Search This Blog

Tuesday, 11 May 2021

How safe are Covid-19 Vaccines? What is happening around the world? And what are the official websites telling us?

What is the truth about the Covid-19 vaccines? Whatever the arguments for and against them everyone needs to know whether the vaccines are safe, or whether they can cause serious adverse reactions, and even death. We all have to make an informed decision, based on the evidence made available to us.

The Government, the Conventional Medical Establishment (CHE) and the mainstream media (MSM) are all absolutely certain about this. The vaccines are safe, entirely safe. Everyone should get vaccinated. They speak with one clear and decisive voice. Any information contrary to this advice is 'misinformation', 'fake news', or 'conspiracy theory'. And, we are told, listening to 'anti-vaxxers', or responding to 'vaccine hesitancy', could be serious enough to cost us our life. The vaccines are that crucial!

This official message has been consistent and implacable. Often issues of this importance will lead to discussion, disagreement, and argument. Government will debate with opposition parties; newspapers will examine, investigate, and provide us with their conclusions, which usually vary between paper and paper; television news will interview people with different views. But none of this has happened for over a year now. The seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines, have not been a matter for disagreement. 

I AM AWARE OF THAT A DEBATE IS GOING ON. INDEED I AM PART OF THE DEBATE. But the debate Is going on Out Here - it cannot be heard in Parliament; or within conventional medical circles, or even within the MSM, or so-called 'Free Press'. It is not welcome

THE SAFETY OF COVID-19 VACCINES

Yet there are events happening around the world, and published within official government and health websites that raise serious questions about what we are being told, and suggests that we are not being given the whole, unvarnished truth. Moreover, this official information is not open to challenge. It exists - open to interpretation, yes; challengeable, no! I will focus on two issues.

  • Over 20 countries around the world have, at one time or another, suspended one or other of the new Covid-19 vaccines. Denmark has permanently banned two of them (the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines) as a result of the serious adverse reactions suffered by patients. This has been done whilst other countries continue to denied them. This raises important questions. Is it safe for the citizens on one country to take the vaccines, whilst it is unsafe for the citizens of another country to take them?

The suspension and banning of the Covid-19 vaccines is something that can be discussed, debated, and argued about; but the different reactions, the different stances, cannot be denied. And if there is an issue here it is surely one that is important to the personal decision we should all be taking about whether to have, or to refuse the vaccines. If people merely follow Government / CME / MSM advice and get vaccinated without being aware of this debate they are not making an informed choice.

  • Official statistics about the reported side effects of the Covid-19 vaccines is another factor. The figures of patient harm are much greater, and more serious than we are being told, indeed, they are on a scale vastly greater than has been admitted by government, the CHE or the MSM. And these are statistics taken from official government/health websites. So they are not misinformation; but it is not information that is being shared widely with the public. Most people are blissfully unaware of what is happening. 
At the time of writing, there have been over 1,000 reported deaths in UK; nearly 4,000 in the USA; and more that 7,500 in the European Union - all these people dying within a few days of receiving the vaccination.

The websites carrying this information, and the sources of their information, are impeccable. As well as death many other serious health conditions have been reported, and so should be linked with the Covid-19 vaccines: it is not just blood clotting. The information is undeniable. Is the importance and seriousness of the information is open to discussion? Yes. Is it of crucial importance to people in making an informed choice about taking the vaccines? Yes. Is it being share with the public? No. But the information is undeniable, and it is evidenced here on these websites.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting#annex-1-vaccine-analysis-print

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-vaccine-injuries-climb-pfizer-seeks-full-approval/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=4d3a5a92-4213-46f8-a5f5-c14b564d90cf 

https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/7766-dead-330218-injuries-european-database-of-adverse-drug-reactions-for-covid-19-vaccines/

Unfortunately few people will bother to research these specialist websites. They will listen to, trust and rely on what the government, doctors, and their mainstream news sources tell them. Why should they do otherwise? They would not provide them with misinformation; would they?

If the adverse reactions have been mentioned at all it is usually heavily discounted, or even denied. Or the people/organisations that provided the information will have been discounted or abused; dismissed as 'anti-vaxxers' peddling harmful misinformation.

Yet there remains another question even more important question. If these important official figures are correct, why is it that we are not being told about them? Why are they being censored?

  • Why is the conventional medical system (CHE), which is allegedly committed to the Hippocratic oath of "First, do no harm", allowing vaccines to be rolled out when they are aware (or should be aware) they are causing serious patient harm? Do they not have a duty to inform us?
  • Why are governments around the world complicit in this, even taking draconian powers over our personal freedoms, undermining our social and emotional lives, destroying so many jobs and livelihoods, in order to ensure that we are vaccinated? They too must know about these official statistics. Do they not have a duty to inform us?
  • Similarly, why does the mainstream media (MSM) not investigate these matters? Are the statistics correct? How serious are they? Is the medical system protecting us from harm? Is the government telling us the whole truth to its citizens? Do they not have a duty to inform us?

Instead, all three do no more than to justify their stance. They are still doing it. The vaccines are safe. Side effects are mild; or it is merely an unfortunate coincidence that patients are getting blood clots, et al, and even dying. And, of course, the “benefits of the vaccines outweigh the disadvantages” - although we are never told what lies at either side of this often-used equation.

So what is the agenda of people who are telling us this? What is the agenda of government, the CHE and the MSM. They are all aware of this, or they should be; but they have never mentioned the large numbers of people who have died of the Covid-19 vaccines, not to mention the other serious side effects. None of the families have been interviewed. None of the medical experts have bothered to tell us about them. And Governments continue to peddle the partial propaganda of the pharmaceutical industry.

MEDICAL SCIENCE

The political, medical, and journalistic agenda is the one set down by conventional medical science. Government is 'following the science'; these are not their policies, policy is informed by science. And science is sacrosanct, it speaks with a single voice, and it tells us that Covid-19 is a serious pandemic, that the only solution to it are the new vaccines, and the vaccines are safe. 

Yet Denmark hears this science too; and comes to a decision different to the decision taken in the UK, the USA, and much of the rest of the world. How can it do this?

Does 'science' speak with one voice, as we have been told now for over a year? Is the science sacrosanct, or does this so-called 'science' have to be interpreted?

