The Epidemic Rise of Chronic Disease: and the Bonanza of Pharmaceutical Drug Taking: a Known Link?

We are sicker now than we have ever before. I found these figures on Twitter. They provide a general idea about the percentage increase in the incidence of chronic diseases since 1990, that is, during the last 30 years. I do not know who worked out the percentages, their absolute accuracy, or to which country, or countries they apply.

ADHD                     plus 819%
Alzheimer's             plus 299%
Autism                    plus 2,094%
Bipolar                    plus 10,833%
Celiac Disease        plus 1,111%
Chronic Fatigue      plus 11,027%
Depression              plus 280%
Diabetes                  plus 305%
Fibromyalgia          plus 7,272%
Hypothyroidism      plus 702%
Lupus                      plus 787%
Osteoarthritis          plus 449%
Sleep Apnea            plus 430%

Yet I do know, and we should all know from our own experience, that the figures are broadly accurate. Even the conventional medical establishment does not deny them (they just rarely talk about them). The rise and rise of chronic disease is rarely challenged, and never explained, by medical authorities.

This epidemic rise of chronic disease reflects the reality of our declining health. There has undoubtedly been an enormous increase in levels of illness in the last 30 years. Indeed, these figures would be far, far worse if the base year chosen had been 1950 - that is since the beginning of the consumption bonanza of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines began.

Moreover, many other chronic illnesses could have been included in this list which would have further underlined the problem in recent decades: for example, cancer, allergy, asthma, epilepsy, heart, liver, kidney, and lung disease, osteoporosis, and many others.

We are getting sicker and we should all be aware of this. There are lots of other ways of observing this trend, not least the growing pressure on health services in the drug-taking countries of the world, and the ongoing patient demands for medical treatment, and ever-increasing resources to provide them.

More and more money is now being spent on pharmaceutical medicine than ever before. So why are pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines not working? More and more of us are consuming more and more for longer and longer periods of time.

This blog has regularly pointed to the fact that there are regular announcements (through government and mainstream media outlets) of ‘medical breakthroughs’,  new 'wonder drugs' that will overcome this or that disease. So why are these ‘medical breakthroughs’ not bearing fruit, why are we not getting better?

Moreover, each new 'medical breakthrough' is costing more and more. National health services around the world, but especially in high drug-taking countries, are struggling to cope with the medical demands of increasingly sick patients. Many national health services are close to bankruptcy.

So why do we continue spending more and more on the provision of the same health services, year on year, only to discover, year by year, that all that happens is that we get sicker? For the last 20 years my suggestion has long been that it is time for us to put the two trends together!

That the increased consumption of pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines are directly linked with these massively increased levels of sickness.

However, they are rarely linked together. Increased sickness has invariably been accompanied by increased demands for, and the provision of, more £$billions to be spent on the same old (failed) medicine. So each time the vicious is replicated, more spending, and more ill-health.

So are the two trends directly linked? And if so, where is the evidence for such a link? 

The answer is simple. The link is easily and clearly explained by something that is widely known, and a matter of recrod - “drug side effects”, or “adverse drug/vaccine reactions”. Conventional medicine knows a lot about adverse drug reactions. This knowledge is published within conventional medical literature. It is readily available to anyone who wants to investigate and understand the link between ill-health and drugs. The problem is that the llink is not made by governments, or the mainstream media, or the conventional medical establishment. It is their silence on this matter that suggests that they have each become part and parcel of the pharmaceutical establishment. 

Indeed, the situation is worse than this. Government, the mainstream media, and conventional medicine are each promoting pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. They subliminally do much of the advertising for drug companies. And they usually refuse to inform patients about the link between known ‘side effects’ and increased levels of sickness.

In another recent blog I argued that when disease causation is discussed, most everything known to be, or thought to be causative of disease is mentioned; but pharmaceutical drugs are usually notably omitted. Whilst the blog focuses on dementia and Alzheimer's disease similar arguments can be made for most, if not all the other chronic diseases mentioned above. It is all there, in conventional medical literature.

