Quaaludes/Mandrax. How the Pharmaceutical Establishment is willing to flirt with Dangerous Drugs

Quaalude was the strange trade name for a strangely named synthetic drug, methaqualone. It was first developed in India in 1951 first used in Germany and Japan, and called Mandrax in Britain. It was just one of many strange drugs with strange names developed by the pharmaceutical industry for strange reasons that ultimately proved to be too dangerous - even for conventional medicine.

Yet this never dissuades the drug industry from selling dangerous drugs to treat some illness or disease, for as long as possible, before it is eventually banned. They are quite willing to flirt with dangerous drugs for the sake of profit. And this drug became very popular - which means, for the pharmaceutical industry, it was very profitable.

It was prescribed by doctors in vast amounts to treat insomnia and anxiety during the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's, and it soon became very popular, and very easy to obtain. In the USA the drug became 'affectionately' known as "disco biscuits". They were one of the most frequently prescribed sedative in the USA, and elsewhere in the world - part of the sedative boom. It was the time that Librium and Valium were considered to be "wonder drugs".

However, the popularity of Quaaludes was not due to the drugs ability to treat insomnia and anxiety. It became a much sought-after recreational drug, providing users with a quickly obtained, long lasting, and powerful "high". 

So like so many other pharmaceutical inventions it proved to be highly dangerous, killing many people, in overdose, and especially when mixed with alcohol, as it frequently was. 

            "The abuse potential of Quaaludes soon became apparent and in 1973 methaqualone was placed in Schedule II of the Controlled Substance Act, making it difficult to prescribe and illegal to possess without a prescription." 

Even when not mixed with alcohol, or taken in overdose, the drug caused serious side effects/adverse reactions, including dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal cramps, fatigue, itching, rashes, sweating, dry mouth, tingling sensation in arms and legs, seizures, reduced heart rate, reduced breathing, erectile dysfunction, mental confusion, loss of muscle control, restlessness, irritability, nausea, vomiting, weakness, headache, insomnia, tremors, and more.

The pharmaceutical industry can cope with this kind of harm. They are well practised in the art of denial. But eventually, by the mid-1980's, the drug was prohibited because it was causing harm outside the conventional medical sphere, so its manufacture and distribution were made illegal.

 

 

 

Medical Fig-Leaves. The pharmaceutical response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

During the latter part of 2019 we were all being warned about the possibility of a new epidemic, then only affecting Wuhan in China. Since then the Covid-19 virus has been declared a pandemic that has, to some degree, affected every country in the world.

In early 2020, pharmaceutical medicine admitted that it had no preventative treatment, or treatment for Covid-19, and set about to develop vaccines. This is not unusual. Conventional medicine often admits that it has no treatment for disease - but goes ahead treating it with what they have got, however ineffectual it might be.

With Covid-19 several 'public health measures' were put into place throughout 2020, and governments around the world took authoritarian powers to enforce them on the general public. These included several measure which, in essence, sought to identify or chase the virus, which is, of course, invisible!

• Washing hands (in case the virus was on our hands)
  
• Social distancing (in case the virus was transmitted from person to person)
  
• Test and Trace (to identify people who had come into contact with someone with the virus)
  
• Mask mandates (to prevent the virus being transmitted through the air)
• School closures (to prevent transmission by children)
  
• Lockdown (to prevent people meeting each other)
  

What is now becoming increasingly apparent is that all these strategies were little more than fig leaves, to hide the undoubted fact that pharmaceutical medicine had no effective treatment, nor any way to prevent the transmission of the virus. It was, perhaps, better to do something rather than nothing at all!

Yet there are now over 400 studies that have found that these strategies have not only been a failure, but have done positive harm. Click on the link to open a Brownstone Institute webpage that outlines the findings of each of these studies. It shows that they are not only ineffective, but harmful to our health through their emotional, social and economic consequences.

These public health strategies were initially put in place until such time that Covid-19 vaccines were ready to be used. The vaccines would save us, protect us from the virus, and return life to normal. Mass vaccination programme began in December 2020, initially with each individual being vaccinated twice; now three times; with the third, fourth, and probably annual vaccinations to follow.

One year later it is clear that the vaccines have failed to achieve what the pharmaceutical industry told us they would do.

So now the same fig leaves have either returned, never gone away, or we are being warned that they are making a return. The vaccines have failed, so now pharmaceutical medicine wants to start chasing the invisible virus again, returning to the same strategies that did not work previously, and which these 400 studies indicate will not work in future.

This is pharmaceutical medicine's most widely adopted strategy - "if at first you don't succeed, try, try, and try again". So if a drug doesn't work, take it again, or take it more often, take a stronger one; ultimately, take it for the rest of your life! Ineffective or dangerous drugs once removed from the market, only to be reinvented years later. Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) is one such drug. 

Menopause Issues and NICE guidelines? HRT might cause cancer, heart problems and dementia, but what the hell, women should take it anyway!

It doesn't matter how dangerous the drug is! Did you know that even Thalidomide had been resurrected from the dead?

Thalidomide. Still alive, kicking, and harming patients around the world to this day!

And so, in line with conventional medicine's grandiose history, we are now about to welcome back hand washing, social distancing, mask mandates, school closures, and lockdown. And this will all be done in the name of 'medical science', even when science has informed us that these strategies are ineffective, and positively harmful.

The Conventional Medicine drug cabinet is bare. In truth it has always been bare. It contains us no effective treatment, just an assortment of fig leaves used to cover the embarrassment of having to tell us they have nothing to offer.

The Official Covid-19 Narrative. The unifying voice of Conventional Medicine.

The Official Covid-19 Narrative has been relentless: and it is destined to continue. Those of us who are determined to remain vaccine free; those of us who view health and well-being quite differently to pharmaceutical medicine, have been constantly bombarded with pro-vaccine propaganda for the last two years. So I want to congratulate everyone who has stuck to their guns and resisted the temptation to go along with the crowd.

During 2020 the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) admitted it had no treatment for the virus, and other than public health measures such as hand washing, social distancing, wearing masks, test and trace, and social/economic lockdown. They were correct. There have been more than 400 studies on the failure of all these interventions. There was no vaccine available in 2020; and from the very start of the pandemic we were told by the narrative that it was only vaccines that would save us from the pandemic, and return our lives to normal.