It is clear that there is more that one voice, that medical science is not sacrosanct. Medical science is not just a matter of combining two chemical and observing the reaction. It is a complex matter of what data is collected, how it is collected, and how it is interpreted. And the statistics that result are open to many different interpretations. Medical science does not have all the answers, and it is so much under the control of the pharmaceutical industry that the answers it provides cannot be relied upon.

When we can see this, understand it, realise what is happening, is it possible to continue trusting the Government, the CHE, or the MSM? They are not doing their job. The entire conventional medical establishment (which now seems to include national governments, and the MSM) are complicit in the failure to discuss the issues. 

I ask - seriously - would anyone buy a second hand car from these people? 

Health, above all else, is a matter of trust. Would you allow yourself to be injected with any vaccine, or persuaded to take any pharmaceutical drug - unless you were utterly confident that you were being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? But the 'whole truth' is being censored - by a pharmaceutical-led cabal that now includes not only important medical authorities, including drug regulators, and the WHO, but also governments, and the MSM. We are increasingly being controlled, not just about what we do, but what we must think, what we must believe, and what our values should be.

Monday, 10 May 2021

What is the difference between Medical Science and the Real World?

Conventional medical science is usually based on 'Randomised Controlled Trials' (RCT's), often described as by conventional medical practitioners as "the Gold Standard" of scientific investigation. What this means, in essence, is that medical scientists seek to fix two criteria, for example:

  • on one side, the condition - obesity or weight loss, 
  • on the other side, the medicine(s) used by complementary medicine for the treatment of obesity or weight loss.

The problem with this method is that in real life these two variables cannot be so easily 'fixed'. And when medical science tries to fix them, the method they choose usually has more to do with the outcome they want to achieve than any kind of scientific objectivity. (I have explored the bias of conventional medical science in more detail on this link). 

That's look at an example. BBC News has recently reported that a recent Australian study has found that complementary medicines for weight loss are 'not justified'. The story can be told simply, in the words of the BBC.

            "The first global review of complementary medicines for weight loss in 16 years suggests their use cannot be justified based on current evidence. Researchers found that while some herbal and dietary supplements resulted in marginal weight loss compared to a placebo, they did not benefit health."

In other words, the medicine's used by complementary, or natural medicine, do not work; yet (it emphasises) people are spending lots of money on them.

To come to this conclusion, the RCT studies that were reviewed would have (i) fixed the medicines, and (ii) the weight loss. They would have tried hard to eliminate all other external factor.

So the over-weight patient takes the medicine; and the study finds he/she does not lose weight.

What this ignores is the consultation, the skills of the therapist, and the 'holistic' nature of natural medical therapies. The RCT's studies might reflect the practice of pharmaceutical medicine (where usually 'the problem', once diagnosed, leads to the prescription of a pharmaceutical drug), but it does not reflect what happens in real life. The consultation, and the ingredients of the conversation between therapist and patient, cannot be eliminated. 

I have treated many overweight or obese patients and the process is much more complex, much more varied than than the selection of a 'medicine'. The consultation would take in account many factors, many 'variables' that medical science, and 'gold standard' RCT's, have to exclude. For example,

  • Lifestyle
  • Mental health factors
  • Diet and nutrition
  • Exercise

each one, in themselves, very complex, and very individual to the patient. The therapist would seek to clarify these factors, provide advice, and respond to the patient's response to this advice.  

This is what a 'holistic' approach is all about. 

It does not focus on medicines; it focuses on the patient. It takes into consideration a variety of complicated factors. After this, and only after this, does the therapist recommend a 'medicine' that might assist the patient in the process of losing weight. Yet the 'medicine' is only a small part of the treatment, compared to the patient making lifestyle changes in all the factors outlined above.

Homeopathy treats obesity, and can help patients lose weight. This website gives a detailed explanation of how homeopaths set about the task, and the variety of factors they take into account. Yet you will notice that the remedies commonly used with patients come last; and that the choice of remedy has more to do with the patient, the individual, than the condition. Obesity is not a simple, single condition.

This is what holistic medical therapies do. It is not just about 'medicine'. Conventional medicine does NOT do this; certainly it is not done in medical science or via RCT studies. Natural therapy focuses on the individual, in all his/her complexity; it does not impose any 'controls' on what is considered important. It is holistic. It takes everything into account; and only at the very end comes up with medicine.

Conventional medicine fixes the condition (that is, obesity is the same problem with each and every individual), and then fixes the medicine (an 'off-the-shelf' solution to the over-simplified, over-generalised condition).

What this piece of conventional medical 'science' indicates is just confined and restricted conventional  medical science is. It explains why conventional medicine has little or no medical solution to the problem of obesity; and perhaps why, to cover up its inadequacy, it wants to dismiss 'complementary medicine'. It seeks to make the point that it natural medicine is no more effective than pharmaceutical medicine.

And for obesity, any other illness/disease can be substituted - the same general principle applies. 

The successful treatment of any sickness or disease is not simple or straightforward; it cannot be simplified by 'scientic methodology'.

Medical treatment must always be measured in terms of 'patient outcomes' - not medical science. 

Tuesday, 4 May 2021

CHRONIC DISEASE. The rise and rise of chronic diseases over the last 100 years; and the introduction of some new ones

As defined by MedicineNet, a chronic disease is a disease that persists for a long time, lasting at least 3 months, and usually much more, often many years, even decades. The most common chronic diseases are arthritis, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, epilepsy/seizures, and obesity, but there are many more, including some that were previously unknown prior to the age of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Yet despite their variety all chronic diseases have several undeniable features in common.

  • The incidence of all chronic diseases (without exception?) have increased, often exponentially, during the last 100 years, and these rates are still increasing.
  • Conventional medicine will offer explanations for these huge increases in sickness, but most of them are either irrelevant, or insufficient to explain the inexorable rise of these chronic diseases.
  • Conventional medicine usually offer only palliative treatments for these diseases, but rarely any treatment that treats the disease successfully, or reduces the ever-rising numbers of people suffering from them.
  • The side effects, the adverse drug/vaccine reactions to pharmaceutical medicine are known to cause the symptoms of all these chronic disease

As a population, after 70-100 years of burgeoning pharmaceutical medicine, we are not getting healthier. We are getting progressively sicker. We might be living longer (largely owing to improved sanitation, housing, diet, nutrition, and less poverty and destitution) but certainly most people are not able to spend these additional years positively, and in good health.