So if YOU suffer from a chronic disease, what pharmaceutical drugs have you taken that might have caused your illness?

I have done the work for you! Have a look in my e-book, "Iatrogenic Disease: the disease-inducing-effects (DIEs) of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines". You will see here that over 70 of the most common chronic diseases are covered, and some of the drugs and vaccines known to cause them as "a side effect".

Yet you do not have to take my word for it. Everyone can do their own research. If you are taking pharmaceutical drugs for any illness, have a look at the 'Patient Information Leaflets' (PILs) that come with each drug packet, and with each vaccine. They all outline most (although not all) the known side effects of that drug.

The solution might be to stop taking pharmaceutical drugs. Yet do not stop taking them without consulting your doctor. Although taking them may well be causing serious illness and disease, to stop taking them suddenly can also be a problem. Drug taking is a no-win situation for the patient!

The prospect of contracting chronic disease might be terrifying. But it is time conventional medicine began to acknowledge that the drugs/vaccines they use are a significant part of the problem, and reducing drug taking is part of the solution.

And for those people who want to stop or reduce their consumption of drugs, they would do well to do what many people are now doing (and I did over 50 years ago) - to look at the role of alternative medical therapies, like homeopathy, which are invariably safer, and more effective medical therapies.

 

The Semmelweis Reflex. Is Medical Science Reliable?

The Semmelweis Reflex questions whether medical 'science' is really as 'scientific' as it believes. has been described on this website as follows:

        "Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian obstetrician who disproved the belief that post-operations deaths were caused by ‘poison air’ in a hospital ward. The work done by Semmelweis all but removed puerperal fever from the maternity units he worked in. His colleagues and superiors derided his work while he was alive but antiseptic surgery drastically reduced post-operation fatalities"

The success of Ignaz Semmelweis, in the 1840's, was rewarded by him being dismissed from his post, and never being able to attain another post within medicine. He died, in obscurity, when he was in his early 40's. The Semmelweis Reflex is succinctly described by 'Science Direct' as follows:

        "Semmelweis reflex is a human behavioural tendency to stick to pre-existing beliefs and to reject fresh ideas that contradict them (despite adequate evidence)". 

This reflex in conventional medicine was alive before and Semmelweis was alive, and continues to thrive today. Dr John Campbell described the reflex in some detail in this video which is well worth viewing. It introduced me to this man's unfortunate career, and his fate at the hands of the conventional medical establishment in the 19th century.

I then read an article by Roman Bystrianyk on the smallpox vaccine. The myth that smallpox was successfully eradicated by vaccines has persisted within conventional medicine now for over 200 years, and continues. As my previous blog on Smallpox indicated, this is just not true. Bystrianyk quoted Professor Robert A. Gunn, MD, writing in 1891.

        "How strange it is that, no matter what the professional or scientific attainments of a man may be, no matter how he may have previously been honoured, nor what positions of preferment and trust he may have occupied, the moment he says a word against vaccination he is denounced as not knowing anything of the subject, and not being an authority in medicine."

As Bystrianyk states in his article, there have always been dissenting voices within conventional medicine, including those who criticized medical treatments like bloodletting, blistering, and the use of toxic substances like mercury and arsenic in medical drugs. Unlike Semmelweis (who was at least recognised posthumously) many of these voices have been, and continue to be, ignored. He points, in particular, to conventional medicine's obsession with vaccination.

        "Instead, the proponents of vaccines persisted, driven by medical hubris and profits, enacting laws that curtailed individual freedoms in the process".

The Semmelweis Reflex sums up why conventional medicine has made so little progress in fulfilling its primary objective - to treat sick people, suffering from serious illness and disease, successfully.

Look at national health services, dominated by pharmaceutical medicine, around the world. How are they doing? How successful are they in treating sickness? Why has every chronic disease reached epidemic proportions? Why is illnesses like ADHD, allergies, arthritis, autism, auto-immune diseases, cancer, dementia, diabetes, epilepsy, heart/lung/kidney/liver disease, mental health, et al, all running at unprecedented, epidemic levels. Why are hospitals full to over-flowing? Why are doctors so busy they are often unavailable?

