA Congress in 1951 and 1952. It detailed the evidence that Polio, the ‘summer plague’, was the result of poisoning, and linked polio outbreaks to children who had played downstream from cotton mills, and fields sprayed with chemicals, or exposed in some way to eating chemically-sprayed orchard fruit.

            "The main chemical offenders of the time were mercury, lead, arsenic, cyanide and phosphorous which had been demonstrably linked to various degrees of paralysis as well as death in workers and artisans throughout Europe who had been exposed to these chemicals during the progressive industrialisation of these areas. In addition, further afield in Australia, a ‘polio epidemic’ was linked to the widespread use of a phosphorous-containing fertilizer."

But this evidence was ignored. The search for a virus, and for a vaccine to destroy it, continued unabated. Any other cause of polio was dismissed. So the epidemics continued, and worsened. Then another culprit was discovered.

            "(DDT) was thought to be a safe and effective insecticide - even safe enough to spray at public beaches and directly onto children in an effort to halt the spread of polio".

Eventually, DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane) was implicated. DDT is now infamous, but at this time it was being heavily promoted by the manufacturer, Monsanto. It was routinely sprayed on crops, animals, even on adults (for example, soldiers) and children. It was considered to be entirely safe.

             "They sprayed towns, crops and orchards with deadly poison DDT insecticide, suggesting that polio might be caused by flies. The chemical companies reaped the benefits but the orchards were seriously damaged, crops were ruined and people were killed by this wild and unwarranted experiment."

So the polio epidemic escalated. Research soon demonstrated the link between DDT and polio, but the race for a vaccines had already started, and could not be diverted.


According to the CME, the paralysis from polio was caused by a common stomach virus that had lived in our stomachs for millennia. The vaccine race was ultimately won by Jonas Salk. 17,000 monkeys were herded out of the jungles of India, Africa and Asia, and shipped to the USA to take part in Salk’s vaccine experiments. By 1955 his polio vaccine (which contained the poison formaldehyde, used to 'attenuate' the virus, and several other toxic chemicals) was released to a public already in fear of polio, and so willing to accept anything that might be a 'solution' to the disease. 

What was discovered later was that the formaldehyde was not only a poison, but was unsuccessful in 'attenuating' the polio virus. Salk had been warned - but he did not heed the warnings. His vaccine also contained Merthiolate, a mercury-based compound, that supposedly had a virus-killing effect. So the vaccine was a cocktail of poisons - and all of them were to be injected into the bloodstream

The Salk vaccine was an unmitigated disaster. After it was introduced, polio rates rocketed, particularly in those US states that had the highest vaccination rates. The following states are examples of their polio cases before and after the vaccine.

  • Massachusetts:   from 273 to 2,027,
  • Wisconsin:         from 326 to 1655,
  • New York state: from 469 to 764.

This fiasco became known as "the Cutter Incident", after the vaccine manufacturer, Cutter Laboratories. Within days of vaccination 40,000 children had contracted polio, 200 with severe paralysis, as well as 10 deaths. Even Paul Offit has admitted that at least 220,000 people were infected with live polio virus contained in Cutter vaccine; he said that 70,000 developed muscle weakness, 164 were severely paralyzed, and 10 people were killed. 

A detailed description of this incident can be found in Eleanor McBean's book, ‘The Poisonous Needle’. This was an almost contemporaneous account of the incident, written in 1957 - an amazing document. She talks of the doubts amongst doctors about the efficacy of the Salk vaccine, for several reasons:

  1. English Authorities in July, 1955, cancelled the Salk vaccine programs as too dangerous. 
  2. All European countries, with the exception of Denmark, have discontinued their programs. Even Denmark is reported to have found live virus in the Salk Vaccine. 
  3. Canada decided, as of July 29, 1955, to postpone its vaccination program until the early part of 1956, to take advantage of the expected advances in the development of safe and effective poliomyelitis vaccine.
  4. Two Nobel Prize winners, Dr. John Enders and Dr. Wendell M. Stanley, both have publicly indicated their uncertainties about the Salk vaccine.
  5. The Polio Advisory Committee and health officials of at least one state, Massachusetts, have advised against public inoculations and have withheld approval of the use of the vaccine until at least Jan. 1, 1956. 
  6. One of the two major pharmaceutical houses connected with the production of Salk Vaccine since the 1954 field trials has recently found it necessary to withdraw their product from the market’."

The Cutter Incident resulted in massive public concern. Although initially dismissed as ‘a bad batch’, trust in the vaccine never recovered. As McBean wrote:

            "Many doctors, and public authorities as well as individual laymen are not only questioning the safety of the Salk vaccine but are denouncing it. Even the Journal of the American Medical Association in a recent (1956) "Report on Rate of Use of Poliomyelitis Vaccine" expresses concern about the dropping off of sales of this product in the "announcement by the Public Health Service that states are not using their vaccine supplies at the rate the serum is being released."

Only about 45% of the 7,000,000 doses available had been used. And although the vaccination programme continued until 1963 it was on a much smaller scale. Public trust never recovered. The Salk vaccine was certainly not a vaccine that conquered polio.