Throughout 2021 Covid-19 vaccines has been available; quite a number of them; and most people have submitted to the vaccination. In large measure this was because the narrative has urged everyone, ad nauseam, to take the vaccine. Yet after a year of mass vaccination programme around the world the pandemic continues, unabated.

The narrative has insisted that the vaccines are amazingly effective, and entirely safe. So there was no reason not to take the vaccine. As with all new pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines the promotion was unrelenting. In December 2020 the Daily Express told us that the Covid-19 vaccines would return us to normal life within a couple of months. Remember?

We will all be free by February!

This was not the Daily Express alone. It was every mainstream news outlet around the world. Every government. Every conventional medical authority. This is why the narrative was a "narrative". Nothing outside this 'good news' narrative was allowed to be said, written or published. Other voices, critical voices, were censored.

I wrote 7 blogs in December 2020, and 10 in January 2021, far more than I normally write. Most of them were critical of conventional medicine's response to Covid-19, many predicted the fiasco we have witnessed during the last year.

None of this information, critical of the narrative, was made available to the general public by government, conventional medical authorities, or the mainstream media. Even dissenting voices from within the conventional medical establishment have been censored. 

• For instance, few people will have heard about the Barrington Declaration, made by a group of doctors opposed to the narrative.
• Nobody knew that natural medical therapists around the world were working with their patients to prevent, and to treat the Covid-19 virus.
  

Indeed, the single most amazing feature of the official narrative has been the utter unity of the message. Most days have seen news agencies providing us with exactly the same stories, with exactly the same message, using the views of the same people. There has been no deviation from the story, no slant on the story that was even marginally different, and the same people, with the same opinions, were heard on a daily basis. This has been unique to the Covid-19 narrative. It would appear that there has been a single, guiding hand, linking together not only multiple mainstream media outlines, but every conventional medical authority in existence, and every government around the world. 

The unity of purpose, the unity of the message, has been a remarkable achievement!

Yet the pandemic has developed, and despite the vaccines failing to return life to normal, the unity of the narrative has persisted. No-one can really claim that the situation this Christmas is any difference to what it was last year. Why is this? The narrative tells us that it is because of a new variant. Or it is the fault of the unvaccinated. That we need a booster vaccine; perhaps even annual vaccines. Certainly we need to continue wearing masks; we are heading towards a 'creeping' lockdown. And we need vaccine passports; ever mandatory vaccines.

Never, anywhere within the official narrative, has there ever been a hint or suggestion that the vaccines are failing, even though they clearly are quite useless.

How has the narrative's unity of purpose and message been maintained? What is it's unifying force? It is, of course, the pharmaceutical industry. The most profitable industry in the world has certainly used its wealth wisely. 

• It now totally dominates mainstream medical provision in most nations of the world.
• It has infiltrated and taken over drug regulatory agencies in every country where they exist, and subverted their primary role - to safeguard the public from harmful drugs and vaccines.
• It has lobbied and funded politicians, and political campaigns, in return (one suspects) for their allegiance.
• It controls governments around the world; all of whom have admitted openly that its policies "follow the science" - conventional medical science, which has been bought and sold by the drugs industry.
  
• It has taken control of the mainstream media, initially through its advertising budgets, then through shared and mutual directorships of companies.
• And, especially since the start of the pandemic, it is now moving to control social media, with websites speaking against the narrative being. 
  

 And this is what is behind the Official Covid-19 narrative, its single, unifying voice.

• So when the vaccines have quite clearly failed we are told that this is because there is a new variant.
• The double jab is no longer sufficient, a booster is necessary, and probably even an annual vaccine in future. 
• All good for pharmaceutical profits, but meanwhile the pandemic continues
• alongside new instructions and directives about masking, social distancing,
• the effective cancellation of Christmas - vaccinated or not. 
• A further 'creeping' lockdowns is happening. 
• Vaccine passports have become a reality. 
• Vaccine mandates are imminent.

All this clearly constitutes the failure of the Covid-19 vaccines, but the "f" word is never mentioned! Instead, narrative is identifying suitable scapegoats, and again it is strangely united in this task. 

It blames and abuses people who wish to remain vaccine free. 

The vaccinated public, complying with the narrative, cannot understand why anyone should refuse the vaccines because they are so effective, and so safe. So the ongoing pandemic must be their fault. The narrative does not mention that vaccinated people can still contract the virus, and transmit it. Nor does the narrative ever mention natural immunity. It never has - for two whole years of propaganda about vaccination!

And the unvaccinated, blamed for the continuation of the pandemic, are never given a platform to explain their views. No differences are allowed.

The narrative fails to explain why the double vaccinated are still contracting the virus; or why they are still being hospitalised; and dying. We are told they get it less severely; but is that really why people have accepted the vaccines? The narrative does not explain why the vaccines are failing to protect the fully vaccinated from the virus. It is known the the vaccinated can pass the virus on to others, but only transmission by the non-vaccinated is ever mentioned.

And so it continues. The absurdity of the narrative should stretch the credulity of anyone who takes just a few seconds to examine the message. But few people do. Why? Most people have been scared witless by the incessant propaganda about a deadly virus, a virus which has to be relentlessly hunted down, even at the cost of destroying our social and economic lives. We are all meant to be scared! We must believe that the Covid-19 virus is more serious, more lethal than an annual influenza viruses, and certainly a higher priority than other painful, serious, and potentially terminal illnesses and diseases whose treatment have been suspended or postponed in favour of 'protecting' everyone from the deadly Covid-19 virus - a virus, incidentally, that has not significantly increased the average monthly death rate significantly anywhere in the world.

Above all, the narrative has notably failed to mention that we all have an immune system, designed to protect us from illness and disease, and that most people (other than those taking drugs that purposely interferes with our immunity) can help themselves, without medical intervention in simple ways of supporting and strengthening it.

No, we all need the vaccine, even if it does not work. It’s all the narrative has to offer, so it is becoming increasingly desperate for it to work, the more it become clear that it is failing. But it might work, perhaps with a 3rd, or a 4th, or a 5th vaccination. A triumph of hope over experience!

The narrative has other objectives. One has already been achieved. It has generated a massive financial coup for the pharmaceutical industry, whose profits have increased enormously, profits which will no doubt be used further to develop and reinforce those that have to continue the narrative on their behalf. 