So let's examine the impact of some of the more common forms of chronic diseases, how they impact on our lives, how CHE explains them, and how it can cause them. But before doing so let's first consider an alternative view about what chronic disease is, and what causes it. This is broadly the view of homeopathy, and more broadly it is the view held by all natural medical therapies.

Chronic Disease and Homeopathy. Natural medicine believes that the human body has everything it needs to keep itself fit and healthy, long into old age. Chronic disease develops if and when we put our body under some kind of stress. Perhaps we have poor nutrition, and unhealthy diet; or we don't exercise sufficiently or sensibly; or we get into bad habits - smoking, drinking, insufficient sleep, and the like.

But chronic disease is also caused by suppressing illness, and this belief is one of the key differences between natural medical therapies and conventional medicine. For instance, homeopathy believes that suppressing minor ailments/illnesses/conditions with pharmaceutical drugs is ultimately injurious to our health. 

  • So natural medicine recognises that pain is a sign that something is wrong, a warning, not something should be suppressed with painkilling drugs, that killing or suppressing pain actually worsens pain over the longer-term, and drives it deeper into the body. 
  • It recognises that a fever is the body's natural attempt to fight off an infection, again, not something that should be suppressed by anti-inflammatory drugs.
  • It recognises that suppressing, killing, blocking, inhibiting the normal functioning of the body in any way is what causes adverse drug reactions, and that this suppression can result in long-term chronic disease.

So one of the major insights provided by homeopathy, and natural medicine generally, is that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are likely to be a major cause of chronic disease. They are one explanation for the rising levels of chronic disease. So when examining each of the following chronic disease, we can examine whether conventional medicine is a possible explanation for the rise and rise of the disease. 

The last 70-100 years has seen pharmaceutical medicine become the dominant medical system, and during this time the consumption of prescription drugs has risen to levels never previously known.

ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder)

People with ADHD have trouble paying attention, have problems with concentration, daydream, have impulsive behaviour, act without thinking, have difficulty getting on with other people, or are just overly active. These traits are, to an extent, normal but for a diagnosis of ADHD to be made the symptoms have to be quite severe.

Incidence

There is probably little doubt that there have always been people in society, throughout history, that might have been diagnosed as ADHD. It is the scale that matters, and this Healthline webpage states quite clearly that ADHD was "first mentioned" in 1902, that it was not until the late 1960's that it was "formally recognised" in the USA, and that now it is "a common neurodevelopmental disorder most commonly diagnosed in children". In Britain, the NHS did not recognise ADHD as a condition until 2009. So ADHD is both common, and recent!

  • The ADHD Institute in the USA says that "A mean worldwide prevalence of ADHD of about 2.2% has been estimated in children and adolescents (aged over 18 years). The mean prevalence of ADHD in adults (aged 18-44) from a range of countries .... was reported as about 2.8% overall".
  • This UK website says that between 2% and 5% of school aged children now have ADHD, and that the prevalence of ADHD in the adult population is between 3% and 4%, but "the majorityof these individual are undiagnosed".
  • This link refers to the Journal of Attention Disorder which published a UK research survey of 10,438 children between the ages of 5 and 15 years that found 3.62% of boys, and 0.85% of girls, had ADHD. It also says that the Lancet has estimated that the global prevalence of ADHD is now between 2% and 7%, with an average of 5%.
Conventional Medical Explanations

Most conventional medical websites suggests that there is not known cause of ADHD. For instance, the Journal of Learning Disabilities says that "there is no one cause of ADHD. It is considered to be a result of an often complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors" placing 70% to 80% of the blame on genetic factors. The CDC website does suggest that it might be caused by brain injury, exposure to environmental toxicity during pregnancy or childhood, premature delivery and low birth rate. 

However, none of these causes provides an adequate or convincing explanation for the rapid recent rise in the incidence of ADHD.

Pharmaceutical Drugs

The role of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines is rarely mentioned in the conventional medical literature, except that known adverse drug and vaccine reactions include many that accurately describe the symptoms of ADHD. I have written about the ADHD / Pharmaceutical Drug link elsewhere, and the drug and vaccines implicated include drugs now commonly prescribed, such as  painkillers, antibiotics, antidepressants, and a wide variety of childhood vaccines.

The increased consumption of these pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, especially with children, almost exactly mirrors the increase of ADHD. It might be asked why this link has not been more actively investigated by the pharmaceutical medical establishment!

Allergy

There are many kinds of very different allergies, from hay fever to food allergies, from asthma to sinusitis, and so many more. Perhaps the one thing they have in common is that they have all risen to epidemic proportions during the last 70 to 100 years, and are still growing. Allergy UK bluntly states the dire consequences of this allergy epidemic to so many people.

            "Allergy is the most common chronic disease in Europe. Up to 20% of patients with allergies struggle daily with the fear of an asthma attack, anaphylactic shock, or even death from an allergic reaction".

Incidence 

Allergy UK says that the World Allergy Organisation (WAO) estimate of allergy prevalence of the whole population by country ranges between 10-40%; that more than 150 million Europeans suffer from chronic allergic diseases and the current prediction is that by 2025 half of the entire EU population will be affected; that the UK has some of the highest prevalence rates of allergic conditions in the world, with over 20% of the population affected by one or more allergic disorder; that a staggering 44% of British adults now suffer from at least one allergy and the number of sufferers is on the rise, growing by around 2 million between 2008 and 2009 alone; that almost half (48%) of sufferers have more than one allergy; and that in the 20 years to 2012 there was a 615% increase in the rate of hospital admissions for anaphylaxis in the UK.

The USA fares no better. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology delivers a variety of statistics including: about 7.8% of people 18 and over have hay fever, that worldwide, allergic rhinitis affects between 10% and 30 % of the population, that adverse drug reactions may affect up to 10% of the world’s population, and affect up to 20% of all hospitalized patients, that drugs may be responsible for up to 20% of fatalities due to anaphylaxis; that 8% of children (infant to 18) have a food allergy, and 38.7% of food allergic children have a history of severe reactions; that the prevalence of general allergy has continued to rise in the industrialized world for more than 50 years.

Allergies have, no doubt, always existed; but not to the enormous scale that is being witnessed at this time, and rising.

