Is Feeding Birds Harmful? Should we really do away with our feeding stations?

Or are RSPB's recent concern another example of our incorrect perspective on health, and how we maintain it - both in humans, other animals, and even plants?

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has recently said that their long-time recommendation to provide feeding stations to provide additional food for birds is not necessarily a good thing. This link takes you to their article, and a video, that explains their new position.

          “Research has shown a worrying decline in some of our much-loved garden birds due to a disease called trichomonosis. This is a highly contagious disease and can spread where birds gather in large numbers such as at bird feeders”.

And this is the BBC’s slant on their new policy, typical of how it has been covered in the mainstream media, warning that “putting up bird feeders in your garden may seem kind but it could be putting some species at serious risk”. And they continue with this warning.

          “Trichomonosis is caused by a parasite that affects the mouth, throat and upper digestive tracts of birds and can make it hard for them to eat, drink or breathe”.

My problem with this new guidance is that it is based on conventional medicine’s understanding of the cause of infectious disease.

Natural health therapies and conventional medicine take a different approaches to health and the causes of illness and disease. Whilst natural therapies focus on the central importance of our immune system (we all have one, humans, birds, and plants) and the way it protects us, conventional (drug based) medicine focuses of the danger of germs, the transmission illness (via germs) from one individual to another, and the need to protect ourselves from them.

• So do bird feeders cause disease? They might do.

• Do diseases picked up from feeders pass from bird to bird? They might do.

• And do we need to spend more time on the hygiene of bird stations? It would do no harm. But do we need to obsess about it?

Natural medical therapies would suggest that only those birds whose immune system is weak, or compromised, are at risk.

It is broadly accepted that there are three main reasons for the immune system to become weak or compromised.

1. Poor or inadequate nutrition.

2. Insufficient rest, too much stress.

3. A lack of exercise.

(Personally, I would add a fourth reason for humanity - the consumption of pharmaceutical drugs).

So lets consider each of these, and consider how they apply to birds.

1. Exercise

It is difficult to believe that the decline in bird populations, and any susceptibility to disease, is the result of a lack of exercise! They can fly anywhere they want, whenever they want, and they appear to do so! They do not have sedentary jobs! They do not spend hours watching television, or playing on mobile phones! Their food is not provided for them, so they have to search for, and find each and every morsel they eat. So their survival depends on exercise - not least when they are feeding their young.

2. Stress

It is likely that being a bird is stressful! They have lots of predators, ranging from hawks, to domestic cats, to motor cars, to out EMF transmission, and much more. Each day they have to be concerned about where the next meal is coming from.

Yet, on the other hand, birds probably have a lifestyle that provides them with more rest-time than we humans allow ourselves. They find a place of safety and take time to roost, that is, they spend a sizeable proportion of their time resting and sleeping.

However, the regular and ongoing loss of suitable habitats is now an increasing issue for most bird species. This is recognised as a key issue underlaying the decline in bird populations. I remember once removed a bush in my garden that had a Robin’s nest. In horror I watched the distress of the parent birds, which continued for several days.

3. Nutrition

Alongside this loss of habitat, and linked with it, nutrition is an important problem faced by many bird species. It is not just the constant need to the search for food, it is a problem exacerbated by human activity.

Flies. The fly population has been decimated in recent years, largely through the profligate human use of insecticides on farms, gardens, et al. No wonder populations of fly-eating birds are dwindling.

Seed. For many birds seeds are an important source of nutrition. Yet much seed is now grown using cultivation methods that require of herbicides? How much toxic residue do birds now consume when foraging for seed? This recent USA article highlights this threat.

So birds do face many problems that might affect their immune system, many of them man-made. Indeed, initially this is why bird feeding stations were introduced, and why so many of us spend large sums of money feeding birds in their gardens. We have been led to believe, for decades now, that this provides an important supplementary food source for them.

These problems can undoubtedly cause damage to the immune system of birds. And this would make them susceptible to germs. These germs can accumulate in feeding stations. And so some compromised birds might be susceptible to diseases like trichomonosis.

Yet for natural medicine the problem is not the germ, it is the harm being caused to the immune system that causes susceptibility to the germs.

So the solution is not to focus on bird diseases, and how bird feeding stations might generate them. We can certainly keep the feeders cleaner, as the RSPB suggest. But we should not be persuaded that our feeders are the main, or even a significant problem to the health and survival of bird populations.

Just as with humans, birds with a strong immune system will survive. We all live with ‘germs’ every moment of the day.

Yet in order to maintain a strong immune system they need our help. Not by removing our feeding stations, or not feeding them during the warmer months - but by ending pesticide use - by controlling domestic cats - by maintaining their habitat - by allowing them to get on with their lives - and yes, by augmenting their feed.