In the Covid-19 fiasco, the official pharmaceutical Narrative was ubiquitous, clear, concise, uncontrovertible - and reinforced by government, by conventional medical authorities, and the mainstream media. No dissenting voice was allowed to challenge the Narrative. The virus was deadly; it would kill millions; no-one was safe; only the new "safe and effective" vaccines were able to save us; we must all take the vaccines, or be forced to do so.

As usual there were dissenting voices but these voices were censored by the conventional medical establishment, proving that the Semmelweis Reflex was alive and well! Two of these 'life-saving' vaccines (the AstraZenica and Johnson and Johnson vaccines) have already been withdrawn, effectively banned because they were neither safe or effective. Yet we are still urged to take Covid-19 vaccines on an annual basis, alongside many, many others.

Conventional medicine regularly states that it is "scientific", evidence based; and it is this 'scientific medicine' that is winning the war against ill-health. There is precious little evidence of this victory. Perhaps it is because their have been too many Ignaz Semmelweis's whose criticisms, and alternative medical practices has been ignored, trashed, and then forgotten.

The medical genius who I discovered when I became ill, over 50 years ago, was Samuel Hahnemann. He developed the medical practice of homeopathy in the 1790's. Alongside many millions of other people around the world, I have used no other medical system since that accidental discovery.

So how has the discovery of Homeopathy fared within national health provision around the world? Apart from a few countries, most prominently India, it has been consistently rejected by the Conventional Medical Establishment. They have said for over 230 years that it is unscientific, it does not, and cannot work, and that it is nothing more than placebo. It has been effectively banned is many countries in the world.

So it would appear that the Semmelweis Reflex is more active and alive now that it was when Semmelweis himself was rejected!

Gut Health is now linked to Alzheimer's Disease: so what has damaged our gut and led to the dementia epidemic?

Gut health has recently been linked to Alzheimer's disease (and therefore, probably, many cases of dementia as a whole). The study can be found here, "Common Gut Infection linked to Alzheimer's Disease". Any other industry, on learning this, might be expected to ask the next question. 

What is causing this infection, why has our gut been harmed?

But not, of course, pharmaceutical medicine! Whilst, for example, a car manufacturer might want to learn about problems that arising in their vehicles in order to remedy it, drug companies are weary about doing so as it might just identify one (or more) of their drugs as a cause of an unhealthy gut. And this would, of course, be bad for business!

Over 15 years ago I produced a list of pharmaceutical drugs that had been (and still are) linked to dementia and Alzheimer's disease. As you can see they include:

• vaccine ingredients such as mercury and aluminium derivatives
• the 'flu vaccine
• antidepressant drugs
• antipsychotic drugs
• statin drugs
• Benzodiazepine drugs, and other sleeping pills
• anticholinergic drugs
• antihistamine and other allergy drugs
• proton-pump inhibitors
• painkilling drugs
• epilepsy drugs
• HRT (hormone replacement therapy)
• and many more.

So is it any wonder that dementia, in all its forms, has increased to epidemic proportions during the last 70-100 years, mirroring the enormous rise in the consumption of all these drugs? Another common drug prescribed in vast quantities during this time are Antibiotic drugs - designed to kill bacteria - usually taken by mouth directly to the stomach - and so let loose on the beneficial bacteria of our gut microbiome. A direct, and surely an undeniable link!

        So is dementia caused by pharmaceutical drugs? 

        And does the pharmaceutical industry want to ask this question in order to discover what has been causing the epidemic of Alzheimer's disease?

We can be absolutely sure that the drugs do; but the industry don't! My e-Book, "Iatrogenic Disease: the "Disease-Inducing-Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs", demonstrates that most common chronic diseases are, to one extent or another, linked to well-known 'adverse drug/vaccine' reactions.

Yet you will never hear this from the pharmaceutical industry, or the conventional medical establishment, or government, or the mainstream media - most of our main sources of information. 

Why? 

The drug industry is just too powerful to permit it; and it uses its vast wealth and influence to ensure that we do not get to know about it.