Conventional Medical Explanations

Conventional medicine appears to have no explanation for this prodigious and ongoing rise in allergy. An allergy is usually described as a reaction to a particular food or substance, but 'causation' is rarely addressed. It is often blamed on the immune system, whose role is to destroy harmful substances in the body; allergy happens when the immune system reacts to a substance that is not harmful, but still tries to  destroy it.

The fact that an allergy is a reaction to an allergen is a description, not a cause; because all identified allergens are normal substances that most people have always lived alongside quite happily. The 'cause' of allergy is something that makes an individual allergic to that allergen, or which makes the immune system turn against the allergen..

Pharmaceutical Drugs

Conventional medicine rarely mentions that the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines now routinely prescribed, especially to young children, are known to cause allergy. Most drugs, and probably all vaccines, have 'allergy' acknowledged as a side effect in the Patient Information Leaflets. This is conventional medicine's own literature. I have written about the main pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines implicated as a cause of allergy, including most vaccines, antibiotics, painkillers, anti-epileptics, sleeping pills, and many others.

Alzheimers/Dementia

Incidence:

  • Worldwide, nearly 50 million people have Alzheimer’s or related dementia, according the the Alzheimers.net website. It says that only 1-in-4 people with Alzheimer’s disease have been diagnosed, and that Alzheimer’s and dementia is most common in Western Europe, followed closely by North America. It says that there was an 89% increase in deaths due to Alzheimer’s between 2000 and 2014, that more than 5 million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s, and that by 2050 it is estimated there will be as many as 16 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s.
  • Alzheimer's Research UK says that there are now 209,600 new cases of Alzheimer's disease diagnosed every year in the UK.
  • The Alzheimer's Society, in a major study in 2014, said that the number of people with dementia in the UK was forecast to increase to over 1 million by 2021, and by over 2 million by 2051, that the total population prevalence of dementia among over 65s was 7.1%, which was equal to 1 in 14 of the population aged 65 years and over

Conventional Medical Explanation for the rise of Alzheimer's disease, and dementia generally, is that it is the result of an ageing population. However, the most serious problem with this explanation is that younger adults, and even children, are now contracting this disease, which is usually referred to as 'early onset dementia' for those under 65 years old. Alzheimer's Research UK admits this when it says that "it is a common misconception that dementia is a condition of older age, over 42,000 people under 65 years old have dementia in the UK." The Alzheimer's Society study in 2014 found that there were over 40,000 people with early-onset dementia in the UK.

It should also be noted that there is a widespread acceptance that conventional medicine has no effective treatment for Alzheimer's disease.

Pharmaceutical Drugs. Conventional medicine rarely admits that the adverse drug reactions of a large number of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines mention many of the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease or dementia, such as confusion, loss of memory, disorientation, and others. I have listed some of these pharmaceutical drugs here, and they include vaccines, antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, sleeping pills, statins, anticholinergic drugs, and many others commonly taken by older people.

Arthritis

Arthritis is a generic term incorporating many separately diagnosed conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, gout, and many others.

Incidence:

  • In the USA, 2013 to 2015, the CDC estimated that 54.4 million adults (22.7% of the population)  had some form of doctor-diagnosed arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, or fibromyalgia. It further estimated that by 2040, an estimated 78 million (26% of the population) of USA adults aged over 18 years are projected to have doctor-diagnosed arthritis.
  • In the UK, Versus Arthritis states that musculoskeletal conditions sch as arthritis and back pain affected an estimated 18.8 million people across the UK in 2017. This accounted for more than 22% of the total burden of ill health in the UK.

The Conventional Medical Explanation is usually that the massive increase in arthritis pain in past decades, and as well as future projected increases, are the result of an ageing population. Lack of exercise and obesity is also regularly cited as an important factor in the increase levels of arthritis.

It should also be noted that there is a widespread acceptance that conventional medicine has no effective treatment for arthritis.

Pharmaceutical Drugs. Yet arthritis is treated, mainly by painkilling drugs, often for many years. These provide (at best) temporary relief for pain, but in the long-term most arthritic conditions get progressively worse, patients need stronger, more toxic drugs.

Yet conventional medicine rarely recognises that most, if not all pharmaceutical drugs are known to cause 'pain' as a 'side effect'. I have listed some of these drugs here, and they include not only painkillers, but corticosteroids, antibiotics, and many others.

Summary of Conventional Medicine's contribution to the rise of arthritis? 

  • No effective treatment.
  • Lots of non-medical reasons/excuses.
  • Pharmaceutical drugs that cause the condition.

Asthma

Asthma is a chronic disease of the airway to the lungss, where the bronchial tubes becomes inflamed, narrowed, thus causing a blockage and consequent breath difficulties. The disease is closely linked to the functioning of the immune system.

Incidence

Asthma is an ancient condition that can be traced back to 2600bce in China, and to ancient Egypt and Greece. Yet however far it goes back into history Asthma is not running at epidemic levels, and rising. It has been estimated that since the 1980's there has been a 60% increase in the incidence of asthma, and that the death rate from asthma has doubled during the same time.

WHO has estimated that more than 339 million people had Asthma globally in 2016, and that it caused 417,918 deaths.

The British Lung Foundation has found that 8 million people, over 12% of the population, have been diagnosed with asthma. They says that this means more people have had an asthma diagnosis than have been diagnosed with all other lung diseases combined.

Conventional Medical Explanations

As usual, conventional medicine has no adequate or sufficient explanation for this exponential rise in the incidence of asthma. It will often refer to 'risk factors' of inhaling substances and particles that may irritate the airways and provoke and allergic reaction.

Nor is there any indication that conventional medicine has any successful treatment, just treatments that can reduce the severity of asthma attacks.

Pharmaceutical Drugs

Yet it is well known that there are many commonly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs that have been prescribed over the last 70-100 years that cause asthma. To mention these alone - aspirin, and other painkillers, antibiotics, childhood and other vaccines - should leave little doubt that these drugs have played an important role in the asthma epidemic.

Autism 

Autism, or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is usually described as a developmental disability. It can cause significant social and behavioural problems in young children, many have developed normally for the first year or two years of their lives. Its most notable features concern communication and interaction difficulties with other people. Autism affects children along a broad spectrum, with the ability to learn, think, and problem solving ranging from severely challenged to gifted.