The next objective should now be clear. It is heard when our democratically elected politicians, fully compliant to the nonsense of the narrative, openly support undemocratic vaccine passports, and mandatory vaccination. In the main they do so with little apparent realisation that there is a degree of anomaly between their objective, to force 15–20% of the population to accept a vaccine they do not want, and who they are, democratically elected politicians who are supposed to represent us all.

So the narrative is, in fact threatening thousands of years of struggle for individual freedom, personal liberty, and democracy in undermining the many codes, statements and policies that underlay health freedom.

It is a sad day when democratically elected politicians arrogantly believe that they are so wise they can force the people they represent to have needles stuck into their bodies, and injected with a toxic substance that is known to be causing serious adverse reactions and death. If the narrative can achieve this it really is the end of democracy. 

Equally disappointing is the attitude of so many people who live in a democracy, who pay lip service to wanting to maintain their personal liberty and freedom but can support politicians who are seeking to deprive them of it, prepared to go along with the hate-based policies of a pharmaceutical narrative that so clearly undermines these freedoms.

The vaccines politicians wish to mandate are not safe, and there has been no debate, not even an acknowledgement of the harm they are known to cause. The narrative does not allow debate. It never talks about vaccine damage, even though the harm is no longer open to serious doubt. Serious adverse reactions are being recorded by national drug regulators around the world. During the past year they have received literally millions of adverse reaction reports from patients who have taken the Covid-19 vaccines. 

This data is never mentioned. The narrative denies it. And when it becomes so clear it can no longer be denied it is discounted.

So what are our politicians doing. Their only defence is that they have no power. They may appear to have the power to determine policy, but the reality is they are not really that powerful. They are controlled by, and have become, the voice pieces of the super-rich, the mega-wealthy corporations - not least the mega-wealthy pharmaceutical corporations. We like to think that in a democracy that the people control the politicians but other than in elections that take place every few years politicians are controlled by those who control wealth and influence within society. 

So it is the pharmaceutical lobby that controls the official narrative. The official Covid-19 narrative is the message of the pharmaceutical industry, a message that tells us that only a vaccine will work, and that there is not such thing as natural immunity. Politicians, governments, the mainstream media, none of them, seem willing, able, or have the power to go against the narrative. 

Governments have admitted from the start of the pandemic that their policies have been 'informed' and 'guided' by science - medical science - now an integral part of the pharmaceutical medical establishment. The objective of this establishment is to maximise drug profits, to sell more vaccines, to hide from the general public (by speaking through politicians, and the mainstream media) that the vaccines are causing untold harm. Anyone who speaks against the narrative is dismissed, accused of spreading ‘misinformation’ and engaging in conspiracy theory. Their voices have been effectively muted.

This is what the official Covid-19 narrative is all about. Whilst the narrative remains unquestioned, unchallenged, the pandemic will continue - unabated! The vaccinated will suffer more harm, and only those who remain vaccine free will prosper.

Covid-19 Vaccines. Allow Pfizer to tell you officially about the adverse reactions their vaccine is known to cause

Covid-19 vaccines, we have been told, are extremely effective, and very safe. This is why we have all been urged to take the vaccines, and the vast majority of people have complied.

Indeed, the vaccines are so effective and so safe our governments are prepared to mandate them, force them on people who wish to remain vaccine free, either subtly (?) through 'vaccine passports', or by direct force - loss of employment, heavy fines and imprisonment.

Drug companies have a long history of launching new pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines as "super-drugs" and "wonder cures" that will "transform our experience of illness". There is also a long history of new pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines (the same ones) being withdrawn or banned because they have proven to be neither effective, and dangerous to human health.

So how are the Covid-19 vaccines doing, in terms of effectiveness and safety?

The official pharmaceutical analysis of the pandemic, the narrative that government, conventional medical authorities, and the mainstream media has been pressing on us for the past two years is adamant. 

• They are safe. 
• They are effective. 
• Everyone should accept them. 
• And anyone wishing to remain vaccine free should be forced to take them.

So what is the information coming out of Pfizer, one of the major pharmaceutical companies that has a huge stake the promotion of Covid-19 vaccines?

First, we should look at the Patient Information Leaflet (PIL) that Pfizer has written, and has to be provided, by law, to everyone who receives the vaccine. This is what it tells us.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF THE VACCINE? 

There is a remote chance that the vaccine could cause a severe allergic reaction. A severe allergic reaction would usually occur within a few minutes to 1 hour after getting a dose of the vaccine. For this reason, your vaccination provider may ask you to stay at the place where you received your vaccine for monitoring after vaccination. Signs of a severe allergic reaction can include:

• Difficulty breathing
• Swelling of your face and throat
• A fast heartbeat 
• A bad rash all over your body
• Dizziness and weakness 

Myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart) have occurred in some people who have received the vaccine, more commonly in males under 40 years of age than among females and older males. In most of these people, symptoms began within a few days following receipt of the second dose of vaccine. The chance of having this occur is very low. You should seek medical attention right away if you have any of the following symptoms after receiving the vaccine:

• Chest pain
• Shortness of breath
• Feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart 

Side effects that have been reported with the vaccine include:

• severe allergic reactions
• non-severe allergic reactions such as rash, itching, hives, or swelling of the face
• myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle)
• pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart)
• injection site pain
• tiredness
• headache
• muscle pain
• chills
• joint pain
• fever
• injection site swelling
• injection site redness
• nausea
• feeling unwell
• swollen lymph nodes (lymphadenopathy)
• decreased appetite
• diarrhea
• vomiting
• arm pain
• fainting in association with injection of the vaccine

These may not be all the possible side effects of the vaccine. Serious and unexpected side effects may occur. The possible side effects of the vaccine are still being studied in clinical trials.

 Indeed, to re-use Pfizer's words, these might not be all the possible adverse reactions that can be caused by the vaccine, even though they demonstrate that the official pharmaceutical narrative has been, at best, "economical with the truth". The vaccine cannot honestly be is not safe.

However, another Pfizer document, one that was supposed to be 'confidential' but released under 'Freedom and Information' requests in the USA, shows that the company are fully aware of this. It demonstrates that whilst the Patient Information Leaflet can be considered more truthful than the official pharmaceutical narrative, to which we have all been subjected for over two years, even this is certainly far from being the whole truth. I apologise, in advance, for this huge long list of adverse reactions to the vaccine, which itself is a summary of section 5.3.6 of the document - "Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorisation Adverse Event Reports" (thanks to Jonn Rappaport for this extraction).. Skim through it - you do not need to read it all, or understand the jargon. Each reported condition means that a certain number of vaccinated patients has been harmed in this particular way in the past year.