But the Salk vaccine did cause unprecedented harm. It has been estimated that as many as 100 million people were injected with this 'contaminated' vaccine. One doctor is quoted saying that vaccination in the USA caused as many cases of poliomyelitis as it prevented in 1955, bad enough, but the situation was far worse than this. The following is a brief outline of some of the adverse effects caused by the SV40 vaccine, in America alone:

  • 38% of bone cancers were identified with SV40 (Loyola university Medical Center), 
  • 58% of mesotheliomas (lung cancer) had SV40, Osteosarcomas (a type of bone cancer) – 10 times higher in states where the contaminated vaccine was used, 
  • Cancer Research identified SV40 in 23% blood samples and 45% semen samples confirming that SV40 could be sexually transmitted, 
  • The New England Journal of Medicine published two studies demonstrating that SV40 could be passed onto infants from vaccinated mothers and those children had a 13 times greater incidence of brain tumours.

Fortunately for the CME other things happened to save its reputation. The change in polio diagnosis helped, of course. There was an apparent reduction in cases. But the realisation that DDT was unsafe grew, and it was phased out in the USA, Canada, and elsewhere in the 1960's. In addition, H&B outlined how several other contributory factors to the polio epidemic were tackled at the same time, including the reduction in the use of tonsilectomy, the use of arsenic, including its use in some pharmaceutical drugs (for example, neorsphenamine and neosalvarsan).

The Salk vaccine was a tragic failure, but it was a tragedy successfully covered up by the dishonesty of pharmaceutical propaganda. The public were lied to, misinformed to the extent that most people continue to believe that it was the vaccine that conquered polio. Today, few people know about about the Cutter disaster. So the CME, as it has done so often (for instance, with measles and smallpox), not only rescued the reputation of vaccines, but eventually had the audacity to claim credit for the reduction in polio cases.

As H&B even discovered why the public were not information about the failure of the Salk vaccine, quoting a Congressman, Percy Priest, who said this in 1956.

            "If word ever got out that the Public Health Service had actually done something damaging to the health of the American people, the consequences would be terrible ..... We felt that no lasting good could come to science or the public if the Public Health Services were discredited".

As H&B commented: "So much for evidence-based medicine and scientific truth"!

The story has continued, polio has not been conquered. In places where DDT was not banned, for example, in some states of India, polio continued to be, and still is, an endemic disease. In 1995, an immunisation programme called Pulse Polio was established, with the aim of eradicating polio by 2005. It would appear that the CME still believed its own propaganda about the effectiveness of vaccines. The goal was not achieved, and has still not been achieved.

            "A major oversight on the part of the press and the medical establishment .... is that massive "Pulse' vaccination campaigns have done nothing to eliminate childhood paralysis, and, in fact, there is strong evidence pointing to the likelihood that experimental polio vaccination is related to the sharp rise in AFP (Acute Flacid Paralysis). It has been reported in the Lancet that the incidence of AFP, especially non-polio AFP, increased drastically in India after an experimental, high potency polio vaccine was introduced. Worse still is that children identified with non-polio AFP are more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection."

So what does the CME do in response to this rise in AFP resulting from a vaccine campaign. They increase the vaccination programme! They claim that India is now been free of paralysis from 'wild polio virus. No cases since 2010, they tell us. But they don't tell us about  the rise of AFP, caused by the polio vaccines. As H&B ask, "Isn't vaccination really about eliminating paralysis ... or is it simply to replace wild virus with a vaccine virus regardless of outcome."

At least H&B re now reporting that there was "a new resistance coming from the 'educated middle class people" and that "one family claimed that their five year old child had received pulse polio vaccination 32 times".

And so it continues. More and more vaccines, and so-called philanthropists pouring endless amounts of money into vaccination programmes that do not work, and which cause an equally deadly condition. It's not polio, we are told, it is AFP. Conquering polio by changing the name!

There has been little or no effort to find why the vaccines don't work, why they cause problems, and whether there might be a better strategy - reducing the impact of chemicals, like DDT, arsenic; improved nutrition, clean, chemical free water, "and the luxury of being free from war, famine, and spiritual persecution".

So the idea that "polio was conquered by vaccines" is a fairy tale, a fig-leaf that has been brilliantly constructed by the CME, and cleverly sold to the public. The vaccines were a triumph that never happened. The CME has persuaded us that the vaccines as the saviour, they had vanquished polio, and this claim continues serving as a prime example of 'vaccine success' 60 years later!

Everyone should now start asking some key question. The ultimate question is why the CME want to claim that conquering polio (plus measles and smallpox) with vaccines has been one of their greatest achievements? If they had a real achievement to tell us about they would surely be telling us about it - rather than focusing on these three fairy tales!

The reason for this is simple. Apart from the mythical achievements of an ineffective, often lethal vaccine legacy, conventional medicine has little else to brag about. It has failed to achieve anything more effective or more successful. It is a failed medical system!

Would you like to read more information about the propaganda myth surrounding the eradication of polio as a 'killer' disease? If so, please read this brilliant and insightful book which provides a comprehensive historical and statistical account of the decline of the disease, and the role of the vaccine.

Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History: Suzanne Humphries & Roman Bystrianyk. ISBN 1480216895.