Myths of Conventional Medical Success. Whooping Cough (Pertussin)

It has been my intention for some time to write on Whooping Cough (Pertussin) in my blog series "The Myths of Conventional Medical Success", following my blogs on Smallpox, Polio and Measles - and, indeed, the Covid-19 vaccines. Each of these blogs highlights the outstanding success of the advertising and promotion of the pharmaceutical industry; whilst contrasting this with the abject failure of the drug companies medicine's to they claim to have 'conquered' or 'eliminated' these diseases.

The story of the Whooping Cough vaccines has been remarkably similar; great propaganda, but little or no evidence of effectiveness.

However, this blog has been effectively written for me in an excellent, and well researched article by Roman Bystrianyk, entitled "Whooping Cough and Vaccines: 10 things you probably didn't know, who was co-author of the equally excellent book, "Dissolving Illusions: disease, vaccines, and the forgotten history", written now over 10 years ago - but still as relevant as ever. So I will outline these 10 facts here, and rely upon you to read the Bystrianyk article in greater detail, and alongside his sources.

    1. Death Rate Dropped Nearly 100% Without Vaccination

Historical data from England and Wales, beginning in 1838, indicate that deaths from whooping cough, and other infectious diseases, had already dropped to near zero before the rollout of vaccines or antibiotics.

    2. Sweden Halted Vaccination; Deaths Unchanged

In Sweden, examinations in 1978 showed that 84% of children who were verified to have pertussis had previously received three doses of vaccine. As a result, the whole-cell DTP vaccine was deemed ineffective. 

    3. Vaccination Rates in England Dropped, No Increase in Deaths

A thorough examination of the complete, official data shows an obvious and dramatic drop in whooping cough deaths between 1902 and 2008. The DTP vaccine coverage rate was officially recorded in England starting in 1970. But by 1957, when vaccination began nationally, deaths from whooping cough had already all but vanished.

    4. Whooping Cough Had Become Mild

Whooping cough often instils fear in parents, conjuring images of children coughing and choking dangerously. However, in 1981, Gordon T. Stewart described whooping cough as "generally mild ... which most children escape or overcome easily without being vaccinated." Similarly, in 1995, Douglas Jenkinson studied 500 cases of natural whooping cough and observed that parents rarely noticed the characteristic cough, concluding that a “serious outcome is unlikely.”

5. Whooping Cough Bacteria Is Common

Some estimate that as many as one-third of adolescents and adults with a prolonged cough are infected with B. pertussis bacteria. This applies even to those who have been vaccinated or had the natural disease.

6. Vaccines Cause Neurological Damage

The debate regarding neurologic damage from the vaccine has been going on for decades (and this goes back to at least the 1940's).

7. Whooping Cough Vaccine Fades In Three Years

A study by Dr. David Witt, chief of infectious disease at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California, found that the pertussis vaccine lost its effectiveness in as little as 3 years (and more studies are referenced).

8. Whooping Cough Now Affects Adolescents and Adults

Before the pertussis vaccine was introduced, lengthy natural immunity was, in fact, the norm because of the natural family and community dynamics. In the 1940s, pertussis was considered only a childhood illness. If an adolescent or adult got it, everyone was astonished.

9. Vaccines Permanently Mis-programs The Immune System

The term “original antigenic sin” (OAS) was coined by Dr. Thomas Francis, who became well known during the Salk vaccine era when he oversaw and interpreted the results of the largest (and most controversial) polio vaccine trial in history. He explained the phenomenon of OAS using the natural influenza virus as an example.

10. Despite Failures, Vaccinologists Recommend More Vaccination

As had been the promise with all vaccines at their inception, there was an expectation that vaccinated people would be protected for life against whooping cough.... This is far from true. The DTaP vaccine compromises the immune system permanently.

 

These ten points outline demolish any realistic chance that Whooping Cough (Pertussin) vaccines played any significant part in either the reduction of cases, the seriousness of those remaining cases, or the safety of the vaccine. 

It is not so much that all these ten points are all proven, and do not require more debate, and further research. 

