Search This Blog

Monday, 27 September 2021

Pregabalin has killed at least 131 patients in the last two years in the UK alone. But Britain's drug regulator states it will take no action. So who is protecting us?

The Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) routinely prescribes dangerous drugs to its patients. They cause illness, disease, and death - but little or nothing is ever done to protect us from them.

Pregabalin is an anti-epileptic or anti-convulsant drug which has recently returned to my attention in two Pulse articles. The first article, published on 20th August 2021, was entitled "Northern Ireland GP's told to stop initiating pregablin for neuropathic pain amid deaths rise".

        "According to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, there were 77 drug-related deaths involving pregabalin in 2019 - appearing in 40% of all drug-related deaths recorded that year - rising from 54 in 2018."

A routine report? Surely, this was the CME doing what it should be always do, something most people assume it usual does - to protect patients from pharmaceutical drugs that cause them harm.

The second article, published on 27th September 2021, was entitled "MHRA (the UK's drug regulator) has no plans to curb pregabalin prescribing by GP's".

    "The drug was removed from the country’s formulary as the preferred option for the treatment of neuropathic pain but GPs will still be able to prescribe pregabalin where they deem it to be ‘clinically appropriate’. Now the MHRA has confirmed to Pulse that it has no plans to limit prescribing of gabapentinoids, including pregabalin and gabapentin."

So this was the CME doing what it normally does: very little, or nothing at all, to protect patients from pharmaceutical drugs, even though the CME admits that the drug killed 77 patients last year, and 54 patients the year before.

This is not a unique situation. It has happened to all pharmaceutical drugs over the years, dangerous, but banned only after years, sometimes decades, of patient harm. This is why we cannot, and should not, ever be assured that the drugs doctors prescribe today are safe.

I have written about Pregabalin before. In April 2020 I wrote an article that reported a similar situation,  "Health, Safety & Pharmaceutical Drugs. Pregabalin/Lyrica causes death each and every year - but doctors can continue prescribing it! So this is not a new problem that the CME does not know about!

Further back, in June 1917, I wrote "The NHS, Pfizer and Lyrica. Corporate Profit and Patient Harm", in which I described pregabalin (or Lyrica as it was then known) as "a nasty little drug, with lots of nasty side effects", including infection, ataxia, blurred vision, constipation, diplopia, dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, headache, peripheral edema, tremor, weight gain, visual field loss, accidental injury, xerostomia, abnormal gait, abnormality in thinking, amnesia, arthralgia, asthenia, cognitive dysfunction, confusion (dementia), edema, neuropathy, sinusitis, speech disturbance, vertigo, visual disturbance, myasthenia, and amblyopia.  

At this time, death was not listed amongst its "side effects". Nor is it still! Note that "death" is still not listed as a "side effect" on the Drugs.com website, a website that is supposed to provide doctors and patients with a complete list of side effects for every pharmaceutical drug.

The simple moral we can take from this simple tale is simply this.....

  • ANY PATIENT WHO AGREES TO TAKE A DOCTOR-PRESCRIBED DRUG SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT THE DRUG WILL BE SAFE, THAT IT WILL NOT CAUSE THEM HARM!
  • NONE OF US CAN BE ASSURED THAT OUR DOCTORS ARE SUPPORTED BY A STRUCTURE THAT PROTECTS PATIENTS FROM HARMFUL PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND VACCINES!

So we all need to be aware of how the CME operates, and avoid all of them.

 

Monday, 20 September 2021

The Covid-19 Vaccines: Children and Young People

Young children! Are you ready for this responsibility. Ready of not you are now to be given the responsibility to decide whether to accept Covid-19 vaccination, or not. Normally it is your parents who make such decisions. But the government is now giving the decision to you. So it is important that you are able fully to understand the benefits - and the disadvantages of saying "Yes" to being vaccinated, or refusing to have it.

This blog is for you, not for adults. I have written it because it is important that the 'pros' and 'cons' of having the vaccine explained in language they can easily understand, so that you are more able to make an "informed" decision. So there is no language used here that is difficult to understand, no technical jargon to confuse you. And it is important that you know both sides of the argument.

The Benefits of the Covid-19 vaccination

Anyone who wants you to be vaccinated, and asks your permission to vaccinate you, will certainly tell you about the benefits of vaccination. We have all been told about it for the last 18 months. But they will be less likely to tell you about the disadvantages of vaccination.

The Disadvantages of the Covid-19 Vaccination

1. It is known that children and young people are less likely to catch Covid-19 virus, less likely than any other age group. You may have heard that many thousands of people have died with the virus - about 130,000 it is claimed. Yet to my knowledge only about 9 young people have died. And all these children had other very serious health issues, and it was these health issues that were a more likely reason for their death.

2. Several drug trials on the Covid-19 vaccines have shown that they can all cause serious side effects, or adverse reactions, in children. Vaccine side effects can be very mild; or they can be very serious; and at worse they can cause death. In other words, the vaccines are causing serious illness and death.

3. Understand this fact. The Covid-19 vaccines are all experimental. They have not been fully tested. So doctors and nurses cannot be certain what the side effects might be, and they do not know (and cannot tell you) how you, or any other person, might be affected by the vaccine. You might get mild symptoms; you might get a serious illness; you might die. And no-one knows. It is a game of chance. And your decision is about whether you want to take the chance?

4. It has already been reported, on the UK government's website, that Covid-19 vaccines have caused the death of 1,625 people (as of today, 20th September 2021). Many of these people have died shortly after being given one of the vaccines. Yet many people suspect, with good reason, that this number could be at least 10 times greater than this, as not all drug side effects are reported, even deaths. So we will not know the real numbers for many years. In the USA, where children are already being vaccinated, there have already been several reports of healthy young children dying.

5. Covid-19 vaccines, during the last 9 to 10 months, are now known to have caused more deaths, and more serious illness and disease, than all the other vaccines taken for the last 20 years - combined.