Wednesday, 6 October 2021

The Covid-19 Pandemic. How can the disinformation be stopped? If there is a dispute how can we determine who is correct? "Follow the money"?

Controversy surrounds the Covid-19 Pandemic; and whether we like it or not, the controversy continues, and will continue - unabated.

In most of the world it is a medical matter. In the USA it has also become a political matter. So let's examine both sides of this equation, and see if there is a simple way of determining which side of the argument is "Following the Money", and which side is more interested in health outcomes.

  • On one side there is the well known "narrative", promoted by government, conventional medicine, and the mainstream media (MSM): that the virus is deadly; that it is a threat to everyone; that millions of people have died, and are dying of it; that there is no medical treatment for it; that washing hands, social distancing, the wearing of masks, test and trace, and lockdown are the only effective responses to it; that ultimately only Covid-19 vaccines will save us from the virus, that it is essential for everyone to accept the vaccine, and that it is anti-social for anyone to refuse to be vaccinated.
  • On the other side there are the arguments that the 'narrative' dismisses and describes as "misinformation": that Covid-19 is not a pandemic; that people are dying 'with' it, not 'of' it; that innate and natural immunity is more effective than vaccines; and that vaccines are causing serious patient harm. In this respect, the 'misinformation campaigns' accuse the official narrative of "information blight" - that is, that information  has been censored, that people are not been properly or accurately informed about what is really happening.

So how does "following the money" help us to differentiate between these two polar extremes, and what they are arguing for? Let's do an analysis on this basis.

The virus is (or is not deadly), a threat to everyone alike.

If Covid-19 is a deadly virus, and can strike down anyone at anytime, people will be concerned, fearful, willing to do anything to protect themselves, and so ready to accept whatever treatment is offered to them. Fear of the virus has been one of the major means for selling not only medical treatment, even to the most reluctant patient, but the loss of freedom and liberty that this has entailed.

However, if Covid-19 is not such a deadly virus, if it will not effect everyone, then people will be less concerned, less willing to accept the need for medical treatment, or the loss of freedom and liberty this entails. The absence of fear will sell less medical treatment, patients will be more reluctant to accept it.

  • The 'narrative' is better designed to sell pharmaceutical vaccines.
  • It is uncertain that the 'misinformation' agenda is selling anything.

Millions of people have die, and are dying, of the Covid-19 virus

A similar argument can be used here, that is, the more people we believe to be dying, the more medical treatment (vaccines) can be sold. Therefore it is in the interests of pharmaceutical medicine to emphasise, even exaggerate, the number of deaths being caused by the virus. Hence, mortality has been counted in a way that have exaggerated the deaths caused by the virus, that is, anyone who tests positive for the virus, and dies within 28 days of that test, is automatically assumed to have died of the virus.

The 'misinformation' agenda has pointed out, from the early days of the pandemic, that initially the government, medical authorities, and the MSM accepted that deaths being attributed to Covid-19 were actually people with "serious underlying health conditions". In other words, the death count included those who died "of" Covid-19, and those who died "with" it. It no longer mentions this.

  • Again, the 'narrative' is better designed to sell pharmaceutical vaccines.
  • The 'misinformation' agenda appears to be selling anything.

There is no treatment for Covid-19

During the early days of the pandemic conventional medicine admitted that there was "no treatment" for the virus. This further exacerbated the fears the virus generated. There was no protection. This statement was undeniably true, although only if a single word was added. There was no conventional medical treatment for the virus. The lack of effective treatment also contributed to the fear of the virus, and over time, increased the demand for, and people's willingness to take, any treatment that was to be offered later.

The "misinformation" campaign (if it ever had a single voice) pointed to our immune system, that this was capable of protecting people from the virus, and that medicine should be placing more emphasis on supporting and strengthening the innate and natural immunity that we all had. 

  • The lack of conventional medical treatment increased public fear, and thereby people's willingness to accept the 'narrative', the loss of jobs and livelihoods, the loss of social intreraction, the damage to our emotional lives, and the loss freedom and liberty, etc., and ultimately, of course, to take the vaccines that we were being told would be our only salvation.
  • The problem the disinformation argument, when it focused on the immune system, was that it did not sell anything - except perhaps for a few more oranges, some exercise footwear, and some exposure to the sun. 
  • Natural therapists, homeopaths, naturopaths, nutritionists, acupuncturists, et al, always placed natural immunity at the heart of their treatment. But this was not allowed within the narrative. Natural medicine was never mentioned, nor was any mention allowed. The therapists, by and large, merely got on with their work with their patients, who had in most part accepted the 'misinformation' message of their therapists.

Public Health Measures

The narrative placed its emphasis on public health measures, hand washing, social distancing, the wearing of masks, test and trace systems, and lockdown. They were important, not least to people with a 'compromised' immune system, and they offered conventional medicine an excuse: they may have no treatment, but at least something, however damaging, was being done.

Those people plying "misinformation" however were arguing that whilst these measures were important for some immunocompromised people, people with strong natural immunity should continue leading their lives normally, keeping social life and the economy moving.