• It is that most people are not aware of them, they are not, and never have been discussed by the conventional medical establishment,
  
• instead, the conventional medical establishment refuses to debate or to do any further research on them, 
• whilst continuing to maintain the conventional medical myth,

 ..... that the Pertussin vaccines are "safe and effective"; and have successfully eradicated Whooping Cough as a serious, killer disease. They most certainly have not done so.

 

Also read my other blogs on the Myths of Conventional Medicine.

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Eradicating Smallpox.

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Conquering Polio.

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Conquering Measles.

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. The Covid-19 vaccines.

Covid-19 Vaccines: have two vaccines already been banned? And are we allowed to know?

(A) The original blog was deleted by Blogger because, they said, it violated their "community guidelines". If so Blogger is a censorship organisation that tries to stop people knowing about the withdrawal of two Covid-19 vaccines. This is a re-writing of that blog that emphasises this point.

(B) This blog was also deleted by Blogger because, they said, it violated their "community guidelines". They said that it was "flagged to us for review". I appealed; and it has now been reinstated. This not only confirms Blogger (a Google platform) as a censorship organisation, but there a people 'out there' willing to flag up blogs critical of pharmaceutical medicine regardless of the facts. These two Covid-19 vaccines HAVE been effectively banned!


I have heard (!) that two Covid-19 vaccines have now been withdrawn from the market because they were unsafe, and no-one wanted to buy them, or take them. The two vaccines had much in common:

• they were both described by the Pharmaceutical Establishment, and Medical Science, as “safe and effective”,
• national drug regulatory bodies were prepared to approve them, if only for 'emergency use',
• government, the mainstream media, and the conventional medical establishment combined for over 3 years to repeat their 'Narrative' which persistently urged us to take the vaccines,

• Governments, including the British government tried to mandate both these vaccines, that is, they tried to force people who wished to remain "vaccine free" to take them,
• the mainstream media constantly castigate and dismissed as denying "medical science", "vaccine deniers", "disinformation peddlers", and "conspiracy theorists", anyone who declined to take the vaccines. 


The AstraZeneca vaccine was the one given to most British citizens in 2021. The company (fairly quietly) dropped the vaccine in 2022, they claimed on commercial grounds (the AZ vaccine was never approved in the USA and several other countries; it was effectively banned in a number of European countries, and was no longer being used in the UK). Another 'commercial' reason could be that the AZ vaccine is now subject to a large number of compensation claims by patients who have been damaged by the vaccine. Such claims, of course, will be strongly contested by government (who will have to pay any compensation awarded), and the pharmaceutical industry (who have been given immunity from any liability). Here are some of my sources to this information (which perhaps Blogger might like to confirm).

• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68977026
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-withdraw-blood-clots-b2541291.html
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/07/astrazeneca-withdrawing-covid-vaccine/
• https://news.sky.com/story/astrazeneca-starts-worldwide-withdrawal-of-covid-vaccine-13131585

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was given to 19 million USA citizens before it was (even more silently) withdrawn from the market in June 2023. Here are some references to this withdrawal

• https://www.reuters.com/article/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-revokes-emergency-use-authorization-for-jjs-covid-vaccine-idUSKBN2XN3UM/
• https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/15/health/johnson-johnson-covid-vaccine-end/index.html
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-05/fda-revokes-authorization-of-j-j-s-unpopular-covid-vaccine
• https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/06/j-fda-revokes-authorization/
• https://www.fda.gov/media/169003/download
  

Again, if these references to the withdrawal of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine are in any way incorrect, then I confirm that Blogger has every right to take down this blog.
 
However, if these reports are correct little more needs to be said, except perhaps that most people who took these vaccines throughout the world remain blissfully unaware of the patient harm about the harm that these dangerous pharmaceutical drugs have caused. It is, therefore, legitimate to ask,

• How many people actually know that these two Covid-19 vaccines have been withdrawn?
• How many people have been damaged by these vaccines, and remain unaware of what caused serious harm to their health?
• How many people will continue to accept the other Covid-19 vaccines, still available, because they have not been informed of their dangers?
  