6. Yet it is not just death that the Covid-19 vaccines are causing. In the UK there have been 1,800,000 reported side effects from people who have received one of the vaccines. These range from very mild, and temporary side effects, to adverse reactions that cause serious, sometimes permanent illness and disease. Some of these illnesses can be life-changing, diseases from which there is no recovery, like Myocarditis and Pericarditis - the inflammation of the heart.

7. The official organisation that usually recommends the use of vaccines have not recommended that children and young people aged 12 to 16 are given these vaccines. This was an important medical decision. But it has been overturned by the government.

  • SO COVID-19 IS A VIRUS THAT DOES NOT AFFECT CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE.
  • BUT COVID-19 VACCINES ARE KNOWN TO CAUSE SERIOUS, LIFE-CHANGING SIDE EFFECTS.

It is these two factors that you need to consider before deciding whether to accept the Covid-19 vaccine.

Most of this information will be denied by anyone who 'offers' to vaccinate you. Their task is to get you vaccinated - for which they will receive payment.

Nor will the information be given to you by anyone who from the Government, the Department of Health, or the National Health Service.

Nor will you hear any of this information on any television programme you might watch, or radio programme you might listen to, or any newspaper you might read.

Even social media outlets, such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, are censoring this information. 

WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW ANY OF THIS!

You need to ask yourself - why have I not been told about the harm vaccines can cause? Why has this not been discussed.

Yet all this information can be found on official government websites, in the UK, in Europe, in the USA, and elsewhere. Yet this official information has not been given to the general public - you and me. It is being routinely dismissed as 'misinformation'. But the information, from official government and medical sources, has been studied and analysed by many alternative news organisations, such as "The Alliance for Natural Health", "The Expose", "UK Column", and "Children's Health Defense". Take a look at them, read for yourself before you make your decision.

So that if, or when, you are faced with the decision, you can say, clearly and confidently, "No thanks, I do not wish to be vaccinated". It is your right to do so.


Friday, 13 August 2021

The Myths of Conventional Medical Success. Eradicating Smallpox.

This is the second of a series of blogs on "The Myths of Conquering Disease". The first blog concerned Measles, and the alleged success of the MMR vaccine in the virtual elimination of this killer childhood disease.

This blog investigates the alleged 'eradication' of smallpox by a vaccine, but it will do more than this. At the time of writing the UK government, on the advise of conventional medical science, is threatening to impose vaccine passports, essentially forced vaccination, mandatory drugging, on the people of Britain. This is aimed, initially, at forcing everyone to take the Covid-19 vaccines.

This may appear to be bad news for those of us who love freedom and liberty, and/or those who use natural medical therapies and the immune system to protect from viruses. Yet this historical survey of smallpox should encourage us. 

This is not the first time our government, in its wisdom, has tried to force harmful vaccines on us. It was also an integral part of the conventional medical establishment (CME's) attempts to treat smallpox back in the 19th century.

The Eradication of Smallpox

This myth about the 'eradication' of smallpox by vaccination is particularly important. When the effectiveness and/or safety of vaccines is questioned the automatic response of the CME is to refer to smallpox. This was a killer disease - and it was conquered by vaccines. Such has been the propaganda success of this story, most people now believe it; unquestioningly. Over the last 70 years it has become one of the enduring myths successfully generated by a failing medical system.

Smallpox has been with us for many centuries. It is believed to date back to Egypt in the 3rd century BCE. Since then, as civilizations grew and expanded, the disease spread all over the world, and smallpox epidemics left devastation in its wake on many, many occasions.

Smallpox was certainly a killer disease in the 17th and 18th century. And although it has not been eradicated (as the CME usually claim) its incidence is now extremely rare. But the decline of smallpox had little, if anything, to do with a vaccine. It was the result of a raft of social reforms and public health measures that improved the impoverished and deeply unhealthy lives of many millions of people during that time. The last serious smallpox epidemic occurred in 1949, and the link between smallpox and vaccines has been more about clever propaganda by the rich, powerful and influential drug companies that historical fact.

Smallpox was at its zenith in the 17th, 18th and early 19th century. The background to this can be simply explained. The Agrarian Revolution removed large numbers of people from their tough, meagre, but relatively healthy existence in rural communities. It separated poor families from their natural element. The displaced people were removed from the villages to the growing urban towns. Here they faced multiple problems, all of which naturally led to ill-health, and a greater vulnerability to infectious disease. There is an excellent book (that you should read) that graphically illustrates the relationship between people's living conditions and the incidence of killer infectious disease.

Humphries and Bysrtianyk. Dissolving Illusions: disease, vaccines, and the forgotten history.     (ISBN 1480216895 or 13:978-1480216891)

I will refer to this book through most of this blog. It provides a graphic description of the living and working conditions these new town dwellers had to endure, and how it inevitably affected their health. They can by simply highlighted here.

  • Towns with a high density population with no amenities.
  • Squalid, damp and overcrowded housing.
  • Abject poverty produced by what were effectively slave labour conditions.
  • Non-existent sewerage.
  • Poor, inadequate and often diseased food supplies.
  • Contaminated drinking water.
  • Diabolically inhumane working conditions, and excessively long working hours, including very young children whose growth and development was stunted by having to work in mines, sweeping chimneys, and similar environments.

These were ideal breeding ground for disease. So there were regular epidemics that killed thousands of people, too weak to resist infection. It was not just smallpox. There were many other killer diseases.

  • Typhoid fever
  • Cholera
  • Dysentary
  • Diphtheria
  • Whooping Cough
  • Typhus
  • Scarlet fever
  • Measles
  • Yellow fever
  • Consumption (TB)

There was little or no protection from these diseases. No-one, certainly not the conventional medics of the day, knew what was causing the epidemics. Epidemics were almost annual events, and people were helpless when they struck their community.

The scourge of smallpox; the introduction of the vaccine; and medical disagreement

Smallpox was just one of these diseases,. It was greatly feared. The cause was unknown. There was no medical treatment. And even if treatment had been available most people would not have been able to afford it.

