Tess, Homeopathy, and Back Leg Weakness

Tess is my Labrador. She is 15 years old, a good age; and until recently she has been fit and well. She has never see a vet. She was treated homeopathically for all the canine ailments and did not have any vaccinations. She has been well exercised, well fed, and has become a much loved and treasured family pet.

Suddenly, a few of months ago, she lost control of her rear legs. She would collapse, and have difficult standing again. When she did walk she was limping, appeared lame, and had a slow, unstable gait.

I tried her with several homeopathic remedies, but she quickly got worse. She became lethargic, sleeping most of the time, and not engaging with anyone. She was eating (she is a Labrador)! But she was reluctant to go for a walk. One evening she was particularly bad, and I decided that this might be the end. I was not going to allow her to suffer more.

However, I decided to do a web search to see if anyone else had written about an elderly dog who had lost control of her hind legs, and how they could be treated with homeopathy. There were several websites, and all of them suggested the remedies that I had already tried. However, one discussion outlined how none of these remedies worked; and the homeopath, perhaps rather despairingly, had said, "Well, if none of those remedies have worked, you might try Calc Phos".

So I decided, as a last resort, to try Tess with Calc Phos. I looked up the remedy in the Materia Medica (which homeopaths use to link symptoms of illness with known remedy symptoms) and did not feel that the remedy was particularly relevant to her. But there was nothing else that came to mind.

Calc Phos worked wonders within a couple of days. It is several months on now, and there has been no trip to the vet! She remains an elderly Labrador. She does not walk quickly, or very far now. She still has difficulty walking on shiny flat floors in the house. But she is as well as anyone could expect of a 15 year old dog - and she is still enjoying life.

The remedy will not work for every dog with rear leg weakness, but it is a remedy that is certainly worth trying. I am so glad I stumbled upon it - it is what happens, sometimes, with homeopathy!

Vaccines: What does giving 'Informed Consent' entail?

In medicine, it appears to be generally agreed that 'Informed Consent' is important before any patient gives consent for medical treatment. However, it is clearly not universally agreed as during the last few years, during the Covid-19 Pandemic, the Conventional Medical Establishment has been party to, and supportive of, enforced or mandatory vaccination. And pharmaceutical medicine has a reputation for providing patients with "the good news" whilst remaining silent about "the bad news".

So what does giving 'Informed Consent' actually mean? Simply it is that every patient should be fully aware of both the benefits, and the risks of the proposed treatment. When pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are involved, the expected/potential benefits are always made clear. However, the risks are not; usually most conventional medical treatment is routinely described as "safe and effective".

What follows was originally posted on X by Jessica Rojas: https://twitter.com/catsscareme2021: and it is reposted here with her permission (she merely requests that you consider following her on her X (or Twitter) account. It focuses on America (although the situation is similar here in Britain and elsewhere), and focuses on the USA vaccine schedule (although similar questions can be asked regarding most conventional medical treatments).

Read it carefully - and note the complexity of the information you need before you can truly give your 'informed consent' to treatment. It is information that is not usually provided to patients prior to treatment.

   "If you are a parent who follows the CDCs VACCINE schedule, here are some facts you need to know and understand to make an informed decision.

1. I understand that the pharmaceutical company who made this vaccine has NO liability.

2. I understand that I pay a $0.75 Federal Excise Tax per vaccine, used to pay vaccine injured families through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) created by the government.

3. I understand that this vaccine contains neurotoxins such as aluminum that far exceeds “safe levels” deemed by the EPA.

4. I understand that this vaccine contains carcinogenic ingredients.

5. I understand that this vaccine was made from aborted fetal cell lines, animal and bug cells.

6. I understand that getting this vaccine does not ensure that I will be protected from the disease.

7. I understand that my child could get the very illness they was vaccinated for.

8. I understand that my child could be a carrier of the illnesses/he was vaccinated for and spread it (“shedding”) for up to six weeks.

9. I understand that my doctor may get monetarily rewarded for having a high percentage of his/her patients who are fully vaccinated.

10. I understand that if my child is injured by a vaccine, my doctor would have to spend an exorbitant amount of hours filling out paper work in order to report it to VAERS (the only way to officially report a vaccine injury).