And Blogger needs to ask itself whether these people have a right to know the fate of these two Covid-19 vaccines: or whether they should censor the information on their platform.

And it is important to note that the strident Covid-19 vaccine 'Narrative' goes on, albeit more quietly, less insistently than before. Government, mainstream media, and conventional medical authorities like the NHS in Britain, continues to offer annual Covid-19 'boosters', presumably on the basis that the Covid-19 vaccines are "safe and effective". If so, their position can be described as a triumph of hope over experience!

However, their position is worse than this. What we are facing here is massive dishonesty. I have written in more detail about this dishonesty many time previously on this blog, and elsewhere. I have always provided evidence of this dishonesty, for example at this link.

So I continue to insist on saying we have a medical system that is dominated and controlled by a pharmaceutical industry that has proven itself to be fundamentally dishonest, fraudulent and corrupt.

Blogger will have to decide for itself whether it supports arguments that are fully backed-up with clear and obvious evidence.

A Health Debate: "disinformation", "anti-vaxxer", "conspiracy theorist"

Twelve years ago I wrote a series of 7 article that argued we needed a serious health debate. The problem in having such a debate, since then and before, has been that one side, the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment (PME), has not wanted to take part in any such discussion. And since the so-called Covid-19 pandemic their refusal to engage has been considerably worse.

Instead the PME has done its best to close down all discussion on important health issues. One of its principle weapons to end debate has been the simple strategy of using certain dismissive words/phrases - such as "disinformation", "anti-vaxxer", "conspiracy theorist", et al.

All these terms are used to stand down discussion on the basis that the best form of defence is attack! The best way of avoiding discussion is to disparage and dismiss anyone, and everyone who disagrees with you.

Essentially, this position happens mainly when one side of an argument, usually the dominant side, but which, for whatever reason, is losing the argument. Why risk a discussion when it might risk undermining the power dynamic, the status quo? It happens regularly, for instance, when a politician, ahead in the polls, refuses to debate with an election rival. It happens when an employee asks an employer for a raise.

Yet it has become commonplace within the field of health, dominated by an immensely powerful pharmaceutical industry. Why should the medical establishment want to risk its dominance? Why should it waste time on anyone who has the audacity to suggest that their drugs and vaccines are neither "safe or effective"? Why should they engage with anyone who suggests that diet and exercise are more important than popping their pills? And there is certainly nothing to gain from speaking to anyone who believes in natural medical therapies, like homeopathy.

So shut down discussion by dismissing all such people who are spreading "disinformation", "anti-vaxxers", or "conspiracy theorists". End of argument, end of discussion.

One ongoing problems is that whilst these terms are used by an elite they are picked up by those who have a closed mind, or those who do not want to consider anything outside what they are being told. Conventional wisdom rules! Leave things as they are. We are busy people, we have other matters to deal with. Those in power must surely know best; they are the experts.

Perhaps the use of "conspiracy theory" is the worst of these repudiating terms. After all there are some very peculiar, even laughable conspiracy theories, ranging from the Flat Earth Society, to Holocaust denial, to fake moon landings, to the assassination of J.F. Kennedy, and the destruction of the twin towers in 9/11.

Yet if and when we come across any of these alleged conspiracy theories it is incumbent upon each of us to consider them, and make up our own minds about their validity. We should not dismiss any one of these, completely out of hand! We should examine the evidence, we should listen to both sides of the argument and reach our own conclusions. This is what intelligent, informed people do.

This is especially important when it comes to health issues. Whether the earth is flat, or the Holocaust did not happen, etc., etc., they are not relevant to our day-to-day lives. They may be interesting, but they are not of immediate concern to our future lives. Health is relevant to each one of us, right now, today, tomorrow - and the medical treatment that we are offered and accept can have a devastating affect on our future wellbeing.

The PME has been telling us for over 200 years that their drugs and vaccines are “safe and effective”, that they have overcome, even vanquished many former 'killer' diseases. Indeed, in the last 4-5 years we have been pummelled with these argument regarding the Covid-19 virus. It was a dangerous pandemic that would kill millions, only the vaccine could save us, and then only if we all took it. And no contrary view or argument being allowed to interfere with the pharmaceutical narrative.