  • During the lockdown periods the narrative told people that vaccines were on the way, and might be available within a short time. It emphasised that these vaccines would save lives, provide 90% protection, and return life to normal very quickly. It was, therefore, a lengthy promotion campaign for the Covid-19 vaccines.
  • The misinformation message pointed out that the measures being adopted by government, on the advice of conventional medicine, was caused damage to business, industry, social life, mental health, and family relationships. Other than having an interest to maintain normal life, whilst protecting the immuno-compromised, it was not selling anything.

The Introduction of Covid-19 Vaccines 

The ultimate message of the pandemic narrative was that only Covid-19 vaccines could save us from the Covid-19 virus, that only vaccination would protect us, and return us to normal life. So experimental vaccines were quickly rushed to the market, and offered immediately to the most vulnerable. 

  • Drug companies are notoriously reluctant to develop new drugs and vaccines, unless and until they know there are large profits to be made. The Covid-19 vaccines were developed, tested, approved, and came to the market within a year of the start of the pandemic, and it was the official narrative, the promotion of vaccines as the means of returning to normal life, that paved the way for their widespread acceptance.
  • Those people spreading 'misinformation' were concerned that the vaccines had been introduced too quickly, that they were insufficiently tested, and therefore it was not possible to ensure their effectiveness and safety, and to properly protect the public. They warned of the potential harm that might be caused to those who accepted the vaccines.

The Roll-Out of Covid-19 Vaccines

Once the vaccines became available the narrative engaged in a frantic programme of sales promotion. It was quick to point out that it was essential for everyone to accept vaccination; indeed, it promoted the novel ideas that it was anti-social for anyone to refuse to be vaccinated as this would put vaccinated people at risk. We were told that a double vaccination was required, and that this would give people 95% protection from the virus.

The die-hard spreaders of 'misinformation' continued to offer caution, that the vaccines were 'experimental' and had not been properly tested. They wanted to slow, even to stop the roll-out of the vaccines until they were properly tested; and for doing so they were were roundly condemned for continuing to resist the narrative.

  • The narrative has been hugely successful in persuading the larger majority of people to accept the Covid-19 vaccines. These vaccines are proving to be a very profitable enterprise for the companies involved in their manufacture and distribution; and the medical staff who put the vaccines into the arms of patients.
  • The 'misinformation' campaign was not trying to sell anything, nor was it paid by anyone for its views, or its advice. It gained no financial advantage to from opposing the vaccines. Its only interest, from the beginning, was patient safety, and the use of innate and natural immunity to deal with the virus.

Reports of Serious Adverse Reactions to the Vaccines

The Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out very quickly, supported by the official narrative. However, national drug regulators soon began to publish reports of serious adverse reactions to the vaccines, including a large and growing number of deaths. It was important that the official narrative censored this information. It was, after all, the reason for most people accepting the vaccines. Moreover, the vaccine manufacturers had insisted on government giving them immunity from prosecution for any patient harm caused by the vaccines. 

So the drug companies had ensured their own safety; but it meant that the public should not know about the serious adverse reactions being caused by the vaccines. If people knew it would almost certainly restrict future vaccine sales. 

For its part, governments would have realised that they had assumed liability for any patient harm caused by the vaccines, so it was in their interests to avoid the public getting to know about them.

So the narrative was not changed. Adverse vaccine reactions have not been mentioned by government, the conventional medical authorities, or the MSM - except on a few occasions when it could not avoid doing so.

  • The official narrative continues to censor information about adverse vaccine reactions. They were not good for the promotion and sale of the vaccines. The public would not be told. Medical authorities would discount the seriousness of the reports. The MSM would not question or investigate what was going on. So most people would never know; and the profitable vaccine roll-out could continue, unabated.
  • The 'misinformation' campaign continued to threaten the sale of the vaccines, and drug company profitability. It has remained largely unheard. It was not speaking for any vested interest.

Information Blight

The peddlers of misinformation did see the growing number of adverse vaccine reactions in the official reports by national drug regulators. They had the audacity to insist that the public should be warned about them, without realising what this information could do to vaccines sales, and drug company profitability. They continued to criticise the government's narrative, the lack of concern of conventional medical authorities (who either denied or discounted the reports of patient harm), and the refusal of the MSM to inform the public, or challenge the government, or the conventional medical establishment. 

Indeed, the misinformation campaign began to talk about information blight, and claimed that their message was being censored, dismissed without justification as 'misinformation'. Their message was not conducive to selling vaccines, or indeed to the reputation of government, the honesty of conventional medical authorities, or the professionalism of the MSM. 

So they had to be stopped. They were spreading their misinformation through social media, so it was important that social media organisations, like Facebook, Instagram, Linkedin, YouTube, Twitter, et al., had to be brought into compliance with the official narrative. They must begin to censor the disinformation that was threatening the roll-out of profitable vaccines, and risking the standing of government, public health bodies, and the MSM, alike.

The Need for Boaster Vaccination

The misinformation campaign had been right it's opposition to safety of the Covid-19 vaccines. Then it became apparent that the Covid-19 vaccines were not as effective as previously promised by the narrative. Vaccinated people were going down with the virus. The virus was actually 'spiking' in the most highly vaccinated countries (Israel, Iceland, Singapore, and others). 