11. I understand that my doctor has no incentive to fill out paperwork for a vaccine injury.

12. I understand that vaccine injury is under-reported.

13. I understand that vaccine mandates (like SB277) literally hand over new customers to pharmaceutical companies.

14. I understand that pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to make their product better.

15. I understand that pharmaceutical companies spend up to 4x more on advertising than they do on research.

16. I understand that corporate media gets 70% of their advertising revenue from pharmaceutical companies.

17. I understand that corporate media does not want to lose revenue, certainly not 70% of it.

18. I understand that when pharmaceutical companies conduct a study (on their own product) it is in their best interest to have a favorable outcome.

19. I understand that this vaccine schedule has never been tested on children collectively and ACIP assumes it's safe as long as different limbs are used for injection.

20. I understand that this vaccine could cause injury or death, and my child could be one of them.

21. My doctor has informed me on all the risks and side effects and has reviewed the vaccine insert with me.

22. I understand that if my child dies from this vaccine I will be awarded no more than $250,000 and most cases are never heard.

23. I understand that not one vaccine has gone through a saline placebo, double-blind study.

24. I am making an informed choice to vaccinate my child.

So if you have all this information prior to agreeing too, and receiving any medical treatment, you will be able to make a fully informed choice. Otherwise, think again! Good luck!

 

Homeopathy for Older People

People often link old age with illness. To be old is to be ill.  The two go together.  How often have people been told – “you must accept that when you get to your age”.  The ‘that’ can be almost anything!  The ‘your age’ can be anything over 30!  The medical profession is often the worst offender. 

There is a story about a man who went to see his doctor because he had arthritis in his right knee. The doctor noted that he was 92 and suggested that he should accept some pain at his age.  However, the man reminded him he had another knee, the same age, which had not pain.  Perhaps the story is apocryphal, but it is an excellent point that he made.

Homeopathy considers that an illness is an illness regardless of age.  If it is treatable at 6 it is treatable at 60.  If it is treatable at 19 it is treatable at 90.  Often, age is used as an excuse for doing nothing, for fobbing people off, for laziness, or for having nothing more useful to offer.  It results from ageism, a means of discriminating against older people, undervaluing them, and not treating them on equal terms with younger people.

Of course, it is not quite as easy or straightforward as this.  Age increases our susceptibility to illness.  Ageing may mean that we may have ‘abused’ our body for longer, and it is now less able to cope – bad diet, too much stress, too much alcohol, and a host of other factors do take their toll in time.  If this is the cause of illness a change of lifestyle, and taking more care of the body, is as useful as homeopathy.

Homeopathy can treat all illnesses and disease. It can even help people to cope with the feelings of loneliness that so often affect older people. In doing so it works quite differently to conventional medicine. It works alongside the body, helping to support it in performing its normal functions, its natural ability to maintain itself.  

Conventional drugs tend to be grouped together until titles beginning with “anti-“ – anti-biotics, anti-histamines, etc; or it works to suppress or kill pain.  In other words it seeks to change the normal working of the body, to force it to do something it would not do itself.  The body usually struggles against this; so it overcomes pain killers, and bacteria becomes resistant to anti-biotics.  Ailments that are suppressed return, often in a more serious or more painful form. This often leads to an increasing dependence on drugs.

        “About half of all senior patients take several prescribed… drugs simultaneously, and frequently over prolonged periods.  Many conditions mistakenly considered new diseases are, in fact, unrecognised drug interactions.  Doctors then prescribe yet more drugs to solve the new problems, which only makes matters worse… The greatest overuse of medicine is among the institutionalised elderly.  The average nursing home patient received eight different drugs a day”.
What Doctor’s Don’t Tell You (April 2002)

Homeopathy is an alternative to conventional treatment.  It does not produce miracles but it can make people feel better when they have long believed that their illness is untreatable, or their pain an inevitable part of old age.  It is often more complicated treating older people, especially if there has been a long history of illness, drug taking, and operations.  This makes treatment a longer process, and often one that can only ameliorate pain and illness.  But this is often all that older people expect.  And the advantage of homeopathy is simply stated - it will not make matters worse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch this space for updates!

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Note: When it was first published, Blogger removed this post. It was part of the Media's censorship campaign again the idea that pharmaceutical medicine was anything but "safe and effective". It has since been republished!