So much of what most people believe and understand about health, and medical treatment, comes entirely from pharmaceutical promotion, and this system of medicine's very specific approach to health. Alternative views are not well known or understood, not least because neither government, conventional medicine, or the mainstream media, are prepared to discuss them with us.

For most people, the health debate is just not happening. The pharmaceutical message reigns supreme, largely unchallenged, dismissed as "misinformation". 

And this at a time when national health services, around the world, are being "broken" by unprecedented epidemics of chronic sickness and disease.

The result is that all our politicians can think of doing is to throw yet more money at the same, old, failed pharmaceutical medical treatment!

Loosening the Grip of Pharmaceutical Medicine on our Health Services

When we seek out health services, in most countries of the world, we will almost inevitably get some form of pharmaceutical, drug-based medicine, delivered by medical staff who are totally committed to the idea that drugs and vaccines will (i) maintain our health, and (ii) return us to health when sick. This is certainly so in Britain, where the NHS now provides pharmaceutical medicine with a complete monopoly.

For a growing number of people this is unsatisfactory. It is not conducive to health freedom and patient choice where each individual ican choose the medical treatment we wish to have. Even if the NHS was dominated by Homeopathy, or Ayuveda, or any other natural therapy, it would be the same - not everyone wants to use the same medical treatment - and most people would like to know about the options available to them, their safety, and their effectiveness.

The basis on which a medical monopoly that has been awarded to pharmaceutical medicine is the subject of an article by the Alliance for Natural Health, which is a supporter of informed choice in the provision of health services. The article, Loosening Big Pharma's Grip on our Health, asked whether there needed to be more or less regulation of health services in response to this market dominance of a single medical system. It discussed the 'rigged' market in health, it made a distinction between Government and Market regulation, and looked at the costs of Big Pharmas current monopoly. It is a thoughtful article that ANH asks to be widely circulated - so I have reproduced the article in full here.

    "Drugs made by one of the largest and most profitable industries in the world - with 80 years of experience behind it - appear to have had little impact on curbing spiraling rates of chronic disease. Healthcare systems are at breaking point and most governments and politicians seem to studiously avoid pointing out what seems so obvious to so many of us.

Mainstream medical systems rely heavily on expensive, often dangerous, drugs to treat symptoms rather than targeting the underlying causes of disease. This pill-for-an ill, drug dominated model that’s driven by crony capitalism comes at a massive cost to both individuals and society.

At the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), we’re dedicated to challenging this broken system and advocating for a healthcare approach based on sound principles and ethics, rooted in prevention, natural health options, and the freedom to make informed choices. It is our hope that a new political landscape that is supportive of natural health will unfold, at least in the US, when the Trump-Vance Administration takes the reins in 2025, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in an influential role.

Pharmaceuticals are tightly regulated. But for whose benefit?

A rigged market in healthcare

While markets are often criticised for being profit-driven, they also provide a powerful regulatory mechanism. When markets are free, competition ensures that businesses, regardless of their motivations, must consider the needs of their customers and employees. Selfish business owners can’t thrive unless they deliver real value. In a truly free market, a company that ignores its customers’ needs or disregards safety concerns will ultimately fail. But for this self-regulating system to work, it must operate independently—without interference that protects bad actors.

The healthcare industry does not operate in a free market, but rather in one that is highly regulated, the regulations having been carefully tailored to Big Pharma’s interests, not those of citizens. The result is that Big Pharma enjoys a protected monopoly that it has built over decades through its revolving doors with government agencies, notably the FDA. In a system where the rules of the game are rigged in favor of FDA-approved drugs, it’s no wonder that natural health options—like dietary supplements, lifestyle changes, and preventive care—are marginalised. Instead of being held accountable by market forces, Big Pharma thrives on government interventions that limit competition and create massive profit margins.