The 18th century saw many doctors looking for a solution. Variolation was tried in Asia, where people with deliberately infected with smallpox (by blowing dried smallpox scabs into the nose). The individual would get smallpox, a milder form, and if they recovered they were thought to be slightly more more immune to the disease. It was not a great success.

Then in 1796 Edward Jenner developed his vaccine. The story is well known. He used a similar, but less dangerous pox - cowpox - to infect his patients. Jenner believed that this protected people from the more serious smallpox. He pronounced that this procedure gave life-time protection from smallpox. Yet from the earliest days there was no widespread acceptance of this.

    "The accounts from all quarters of the world, wherever vaccination has been introduced ..... the cases of failures are now increased to an alarming proportion".

Humphries and Bystrianyk (H&B) found numerous contemporaneous medical journals that detailed how smallpox could still infect those who previously had smallpox and also these those who had been vaccinated.

    "It attacked many who had had smallpox before, and often severely; almost to death; and of those who had been vaccinated, it left some alone, but fell upon great numbers".

    "In hundreds of instances, persons cow-poxed by JENNER HIMSELF have taken the real smallpox afterwards, and have either died from the disorder, or narrowly escaped with their lives".

H&B described a pattern that is has become familiar to this day within conventional medicine. A battle began between those who believed in the vaccine, but could not (or would not) recognise the dangers of the procedure, and those who were willing to see the dangers of the vaccine, but had no alternative treatment to offer.

Frightened people, threatened by a killer epidemic, will always look for solutions. And Jenner was the only person at the time who was offering a solution. And the medical profession could offer something only if they supported the vaccination process. So it was this side of the battle that came to the fore.

(This was not entirely true; Samuel Hahnemann was developing homeopathy at the same time as Jenner was developing his vaccine. He came up with both safer, and more effective treatments. But that is another story.)

Mandatory Vaccination

This situation continued like this until 1853. During this time H&B noted that 'vaccine hesitancy began. Again, it is a familiar story that is being repeated today: doctors promoting and recommending vaccination, often quite forcibly: and patients recognising that the vaccines were causing serious harm, whilst not preventing reinfection. So a growing number of people recognised the dangers, and questioned the value. of the vaccine.

So in 1853 the UK government imposed mandatory vaccination for smallpox. This was despite the continuing debate about the safety and effectiveness of vaccination. Mandatory vaccination was also imposed in the USA, and elsewhere around the world. In Britain the law was tightened in 1867. The result was that little changed.

    "Compulsory vaccination laws did nothing to curb the problem of smallpox. Boston data begins in 1811 and shows that, starting around 1837, there were periodic smallpox epidemics. Following the 1855 mandates, there were smallpox epidemics in 1859-1860, 1864-1865, and 1867, culminating with the infamous epidemic in 1872-1873. These repeat smallpox epidemics showed that the strict vaccination laws instituted by Massachusetts had no beneficial effect".

H&B outlines considerable contemporaneous evidence that similar outcomes persisted in many other parts of the 'vaccinated' world.

    "Bavaria (Germany) in 1871 of 30,742 cases 29,429 were in vaccinated persons, or 95.7%, and 1,313 in the unvaccinated, or 4.3% . In some of the small local outbreaks of recent years the victims have been nearly all vaccinated (e.g., at Bromley (England) in 1881, a total of 43 cases... (were) all vaccinated".

    "Official returns from Germany show that between 1870 and 1885 one million vaccinated person died from smallpox".

So despite forced vaccination, smallpox epidemic continued to happen regularly, and a large proportion of those who died had been vaccinated. It is a familiar story! H&B reported on a 1970 study that suggested the vaccine was actually causing smallpox infection and death.

    "Because of poor surveillance and vaccine reaction under-reporting, the authors of a 1970 study suspected that the number of smallpox vaccine-related deaths was higher than the reports reflected. This study only examined deaths from 1959 to 1968 in the United States. If the deaths were this high in a country with a modern health-care system, what was the total number of deaths from smallpox vaccination from 1800 to the present across the entire world?"

Again, it is a familiar finding that is likely to be repeated if there is mandatory Covid-19 vaccination, with death figures arising from these vaccines now rising rapidly, they (rather than the virus) will be the cause of patient harm and death.

The Decline of Smallpox

The smallpox death rate began to decline from about 1872 onwards in most parts of the world. This was, of course, during the time of mandatory vaccine. But it was also the time that social and public health reforms were beginning to bear fruit.

So which of these two factors caused the reduction in the incidence of smallpox? First, it is important to note that vaccination was declining from this time to, and the use of vaccination was to continue decline alongside the incidence of smallpox.

    "...after 1872 vaccination coverage rates slowly declined from a high of nearly 90%. Coverage rates plummeted to only 40% by 1909. Despite declining vaccination rates, smallpox deaths remained low, vanishing to near zero after 1906. Smallpox vaccination has always correlated positively to epidemics in the countries that collected data in the vain hope of proving the vaccine's worth". (My emphasis).

The Great Demonstration in Leicester

The decline in vaccination did not arise from by a reassessment by government, or a revaluation by conventional medicine, that the vaccines were not only ineffective, but instrumental in causing smallpox outbreaks. It happened because people lost confidence in vaccination. It was the people who made the decision - and particularly the people of Leicester, England, where, in 1885 'The Great Demonstration' took place.

    "Despite the actions taken by the government to ensure a very high vaccination rate, a massive smallpox epidemic hit not only Leicester but all of England and other parts of the world in the early 1970's. The epidemic in Leicester resulted in thousands of cases of smallpox and hundreds of deaths, shaking to its core many people's belief in the protective power of vaccination".

The Leicester Mercury in July 1884 said that "it must strike the reflective observer as rather singular that all the recent smallpox outbreaks have made their appearance among populations where the laws enforcing vaccination have  been rigorously and systematically carried out". 

Clearly, this paper was speaking during a time when press freedom was still operational! 