Incidence

Autism was first described in the 1940's in the USA. Yet this unknown disease has become one of the most astounding stories of the last 70 years. From a virtually unknown disease, the CDC website gives the following statistics on the rise and rise of autism in the USA. In 2000, 1 in 150 children were diagnosed. In 2010 this had grown to 1 in 68 children. It is now thought to be 1 in about 45 children.

The situation is similar in other parts of the world, notably where pharmaceutical medical treatment is dominant, and the use of childhood vaccines has increased alongside the rise of autism.

Conventional Medical Explanations

Conventional medicine has no cure or indeed treatment for autism. Moreover, it usually states, quite unequivocally that it does not know what causes autism, although increasingly it is focusing on a 'genetic' aspect. Despite this, it does know that childhood vaccines are not to blame.

Pharmaceutical Drugs

There are many pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines implicated in causing autism, all of them heavily prescribed during the rise of autism. I have outlined some of these drugs and vaccines here, alongside some of the evidence linking the two.

However, such allegations are always met with resolute denials from the conventional medical establishment. The CDC, for instance, states that "some people have had concerns that ASD might be linked to the vaccines children receive, but studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing ASD". They then provide a reference to a piece of research - paid for by the pharmaceutical industry!

A similar analysis can be done for many other chronic diseases - autoimmune disease, cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, osteoporosis, Parkinson's disease, and many others. In each and every case there is"

  • a massive increase in the incidence of the disease,
  • an inadequate explanation for these rise by the conventional medical establishment,
  • pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that are known to cause the disease, or the symptoms of the disease.

CONCLUSION
If we want to know what is happening to health, after 70 to 100 years when conventional medicine has been dominant, when vast sums of money has been spent on medical treatment, especially in the 'advance western world', we just have to observe what has been happening during that time.

  • We are getting sicker,
  • The medicine in which we have invested heavily is failing,
  • A significant reason for the increased sickness we are witnessing is conventional medicine.

The failure of conventional medicine is the result of a medical system that believes it knows better than the body, that it can out-think and out-perform the body with drugs that 'kill', 'inhibit'. block', the natural functioning of the body. It has had its time.

Albert Einstein once defined insanity. It is a definition that can be ascribed to the health policies that have been pursued in most countries of the world through these decades, namely, to spend more and more on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines to deal with the ever-burgeoning levels of illness and disease.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

It is not more money, or more resources that is needed to reverse increasing levels of sickness. It is a change in what that money is spent on. The time for natural medical therapies has arrived. Natural medicine has a different understanding of what good health is. They are more concerned with wellness and well-being, more focused on the immune system, and supporting and strengthening natural immunity. Natural medicine recognises that our bodies have everything that is required to keep us well; that wellness requires sensible lifestyle choices, and that medicine is only successful if it supports, and works alongside the body.

This is why so many people are now choosing homeopathy, and other natural medical therapies, and positively rejecting pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.


Thursday, 29 April 2021

How dangerous are pharmaceutical drugs? And how long does it take drug regulators take action to protect patients? Does the pharmaceutical companies have a licence to kill?

The magazine WDDTY (What Doctors Don't Tell You) is one that everyone interested in their health and well-being should subscribe to. It often uncovers interesting and important medical research that usually does not attract attention anywhere else, and certainly not the attention it deserves, and patients need. It did this again in its April 2021 edition.

            "Researchers from the SONAR (Southern Network on Adverse Reactions), which represents drug researchers at 50 medical universities, tracked the history of 15 drugs and one medical device that had either resulted in payments or more than $1 billion in damages or had at least 1,000 reported cases of patients who had died or suffered serious reactions between 1997 and 2019".

The conventional medical establishment (CHE) will usually admit that all their pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines can cause patient harm; although they heavily discount the seriousness of this admission. Yet the drugs examined in this study were clearly the most dangerous pharmaceutical drugs that have ever been promoted and used by the CHE.

Drug regulators, like the FDA in the USA, the EMA in Europe, and the MHRA in the UK, are supposed to protect patients from medical harm. It is their primary duty. The SONAR study informs us about how well they undertake this task by looking at how many people died before action was taken (if this was known), and for how long was the drug prescribed before it was banned? This is a summary of what they discovered.

  • Epoetin: number of deaths unknown: 13 years
  • Darepoetin: number of deaths unknown: 5 years
  • Celecoxib: 7,000 death: 7 years
  • Rosiglitazone: 47 death: 8 years
  • Zoldendronic acid: number of deaths unknown: 3 years
  • Pamidronate: number of deaths unknown: 16 years
  • Gadodiamide: number of deaths unknown: 17 years
  • Levofloxin 66,000 deaths: 29 years
  • Valdecoxib 99,000 deaths: 4 years
  • Hydroxy-ethyl starch: 900 deaths: 5 years
  • Phenylpropanolamine: number of deaths unknown: 62 years
  • Rofecoxib: 270,000 deaths: 2 years
  • Aprotonin: 22,000 deaths: 13 years
  • Fenfluramine-Phentermine 300,000 deaths: 1 year

Details of many more pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have had to be withdrawn or banned (eventually) because they have caused serious patient harm can be found here.

Asleep on Duty? Incompetence? Or worse? Are drug regulators more concerned with the financial integrity of drug companies than protecting patient from serious harm. This is what WDDTY concluded:

           "This deadly hesitation is often the result of several factors: bureaucratic incompetence by the regulator and its cosy relationship with the drug company; the deliberate hiding of inconvenient data, and executives from the drug company threatening or bullying independent researchers who have discovered the drug's dangers."

Whatever the reason one thing is certain. Dangerous pharmaceutical drugs, however serious their so-called 'side effects', however many people they kill, do not appear to be a cause for serious CHE concern. If a drug kills thousands of patients; if it is prescribed, and known to be dangerous for many years, even decades, little is done about it.