• 2-Hydroxyglutaric aciduria; 
• 5'nucleotidase increased; 
• Acoustic neuritis; 
• Acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency; 
• Acquired epidermolysis bullosa; 
• Acquired epileptic aphasia; 
• Acute cutaneous lupus erythematosus; 
• Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis; 
• Acute encephalitis with refractory, repetitive partial seizures; 
• Acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis; 
• Acute flaccid myelitis; 
• Acute haemorrhagic leukoencephalitis; 
• Acute haemorrhagic oedema of infancy; 
• Acute kidney injury; 
• Acute macular outer retinopathy; 
• Acute motor axonal neuropathy; 
• Acute motor-sensory axonal neuropathy; 
• Acute myocardial infarction;  
• Acute respiratory distress syndrome; 
• Acute respiratory failure;
•  Addison's disease; 
• Administration site thrombosis; 
• Administration site vasculitis; 
• Adrenal thrombosis; 
• Adverse event following immunisation; 
• Ageusia; 
• Agranulocytosis; 
• Air embolism; 
• Alanine aminotransferase abnormal; 
• Alanine aminotransferase increased; 
• Alcoholic seizure; 
• Allergic bronchopulmonary mycosis; 
• Allergic oedema; 
• Alloimmune hepatitis; 
• Alopecia areata; 
• Alpers disease; 
• Alveolar proteinosis; 
• Ammonia abnormal; 
• Ammonia increased; 
• Amniotic cavity infection; 
• Amygdalohippocampectomy; 
• Amyloid arthropathy; 
• Amyloidosis; 
• Amyloidosis senile; 
• Anaphylactic reaction; 
• Anaphylactic shock; 
• Anaphylactic transfusion reaction; 
• Anaphylactoid reaction; 
• Anaphylactoid shock; 
• Anaphylactoid syndrome of pregnancy; 
• Angioedema; 
• Angiopathic neuropathy; 
• Ankylosing spondylitis; 
• Anosmia; 
• Antiacetylcholine receptor antibody positive; 
• Anti-actin antibody positive; 
• Anti-aquaporin-4 antibody positive; 
• Anti-basal ganglia antibody positive; 
• Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody positive; 
• Anti-epithelial antibody positive; 
• Anti-erythrocyte antibody positive; 
• Anti-exosome complex antibody positive; 
• Anti- GAD antibody negative; Anti-GAD antibody positive; 
• Anti-ganglioside antibody positive; 
• Antigliadin antibody positive; 
• Anti-glomerular basement membrane antibody positive; 
• Anti-glomerular basement membrane disease; 
• Anti-glycyl-tRNA synthetase antibody positive; 
• Anti-HLA antibody test positive; 
• Anti-IA2 antibody positive; 
• Anti-insulin antibody increased; 
• Anti-insulin antibody positive; 
• Anti-insulin receptor antibody increased; 
• Anti-insulin receptor antibody positive; 
• Anti-interferon antibody negative; 
• Anti-interferon antibody positive; 
• Anti-islet cell antibody positive; 
• Antimitochondrial antibody positive; 
• Anti-muscle specific kinase antibody positive; 
• Anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein antibodies positive; 
• Anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein associated polyneuropathy; Antimyocardial antibody positive; 
• Anti-neuronal antibody positive; 
• Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody increased; 
• Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody positive; 
• Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody positive vasculitis; 
• Anti-NMDA antibody positive; 
• Antinuclear antibody increased; 
• Antinuclear antibody positive; 
• Antiphospholipid antibodies positive; 
• Antiphospholipid syndrome; 
• Anti-platelet antibody positive; 
• Anti-prothrombin antibody positive; 
• Antiribosomal P antibody positive; 
• Anti-RNA polymerase III antibody positive; 
• Anti-saccharomyces cerevisiae antibody test positive; 
• Anti-sperm antibody positive; 
• Anti-SRP antibody positive; 
• Antisynthetase syndrome; 
• Anti-thyroid antibody positive; 
• Anti-transglutaminase antibody increased; 
• Anti-VGCC antibody positive; 
• Anti-VGKC antibody positive; 
• Anti-vimentin antibody positive; 
• Antiviral prophylaxis; 
• Antiviral treatment; 
• Anti-zinc transporter 8 antibody positive; 
• Aortic embolus; 
• Aortic thrombosis; 
• Aortitis; 
• Aplasia pure red cell; 
• Aplastic anaemia; 
• Application site thrombosis; 
• Application site vasculitis; 
• Arrhythmia; 
• Arterial bypass occlusion; 
• Arterial bypass thrombosis; 
• Arterial thrombosis; 
• Arteriovenous fistula thrombosis; 
• Arteriovenous graft site stenosis; 
• Arteriovenous graft thrombosis; 
• Arteritis; 
• Arteritis coronary; 
• Arthralgia; 
• Arthritis; Arthritis enteropathic; Ascites; Aseptic cavernous sinus thrombosis; Aspartate aminotransferase abnormal; Aspartate aminotransferase increased; Aspartate-glutamate-transporter deficiency; AST to platelet ratio index increased; AST/ALT ratio abnormal; Asthma; Asymptomatic COVID-19; Ataxia; Atheroembolism; Atonic seizures; Atrial thrombosis; Atrophic thyroiditis; 
• Atypical benign partial epilepsy;  
• Atypical pneumonia; 
• Aura; 
• Autoantibody positive; 
• Autoimmune anaemia; 
• Autoimmune aplastic anaemia; 
• Autoimmune arthritis; 
• Autoimmune blistering disease; 
• Autoimmune cholangitis; 
• Autoimmune colitis; 
• Autoimmune demyelinating disease; 
• Autoimmune dermatitis; 
• Autoimmune disorder; 
• Autoimmune encephalopathy; 
• Autoimmune endocrine disorder; 
• Autoimmune enteropathy; 
• Autoimmune eye disorder; 
• Autoimmune haemolytic anaemia; 
• Autoimmune heparin-induced thrombocytopenia; 
• Autoimmune hepatitis; 
