Ignoring the main cause of disease: Cancer

"Together we will beat cancer"

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

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

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

So how successful has this strategy been?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newborns to get rapid genetic disease diagnosis (2022)

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

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

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

How breakthrough coronavirus drug dexamethasone was found (2020).

Coronavirus: encouraging results in vaccines trials (2020).

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

Breakthrough treatment for MS patient (2016).

Gene editing technique could transform future (2016)

Windpipe Transplant Breakthrough (2008)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Failure of Conventional Medicine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    * The vaccines were exacerbating the problem.

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

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

Indeed, they made all these outcomes far worse.

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

    So what will the outcome be? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is our task to ensure they are not successful.

Alzheimers Drug Lecanemab Hailed as Momentous Breakthrough in Treatment of Dementia

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

Postscript

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

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

  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Partygate and Beergate. The stupidity of enforcing autocratic laws and Covid-19 rules and the prosecution of those who created and defended the stupidity!

UK politics is dominated by a 'debate' about Covid-19 rules during lockdown. This constitutes nonsense, built on the foundations of more nonsense and complete incompetence.

Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, constructed and imposed the Covid-19 lockdown rules on us all, reinforcing their importance in incessant daily press conferences. His government passed the deeply undemocratic legislation that enabled these autocratic rules to be legally drawn up. And he watched on as the police tried to enforce them.  

• He then broke his own rules, apparently on numerous occasions.  
• And then lied to Parliament about his law-breaking.
• Party Gate had emerged!
  

Sir Keir Starmer, as Leader of the Opposition, did not construct or impose the Covid-19 lockdown rules, but he regularly criticised the government for not imposing them more strictly for longer. He also fully supported the autocratic legislation that underpinned the rules. Then, as Party Gate emerged, he criticised Johnson for breaking the rules, but it is now being suggested that he too broke the rules.

I do not speak for either man, but I do castigate them both for their part in creating and supporting these crass, stupid, senseless, and ultimately useless rules in the first place. Beer Gate had emerged.

It has long been my opinion that stupid rules should be resisted and broken in order to demonstrate their stupidity. Yet this was not what either politician did. They supported the rules, emphasised their importance, and then broke them. As frontline politicians this was their second act of rank stupidity - stupidity built on the foundations of stupidity.

Both men are both equally responsible for the very predictable failure of very silly rules that were never going to be either an adequate or sensible response to the pandemic.

Yet it is important to remember that neither of these politicians was actually responsible for these autocratic laws, or the senseless Covid-19 rules. The policy of both the UK government and opposition was (we were regularly told) "informed/guided by the science". Pontius Pilates ruled 2000 years ago, and like him, Johnson and Starmer washed their hands of the responsibility: these were the rules put forward by SAGE, a collection of mainstream medical scientists whose opinions were sacrosanct and unchallengeable. It was the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) that ruled!

This was why there was so little difference between government and opposition policies towards the pandemic, why neither Conservative, Labour or any other politician, came up with anything better, or even marginally more sensible. That is what happens within an autocracy - laws are enacted, rules are made - and no-one questions them (and anyone who does is pilloried for doing so). The problem was that from the very beginning conventional medicine admitted it had no treatment. It could only recommend social distancing, face masks, testing and tracking, lockdown, and the like. It was all they had to offer; but to hide their embarrassment they had to offer something, anything!  And then the debacle of the Covid-19 vaccines.

Stupidity and incompetence underlay two years of failed medical policies all the political parties pursued. It may be that Johnson and Starmer both realised that both the policies and the rules were stupid. But what they apparent did not recognise is that you cannot propose policies, and enforce rules, and then break them - however stupid and unreasonable they might be.

What we should be doing now is to ask all our politicians (in every country of the world):

• Why did you fail to question the medical science from whom you sought advice?
• Why did you so meekly support autocratic laws, and nonsensical rules?
• Why have you not recognised that conventional/pharmaceutical medicine is failing?
• Why have you not learnt that vaccines have never worked?
  

Will they ever realise that their total and abject reliance on conventional medical science is what is bankrupting our national health provision, and causing the epidemic levels of sickness and disease we are now experiencing?

 

Autism rate rises to 1 in 44 children in USA. And we are still told the cause is 'unknown'

At the end of 2021, the CDC announced that autism rates in the USA had risen to 1 in 44 children. They published an analysis of 2018 data from nearly a dozen USA states confirming that the autism rate for 8 year old children had risen from 1 in 54 in 2016, from 1 in 150 in 2000, whilst in the 1990's prevalence estimates ranged from 1 in 2,500 to 1 in 1,000. The autism rate is also high in France, 1 in 144, in Iceland, 1 in 139, and in Austria, 1 in 138. The study said this:

            “We found autism prevalence to be 3.6% in New Jersey overall, but higher in one region (5.4%) and in multiple areas approaching 7.0%. We identified significant variation in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) prevalence by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES) and school district size. Mapping prevalence in smaller, well-specified, regions may be useful to better understand the true scope of ASD, disparities in ASD detection and the factors impacting ASD prevalence estimation.”