Suddenly the narrative was telling us that a 'boaster' vaccine was necessary. Again, follow the money! This was not because of the disinformation - that the vaccines were ineffective. A boaster was necessary. Better still, perhaps an annual injection might be necessary. And the narrative would pave the way to the acceptance of this new awareness. 

This would, of course, increase the sales of the vaccines, whilst at the same time hiding the ineffectiveness of the vaccines. If the vaccine was to be given annually in future this would certainly be ideal for the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry.

Yet the misinformation peddlers continued to suggest the Covid-19 vaccines were not effective, that if they were failing to stop vaccinated people contracting the virus, or to stop vaccinated people passing the virus on to other people, in what way could they be considered useful? Again, vaccine misinformation was putting vaccine promotion in serious jeopardy.

Vaccine Mandates and Health Passports

Vaccine passports were the ultimate goal of the narrative, and the financial prize for the pharmaceutical industry, and the conventional medical establishment generally. The passports would ensure that more people could be cajoled, obliged, forced to take the vaccines if they wanted to continue their employment, and their social life. The  narrative framed them within the guise of 'public health', but they would greatly boast pharmaceutical sales. After all, the vaccine passports would need to be kept up-to-date: first the double dose; then the 'boaster' shots; then annual top-ups - all deemed necessary in order to qualify for the passport. Moreover, other vaccines could be added in time. And then pharmaceutical drugs for other illnesses too. The introduction of vaccine mandates, and health passports was prove to be an unprecedented commercial coup d'etat for the drugs industry.

The 'misinformation' campaign, in contrast, continued to talk about personal liberty, patient choice, health freedom, even mentioning the Nuremberg Trials, and other concepts that made absolutely no money for anyone!

So when we "follow the money", does the narrative, or the disinformation campaign have most to gain from the Covid-19 pandemic? It's really not such a difficult question! Is it?

Friday, 1 October 2021

State of the Nation's Health. The NHS and the Failure of Conventional Medicine (October 2021)

Britain places considerable importance on health. It spends huge amounts of money on the National Health Service (NHS), of which it is extremely proud. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) provides us with the figures that demonstrate this.

In 2018 total current healthcare expenditure was £214.4 billion, equating to £3,227 per person. 

  • This accounted for 10% of the gross domestic product (GDP), compared to 9.8% in 2017, and 6.9% in 1997.
  • Total healthcare spending more than doubled, when adjusted for inflation, between 1997 and 2018. In 2018, it grew by 3.2%, its biggest rate of annual growth since 2009. 
  • Government-financed healthcare expenditure was £166.7 billion in 2018, accounting for 78% of total healthcare spending. 
  • Government-financed healthcare expenditure, in real terms, grew by 2.0% in 2018, and accounted for the largest contribution to growth in total healthcare expenditure, while non-government healthcare financing grew by 7.6%, largely driven by an increase in out-of-pocket spending.

The UK's National Health Service (NHS) was formed in 1948, it's objective being "to provide the best medicine for all the people, free at the point of need". However, the NHS now provides only conventional or pharmaceutical medicine for its patients - conventional medicine has become a monopoly provision within the NHS. This maans that (i) patients have no alternative, (ii) the success or failure of the NHS is entirely in the hands of the quality and performance of pharmaceutical medicine. 

Natural medical therapies, such as homeopathy, herbalism, acupuncture, chiropractor, et al, have been effectively excluded from the NHS.

For the last 10 years, I written many blogs on "the NHS Crisis". Access to these blogs can be found by doing a search at the top of this page - "NHS Crisis".

In addition, my E-Book, "The Failure of Conventional Medicine", has charted in considerable detail why the NHS, year after year, has been falling ever deeper into crisis.

This is the first "State of the Nation's Health" blog but in future it will be published on a regular basis, in October every year. It will look at the performance of the NHS during the past year.

The Essential Characteristics of "Successful" Medicine

The NHS was formed to tackle and overcome illness and disease. So how can its performance be assessed? This must surely be done primarily on the basis of patient outcomes.

  • A 'successful' medical system is one that can reduce the incidence of illness and disease.
  • A 'failing' medical system will fail to do this. Instead, there will be an increasing number of people becoming ill; and people who are sick will not get better.
  • A 'failing' medical system will cost ever increasing amounts of money and resources each year as a direct result of increased illness and disease, and the demands this makes on health resources.

These factors have become regular features of the NHS, with a depressing circulatory - an increase in illness and disease, increased and increasing patient need for treatment - and as a result an increased need for more money and resources.

The Covid-19 Pandemic

This pandemic has further highlighted that the medical system that dominates and controls the NHS is failing badly, not only in the ways it has dealt with virus itself, but in its dire social and economic consequences too. 

The pandemic has not changed the nature of the ongoing annual NHS crisis - it has just exacerbated it further.

Yet the government, the NHS, and the mainstream media (MSM) are now presenting the current problems of the NHS as the direct result of the virus. The virus has dominated every discussion about health for the last 20 months, or more, during which time British people have had to endure policies like social distancing, lockdowns, masks, experimental vaccines, the threat of enforced vaccination, and now vaccine passports. They have all caused severe social disruption, emotional distress, loss of employment and livelihood, small business failure, the disruption of education, and the loss and withdrawal of our freedoms and liberty.