The RSPB’s new approach to feeding birds suffers from the same mistaken belief most people have about ill-health - that there are germs are out there, waiting to pounce, ready to attack us, eager to make us ill. For humans, good health does not come from a bottle of pills, or a vial of vaccine. Nor does good health for birds come from obsessively clean feeding stations!

Good health comes from within - both for us, for all other animals, including birds, and plants too. The best protection against disease for all of us is to look after our immune system - and like us birds can do this quite well for themselves! They can even be trusted to know when, and in what seasons of the year, they need to augment their diet at feeding stations.

Cancer. Why are more younger people getting this 'old age' disease?

And is the Conventional Medical Establishment really serious about looking at the reasons?

The BBC (and other mainstream media platforms) seem to be convinced that it is, as evidence in their article “11 cancers on the rise in young people - scientists find first clue why it’s happening”. So the issue is being raised, but is the conventional medical establishment seriously investigating the reasons.

The article refers to a study published in BMJ Oncology, “Temporal trends in behavioural risk factors for cancers with rising incidence in younger adults: an analysis of population-based data in England”. The objective of the study was “to assess whether changes in behavioural risk factors could explain rising cancer incidence in younger adults in England, and to evaluate the extent to which established and suspected risk factors contribute to these trends”. The study was conducted by The Institute of Cancer Research and Imperial College London, and the study says it looked at various life-style factors, including:

• Physical activity.

• Obesity (maintaining a healthy weight).

• Consumption of Ultra-processed foods.

• Forever chemicals (or PFAS).

• Antibiotic use.

• Consumption of sweetened drinks.

• Air pollution.

• Gut bacteria.

• Pesticides.

The study admitted that there “was a lot we don’t know”. So we must believe, then, that the study authors were not aware that cancer is a well-known side effect of most pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Antibiotic drugs were mentioned - but even this is virtually dismissed! Instead they focused on Obesity.

          “The report said the only data that aligned with the increase in cancer was levels of overweight and obesity, which has been on the rise since the 1990s.”

What this means is that we have been presented with yet another ‘scientific’ study that is “selective” about what it prepared to investigate. There is no doubt that conventional medicine is fully aware of the link between cancer and pharmaceutical drugs (for people of all ages). The knowledge is contained within their own literature. The link is routinely published in the British National Formulary, and websites such as drugs.com.

I have listed the main drugs that are know to cause cancer, here, Iatrogenic Diease. The pharmaceutical drugs known to cause cancer. They include psychiatric drugs, Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), the contraceptive pill, Statin drugs, antibiotics, Proton Pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors, most vaccines, and many, many more. So why was this well known, well documented cause of cancer omitted from the study? I hazard a guess.

If you don’t investigate you cannot implicate.

I hazard another guess: that the organisations that set up and conducted this research are funded by the pharmaceutical industry. So it was not so much that the authors were not aware of the link - it was that they were not permitted to included pharma drugs in the study. It would be bad for business. And bad for the funding that Pharma provides to universities, and ‘medical science’!

One of the problem that arises from such studies (and there are many) is that it sends conventional medicine on a wild goose chase. Their attention becomes focused on obesity. And worse, that it leads to treatment that involves patients taking more cancer-causing drugs that target obesity.

In this case, singling out ‘obesity’ will almost undoubtedly lead to the increased prescription of Pharma’s new ‘wonder drug’, GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, Mounjaro, Wygovy, et al. At the moment, as part of the promotion of these drugs, medical science is suggesting that they might actually reduce cancer. I have serious doubts about this, not least because there are already early signs that GLP-1 drugs can cause cancer, see for example here, “Can Weight-Loss Drugs Cause Cancer?

Even in these early days of GLP-1 use, the drugs.com website is already giving this warning.

          “Additionally, animal studies suggest Ozempic has the potential to cause thyroid cancer, which may lead to lumps in the throat and dysphagia”.

It is likely that the link is yet to be made!

So watch this space!

Big Pharma is allowed to sell patients harmful drugs, doctors are allowed to prescribe them, even when known to be dangerous to our health.

Drug Regulation does not work! When it discovers a harmful drug it does little/nothing. It is failing to address its primary purpose - to safeguard patients from harm

This is Medscape’s headline. “FDA Issues Alert on Liver Injuries Linked to Vasculitis Drug, Following Withdrawal Request”.