• Autoimmune hyperlipidaemia; 
• Autoimmune hypothyroidism; 
• Autoimmune inner ear disease; 
• Autoimmune lung disease; 
• Autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome; 
• Autoimmune myocarditis; 
• Autoimmune myositis; 
• Autoimmune nephritis; 
• Autoimmune neuropathy; 
• Autoimmune neutropenia; 
• Autoimmune pancreatitis; 
• Autoimmune pancytopenia; 
• Autoimmune pericarditis; 
• Autoimmune retinopathy; 
• Autoimmune thyroid disorder; 
• Autoimmune thyroiditis; 
• Autoimmune uveitis; 
• Autoinflammation with infantile enterocolitis; 
• Autoinflammatory disease; 
• Automatism epileptic; 
• Autonomic nervous system imbalance; 
• Autonomic seizure; 
• Axial spondyloarthritis; 
• Axillary vein thrombosis; 
• Axonal and demyelinating polyneuropathy; 
• Axonal neuropathy; 
• Bacterascites; 
• Baltic myoclonic epilepsy; 
• Band sensation; 
• Basedow's disease; 
• Basilar artery thrombosis; 
• Basophilopenia; 
• B-cell aplasia; 
• Behcet's syndrome; 
• Benign ethnic neutropenia; 
• Benign familial neonatal convulsions; 
• Benign familial pemphigus; 
• Benign rolandic epilepsy; 
• Beta-2 glycoprotein antibody positive; 
• Bickerstaff's encephalitis; 
• Bile output abnormal; 
• Bile output decreased; 
• Biliary ascites; 
• Bilirubin conjugated abnormal; 
• Bilirubin conjugated increased; 
• Bilirubin urine present; 
• Biopsy liver abnormal; 
• Biotinidase deficiency; 
• Birdshot chorioretinopathy; 
• Blood alkaline phosphatase abnormal; 
• Blood alkaline phosphatase increased; 
• Blood bilirubin abnormal; 
• Blood bilirubin increased; 
• Blood bilirubin unconjugated increased; 
• Blood cholinesterase abnormal; 
• Blood cholinesterase decreased; 
• Blood pressure decreased; 
• Blood pressure diastolic decreased; 
• Blood pressure systolic decreased; 
• Blue toe syndrome; 
• Brachiocephalic vein thrombosis; 
• Brain stem embolism; 
• Brain stem thrombosis; 
• Bromosulphthalein test abnormal; 
• Bronchial oedema; 
• Bronchitis; 
• Bronchitis mycoplasmal; 
• Bronchitis viral; 
• Bronchopulmonary aspergillosis allergic; 
• Bronchospasm; 
• Budd-Chiari syndrome; 
• Bulbar palsy; 
• Butterfly rash; 
• C1q nephropathy; 
• Caesarean section; 
• Calcium embolism; 
•  Capillaritis; 
• Caplan's syndrome; 
• Cardiac amyloidosis; 
• Cardiac arrest; 
• Cardiac failure; 
• Cardiac failure acute; 
• Cardiac sarcoidosis; 
• Cardiac ventricular thrombosis; 
• Cardiogenic shock; 
• Cardiolipin antibody positive; 
• Cardiopulmonary failure; 
• Cardio-respiratory arrest; 
• Cardio-respiratory distress; 
• Cardiovascular insufficiency; 
• Carotid arterial embolus; 
• Carotid artery thrombosis; 
• Cataplexy; 
• Catheter site thrombosis; 
• Catheter site vasculitis; 
• Cavernous sinus thrombosis; 
• CDKL5 deficiency disorder; 
• CEC syndrome; 
• Cement embolism; 
• Central nervous system lupus; 
• Central nervous system vasculitis; 
• Cerebellar artery thrombosis; 
• Cerebellar embolism; 
• Cerebral amyloid angiopathy; 
• Cerebral arteritis; 
• Cerebral artery embolism; 
• Cerebral artery thrombosis; 
• Cerebral gas embolism; 
• Cerebral microembolism; 
• Cerebral septic infarct; 
• Cerebral thrombosis; 
• Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis; 
• Cerebral venous thrombosis; 
• Cerebrospinal thrombotic; 
• [Radiculitis] brachial; 
• Radiologically isolated syndrome; 
• Rash; 
• Rash erythematous; 
• Rash pruritic; 
• Rasmussen encephalitis; 
• Raynaud's phenomenon; 
• Reactive capillary endothelial proliferation; 
• Relapsing multiple sclerosis; 
• Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis; 
• Renal amyloidosis; 
• Renal arteritis; 
• Renal artery thrombosis; 
• Renal embolism; 
• Renal failure; 
• Renal vascular thrombosis; 
• Renal vasculitis; 
• Renal vein embolism; 
• Renal vein thrombosis; 
• Respiratory arrest; 
• Respiratory disorder; 
• Respiratory distress; 
• Respiratory failure; 
• Respiratory paralysis; 
• Respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis; 
• Respiratory syncytial virus bronchitis; 
• Retinal artery embolism; 
• Retinal artery occlusion; 
• Retinal artery thrombosis; 
• Retinal vascular thrombosis; 
• Retinal vasculitis; 
• Retinal vein occlusion; 
• Retinal vein thrombosis; 
• Retinol binding protein decreased; 
• Retinopathy; 
• Retrograde portal vein flow; 
• Retroperitoneal fibrosis; 
• Reversible airways obstruction; 
• Reynold's syndrome; 
• Rheumatic brain disease; 
• Rheumatic disorder; 
• Rheumatoid arthritis; 
• Rheumatoid factor increased; 
• Rheumatoid factor positive; 
• Rheumatoid factor quantitative increased; Rheumatoid lung; 
• Rheumatoid neutrophilic dermatosis; 
• Rheumatoid nodule; 
• Rheumatoid nodule removal; 
• Rheumatoid scleritis; 
• Rheumatoid vasculitis; 
• Saccadic eye movement; 
• SAPHO syndrome; 
• Sarcoidosis; 
• SARS-CoV-1 test; 
• SARS-CoV-1 test negative; 
• SARS-CoV-1 test positive; 
• SARS-CoV-2 antibody test; 
• SARS-CoV-2 antibody test negative; 
• SARS-CoV-2 antibody test positive; 
• SARS-CoV-2 carrier; 
• SARS-CoV-2 sepsis; 
• SARS-CoV-2 test; 
• SARS- CoV-2 test false negative; 
• SARS-CoV-2 test false positive; 
• SARS-CoV-2 test negative; 
• SARS- CoV-2 test positive; 
• SARS-CoV-2 viraemia; 
• Satoyoshi syndrome; 
• Schizencephaly; 
• Scleritis; 
• Sclerodactylia; 
• Scleroderma; 
• Scleroderma associated digital ulcer; 