The 'Great Demonstration' was, in effect, a Great Revolt against the smallpox vaccine. It was inspired by the recognition of the harm it was causing, and the penalties handed out to people who had the courage to refuse it. H&B gives a full account of the event, describing "fearless people who wanted to be able to make their own decisions for their health and the health of their children, and thus fought for self-determination."

    "Thousands of brave people set off a historical rebellion that successfully countered a prevailing medical belief and heavy-handed government rule."

The Conventional Medical Establishment were horrified, and in their arrogance (not untypical of the arrogance of the CME today) proclaimed that Leicester residents would suffer greatly for their decision to turn their backs on vaccination.

    "They prognosticated that this unvaccinated town with its "highly flammable material" would suffer with the "dread disease" that would spread like "wild-fire on the prairie" and decimate the population".

CME's worst fears never happened. Vaccine supporters were already claiming responsibility for the fall in smallpox numbers, and they believed their own propaganda. They predicted doom but "...the leaders of Leicester held steadfast to what they knew was right and successfully implemented their plan of sanitation, hygiene, and isolation - instead of vaccination.Their grand experiment would test the very notions of freedom of choice, self-determination, and the heart of a flawed medical belief". (My emphasis).

Even 30 years later H&B found that many still believed Leicester would eventually face disaster, quoting a 1914 article in the New York Times, which sounds astonishingly similar to the kind of coverage our mainstream media is using today in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic.

    "Those who openly oppose vaccination or who tell everybody to wait until they come to the bridge of danger before crossing it, are taking a heavy responsibility on their souls".

The Sanitation Revolution

Leicester backed the Sanitation Revolution which was proceeding apace around the world, where action was taken to improve housing, living and working condition, the amelioration of poverty, improved nutrition, and similar. This progress did not come from the CME, it was done for political and social reasons. And it was this social progress that reduced the incidence of smallpox.

It also produced another piece of evidence to prove that vaccines had not vanquished smallpox. During these years epidemics of other killer diseases also declined - typhoid, cholera, dysentery, diphtheria, whooping cough, typhus, scarlet fever, measles, yellow fever, consumption - diseases for which there were no vaccines, and no other conventional medical treatment. 

The early 20th century saw the continuing decline in both the incidence of all these killer infections, which H&P describe as "The Amazing Decline". During this decline smallpox vaccination continued to decline, and their were increasingly fewer cases of smallpox, usually of a much milder nature.

    "By the 1920's it was recognised that the new form of smallpox produced little in the way of symptoms even though few people had been vaccinated.... As the classic and deadly variety of smallpox declined, so did the rate of vaccination".

In the 1920's and 1930's only the mild form of smallpox was evident. The death rate fell close to zero, and by 1946 smallpox had all but vanished. Compulsory vaccination ended in England in 1948. The last smallpox death in the USA was in 1948, even though vaccination continued until 1963.

    "This resulted in an estimated 5,000 unnecessary vaccine-related hospitalisations from generalised rash, secondary infections, and encephalitis".

The rising power of the pharmaceutical industry

Yet throughout the 20th century conventional medicine also became more powerful, largely due to the general belief that science would soon triumph in medicine, curing illness and disease, just as science had produced motorcars, aeroplanes, telecommunications and the like. Indeed, the discovery of insulin, anaesthetics, (leading to the development of surgery) plus other 'hopeful' developments, led to an optimism that has never materialised.

The pharmaceutical industry has become the most profitable in the world, and it has not been shy to use its influence, and its wealth, to take control of governments, monopolise medical organisations, and pay for the mainstream media. Therefore - vaccines eradicated smallpox!

So whilst conventional medicine lost the battle against smallpox it eentually won the wider war. And it is always the victor that writes history. This is why so many people believe that it was the smallpox vaccine that overcame smallpox. This is propaganda, it is not reality. Conventional medicine is a confidence trick. This is why it is properly referred to as "ConMed" - its propaganda has been brilliant.

 The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Conquering Measles.

 

Would you like to read more information about the propaganda myth surrounding the eradication of smallpox as a 'killer' disease? If so, please read this brilliant and insightful book. It 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.



Tuesday, 10 August 2021

Conspiracy Theory. Disinformation. Fake News. And Medicine?

Conspiracy theory is defined by Britannica as "an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy."

Misinformation is defined by Oxford Reference as "a form of propaganda involving the dissemination of false information with the deliberate intent to deceive or mislead."

 Fake News is simply and very succinctly defined by Reuters International and the University of Oxford as "the news you don't believe".

So when we hear someone, anyone, compounding a theory, an idea, or a concept, that runs counter to the 'dominant' or 'official' view we need to listen carefully before we either believe or dismiss it. This is especially so when it concerns health. We need to ask pertinent questions - to both those who are putting forward the idea, and those who are summarily dismissing it.

  • Does the idea make sense to our experience/understanding of what is happening in the world?
  • Is the idea well argued, supported and justified with sound evidence?
  • Who is putting the new idea forward, what are their motives in doing so, and who do they represent? 
  • Who is dismissing the idea as a conspiracy theory, disinformation, or fake news?
  • What do each side have to gain from the acceptance, or the rejection of the idea?
It is always important to remember that just because an idea/concept/theory does not comply with the dominant, or 'official' view, it does not necessarily make it fake news, disinformation, or a conspiracy theory.

Lots of ideas that are routinely dismissed as conspiracy theories/disinformation/fake news, many deservedly so; they sound like nonsense, they make little sense, and they do not begin to meet any of the above criteria. Many can, and should be dismissed as such. Yet before we ever do so we should ensure that we have applied these criteria.

  • Just because something is dismissed as "disinformation", "fake news", or "conspiracy theory" does not necessarily mean that it is!

For instance, some people call the concept of mad-made climate change a conspiracy theory. Climanate change has become the dominant or official version of what is happening to our weather. Yet many people deny this view - and because they question the dominant view they are usually dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists'. In such a situation we need to examine both sides. What are the vested interests of climate change theorists? What are the vested interests of those who are denying climate change? How sound is the science behind climate change? Is the case for man-made climate change properly argued and evidenced? And above all, is there evidence on the ground of climate change - desertification, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, extreme weather events, extensive forest fires, flash flooding, and the like. You don't need to be a scientist to see what is happening in the world!