  • Even when a dangerous drug is eventually banned little or no action is taken against the drug company, the drug regulator, or anyone else within the CHE.
  • Even though each of these drugs went through years of 'scientific' testing, there has never been a serious examination into the integrity and honesty of the  'science' behind the drug, why it was pronounced 'safe', and why medical science consistently fails to pick up the lethal dangers of pharmaceutical drugs. Could this be, for instance, that drug companies pay for the science?
  • The drug is usually withdrawn quietly, surreptitiously. 
    • The government rarely comments, or investigates why its citizens have suffered. 
    • Conventional medical bodies, who have instrumental in prescribing the dangerous drug, are usually too embarrassed, or too busy in its own self-justification, to comment. 
    • And the mainstream media (MSM), who have usually played a leading role in advertising and promoting the drug, are not interested in critically examining the activities of drug companies who have been harming their readers and viewers.
  • Even if patients sue the drug company, they find this difficult and massively expensive against a powerful enemy. And even if they win their case the drug company is usually fined trivial amounts of money. No drug company executive has ever been prosecuted or convicted of manslaughter or homicide.

So the pharmaceutical industry appears to have a licence to kill, back by government, CHE, and the mainstream media (MSM) 

Silence is the usual reaction to the withdrawal of a dangerous drug or vaccine. But the situation is much worse than this. It is still happening today. We have not reached the end of the process that has been going on for over 100 years. Why should today's drug and vaccines be any different?

  • Medical science is still telling us that new pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are 'entirely safe'. The Covid-19 vaccines are being pronounced 'safe' right now, even though within days/weeks/months the drug regulators received reports of death, anaphylactic shock, blood clots, and many other serious reactions.
  • Some drug regulators have been forced to review these new vaccines; but as usually they have dismissed and discounted the reports; they are 'coincidences', or even if they do harm, the 'benefits outweighed the disadvantages'. The conclusion is always that the vaccines are safe.

So this is the start of the same weary and predictable process, the same lethal game of damaged patients having to prove the latest pharmaceutical wonder drug/vaccine is NOT safe, and to do so against the formidable might of the CHE, and the government and MSM supporters, who insist that they are safe - and will no doubt continue to do so for as long as they can. 

How many deaths will the Covid-19 vaccines be allowed to kill? And for how many years? Before they too are either banned?

The saga continues...... watch this space!

Wednesday, 28 April 2021

MSM. The advertising and promotional arm of the Pharmaceutical Industry

The pharmaceutical industry is not allowed to advertise their drugs in Europe, and most other countries with the exception of the USA and New Zealand. The situation varies, but the advertising of prescription only drugs is not allowed in the UK; but non-prescription, or ‘over-the-counter’ drugs can be advertised. However, this does not worry the drug companies!

  • BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND VACCINES ARE ADVERTISED THROUGHOUT EVERY PART OF THE WORLD.  
  • MOREOVER THEY ARE ADVERTISED ENTIRELY FREE OF CHARGE, PERHAPS THE ONLY INDUSTRY IN THE WORLD THAT IS ALLOWED TO DO SO.

So how does this work in the UK, and most of the rest of the world?

  • A drug company wants to promote a drug or a vaccine to the public. 
  • They write a press release
  • They give it to all the mainstream media (MSM) outlets. 
  • The press release is dutifully published by a grateful, dependent and compliant MSM.
Moreover, the press release will be published in full, without changes or amendments, without comment, without question, and without further investigation.
  • At the same time, the drug company will put the MSM in touch with doctors and specialists from the NHS (not from the drugs company, this would be advertising) who have been ‘primed’ to speak on the subject. The MSM will interview, often at length, they will reinforce the positive message. 
  • The drug company will also suggest that the MSM speak to certain patients, or to a patient support group, or health charity (especially those generously funded by drug companies). These people are also interviewed by the MSM.

So we have a headline, a lengthy article; or 5–10 minutes of radio or television time, devoted to the drug, or the vaccine, and its benefit to the NHS, and to individual patients. The drug company will appear to be entirely absent, uninvolved, disinterested. This is not Ford advertising their cars, or Indesit advertising their washing machines. It is not advertising at all. It's news. Moreover, it's good news - another medical breakthrough. It's a matter of important public interest.

It's subliminal advertising - at its best and most insidious.

  • At no time will the MSM mention, or question, or investigate any adverse drug/vaccine reactions or serious side effects - even when these are already well known, and easily found within the literature of the conventional medical establishment.

So the pharmaceutical industry has no problem advertising their drugs and vaccines in Britain, or anywhere else. In fact this kind of subliminal advertising has a very particular benefit!

When we see an advert for a Ford car we know it is advertised by the Ford Motor Company. It is partial. We know other makes of car are equally good. When we see an Indesit washing machine advertised we know it is promoting a product in order to persuade us to buy one. We know it’s self-interested promotion, and that there are other washing machines available. We can take it, or leave it.

When we see a subliminal advertisement from a pharmaceutical company we don’t realise that the information is coming from a drug company. It's news. Pharmaceutical medicine has done it again. They are ridding the world of illness and disease. We are led to believe that the information is coming from a reputable news source, interviewing independent, disinterested doctors, and patients who  have benefited. It's “good news”; we can all rejoice at this impartial, non-advertising information.

A similar advert within the MSM would cost the advertisers very significant amounts of money. Drug companies are given this subliminal advertising, and it is entirely free. All they have to do is to produce a press release, and to offer up spokespeople who will (be paid?) to corroborate the message. 

This is all Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson have had to do in order to promote their Covid-19 vaccines. The result is staggering. The majority of people believe they are safe and effective. We have been led to believe they will save and world, and return us to normal life. 

Yet has anyone seen an advert for any of these Covid-19 vaccines?

Indeed, the MSM has done much more than this to promote the Covid-19 vaccines for the drug companies. 
  • The MSM was instrumental, alongside government and the NHS, in creating the panic about the virus - a panic that will eventually have to be assessed alongside the seriousness of the pandemic. It was this panic that created an unprecedented demand for the only solution offered against the virus.
  • It was the MSM who told us about the solution to Covid-19 - that only vaccines would save us, and return life back to normal.
  • The MSM has done all the marketing the drug companies could ever have hoped for.
  • And the entire cost has been borne by the taxpayer.

So it is unlikely that the pharmaceutical industry will want to rescind the advertising ban of their vaccines and drugs. Why should they? The kind of promotion the MSM has given these drug companies over the last 15 months has been phenomenal. If they had to pay for it would have cost them a prohibitive sum money - for less effective advertising and promotion

 

Tuesday, 27 April 2021

WHO AM I? I am a Pro-Choice Well-Being Advocate

If, like me, you are fed up with being abused by government, the mainstream media (MSM), and conventional medicine about pharmaceutical vaccines, let's make a stand!