In July 2020 I wrote a blog on the subject of autism, referring specifically to 157 research papers that supported the Vaccine-Autism link. I put a link to this webpage on my Facebook page, who quickly tagged this as "False rating on content shared by Safe Medicine Homeopathy' and that it's been reviewed by Science Feedback. Facebook also put an article against my blog entitled "How we know vaccines do not cause autism", and threatened to reduce the distribution of my page because 'misleading content', stating:

            "Pages and websites that repeatedly publish or share misleading content will see their overall distribution reduced and their ability to monetise, advertise and register as a news Page removed. People will also be able to see if a Page has a history of sharing false news."

This is typical of Facebook, and social media generally. They have succumbed to the pressure from the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) to censor anything and everything that speaks against their business interests - selling pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. The CME already controls the mainstream media, and now want to get social media under its control.

So autism is an epidemic, and year by year it is getting worse! And the CME is doing everything it can to deny that the drugs and vaccines listed here have anything to do with it, and to stop us getting to know.

So do the 157 research papers exist? 

Yes, they do; you can see them all outlined here for yourself if you click on the link, and then read each one of the studies for yourself.

The position of the CME is that there is no autism epidemic. Denial and censorship reign. J.B Handley outlines and demolishes their position in his blog, "There is no Autism epidemic - a pernicious rumour".

I too have dealt with it too, in my "Iatrogenic Disease" and "Why Homeopath?" e-books. This is what I said in the former.

 

"The conventional medical system are in denial about the cause of Autism. Indeed, it has worked very hard to hide from the public the cause of Autism. The NHS Choices website typifies this approach when it says:

               'The exact cause of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is currently unknown. It's a complex condition and may occur as a result of genetic predisposition (a natural tendency), environmental or unknown factors.'

It goes on to talk about inherited genes that make some children more vulnerable to ASD. It speaks about 'environmental triggers', such as premature birth, and exposure to alcohol in the womb. It says there is 'no conclusive evidence' linking either pollution or maternal infections in pregnancy to the condition. 

It does say that 'certain medications' are a possible trigger, and does mentions Sodium Valproate (a pharmaceutical drug used to treat epilepsy during pregnancy, and known to cause other birth defects).

Yet the NHS goes much further in its denial of the autism epidemic, and dismisses out of hand any connection between autism and childhood vaccinations. 

    'In the past, a number of things were linked to ASD, but extensive research has found no evidence to suggest that any of these contribute to the condition.' (My emphasis).

These 'past connections' include the MMR vaccine, and thimerosol, the mercury-based compound that is used as a preservative in many vaccines. Wikipedia, always a supporter of the conventional medical establishment, goes along with these denials.

    'Many causes of autism have been proposed, but understanding of the theory of causation of autism and the other autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is incomplete. Research indicates that genetic factors predominate. The heritability of autism, however, is complex, and it is typically unclear which genes are responsible. In rare cases, autism is strongly associated with agents that cause birth defects. Many other causes have been proposed, such as childhood immunizations, but numerous epidemiological studies have shown no scientific evidence supporting any link between vaccinations and autism.'

Most sources of information about autism follow this conventional medical line, and come up with similarly unsatisfactory explanations about the causes of autism. More than any other illness there is a complete denial that vaccines have played any part in causing the autism epidemic we have witnessed in recent decades, and which continues to grow.     

     'However, one of the leading conventional medical authorities, CDC (Centers for Disease Control) were forced to admit that there was no scientific proof that vaccines do not cause autism, conceding that reassurances to parents that childhood vaccines don't cause autism was not based on any scientific evidence."

 

Although this was written several years ago nothing has changed. It would appear that however serious the autism epidemic becomes, conventional medicine will continue to deny that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines might be the cause. The CME is in complete denial, and this has serious consequences for the children of the future, and the parents who are not being told about the possible/like association.

Complete denial is a position the CME adopts when other chronic diseases, like those mentioned here, becomes epidemic.

• We don't know what causes it, but it definitely isn't us! 

As long as the CME sticks to this stance it will continue to cause an increase in autism (not to mention other chronic diseases), AND it will remain incapable of developing any relevant response or treatment. 

So the Autism epidemic is likely only to get progressively worse!