Yet this so-called pandemic has really had little impact on the general nature of the health crisis.

  • The monthly 5-year average death rate has not risen significantly in any month since the beginning of the pandemic. Certainly it has not been another Black Death, Great Plague, or even a Spanish Flu.
  • Most of the 130,000 deaths attributed to the virus (defined as people who had a positive Covid-19 test 28 days prior to their death) were people with "underlying health problems", that is, people who were seriously ill when they contracted the virus. For most of the people who died, if the virus had anything to do with their death at all, it was 'the last straw, the straw that broke the camels back'. It was the cause of death in relatively few cases.
  • It is also notable that official figures have shown that no-one died of 'normal' flu during the winter of 2020-2021, an extraordinary fact that raises suspicions about the manipulation of Covid-19 statistics, whether they have been exaggerated out of all proportion - for whatever reason pharmaceutical medicine had for doing so.
  • The fear campaign frightened most people into believing that the pandemic was (i) "a serious threat to everyone", (ii) that there was "no available treatment" (meaning no conventional medical treatment). The campaign created a fearful population who were thereafter consequently prepared to forego their normal lives, and their freedoms.

The entire medical strategy to deal with Covid-19 is now being used to demonstrate that the NHS crisis was not the endemic, long-term problem we have witnessed for decades, but the unfortunate consequence of a new, deadly, rogue virus.

This medical strategy, imposed by government on the advice of conventional medical 'science', can be clearly seen (for anyone who wishes to see). Yet response to, and the outcome of the pandemic have been little different to any other NHS crisis in recent years - just more focused, and slightly more severe.

Patient Waiting Lists

The hopeless and inadequate response of the NHS to the Covid-19 virus has meant that medical treatment for other areas of healthcare has been utterly disregarded. Staff who would normally have provided these treatments have been diverted to deal with the virus, and hospital beds have been kept free in case Covid-19 patients needed them. The consequence has been that patient waiting lists for medical treatment are now the longest since records began.

The number of patients waiting for treatment surged by over 200,000 in the month of June alone! The total number of patients on waiting lists has risen to an estimated 5.5 million. Most of these patients are waiting for treatment conventional medicine itself deems to be urgent and/or essential, treatments for cancer, brain surgery, heart and kidney failure, eye treatment, limb and organ replacement, and the like.

Moreover (if this was not bad enough) the government's Health Secretary has recently warned that patient waiting lists are likely to increase rather than decrease in the short term. Some estimates I have seen predict a phenomenal 14 million people could soon be waiting for 'essential' treatment by the autumn of 2022. 

Such dire predictions have one of two purposes. They are either genuine warning about the NHS crisis. Or they are statements generated in order to extract even more money from the government. We will see.

  • Patient waiting lists are a good measure of the size of the sick population, and the failure of the NHS to cope with their illness.
  • Waiting lists that grow year on year demonstrate a population that is getting sicker, despite the medical treatment they are receiving.
  • A government that has to ask the people 'to save the NHS' indicates it has little confidence in the medical system in which they are investing heavily.

The timescales for dealing with patient waiting lists are daunting. The Institute of Public Policy Research has estimated that 19.5 million people, who they estimate should have been diagnosed with cancer, have not been because of cancelled or missed referrals. They predict that thousands of cancer patients will die over the next decade "because of the devastating treatment backlog". They have calculated that it could take more than a decade to clear the backlog, that if hospitals could achieve a 5% increase in treatments over pre-pandemic levels, it would take until 2033 to clear the backlog. But of course they concluded that increasing activity levels would require yet more resources for more staff and new equipment.

This is what always happens with the NHS. Chronic disease increases, more money and resources are demanded, and provided; only in time for an increased incidence of disease, leading to yet more demands for money and resources. It is a familiar merry-go-round!

Epidemics of Chronic Disease

One of the main features of the NHS over the last 70 years has been epidemic increases in chronic diseases, such as allergy, arthritis, asthma, autism, auto-immune disease, cancer, dementia, diabetes, mental health, osteoporosis, and many more. These epidemics, which show little indication of declining, raises important (but usually unasked) questions. 

  • Just how healthy is the UK's population today, especially when compared to 73 years ago when the NHS started, and particularly in recent decades when conventional medicine has taken complete control of the NHS?
  • Is conventional/pharmaceutical medicine making us better, or sicker? 
  • Is the NHS winning, or losing the war it regularly declares on illness and disease?

I have charted the rise of these chronic disease epidemics here. What needs to be emphasised is that almost without exception the epidemic are still increasing, and are usually predicted to rise even further in the years to come. Just a few months ago I charted the rise of chronic disease on this blog, a just few months ago. The Daily Skeptic (one of the alternative media I look to for some honesty about health issues, entirely absent in the mainstream media, has updated some of these underlying trends. I will use some of their statistics in "Chronic Disease: Still no Cures in Sight" here, with thanks.