  • I am not going to have the Covid-19 vaccine, no matter what these 3 pillars of our society say.
  • I am fed up with being called an 'anti-vaxxer', or 'vaccine hesitant' - this does not explain my position.
  • I am fed up with being told that only vaccines will save the world, return social life to normal, and rescue the economy.
  • I am fed up with being ignored, never given the chance to explain my position on MSM, and never being given a right to reply to abuse (much of it by journalists).
  • I am fed up with insistent reminders from the NHS that I should get vaccinated.

So, the first issue. How should I describe my personal stance? I have been discussing this with several colleagues, and I have decided that this is how I would like to be described.

I AM A PRO-CHOICE, WELL-BEING ADVOCATE

I believe in patient choice, and more widely, in health freedom. This means, in negative terms, that I refuse to be forced into accepting pharmaceutical medication. I believe I have good evidence and information on which to base my stance, both negative and positive. First, the negative reasons.

  1. The treatments offered by the conventional medical establishment (CHE) are not effective. Most of them do not work, and the efficacy of all pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are grossly exaggerated by CHE and the mainstream media (MSM).
  2. CHE drug treatments are all dangerous, with adverse drug/vaccine reactions ensuring that their disadvantages far outweigh any benefits.

I do not care if you agree, or disagree with this stance! That is entirely your prerogative. I can defend my position with good quality information, much of it coming from the literature of the CHE itself. I have written a book, freely available on the internet, called "The Failure of Conventional Medicine" and in this I fully explain my position. You may disagree, although you cannot disagree without first knowing what my position is. I am not an 'anti-vaxxer', or 'vaccine hesitant' - without very good reason.

All I ask is that you first seek to understand my position. Do not dismiss me without first knowing what this is.

I am fully aware of the position of CME on vaccination. Everyone does! We have heard nothing else from government, health authorities, and the MSM for over a year now. And these sources of information have been most careful to ensure that my position, as a pro-choice well-being advocate, has never ever been presented or explained.

So what is a 'Pro-Choice Well-Being Advocate'?

First, we are people who believe that personal freedom and liberty is important; and that there is no freedom more important than the freedom to choose our medical treatment when we are ill. We believe that it is unacceptable for government, or one particular medical system, or the corporate-dominated and controlled MSM, to encourage/oblige/force anyone to take pharmaceutical medication. 

And we demand full information, from all side of the health debate. Moreover we want this information to be freely and transparently available to everyone - so that we are all able to make an informed choice. An informed choice is not necessarily a 'correct' choice, or a 'sensible' choice, or even a 'wise' choice; but it is a choice that should not forced on anyone by the 'experts' of one particular medical system.

Second, pro-choice well-being advocates believe in something that is vitally important. Our belief is no longer accepted by the CME but this does not make the CME right. Our reasons for not getting vaccinated are for good positive reasons:

  • they are reasons connected with the immune system, supporting and strengthening natural immunity to infection and illness, through diet, nutrition, exercise, life-style choices. And (for me) with homeopathic prophylaxis; and ultimately (should I fall ill) having homeopathy at my side for treatment.

It does not matter to me if you believe this is inadequate, that you think this will not protect me from Covid (or anything else), and that I should still have the vaccine. That is YOUR assessment of what heath is all about. It is most definitely NOT mine! It is not about well-being!

Third, well-being is an importantly different concept to today's normal definition of 'health' - which is why I prefer the term. We believe that everyone is equipped by nature to stay well. Certainly, we can compromise our well-being by poor life-style choices, bad diet, or indeed through the harmful side effects of conventional medical treatment. But this does not make germs (bacteria or viruses) an enemy. They become an enemy when we undermine our personal protection against them. We recognise that we live with germs every second of every day, and that the secret of well-being is to live with them, alongside them, in harmony.

So, our response to Covid-19 is much the same as it is for measles, pertussis, HPV, influenza, et al; plus every other disease for which conventional medicine wants to force drugs/vaccines on us. We support well-being every day by maintaining our immune system, by strengthening our natural immunity. And, importantly, we get on with life without the panic and fear we have been witnessing over Covid-19.

We are not selling drugs or vaccines? We are not promoting anything. We are not profiting from what we do. We believe we keep well, and protect ourselves from illness, by looking after ourselves.

Fourth, we recognise that we are all responsible for our own well-being. Health does not come from a bottle of pills, or even an injection. It comes from within ourselves. What this means is that I cannot be responsible for your health, and that I cannot expect you to be responsible for my health. Well-being is about the decisions we each make about our lifestyle. This is not a selfish position. It is not a decision at all. It is the reality. Our health is in our own hands; it is our responsibility; we make ourself well, or susceptible to sickness, by our own decisions. 

When we get ill natural medical therapies are there to help us support and strengthen our immune systems; but part of that consultation will almost inevitably involve a discussion about the lifestyle choices we have made, and what we can do to enhance our well-being.

Fifth, we recognise that one of the main side effects of pharmaceutical medicines is to compromise our natural immunity, to make the patient more rather than less susceptible to illness. So we avoid them. Pro-choice well-being advocates do not recommend chasing germs, and killing them, as the CHE does. We take this position because we believe, ultimately, they are counter-productive to our well-being.

So advocates of pro-choice well-being cannot agree to vaccination. It is not because we are 'anti-vaccine', or 'vaccine hesitancy'. It is because, for us, health comes from within. We do not believe that conventional medicine is helpful, that it does not understand health, and that ultimately it is contrary to our wellness and well-being.


Thursday, 8 April 2021

Covid-19 Vaccines. MSM begins to examine safety, and links with blood clotting

The mainstream media (MSM) in the UK have begun to report on the link between Covid-19 vaccines and blood clots. They have been forced to do so. They can no longer justify telling the public that these vaccines are 'entirely safe' - as they have been doing for months. But welcome as this change may be it needs to be challenged. Let's go over the history of media coverage of these vaccines since they were introduced at the end of December 2020.