• Scleroderma renal crisis; 
• Scleroderma-like reaction; 
• Secondary amyloidosis; 
• Secondary cerebellar degeneration; 
• Secondary progressive multiple sclerosis; 
• Segmented hyalinising vasculitis; 
• Seizure; 
• Seizure anoxic; 
• Seizure cluster; 
• Seizure like phenomena; 
• Seizure prophylaxis; 
• Sensation of foreign body; 
• Septic embolus; 
• Septic pulmonary embolism; 
• Severe acute respiratory syndrome; 
• Severe myoclonic epilepsy of infancy; 
• Shock; 
• Shock symptom; 
• Shrinking lung syndrome; 
• Shunt thrombosis; 
• Silent thyroiditis; 
• Simple partial seizures; 
• Sjogren's syndrome; 
• Skin swelling; 
• SLE arthritis;
• Smooth muscle antibody positive; 
• Sneezing; 
• Spinal artery embolism; 
• Spinal artery thrombosis; 
• Splenic artery thrombosis; 
• Splenic embolism; 
• Splenic thrombosis; 
• Splenic vein thrombosis; 
• Spondylitis; 
• Spondyloarthropathy; 
• Spontaneous heparin-induced thrombocytopenia syndrome; 
• Status epilepticus; 
•  Stevens-Johnson syndrome; 
• Stiff leg syndrome; 
• Stiff person syndrome; 
• Stillbirth; 
• Still's disease; 
• Stoma site thrombosis; 
• Stoma site vasculitis; 
• Stress cardiomyopathy; 
• Stridor; 
• Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus; 
• Subacute endocarditis; 
• Subacute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy; 
• Subclavian artery embolism; 
• Subclavian artery thrombosis; 
• Subclavian vein thrombosis; 
• Sudden unexplained death in epilepsy; 
• Superior sagittal sinus thrombosis; 
• Susac's syndrome; 
• Suspected COVID- 19; 
• Swelling; 
• Swelling face; 
• Swelling of eyelid; 
• Swollen tongue; 
• Sympathetic ophthalmia; 
• Systemic lupus erythematosus; 
• Systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index abnormal; 
• Systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index decreased; 
• Systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index increased; 
• Systemic lupus erythematosus rash; 
• Systemic scleroderma; 
• Systemic sclerosis pulmonary; 
• Tachycardia; 
• Tachypnoea; 
• Takayasu's arteritis; 
• Temporal lobe epilepsy; 
• Terminal ileitis; 
• Testicular autoimmunity; 
• Throat tightness; 
• Thromboangiitis obliterans; 
• Thrombocytopenia; 
• Thrombocytopenic purpura; 
• Thrombophlebitis;  
• Thrombophlebitis migrans; 
• Thrombophlebitis neonatal; 
• Thrombophlebitis septic; 
• Thrombophlebitis superficial; 
• Thromboplastin antibody positive; 
• Thrombosis; 
•  Thrombosis corpora cavernosa; 
• Thrombosis in device; 
• Thrombosis mesenteric vessel; 
• Thrombotic cerebral infarction; 
• Thrombotic microangiopathy; 
• Thrombotic stroke; 
• Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura; 
• Thyroid disorder; 
• Thyroid stimulating immunoglobulin increased; 
• Thyroiditis; 
• Tongue amyloidosis; 
• Tongue biting; 
• Tongue oedema; 
• Tonic clonic movements; 
• Tonic convulsion; 
• Tonic posturing; 
• Topectomy; 
• Total bile acids increased; 
• Toxic epidermal necrolysis; 
• Toxic leukoencephalopathy; 
• Toxic oil syndrome; 
• Tracheal obstruction; 
• Tracheal oedema; 
• Tracheobronchitis; 
• Tracheobronchitis mycoplasmal; 
• Tracheobronchitis viral; 
• Transaminases abnormal; 
• Transaminases increased; 
• Transfusion-related alloimmune neutropenia; 
• Transient epileptic amnesia; 
• Transverse sinus thrombosis; 
• Trigeminal nerve paresis; 
• Trigeminal neuralgia; 
• Trigeminal palsy; 
• Truncus coeliacus thrombosis; 
• Tuberous sclerosis complex; 
• Tubulointerstitial nephritis and uveitis syndrome; 
• Tumefactive multiple sclerosis; 
• Tumour embolism; 
• Tumour thrombosis; 
• Type 1 diabetes mellitus; 
• Type I hypersensitivity; 
• Type III immune complex mediated reaction; 
• Uhthoff's phenomenon; 
• Ulcerative keratitis; 
• Ultrasound liver abnormal; 
• Umbilical cord thrombosis; 
• Uncinate fits; 
• Undifferentiated connective tissue disease; 
• Upper airway obstruction; 
• Urine bilirubin increased; 
• Urobilinogen urine decreased; 
• Urobilinogen urine increased; 
• Urticaria; 
• Urticaria papular; 
• Urticarial vasculitis; 
• Uterine rupture; 
• Uveitis; 
• Vaccination site thrombosis; 
• Vaccination site vasculitis; 
• Vagus nerve paralysis; 
• Varicella; 
• Varicella keratitis; 
• Varicella post vaccine; 
• Varicella zoster gastritis; 
• Varicella zoster oesophagitis; 
• Varicella zoster pneumonia; 
• Varicella zoster sepsis; 
• Varicella zoster virus infection; 
• Vasa praevia; 
• Vascular graft thrombosis; 
• Vascular pseudoaneurysm thrombosis; 
• Vascular purpura; 
• Vascular stent thrombosis; 
• Vasculitic rash; 
• Vasculitic ulcer; 
• Vasculitis; 
• Vasculitis gastrointestinal; 
• Vasculitis necrotising; 
• Vena cava embolism; 
• Vena cava thrombosis; 
• Venous intravasation; 
• Venous recanalisation; 
• Venous thrombosis; 
• Venous thrombosis in pregnancy; 
• Venous thrombosis limb; 
• Venous thrombosis neonatal; 
• Vertebral artery thrombosis; 
• Vessel puncture site thrombosis; 
• Visceral venous thrombosis; 
• VIth nerve paralysis; 
• VIth nerve paresis; 
• Vitiligo; 
• Vocal cord paralysis; 
• Vocal cord paresis; 
• Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease; 
• Warm type haemolytic anaemia; 
• Wheezing; 
• White nipple sign; 
• XIth nerve paralysis; 
• X-ray hepatobiliary abnormal; 
• Young's syndrome; 
• Zika virus associated Guillain Barre syndrome.