The FDA is the USA’s Drug Regulator, but its decisions are widely influential with drug regulators around the world. So its decisions affect all of us. It issued an alert about liver injury, including fatal cases, that have been linked to avacopan (Tavneos), a drug used for a rare autoimmune disease “that the agency had already asked to be voluntarily removed from the market”

Dangerous enough, you might think, for it to be withdrawn by the drug company, and/or banned by the regulator?

The Medscape article went on to say that on 31st March 2026 the FDA issued a public notice outlining their serious concerns about post-marketing cases of drug-induced liver injury that have been associated with avacopan. However, this seems to have carried little weight with Amgen, the drug’s manufacturer, who

          “..announced in January that it intended to continue to market this drug even though the FDA requested a voluntary withdrawal of avacopan. Separately, European regulators in January announced a safety review of the drug”.

The article goes on to state that the problem about this drug had been known for over 5 years.

          “In 2021, FDA staff expressed deep concern about liver risk even while approving avacopan for a serious and sometimes fatal autoimmune condition, severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis. The FDA required a special safety study focused on liver risk as part of this approval.

So, 5 years on, what does the drug regulator do to fulfil its main function - to protect patients from a drug that causes patient harm, and is known to cause fatalities?

          “In the new alert, the FDA recommends that patients talk to their healthcare professional about safety risks associated with avacopan and to discuss whether to continue therapy or switch to alternative treatments” especially if “they develop any signs or symptoms of liver injury, including nausea, vomiting, unusual itching, light-colored stools, yellowing of skin or eyes, dark urine, swelling in the stomach or abdomen, or pain in the right upper abdomen. The FDA also advised clinicians who have patients taking avacopan to conduct liver panel testing every 2 weeks in the first month of treatment, monthly for the next 5 months, and thereafter as clinically indicated”.

The FDA continues to state that avacopan should be discontinued promptly, and alternative treatments considered, in certain circumstances.

So there is a difference of opinion. The company is clearly confident that avacopan is both “effective and safe”, based, it says, on “robust clinical data and real-world evidence demonstrating the effectiveness and favorable benefit-risk profile”. And it is committed to continue marketing the drug.

However, the FDA says it has identified 76 cases of drug-induced liver injury “with reasonable evidence of a causal association with avacopan use … that comes from reviews of postmarketing data, medical literature, and the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System ... Of these 76 cases, 74 reported a serious outcome, including 54 hospitalizations and eight deaths”.

These clinical outcomes might be considered adequate grounds for taking more robust protective action for patients in addition to “discussing” the issues with a doctor. But no. One comment outlined in the Medscape article states that:

          “The FDA’s Drug Safety Communication about avacopan highlighting the eight fatal cases of drug-induced liver injury is important, but insufficient”.

So, a drug that causes 8 deaths is not sufficient reason to withdraw, or ban it. How many more drugs are drug regulators approving, drug companies selling, and doctors prescribing, that are causing this level of patient harm?

Even Medscape raises this question. It asks why, if the FDA has requested the drug be voluntarily withdrawn from the US market, the agency not making this request publicly, and pushing back against the company for not having already withdrawn the drug? Why does the prescribing information for avacopan not include a boxed warning for the risk of fatal liver disease?

These are urgent questions for the FDA to answer. Yet the FDA has failed to do so, and so confirms that no pharmaceutical drug should be considered “safe and effective”, that drug regulators are failing to act decisively to protect patients, that doctors will therefore continue to prescribe harmful drugs to patients.

Avacopan is a small drug. But it represents a good example of how conventional medicine now treats the issue of patient safety. It demonstrates a medical system that is prepared to “discuss” how many patients it is allowed to kill, how much chronic disease it is allowed to cause, before any robust action is taken to protect us. It shows h

ow patient safety takes second place to pharmaceutical profits.

I would suggest that the only sensible solution for everyone is to develop a healthy mistrust, and to studiously avoid a medical system that is clearly failing to protect us.

Vaccination. Why do we need Religioius Exemptions?

Are religious exemptions a good thing? Or should the right to refuse vaccination be open to everyone, regardless of their religious belief?

The right to refuse vaccination on the basis of religious beliefs has been around for a very long time. The idea that everyone needs to be vaccinated, and if necessary forced to be vaccinated, has become more important since the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment, supported by Government and Mainstream Media around the world, tried to mandate/force Covid-19 vaccines on entire populations.

I pose a simple question. If my religion was opposed to vaccination should this be sufficient reason for me to be excused from a mandated vaccine?

I would wholeheartedly agree with this proposal! Religious objections for vaccination should be more than sufficient. My problem, however, is that I am not religious. I hold no strong religious views on any topic, including vaccination.

So does this mean that my personal views about vaccines (that they are largely ineffective, unnecessary, and a risk to my personal health) can be discounted? Does the fact that my objections are medical rather than religious, mean that the Government, in support of a powerful pharmaceutical lobby, can forcibly vaccinate me - against my will?