  • Initially we were told that the vaccines were entirely safe; without reservation or caveat.
  • The vaccines would get our lives back to normal.
  • Early reports of serious side effects were completely ignored, never mentioned.
  • As reports of adverse reactions continued to come in they were denied (they were misinformation, fake news, conspiracy theory); even though they were reported by the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA, and published on the official government website.
  • Anyone who dared mention them were abused by the MSM as 'vaccine hesitant', 'anti-vaxxers'; their voices were never eard; they never asked to share their views by the MSM; and they were subject to increasing censorship on social media; I was myself banned on both Twitter and Linkedin.
  • Then several countries suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine, with blood clots being the cause of concern. The concerns of these countries were dismissed as 'sour grapes', countries whose vaccine rollout was not a 'good' as the UK's. It was an entirely ‘political’ action; it had nothing to do with health.
  • Yet the reported links between the vaccines and serious side effects continued to come through; and even the MSM could not ignore the evidence being provided by the MHRA. The MSM have been forced to respond, patient harm had to be addressed.
  • It has been addressed in several ways. "There was no proven link". "The numbers were so small". "It was just 'coincidence'" (the patient became ill at the same time as having the vaccine). "All drugs and vaccines had side effects". "These was nothing to worry about".
  • Then the MHRA decided that there was a link between the AZ Covid vaccine and blood clotting. So the MSM could no long ignore the information. No-one under 30 were to be given the AstraZeneka vaccine. So there was a link, the conventional medical establishment (CME) had to admit it. But the vaccines still had to be defended - so the public was told that the “benefits of the vaccines outweighed disadvantages”, and we were urged to continue taking the vaccine.

This is where we are now, at the time of writing. It is typical of what happens to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines - starting life as safe wonder drugs - and as patients in great numbers take them serious adverse reactions are discovered, demonstrating that the drug/vaccine is neither as safe, nor as magical in their treatment of illness. 

The 'disadvantage of the 'benefit'/'disadvantage' equation is the first quiet recognition that the initial claims of drug safety were not true.

The coverage of the MSN has not changed. It still provides the public with the views of the CME, the 'experts' who told us about the safety and effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines. They were never questioned about this at the time. Now they are not being questioned, called to task, about why they got it wrong. They offer their excuses, and these are never challenged. 

Nor are the critics of the CME approach to vaccines being given any more coverage or credibility. They were right; but they continue to be ignored. Those critics would be telling the public about the gathering evidence about reports of vaccine harm, which continue to appear in the official CHE sources, from the 'experts' themselves, but which continue to be ignored.

The MSM is still not being told the truth by the CME, the so-called experts. And the MSM don't bother to check what they are being told. Nor do they bother to ask anyone who would be prepared to tell them. For instance:

  • the problem with Covid-19 vaccines does not begin and end with blood clotting, it goes much further. The MHRA tells us that:

        "The most frequent adverse reactions in trials were pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, myalgia (muscle pains), chills, arthralgia (joint pains), and fever; these were each reported in more than 1 in 10 people." (My emphasis).

Since the vaccine was rolled out at the end of December 2020, as of 28th March 2021, (about 3 months), "43,491 Yellow Cards have been reported for the Pfizer/BioNTech, 116,162 have been reported for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine, and 418 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not specified."

These are not small numbers. And it does not reflect what the public has been told for the last 3 months, that the vaccines are safe. Yet the MHRA report provides information about the much more serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines, including:

  • severe allergy, including anaphylaxis.
  • Bell's Palsy.
  • Thrombo-embolic events.
  • Death

Yes, death; something the MSM has rarely (if ever) mentioned. Both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines are killing people. This is not an issue just because people are losing their lives - but also because the public are not being told. Do we not need to know? Should we not be told? Ask the government why the public is not being informed. Ask conventional medical experts why they are not telling us, whilst continuing to urge us to get vaccinated. Ask the MSM why they are ignoring the facts, as outlined by the MHRA, the UK's drug regulator, on the official government webpage.

        "The MHRA has received 302 UK reports of suspected ADR;s to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 472 reports for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine, and 12 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified". 

So 786 deaths in the UK, still entirely ignored by the MSM, information kept from the general public most of whom do not read official government websites.

I have watched this figure increase week by week. And week by week people are agreeing to vaccination on the basis that the vaccines are entirely safe - they have never been told otherwise. They certainly don't realise that vaccinated people are dying. They have not been told so they cannot make an informed choice.

It appears that the AstraZenica vaccine is grabbing most MSM attention, but it is difficult to see why this is. UK data, and similar figures in the USA and elsewhere around the world, suggest that this vaccine is no more or less harmful than any other Covid-19 vaccine. All the Covid-19 vaccines are causing serious patient harm, including death. And the public is not being told - by the medical authorities, by government, or by the MSM. Why?

Of course, any mention of 'blood clots' in the MSM is nearly always accompanied with the word 'rare'. This is part of the normal CHE reassurances. The vaccines might be causing blood clots; we might be concerned (if we knew); we might stop giving the vaccine to the under 30's; but don't worry - it is rare. So play the game of Russian Roulette, and hope for the best. And don't think about the fact that only 1% to 10% of drug/vaccine side effects are ever reported - which means that the numbers affected can be multiplied by at least 10, and probably 100. So not so rare, perhaps, but we are still urged to get vaccinated!

The Future - how will this story develop?

So where is this situation heading? On the basis that "the best predictor of the Future is the Past", whenever we predict the future we should learn from the past, in this situation from the history of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. If we look at this, what I have outlined above is not new or unusual, it has happened before, time and time again, and it is likely to be repeated here too.

I have written about "The Ages of Drugs" before, describing the decline of the many drugs that start life as ‘wonder drugs’ and which, over the years, become just another failed, ‘banned' drug. Each drug begin life heralded by great claims of conquering disease, overcoming and changing our experience of illness. They all finish their lives when it is decided that cause too much harm to patients to continue using them.

This ageing process is usually slow. The CHE has developed ways of slowing down the process. So the MSM are still talking exclusively to the same pro-vaccine ’experts’, members of the CHE. It is just that in future months the reassurances will sound ever-more hollow to anyone aware of what is happening, or have themselves be harmed by the vaccines.

And those of us who were right about the vaccines, who have been accused of 'misinformation', 'fake news', and 'conspiracy theory' will still be censored. The public cannot hear what we have to say, we excluded from the MSM, and increasingly censored by social media.

What we are witnessing with Covid-19 vaccines is ‘The Age of Drugs’ - the continual drip of information which I predict will ultimately destroy the reputation of these Covid-19 vaccines, and the ill-informed trust the public has in them. 

We have been here before with many other pharmaceutical drugs so there is no reason to believe it will not happen again.