Obesity. In the UK 2019 figures show that 28% of adults are obese and a further 36.2% are overweight. Obesity incidence is now occurring at considerably younger ages, with 2019 data showing that 10% of children aged 4-10 are obese and 21% at age 10-11. The incidence of obesity is rising rapidly: there were four times as many hospital admissions with a diagnosis of obesity in 2016/17 compared with 2009/10. 

Diabetes. 10% of all people aged over 40 in the UK are now living with a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes; this amounts to 4.7 million of us, expected to reach 5.5 million by 2030. This compares to 1.4 million in 1996. The problem is global; the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated that the number of people with diabetes rose from 108 million in 1980 to 422 million in 2014. Between 2000 and 2016, there was a 5% increase in premature mortality from diabetes.

Autoimmune conditions. Many autoimmune conditions are becoming more common, with some increasing in incidence by as much as 9% each year. In the UK 4 million people are known to be living with at least one autoimmune condition, and many with several autoimmune conditions at the same time. Rheumatoid arthritis is increasing at 7% per year, Type 1 diabetes by 6.3%, coeliac disease by up to 9% per year.

Cancer. According to Cancer Research U.K., there are over 164,000 cancer deaths in the UK each year, which is about 450 each day. One in two people in the UK, born after 1960 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime. In the USA cancer incidence increased by 12% between 1994 and 2016; in the 1940s, one in sixteen had a cancer diagnosis; this had increased to one in three by 2018.

Dementia. There are currently around 850,000 people with dementia in the UK but this is projected to reach 1.6 million people in the U.K. by 2040. The global number of people living with dementia more than doubled from 1990 to 2016, while in the USA deaths from AD have risen 145% between 2000 and 2017. The USA Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report that the number of people living with the disease doubles every five years beyond the age of 65. Most worryingly, those with early onset dementia have increased by 200% since 2013.

Cardiovascular disease. For some years cardiovascular disease mortality has been declining, despite increasing incidence of disease. However, in recent years, the rate of decline in CVD mortality has slowed in most developed countries, particularly at ages 35-74 years, and is now rising in 12 out of the 23 nations studied in 2017, including the UK, the USA and Germany.

Autism. In the UK there was a sharp increase in the prevalence rates of autism in UK schools between 2010 and 2019. Autism currently affects 1–2% of the UK population - that is 1 per 100 children and 2 per 100 adults. According to the USA CDC, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is the fastest growing developmental disability, affecting 1 in 59 children (1970s: one in 5000). Prevalence has increased 10-17% each year over the last several years. It has been described as an ‘autism tsunami’.

These medical statistics present us with a stark picture. What is never done is to ask why such diseases are increasing so rapidly, so consistently, and why the £billions being spent on the NHS does nothing to reduce disease, or even stop the continual increase.
The Rise of New and Rare Diseases

One of the features of modern conventional medicine is the regular diagnosis of 'new', 'rare' diseases in children - for which there is no known cause - and no effecting treatment. I have listed some of these in this blog, and outlined my suspicion that they are caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

These new and rare diseases continue to appear, without explanation, without effective treatment, and always without any investigation into their links with pharmaceutical drug and vaccine treatments.

What usually happens is that expensive new treatments, costing huge amounts of money per patient per year - without them ever offering effective treatment.

The Role of Pharmaceutical Drugs in the Failure of Pharmaceutical Medicine

Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are known to cause "side effects", or "adverse reactions", which I prefer to call 'disease inducing effects' (or DIE's). The link between pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines remains unrecognised by the conventional medical establishment (CME), so it is not properly understood by the vast majority of people. As I have argued elsewhere, the increased consumption of pharmaceutical drugs over the last 70 years has exactly mirrored the increase in chronic disease. Yet there may be early  signs that the link is being recognised.

The UK government commissioned a review that has just reported. The review highlights the serious problem of the over prescription of drugs, and the problems caused by the known adverse effects caused by prescription medicines

  • It found that about 10% of all doctor prescriptions should not have been prescribed
  • that 15% of people are now taking 5 or more medications daily, putting them at an increased risk of suffering "adverse effects".
  • It found that 1 in 5 hospital admissions of people over-65 were caused by the adverse effects of prescribed drugs.
  • Doctors were told to reduce drug prescriptions in favour of social prescribing, and encouraged a ore 'holistic approach to individual health and well-being.

This may be the start of a growing realisation that increased chronic disease is, in large part, fuelled by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. But the problem is far larger and more serious than the review suggests. Moreover, it is unlikely to change doctors prescription habits. It has certainly never done so before.

For instance, in 2016, an article published in the British Medical Journal by Peter G√łtzsche, argued that prescription drugs had become the third leading cause of death. His article highlighted psychiatric drugs, and particularly antidepressant drugs. He quoted studies that "tells us that the system we have for researching, approving, marketing, and using drugs is totally broken". At the same time he questioned the efficacy of these drugs. He also highlighted the lethal qualities of painkilling drugs, especially NSAID painkillers, that are now taken by so many people, and which "carry a huge death toll", primarily by causing bleeding stomach ulcers and myocardial infarction.

Despite this article, and many other similar articles which have been studiously ignored, it made no difference to the prescribing habits of doctors, to NHS policy, or to the understanding of government about why they constantly increase NHS funding, yet continue to face demands for even more NHS funding.