Despite this huge list of adverse reactions, which Pfizer knows about, if you want more evidence of the dangers of their vaccines go to this Canadian Covid Care Alliance website, and this well-researched article, which deals with the inadequate testing, as well as the adverse reactions it causes.

 

So can this vaccine really be described as "safe", as the general public have been so often told?

And is it any wonder that many people want to remain "vaccine free"?

WHAT OUR DOCTORS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TELL US. The medical profession does not allow them to be honest with us.

For anyone interested in safe medicine, in natural health, or who recognises the harm that can be caused by pharmaceutical or conventional medicine, the magazine "What Doctors Don' Tell You" (WDDTY) is an important source of information.

WDDTY is not a popular concept though because most people who not want to believe that their doctors do not tell them the truth, especially about the dangers of conventional drugs and vaccines. The idea is deeply upsetting for people who implicitly trust their doctor to tell them if the drugs and vaccines they prescribe might cause them harm.

Yet however alarming this concept might be, the concept that "Doctors Cannot Tell Us the Truth", or that "Doctors are NOT ALLOWED to tell the Truth" is much worse.

This problem has been highlighted in the UK's doctors magazine, Pulse, in their article "GP’s who criticise Covid vaccine on social media ‘vulnerable’ to GMC investigation. The GMC is the doctor's licensing and regulatory body. Without their permission no doctor can practise.

The Pulse article states that "GPs have been warned that criticising the Covid vaccine or other pandemic measures via social media could leave them ‘vulnerable’ to GMC investigation". The warning, it says, comes from the Medical Protection Society (MPS) as a British GP is "appealing a temporary social media ban imposed by the GMC after he was accused of spreading ‘misinformation’".

The doctor is Dr Samuel White who posted a seven-minute clip on Instagram and Twitter in June 2021 in which he outlined why he could no longer work in his previous roles because of "'lies’ around the NHS and Government approach to the pandemic that were ‘so vast’ he could no longer ‘stomach or tolerate’ them". Apparent he also raised concerns about the safety of the Covid vaccine, the testing methods used, and stated that masks are ineffective.

As a result Dr White, who has resigned his post after having several interim conditions imposed on his registration with the GMC and is working as a locum. He is now appealing these in the Royal Courts of Justice. The Pulse article states that a GMC tribunal had ordered him not to discuss the pandemic on social media, and to remove previous posts on the subject in August 2021, following complaints about his video. His barrister has called these restriction, correctly, a "severe imposition’ on his freedom of speech".

In addition I would want to add that the restrictions placed on Dr White are also a severe restriction on the right to know of patients. And as these restrictions clearly applies to every other GP operating in the UK, we are all being denied important information - we are being misinformed.

The Pulse article describes the legal arguments being used by a doctor described as having an "unblemished career", informed by "libertarian principles", and "supported by large bodies of scientific and medical opinion". Yet according to the GMC all this is not allowed. Patients are not to be told. There is to be no debate on the safety or effectiveness of conventional medical treatment, and certainly no discussion about the Covid-19 pandemic is to be allowed.

The General Public, you and me, are not to be informed of Dr White's opinions, just as previously the opinions of the 'Barrington Declaration' were also sidelined and censored by the pharmaceutical medical establishment, in including the government, conventional medical authorities, and the mainstream media. We are only allowed to know the official Covid-19 narrative - the treatment, especially the vaccines, are effective and safe.

The GMC's defence is also a matter of concern for patients. The GMC said that its tribunal had recognised serious concerns that Dr White was using "language that echoed conspiracy theories about the pandemic", and that there was a risk that members of the public "would be influenced by him to ignore public health advice". In other words, allowing the general public to make an "informed decision" by hearing both sides of an argument is not allowed. The medical director of MPS, Dr Rob Hendry is quoted by Pulse: 

            "Personal views which may be intended for friends or family can easily be misinterpreted and become more widely available through social media, and all views expressed may be judged as professional matters. Doctors should therefore be aware that advocating against the Covid-19 vaccine and other measures on social media platforms could make them vulnerable to investigation by the GMC.’

This demonstrates the sheer arrogance of the conventional medical profession. What the medical profession knows is correct, and there must be no questioning their wisdom. Moreover, the general public (you and me) are not sufficiently bright to be allowed to make an informed choice on all the evidence. We are to receive only the official message, the official Covid-19 narrative sanctioned by the pharmaceutical medical establishment. This message must not be questioned.

The Pulse article states that GMC ethical guidance states that doctors ‘must not impose [their] beliefs and values on patients or cause distress by the inappropriate or insensitive expression of them’. Presumably the only beliefs that can be imposed on the general public are those held by the pharmaceutical medical establishment!

This is made clear when the GMC is quoted as saying that it has "publicly stated that doctors have a responsibility to provide sufficient and balanced information about Covid-19 and the risks and benefits of treatments or preventative measures, and allow patients to make an informed choice." And the lecture continues. Any GP's who are ‘sceptical’ of the Covid vaccine, or the preventative measures in the national public health programme, should "ensure they are fully up to date with scientific evidence and act in accordance with national guidance". What this means is THEIR evidence.

The Pulse article concludes by stating that GP practices, and PCN-led vaccination sites, are facing pressure from anti-vaccine protestors, and that Covid vaccination will be a ‘condition of deployment’ for all public-facing staff in England’s health services from April next year.

What this all means is not only that the conventional medical profession is not telling us the truth, certainly not the whole truth, but that it does not allow its doctors to tell us the truth.

We should all remember this the next time our doctor tells us that a pharmaceutical drug or vaccine is effective, and entirely safe. 

 

 

In Response To Forced Vaccination and Mandatory Medication

I reserve my right to be ill.