When we examine an idea that is being dismissed as a conspiracy theory it's always important to understand that even non-scientists can ask questions, not least when these questions are based on our experience and understanding of the world. Does the dominant view, or the 'conspiracy theory', best explain what we see happening to the world? 

Moreover, when we have asked all these questions we can make up our own mind. We are not slaves either science or governments - both of which can be noted for their arrogance. Indeed, we all have a responsibility to look at the evidence and to make up our minds. Did mankind really got to the moon in the 1960's, or was it all staged and filmed on earth? Did 9/11 really happen, or were the twin towers deliberately blown up? You decide!

Health, Disinformation, Fake News and Conspiracy Theory

So let's consider what has become the most important area of 'conspiracy theory' at this present time - the issue of health, and in particular, what is happening to us in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic. The 'conspirators' amongst us claim a variety of things that are being summarily dismissed by conventional medicine - here are just a few.

  • The excessive fear the CME (Conventional Medical Establishment) health campaign has generated about the Covid-19 virus.
  • The clear and deliberate exaggeration of the numbers of Covid-19 cases, and Covid-19 deaths over the last 18 months. 
  • The ongoing failure of hand washing, social distancing, the wearing of masks, and lockdowns, as effective preventative measures against the virus.
  • The emotional, social, economic and medical harm brought about by the policy of the CME.
  • The CME's failure/refusal to advise people about how they can support and strengthen their natural immunity against the virus. 
  • The over-emphasis placed on the logistical success of the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out, and the under-emphasis on their abject failure to prevent infection, or hospitalisation, or death. 
  • The growing evidence that the Covid-19 vaccines are causing serious adverse reactions, including a growing number of deaths; allied with the failure (refusal) of the government, medical authorities and the MSM to inform the general public about this. 
  • The CHE's censorship and punishment of any conventional medical doctor or scientist who opposes or disagrees with the dominant CHE message. 
  • And the MSM's ongoing refusal to acknowledge the work of natural medical therapists with their patients both to prevent and treat the condition.

This is all opposed to the 'dominant' CME view. Information about health is largely controlled by pharmaceutical medicine, and the 'science' on which it claims to be based. Pharmaceutical (or conventional) medicine is now so powerful it controls most national health provision in the UK, and in most countries around the world. It dominates most national governments. It has infiltrated and taken over most of the mainstream media (MSM). 

This domination is part of what I usually refer to, in this blog and elsewhere, as the CME. So what is the agenda of the CME? It has told us, persistently, for many years, that it is winning the war against illness and disease; that it is based on medical science, and that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are keeping us healthy. And at the same time it dismisses other natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, acupuncture, herbalism, chiropractor, et al, as 'unscientific'; and so they do not work. 

Anyone who contradicts this dominant CME agenda, for example over the Covid-19 pandemic, and the life-saving importance of the Covid-19 vaccines, is now routinely dismissed as peddling fake news, disinformation. We are conspiracy theorists!

Are they right? Let's apply the rules. First, is the CME winning the battle against illness and disease, as it claims; and more specifically how well is it doing in its battle with the Covid-19 virus?

1. Does the idea make sense of our experience/understanding of what is happening in the world?

The CME is very clearly not winning the war against illness and disease. To determine this we have only to examine the rapidly growing incidence of chronic disease, any chronic disease, to discover that more people are now being affected, more seriously, than ever before. It is undeniable fact that we are facing epidemic levels of allergy, arthritis, autism, cancer, dementia, heart/lung/kidney/liver disease, et al, never before experienced.

And after 18 months the CME's response to Covid-19 is still struggling to make any impact on the virus, even after massive vaccination campaigns. In time, all epidemics subside, even the Black Death, the Great Plague, and Spanish flu, etc. But it will be different this time; it will not be a natural decline - the CME taking credit for it!

Yet to question either of these assumptions is considered to be disinformation, fake news; and anyone doing so is dismissed by government, by official health organisations, and by the MSM, as conspiracy theorists. We are described and dismissed as 'vaccine hesitant', as 'anti-vaxxers'  - but without any attempt to explain or discuss with us what our position is. 

And any mention of this 'disinformation' is now being routinely censored by social media organisations. Why does the CME need censorship to win their argument? It is necessary for the MSM to ensure that most people continue to think and believe it is winning the battle against illness and disease, and the war against Covid-19.

2. Is the idea well argued, and supported and justified with sound evidence?
The CME's treatment of illness and disease, its effectiveness and safety, is never seriously questioned or challenged; and hasn't been for the last 100+ years. Most people get their medical information from two sources, doctors and the MSM, and both usually toe the CME's line. So most people continue to believe the repeated assertions that conventional medicine is both safe and effective. Yet there is precious little evidence to support the claims.

I have argued most of the 'conspiracy' theories in this blog, not least during the Covid19 pandemic. They offer an alternative explanation about what has happened to us, and what can be readily observed in the world. 

  • The Covid-19 campaign has generated high levels of fear amongst the general population. 
  • The overall mortality rate has not increased significantly during the months of the Covid-19 outbreak, and does not warrant this level of fear.
  • Hand washing, social distancing, the wearing of masks, and lockdowns, has neither significantly prevented or reduced the incidence of the disease.
  • It harm to our emotional, social, economic and medical lives cannot be denied; and the harm has been caused by CME policies, and will have to be dealt with in the months and years to come.
  • The CME'has rarely, if ever, advised us about the importance of the immune system in protecting us from the Covid-19 virus, or indeed any other virus.
  • Even with the emphasis placed on the logistical success of the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out, the CME remains reluctant to allow vaccinated people to resume their lives; and vaccinated people continue to contract the virus, they are being hospitalised, and are still dying. 
  • The Covid-19 vaccines themselves are now causing serious adverse reactions, and the number of reported deaths are increase every week. Yet neither government, the CME authorities, or the MSM have mentioned this to the general public. It can be found in official data; but we are not being told about it.
  • The MSM is involved heavily in censorship. They put forward the government/CME position exclusively; and anyone who disagrees are not given a platform.
  • The CME is disciplining and punishing any conventional medical doctor or scientist who disagrees with their dominant message. 
  • And the MSM continues to neglect, and refuses to acknowledge the work being done by natural medical therapists with their patients.
3. Who is putting the idea forward, what are their motives, and who do they represent? 
One of the problems with the medical 'conspiracy theorists', those who do not comply with the dominant medical explanation of the Covid-19 pandemic, is that there are very few organisations sufficiently strong to get its message across. Nor is there any significant co-ordination between them. Indeed, about the only thing that unites the so-called 'conspiracy theorists' is their genuine concern about the harm that the CME is causing by it's response to the virus - to the economy, to our mental health, to social life, to children's education, and to personal freedoms and liberty. 
 