NHS Resources and Demands for Increased Funding and Resources

This has been going on since the inauguration of the NHS in 1948. There is always too much sickness for the NHS to cope with, and when the government provides more money and resources, levels of sickness continue to rise. 

So what about NHS staff who are under constant, and increasing pressure to deal with spiralling levels of sickness and disease. How are they faring?

The morale, retention and recruitment of staff, at all levels, and in every part of the NHS, continues to deteriorate. This has been happening for many years now. It is typical of any industry that is not doing well. If medical staff were working with sick patients, are making them well, these pressures would not exist. The job would not be easy; but the job satisfaction would make the toil worthwhile. 

Yet this is not the case when patients get ill, and remain sick for many years, even a lifetime. So when the number of sick patients grows without end, and so never go away. When the treatment they have at their disposal does not treat patients successfully, there is a loss of morale. It is utterly depressing, and this can be seen in many of the things happening within the NHS now.

Doctors and Primary care

Patients are finding it increasingly hard to get an appointment with an NHS doctor, face-to-face, or on the telephone, many are becoming dissatisfied, and many resort to abuse and violence. 

It is unfortunate that too many patients continue to believe the NHS is able to offer them something that will make them well again, not realising that the problem is a lack of effective treatment, not doctors and other medical staff, denying them access to treatment that will make them better.

Mental Health Provision

Mental health provision has been a problem, part of the NHS crises, for many years. It might now prove to be one of the worst consequences of NHS Covid-19 policies which have further exacerbated the mental health epidemic. It may be one of the worst 'own goals' it has scored.

Hospital and Accident and Emergency Departments (A&E)

The failure of primary care doctors to offer treatment is then transferred within the NHS. Patients go elsewhere, transferring the workload from GP surgeries to Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments, and to hospitals generally.

The situation in A&E units is bad and getting worse. A monthly analysis undertaken by the British Medical Association (BMA), on "Pressure Points in the NHS" says that emergency department waiting times have risen, even though demand was lower owing the Covid-19 restrictions.

    "Prior to the pandemic, the situation in A&E was increasingly catastrophic with demand soaring, the number of trolley waits being highest on record and performance against the four-hour target reaching an all-time low over the past winter." (My emphasis).

Hospitals also report a similar situation. The BMA analysis estimated that between April 2020 and July 2021, there were 3.79 million fewer elective procedures, and 26.02 million fewer outpatient attendances. The evidence of pressure is clear, so, for example, we have

The ambulance service is also under severe strain. One of the regular features of modern life is the ever-present sound of ambulance sirens, getting to sick patients, or rushing them to hospital. So it is not surprising that they, too, are under severe pressure.

Of course most of these pressures are now being blamed on the Covid-19 pandemic. But these pressures have been around now for many years, they have not changed, they have increased, but they they have been increasing, incrementally, for many years - with ambulances queueing outside hospitals, unable to discharge patients to free up capacity. The pressures always seem to be getting worse, despite increased spending and staffing. The residential care sector usually take the blame. Now it is Covid-19.

Financial. Funding Crises and the NHS

NHS resources, and huge amounts of additional government spending, were directed towards 'chasing' the Covid-19 virus. Always the demand is for more, and each new £ will be spend on the same, failed and failing treatment.

Despite the 'whatever it takes' policy adopted by the UK government at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, and an additional input of some £2 billion, plus the £37 billion on the 'Test and Trace' fiasco, and much else, there are now further demands for more financial assistance for the NHS.  

The NHS now gets some 44% of all government spending. The proportion of GNP (Gross National Product) spent on health has risen every year since 1948. Yet it is still insufficient.
The social care budget (for day care, and residential care) has been widely accepted as inadequate for many years. In September 2021 the government announced a spending commitment of £5.5 billion for social care. However, for the next 3 years this vast sum of money will be spent on the NHS, not on social care. It leaves me wondering whether, in 3 years time, this money will be removed from the NHS and returned to social care? Given the performance of the NHS hitherto this seems highly unlikely.

The Future - Conclusion

The NHS focus during the Covid-19 virus has been the delivery of vaccines. It has totally ignored the value of innate and natural immunity. It has never informed people about the importance of our immune system, and what they can do to support and strengthen it. Only vaccines would save us, we were told. The importance of the immune system, which natural medical therapies have always placed at the very centre of their medical practise, has been completely ignored.

The vaccines will save us. Nothing else can. Or so we are told!

This means that there is little prospect of change for the future other than more money being poured into the NHS, and being spent on the same, failing pharmaceutical medicine. So little will change.

So the crisis will deepen. The government is already warning us that the NHS may not be able to cope with another Covid-19 spike, so we are now being asked "to save the NHS" again, and to save Christmas too! It is we patients who now have to save the doctors! It is a dire situation which is unlikely to change.

  • I will re-assess the state of the nation's health again in October 2022. And before that, in March 2022, I will describe the 2021-2022 NHS winter crisis. 
  • If my hypothesis is correct it will be the same old story. Except that it is likely to be even worse!
  • If my hypothesis is incorrect I will be apologising to everyone. Conventional medicine can work successfully, it is not failing.