The argument for religious exemptions is therefore a partial one. There is another problem too. Permitting someone to remain vaccine free on purely religious grounds deals only with specific religious grounds. It tacitly accepts (or does not challenge) the medical argument that vaccines are “good” for us, that everyone should be vaccinated as they are “safe and effective”, and that contrary health-based arguments are remain unacceptable.

Moreover, religious exemptions do not challenge the nonsense argument used by the Pharmaceutical Industry (supported by Government and the Mainstream Media) that there is such a thing as “herd immunity” - that everyone must be vaccinated before anyone is protected. In other words, ‘your’ vaccination does not protect you; but my vaccination does!

What this would mean is that unless I have a religious reason for refusing a vaccination my ‘right to remain vaccine-free, my informed personal choice, my personal freedom, can be over-ridden - for the general public good.

Vaccine exemptions on purely medical grounds should be supported and argued strongly. The Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment is not just strong and powerful; it is also grossly arrogant. It believes it knows best, and is prepared to use its influence over Government and the Mainstream Media to force us to accept their medical views.

Natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, have a different view - that we can all stay well, free from illness, as long as we support and maintain our individual immune systems. What this means is that our natural immunity that protects us from contracting the (generally mild) diseases for which we are offered vaccines.

And as a result, it is not just religious exceptions we should be supporting, it is medical and personal reasons too.

 

PS. Just for information.... Blogger deleted this post! I appealed. And it was almost instantly reinstated. Goodness know why Blogger considered it to be 'suspect'! Or what is going on in the censorship media.Go to https://safemedicine.substack.com/p/vaccines-why-do-we-need-religious - to see the blog on my new forum.

Pharmaceutical Drugs CAN Cause Dementia

Is this Medscape article the first recognition from within the Medical Establishment that pharmaceutical drugs can, and do, cause Dementia? Will anyone take notice? Or act to protect patients?

          “Drug-related cognitive impairment is common in routine practice and should be considered in any individual receiving drug therapy who presents with cognitive symptoms. These effects can occur at any age and are associated with a wide range of medications. The long-term use of benzodiazepines, antidepressants with anticholinergic properties, and antipsychotics has been associated with cognitive decline, particularly in older adults. Although these impairments may be preventable through baseline cognitive assessment and regular monitoring, they are often mistaken for age-related or neurodegenerative conditions and therefore remain underrecognized”.

This is how the Medscape article introduces the causal link between drugs and dementia in its article “When Medications May Contribute to Cognitive Decline.

I have been making the link between dementia and pharmaceutical drugs for the last 20+. This is my article, dating back to 2009, “Is Dementia Caused by Pharmaceutical Drugs?. The rise and rise of dementia has, after all, been mirrored almost exactly by the rise and rise of the consumption of prescribed drugs. And, as I have often pointed out, the known side effects of many drugs include memory loss, attention deficits, confusion, disorientation in time or space, and other well-known symptoms of dementia.

So here I will do little more than to repeat what the Medscape article says. Medscape, after all, is part of the Conventional Medical Establishment. It is not usually critical of it. And it describes itself as “the leading online global destination for physicians and healthcare professionals worldwide, offering the latest medical news and expert perspectives; essential point-of-care drug and disease information; and relevant professional education and CME”.

The Medscape article says that it undertook a literature review that examined “the clinical features and drug classes involved, highlighting the potential long-term consequences when these effects are not identified and managed”.

It discovered that“medication-related cognitive impairment is more prevalent than often assumed. Drugs are the leading cause of delirium and may account for up to 30% of cases in hospitalized older adults. Thus, polypharmacy doubles the risk”.

It said that “medication-related dementia accounts for an estimated 2.7%-10% of dementia cases”, and that “earlier studies have suggested that medications may represent the most common cause of reversible dementia, contributing to 28.2% of the cases. With increasing prescriptions and a higher number of medications per person, the burden is likely to be greater”.

It went on to say that “the risk increases sharply with the number of medications prescribed, increasing ninefold in individuals receiving four or more drugs. Polypharmacy affects approximately 29% of individuals aged 65 years or older and nearly 42% of those aged 85 years or older”.

It says that “the severity ranges from mild cognitive impairment to dementia. In some cases, symptoms present acutely as delirium with hallucinations, illusions, or altered perception” and that “these impairments can appear shortly after drug initiation or may develop gradually. Severity often correlates with plasma drug concentration. Symptoms typically improve after dose reduction or discontinuation, although persistence for months or longer has been reported”.