So it is difficult to see any major vested interest that is backing this 'disinformation' campaign!
 
4. Who is dismissing the idea as a conspiracy theory?
Clearly, the CME is currently dominant in health care provision. The pharmaceutical industry ,which leads and controls the CME, is immensely rich, powerful and influential. It has used its position to control national governments, most medical provision, and the mainstream media - indeed, most of the sources of information that the public can use to inform itself about health, illness, disease, and medical treatment. And it is now seeking to extend its control to the information that can be put on social media outlets.
 
So those claiming the existence of "a conspiracy" are back by powerful and influential vested interests. It is understandable that the CME wishes to maintain its dominant position. It has a lot to lose and a lot to protect. It is losing its battle with illness and disease, and is desperate to attack and condemn anyone and everyone who is not 'on message', or who speaks against them.

So the health 'conspiracy theorists' are facing an enormously powerful vested interest, whose very credibility is under threat by its ongoing failure to treat illness and disease successfully, the chronic disease that its drugs and vaccines have cause over the last 70-80 years.

5. What do the two sides have to gain from the acceptance, or the rejection of the idea?
There is only one side of this dispute that can point to any "gains" from the routine dismissal of the dominant message of the CME. It is the CME. Rather than responding to the criticism they condemn it as a 'conspiracy'. Rather than discussing the issues they deny that there are any issues.

It is becoming palpably clear that the "disinformation" is coming from just one side of this health argument. Consider just a few aspects of the so-called 'conspiracy theory':

  • the "fake news" is that Covid-19 has been a major health crisis; the correct news is that average mortality rates have not increased significantly during this so-called pandemic.
  • the "fake news" is that the Covid-19 vaccines are effective and safe, and will enable social life to return to normal
  • the information that demonstrates the vaccines are ineffective and harm comes from the data published by the government and conventional medical authorities
  • the failure to provide that information to the general public is 'disinformation' of the very highest order.
In brief, those who are being accused being "conspiracy theorists" are the people who are more accurately describing what is happening, and what can be seen to be going on in the world. Indeed, it is a more convincing explanation than that given by CME's dominant message. It is the government who is providing "disinformation". The MSM are the purveyors of "fake news". It is the CME who represents the "conspiracy theorist".


Wednesday, 21 July 2021

Pharmaceutical Drug Regulation. It's primary task is to protect patients. Yet drug regulators don't - find out why here

How do we know if pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are safe?

How can patients protect themselves from the harm caused by adverse drug reaction?

Ever since the Thalidomide tragedy in the 1970's every nation now has a drug regulator. Their primary task is to protect patients - you are me. Yet they don't. The last 50 years has seen a huge number of pharmaceutical drug and vaccines - approved by regulators - often used for decades - only to be belatedly withdrawn or banned because of unacceptable levels of patient harm.

Even the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines we are prescribed today have very serious adverse reactions. How do we know this? They are listed in the patient information leaflet that comes with each pack of pills, and each vaccine. They make is clear that today's drugs are no safer than yesterday's banned drugs.

One problem is that the reporting of drug/vaccine side effects is known to be a small fraction of the total number of people who have been harmed - estimated to be about 1%. I have written about this before, many times, see for instance The Under-Reporting of Adverse Drug/Vaccine Reactions.

What this means is that pharmaceutical drug side effects are under-reported to extent the harm they cause is under-estimated by 100 times. 

Yet the under-reporting reporting systems (the 'Yellow Card' system in Britain) is not the only problem with drug regulators. What is clear is that when large numbers of serious, life threatening, life altering adverse drug/vaccine reactions are reported - no action is taken by the regulator, the MHRA in the UK. 

Drug Regulators are content to explain away patient harm, they discount adverse reactions, they seek to justify side effects. They do not warn the public.

Never has this been clearer than during the past 8 months. To demonstrate my point I will highlight the weekly reports of MHRA (British Drug Regulator) on serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines that it has received. The latest data can be found on the UK's government website.Between 9th December 2020 and 7th July 2021 the MHRA states that it has received reports of 1,470 deaths, as well as severe allergic reactions (Anaphylaxis), blood clotting, Bell's Palsy, Thrombo-Embolic events with concurrent low platelets, capillary leak syndrome, menstrual disorders and vaginal bleeding, inflammation of the heart, delayed hypersensitivity reactions, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and "events with a fatal outcome".

It is important to remember that whilst this information is published on a relatively obscure government website, the full enormity of the patient harm these vaccines are causing has not been relaid to the general public - either by the government, by the medical authorities, or by the mainstream media (MSM). They continue to urge us to take the vaccine, threaten us with 'vaccine passports' and mandatory vaccination if we don't comply. The vaccines, we are told, are safe. 

So people who are being vaccinated do not know about this information; they are told for over 8 months, that the vaccines are safe. They are, therefore, unable to make an informed decision based on all the evidence.

So it is instructive to see how the MHRA presents this patient harm, and what action it is proposing to take to prevent this harm. Each week the number of reported serious adverse reactions, including "events with a fatal outcome", increases. So how is this drug regulator protecting us?

I will take you through the lengthy document in order to highlight this.