> and I assert my right to respond to my illness, including the threat of illness, in my own way.

You are not responsible for my health; nor do I give you permission to take control of it.

> you do not control how I support my immune system.

I am not responsible for your health, nor do I seek your permission to take charge of it.

> I do not and cannot control how you look after your immune system.

I have never given you permission to take responsibility for my health.

> I do not accept that you, or the government, knows better than me.

I believe that natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity.

> I am entitled to believe this, and I don't care if you disagree with me. 

You may believe that vaccine immunity is superior to natural immunity.

> You may, but you do not have my permission to impose your beliefs on me.

I nurture my health through natural immunity, through diet, nutrition, exercise, and life-style.

> as I believe this is more important to my health than vaccine immunity.

I do not accept the pharmaceutical medicine has anything to offer me, or my health.

> you might think it does, and if so you, are absolutely entitled to do so.

If and when I am ill I will turn to natural medical therapies, not pharmaceutical medicine.

> this is entirely my choice, my decision; for which I take full responsibility.

Medical Negligence. A huge cost to patients, the NHS, and the national economy

The NHS is dominated by pharmaceutical medicine. And pharmaceutical medicine can, and often does, cause serious harm and injury to the patients it treats. This is costing the NHS dearly, at every level. Patients are harmed. The NHS has to pay compensation for the damage it has caused. And the national exchequer has to foot the ever-increasing bill.

This is why the Parliamentary Health and Social Care Committee is looking into the situation, seeking reforms to reduce massive cost of litigation.

The Medical Defence Union (MDU) is the UK's leading provider of medical indemnity, and clincial negligence claims for the medical profession. In the evidence it gave to the committee it said that litigation was now costing £2.2 billion annually. This massive sum is a rarely considered cost incurred by the NHS. The MDU's head of Professional Standards and Liaison, Dr Michael Devlin, told the inquiry:

            “The MDU has been sounding the alarm about the cost of compensation claims against the NHS for years, so we are relieved that the Health and Social Care Committee is examining the case for NHS litigation reform. Amounts being paid out in compensation annually are spiralling, increasing nearly 50% in the last five years from £1.48 billion to £2.2 billion last year..... With the NHS facing a funding crisis, we simply cannot sit by any longer and ignore numbers like £2.2 billion". (My emphasis).

So what is the MDU's solution to the problem? 

• To ensure that there are fewer mistakes? 
• To reduce the harm caused to patients? 
• To better understand the nature and cause of the mistakes that are damaging patients? 
• To look for safer treatments?

None of this appears to be what the MDU has in mind, at least not according to Dr Devlin, who continued:

            "The government must grasp the nettle and reform the system surrounding clinical negligence, so that it is fairer and mirrors society’s ability to pay. Reforms to the system for compensating patients could make a significant difference. One example is the need to ensure payments for long term care are based on the cost of NHS rather than private care, as is currently the case. Clinical negligence claims are not an indicator of poor medical standards nevertheless legal reforms must go hand in hand with improvements in patient safety. A learning culture in which incidents are thoroughly investigated and lessons learned and shared must be fostered.” (My emphasis).

So the MDU's answer to the problem, it would appear, is for the NHS to pay less compensation; and for patient's damaged by pharmaceutical medicine to receive less.

The GP magazine, Pulse, seems to have come to a similar conclusion in an article dated 12 November 2021. It stated that NHS Resolution, "an arm’s length body of the Department of Health and Social Care. that provides expertise to the NHS on resolving concerns and disputes fairly, sharing learning for improvement and preserving resources for patient care" said in their annual report that general practice could face £44m in Covid-related clinical negligence claims alone. It said that an estimated £44m, out of a forecast £885m total new claims due to the pandemic, may come through the clinical negligence scheme for general practice in 2020/21. It said that Trusts are expected to face negligence claims of £665m, then amazingly, that Covid-19 "would mean lower numbers of claims due to clinical work being cancelled - reducing claims by around £400m and resulting in a £500m net expected impact of the pandemic on claims made against the NHS".

So when the NHS does NOT provide patients with medical treatment it is calculated that it will save money! No treatment, no harm!

Perhaps they might have added that many patients are better off without the kind of 'treatment' currently being offered by the NHS! A doctor is quoted as saying the the forecasts are "concerning" but "not surprising", which again suggests that harming patients within the NHS is the expected norm.

The same doctor added that "since the first lockdown in March 2020, we’ve supported members with nearly 7,000 complaints and adverse incidents. While this isn’t an increase overall on numbers compared to pre-pandemic, we are surprised at the volume, given public understanding and sympathy with healthcare professionals, and also because complaints processes were put on hold at the height of the pandemic."  

NHS medical staff, it would appear, actually expected patients to be more 'understanding' and 'sympathetic towards medical negligence!

What this all demonstrates is that medical mistakes have become a routine, and accepted part of the performance of the NHS. 

I wonder how many patients realise this, or are told this, when they go to see their local GP, or walk through the door of an NHS hospital? The Pulse article certainly makes it clear what doctors wanted - 'reassurance' that complaints were dealt with 'proportionately and fairly' - and that compensation is 'more reasonable'. One doctors is quoted as saying

            "A package of legal reforms is needed to control rising costs and help to strike a balance between compensation that is reasonable, but also affordable for the NHS and society." (My emphasis).

So it is clear that within the NHS there is a routine acceptance that pharmaceutical medicine will cause patient harm, that is it, perhaps, a 'matter of concern', but the primary concern of the NHS is to protect itself from compensation claims for medical negligence. It has to be 'affordable' for the country so the solution is to reduce the cost. Patients can be seriously harmed by pharmaceutical medicine; but the objective is to make it cheaper!

The NHS considers the dangers of pharmaceutical medicine to be unavoidable. Nothing can be done about it. The costs (about 1.5% of the total NHS budget) are already factored into the NHS's budget plans. And more harm is expected in the future.

Yet no action is suggested to reduce medical negligence. It is notable that there is no suggestion that other medical therapies, safer natural therapies like homeopathy, should be reintroduced back into the NHS, so that patients could be offered a choice between risking medical negligence with conventional treatment; or to choose treatment that will not damage the patient, that will not  significant additional costs to the NHS, and an unnecessary charge on the national exchequer.

That would, of course, be too simple!