Government Regulation vs. Market Regulation

Many assume that government regulation is necessary to protect public health and safety, but regulations often fall short. Ponder this: If drugs require regulation to ensure their safety, effectiveness and quality—these being the three pillars of drug regulation—how come properly prescribed drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer, and that most drugs don’t work in most people? With Big Pharma’s tentacles so deep into regulatory agencies, transparency so compromised that crucial data are routinely hidden from public view, and conflicts of interest rampant in ways that sway judgment, objectivity and the opportunity to work in patients’ best interests, should we really expect Big Pharma to be the trusted custodian of our health?  

Consider that nearly half of the FDA’s budget comes from the drug industry in the form of user fees—the money Big Pharma pays the FDA for drug approval. Then there’s the revolving door between Big Pharma and the FDA, where many FDA officials use their time at the agency as a stepping stone to more lucrative employment in the sector they are meant to oversee. Is it any wonder that the FDA has repeatedly attacked and undermined the natural health sector?

Clearly, Big Pharma’s monopoly power comes not from free-market success but from political protectionism. Without government intervention propping up its control, Big Pharma wouldn’t stand a chance against natural health alternatives. These alternatives include inexpensive nutrients and herbs delivered as supplements that build resilience and prevent disease, and changes to conventional dietary and lifestyle norms that are plunging huge numbers ever deeper into metabolic disease. A sick child is the most precious asset to Big Pharma which can then hope for a lifetime’s worth of income from that individual.

The industry profits when people are chronically ill, relying on drugs to manage conditions rather than resolving them. Statins and the latest skinny jab, semaglutide (trade names Ozempic and Wegovy), are examples of long burn wins for Big Pharma.

In a true free market, these pharmaceutical monopolies would be exposed to competition from safer, preventive options, ultimately benefiting public health.

Big Pharma’s Monopoly and Its Costs

The cash flow made possible by monopolies allows pharmaceutical companies to influence politicians and medical societies, as well as steer the direction of medical research. The end result is a healthcare system where patients and practitioners alike are funneled into a drug-dependent approach, ignoring or actively discouraging preventive solutions that could improve quality of life and reduce healthcare costs.

Imagine a world where governments stopped propping up these monopolies. A natural health solution like diet, exercise, or a range of dietary supplements that could become the preferred choice over expensive, side-effect-laden drugs. Consumers could choose health solutions that are more in line with their personal values, budgets, and well-being goals. Commercial speech wouldn’t be constrained in ways that prevent companies from providing truthful information to the public. Big Pharma’s reliance on government regulation and monopoly pricing would collapse, and the market would then do what it does best: encourage quality and innovation by responding directly to consumers’ needs. Like nature, the fittest or best products would flourish in the marketplace, the ineffective ones would fail, and companies that sold products that were dangerous, if the risks were not adequately communicated, could be sued—rather than being protected by government or law (in the case of vaccines) as they are today.

Backroom deals are rarely for the benefit of patients and the public.

A New Approach for True Health Freedom

ANH believes that natural health freedom is only possible in a system where government power doesn’t create or sustain monopolies. People deserve access to preventive healthcare options that aren’t crowded out by a system that prioritises profit over wellness. A free market in healthcare would pave the way for greater transparency, accountability, and choice, empowering individuals to take charge of their health with natural and preventive options.

Ending Big Pharma’s monopoly on our health isn’t a matter of simply “deregulating”; it’s about ending the crony capitalism that keeps monopolies alive. Removing these artificial supports would allow for real competition in healthcare, enabling natural health options to thrive, lowering healthcare costs, and improving outcomes.

The healthcare revolution we need isn’t a top-down, regulatory-heavy approach. It’s a move toward real freedom, with health freedom being central. That’s because our health—for most people anyway (even if it isn’t always recognised until it’s lost)—is our most important asset. With a free market, individuals and patients have access to the health solutions of their choice, free from interference by captured government agencies and the media.

At ANH, we’re fighting to protect this freedom and support for health systems where disease prevention, natural health choices and unalienable rights are not only respected, but facilitated and encouraged. The endgame? Human vitality and flourishing."

 

Perhaps more than any other organisation of which I am aware, the ANH adopts the most intelligent and considered approach to the important concepts of health freedom and patient choice. I recommend that everyone supports them in their work.