SUMMARY

This starts with a reminder that over 128,000 have died of Covid-19. Bear in mind this figure includes anyone who died within 28 days of being tested positive with Covid; so it includes those who died "with it", and those who died "of it". This should be borne in mind. It goes on to describe the 3 vaccines that have been used in the UK, leaving us in no doubt that "vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from Covid-19"

Not much room for doubt there! Yet this is actually one of the more surprising statements. I am not sure that a drug regulator, when reviewing a drug, should tell us it is the best treatment. Their concern should be whether it causes patient harm; but for some reason this is what the MHRA wants to tell us

The MHRA goes on to state that all three vaccines have all been tested by the drug companies, and authorised by the MHRA, following "thorough review(s) of safety, quality and efficacy" - but failing to mention that these vaccines did not go through the full testing and review procedures, and have only been given 'emergency' approval.

However, the MHRA then says its role was to "continually monitor safety", and that they had "a proactive strategy" to do so. It introduces the Yellow Card process for the first time, before making the first attempt to discount the importance of reported side effects they will outline later in the document.

        "The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination. This is particularly the case when millions of people are vaccinated, and especially when most vaccines are being given to the most elderly people and people who have underlying illness."

Then it outlines the number of Yellow Cards it has received emphasising that the "data cannot be used to derive side effect rates or compare the safety profile of Covid-19 vaccines", and that most side effects "relate to injection site reactions (sore arm, for example) and generalised symptoms such as flu-like illness". Nothing too serious to worry about, then. We are further reassured. "These type of reactions reflect the normal immune response triggered by the body to the vaccines".

Severe Allergy

The MHRA informs us there were "early reports of anaphylaxis" so it has "amended its advice". They are "very rare" reports, and all of them are generally "associated with other vaccines". Nothing to worry about here either, then.

Blood Clots

These are "extremely rare" and the MHRA has undertaken "a thorough review". MHRA singled out the AstraZenica vaccine, stating that if a patient had 'difficulties' after the first vaccine the second should not be taken. There is no mention that other drug regulators have 'suspended' the use of this vaccine for this very reasons

Conclusion

This section just repeats that "the vaccines are the best way to protect people from Covid-19 and have already saved  thousands of lives". No problem there, then. The MHRA will review the vaccines; but they have already decided they are the best thing on offer!

1. INTRODUCTION

Another description of the Yellow Card scheme, this time stating that the MHRA plays "an active role" in responding to the Covid-19 pandemic.

What is Yellow Card?

Yes, the Yellow Card scheme is introduced - yet again - this time followed by a long message, discounting the importance of the reports that are received from doctors and patients.

        "We ask for any suspicions to be reported, even if the reporter isn’t sure if it was caused by the vaccine. Reports to the scheme are known as suspected adverse reactions (ADRs). Many suspected ADRs reported on a Yellow Card do not have any relation to the vaccine or medicine and it is often coincidental that they both occurred around the same time. The reports are continually reviewed to detect possible new side effects that may require regulatory action, and to differentiate these from things that would have happened regardless of the vaccine or medicine being administered, for instance due to underlying or undiagnosed illness. It is therefore important that the suspected ADRs described in this report are not interpreted as being proven side effects of COVID-19 vaccines.

So they may be reported, but the MHRA is already set to discount and dismiss them.

2. YELLOW CARD REPORTS

Vaccine doses administered

This section stresses how many vaccine doses have been administered in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. It presumably sets us up to see how 'uncommon' and 'rare' the reported adverse reactions are, but nowhere mentions that usually only 1% of side effects are ever reported.

Yellow Card Reporting Trends

Again, this section begins by discounting the trends, even before we know what the trends are! Recall, the primary task of drug regulators is to protect the patient from adverse drug reactions (ADR's) not to support the drug or vaccine. 

        "A report of a suspected ADR to the Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine, only that the reporter has a suspicion it may have. Underlying or previously undiagnosed illness unrelated to vaccination can also be factors in such reports."

This section provides us with the total numbers of reported ADR's in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

3. ANALYSIS OF DATA

In this section MHRA outlines the enormity of their task, "given the huge scale of the Covid-19 immunisation programme" and outlines what that task is. The first, it says, is "to rapidly detect, confirm, and quantify any new risks and weigh these against the expected benefits. We then can take any necessary action to minimise risks to individuals."

Absolutely right, except that the second task goes some way to undermining the first task, yet more discounting - even before we have any details of the ADR's. The MHRA is clearly preparing us for the worst!

        "... we need to very quickly establish if any serious medical events which are temporally-related to vaccination are merely a coincidental association. These associations are likely while we are still in the midst of a national epidemic, and because many of the millions of people offered the vaccine in the early phase of a vaccination campaign are elderly and/or have underlying medical conditions, which increases the likelihood of unrelated illnesses occurring soon after vaccination. As mentioned above, the nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven adverse reactions, and some may have happened regardless of vaccination."

Overall Safety

This section begins with yet more prevarication, more discounting of the reports of patient harm it has received, more implicit support of the vaccines.

        "As with any vaccine, the COVID-19 vaccines will cause side effects in some people. The total number and the nature of Yellow Cards reported so far is not unusual for a new vaccine for which members of the public and healthcare professionals are encouraged to report any suspected adverse reaction."

And the majority of side effects are (of course) minor, "a sudden feeling of cold with shivering/shaking accompanied by a rise in temperature, often with sweating, headache (including migraine-like headaches), nausea, muscle aches and feeling unwell, starting within a day of having the vaccine".

Really? Nothing to worry about then. And we are now half way through the paper.......

Comments on Specific Reports

Only now does the MHRA move to more serious ADR's. But in doing so they make comments that undermine and underplay the seriousness of the reports.

Anaphylaxis. "The nature and frequency of these reports is in line with that reported in previous updates, and severe allergic reactions to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine remain very rare. The MHRA’s guidance remains that those with a previous history of allergic reactions to the ingredients of the vaccine should not receive it."

And what have the MHRA done? They have recommended that some people do not get the vaccine. They continue to monitor the situation. And the product information leaflet has been updated. Heavy stuff!

Bell's Palsy. "The number of reports of facial paralysis received so far is similar to the expected natural rate and does not currently suggest an increased risk following the vaccines. We will continue to monitor these events...." Heavy discounting here then, accompanied with minimal response! 

Thrombo-embolic events with concurrent low platelets. The MHRA discusses this in relation to young people, and with females. So there are concerns, but no concerns that require action because "on the basis of this ongoing review, the advice remains that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks in the majority of people" (my emphasis). So some harm to some people is acceptable, as long as most people are not harmed. The "risk-benefit" analysis is just a statement, of course, no published calculation! In several other countries it is these 'thrombo-embolic events' that has led to the ongoing suspension of one or more of the vaccines by some drug regulators.

Capillary Leak Syndrome. Only 8 cases have been reported; but remember that with 1% of side effects are ever being reported, this could mean 800 cases. As usual we are reassured, and minimal actions has been taken. "... 2 people had a history of capillary leak syndrome. This is an extremely rare relapsing-remitting condition and triggers for relapses are not well understood. As a precautionary measure, the MHRA is advising that COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca is not used in people who have previously experienced episodes of capillary leak syndrome. The product information will be updated to reflect this advice." 

Menstrual disorders (period problems) and unexpected vaginal bleeding. There have apparently been 22,981 reports received about this; so this is heavily discounted on the basis that this number "is low in relation to both the number of females who have received COVID-19 vaccines to date and how common menstrual disorders are generally". It would appear that the MHRA is taking no action at all about this. So, you women, just get on with it, suffer - there's a lot of it around! A little more will make little difference.

Inflammation of the Heart. Both Myocarditis and Pericarditis have been reported, and the MRNA admits that the numbers of reports is many more than the annual rate for this disease. It says that similar reports are coming from other countries following the vaccines. But we are not to worry! Of course not! "These reports are extremely rare, and the events are typically mild with individuals usually recovering within a short time with standard treatment and rest." And we are assured that the MHRA will continue to monitor the situation.

Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions. If anyone gets this, they are advised to get medical advice, presumably from the same doctor who recommended the vaccine! Otherwise the MHRA is taking no action.

Guillain-Barre Syndrome. This syndrome, which is linked to many other vaccines, is being monitored but at this time, "based on the available evidence .... (the MHRA) are not able to confirm or rule out a causal relationship with the vaccine". And, needless to say, it is taking no action.

Events with a Fatal Outcome. Death is, of course, the ultimate "side effect" of every pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. This is the MHRA's first response - before it even tells us how many deaths have been reported following Covid-19 vaccines.

        "Vaccination and surveillance of large populations means that, by chance, some people will experience and report a new illness or events in the days and weeks after vaccination. A high proportion of people vaccinated early in the vaccination campaign were very elderly, and/or had pre-existing medical conditions. Older age and chronic underlying illnesses make it more likely that coincidental adverse events will occur, especially given the millions of people vaccinated."

 So death is an understandable result of medical treatment. The UK's drug regulator seeks to explain away vaccine-caused death before it does anything else. It goes on to defend the harm caused by medical treatment by comparing the Covid-19 vaccine death rates with 'natural' death rates. It comes to an inevitably conclusion. These people would have died anyway!

        "Based on age-stratified all-cause mortality in England and Wales taken from the Office for National Statistics death registrations, several thousand deaths are expected to have occurred, naturally, within 7 days of the many millions of doses of vaccines administered so far, mostly in the elderly."

Well, that's alright then. The MHRA finally tells us that there have been 1,470 reported deaths. And it leaves it there. No further explanation. No effort to discover a link between the vaccines and these deaths. 

This is literally an unbelievable response from the drug regulator whose primary task is to protect patients from harmful (not to say lethal) adverse reactions.

4. CONCLUSION

Just as it started, just as it did consistently throughout, the conclusions drawn by the MHRA, the agency whose primary role is to protect patients from dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, defends the Covid-19 vaccines, regardless of the harm they are doing.  

        ".... over 128,382 people across the UK have died within 28 days of a positive test for coronavirus. Vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from COVID-19. A national immunisation campaign has been underway since early December 2020."

The MHRA, alongside other national drug regulators, has long been accused of being an arm of the pharmaceutical industry, and nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in this document.

It repeats that the vaccines have been tested; and states that "data is now available on the impact of the vaccination campaign in reducing infections and illness in the UK".

Most trains running from any two cities get most of their customers there safely. Most restaurants feed their diners safely. Most industries have a workforce that survive their working conditions. But none of them are allowed to kill 1,470 people - and do little or nothing about it! 

        "... all vaccines and medicines have side effects", they tell us.

Ask a train company, a restaurant, and all other industries, how much harm, injury and death they can cause before serious questions are asked, and decisive action taken. It would seem that the same rules do not apply to the pharmaceutical industry.

        "Following widespread use of these vaccines across the UK, the vast majority of suspected adverse reaction reports so far confirm the safety profile seen in clinical trials. Most reports relate to injection-site reactions (sore arm for example) and generalised symptoms such as a ‘flu-like’ illness, headache, chills, fatigue, nausea, fever, dizziness, weakness, aching muscles, and rapid heartbeat. Generally, these reactions are not associated with more serious illness and likely reflect an expected, normal immune response to the vaccines."

So all is well with the Covid-19 vaccines. There is nothing for us to worry about it. And the government agrees - because this is published on the government website. And as the mainstream media agrees because they have not told us about any of this. Everyone agrees.

So the message from the MHRA is implicitly clear. "We have a duty to announce these reported side effects, so here they are. But rather than do our duty and take effective action to protect patients, we will defend the drug companies, and the drugs and vaccine they market and profit from. Patient harm is an acceptable side effect". And perhaps they can do this because they know government, and the MSM, will not disagree with this assessment.

        "We take every report of a suspected ADR seriously and encourage everyone to report through the Yellow Card scheme."

REALLY?