So what pharmaceutical drugs does it implicate as contributing to the ongoing epidemic of dementia? They are exactly the same drugs that I previously outlines, 25+ years ago, here.

“Multiple drug classes have been associated with an increased risk for cognitive impairment, including antiepileptics, antidepressants, antiparkinsonian agents, antipsychotics, lithium, benzodiazepines, opioids, first-generation antihistamines, anticholinergics used for urinary incontinence, proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, statins, antihypertensives, and anticancer therapies”.

It gives me little pleasure to say “I told you so”. I am not gloating. After all, it is not something to celebrate. In the intervening years, many millions of people have suffered dementia, in all its many forms. Their suffering has been caused by a medical system that regularly, and routinely, discounts/denies the harm that it does through the drugs it prescribes.

Medscape also refers to a 2023 literature review that assessed the cognitive safety of psychotropic medications in older adults. It “found that individuals with depression who had no baseline cognitive impairment were at greater risk for cognitive decline when treated with tricyclic antidepressants or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, particularly paroxetine, for at least 6 months compared with those not receiving these medications. These findings suggest that medications, rather than depression itself, may contribute to the decline, potentially through their anticholinergic effects”.

It continues. “Benzodiazepines, especially those with a long half-life of at least 20 hours, have also been associated with cognitive decline” and that “most studies have reported significant cognitive decline in older adults treated with antipsychotics, with a risk approximately double that of healthy individuals or equivalent to 1 year of neurodegenerative disease progression. This association has been observed for both conventional and atypical antipsychotics. The combination of antipsychotics with other psychotropic medications has also been linked to cognitive decline in older adults.

So what is Medscapes conclusion? What does it recommend? They suggest a response that appears to be a weak - to the point of being dismissive of the full implications.

“Experts recommend systematic cognitive assessment before prescribing these medications and then regularly throughout treatment. Comprehensive evaluation across multiple domains, ideally conducted by a neuropsychologist, is preferable, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination or the Montreal Cognitive Assessment”.

So drugs that even the conventional medical profession know cause dementia are still to be prescribed - but with more ‘evaluation’ and ‘assessment’! And I suspect that the medical establishment will do even less than this meagre suggestion. All pharmaceutical drugs are known to cause serious patient harm - not just dementia - and rarely if ever is anything done that would avoid future patient harm - other than taking “more care”. This is usually defended by using the (unproven) equation that a drug “does less harm than good”.

The Medscape article was published in 23 March 2026. I expect it to be ignored, forgotten, or even withdrawn! I do not expect Governments, the Mainstream Media, Patient Support Grounds (funded by Big Pharma), or the Conventional Medical Establishment, to take any notice of it. I predict that it will not be drawn to patients, and their families, attention, and that drugs known to cause dementia will continue to be prescribed by doctors.

Life will continue, as before, except perhaps for those people who will be unfortunate enough to suffer from drug-induced dementia.

Such is the power and control exercised by the Pharmaceutical Industry within society.

 

PS. This article is clearly very critical of the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment. So it is likely to be censored/deleted by Blogger. However, it will still be on my new Substack forum. 

https://safemedicine.substack.com/p/pharmaceutical-drugs-can-cause-dementia.

Please follow me, or take up a free subscription, there.

 

Pharmaceutical Drugs. Are they a Lifetime Sentence?

Once on drugs, always on drugs? And if so, are you at the start of a long journey towards serious ill-health and chronic disease?

Pharmaceutical medicine has little problem prescribing drugs. For its patients it is the normal consequence of seeing a doctor, or visiting a hospital, anywhere in the world. Given the growing concerns about the safety and effectiveness of prescribed drugs, deprescribing drug taking is rarely mentioned.

However, a recent paper, outlined in the Medscape journal, “New Deprescribing Guidance Marks an ‘Important Moment’ in Psychiatry” brought this concept to my attention.

          “A new expert consensus statement from the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology offered clinical guidance on when and whether to discontinue psychiatric medications. The statement, developed by a 45-member international task force, reached consensus on 44 of 50 recommendations addressing when deprescribing is warranted. Among the key points: clinicians should periodically reassess all medications, always verify adherence before concluding a drug isn’t working, and engage patients in shared decision-making about discontinuation”.

What this article demonstrates is taking pharmaceutical drugs, all with known, usually serious adverse health reactions, ‘deprescribing’ them is something not often considered in conventional medicine. What this means is that conventional medicine appears to be content to allow its patients to continue taking drugs, often for a lifetime, without considering the likely health consequences to patients.

As a practising homeopath I routinely prescribed homeopathic remedies for my sick patients and there was never a presumption that a patient would take them for long. If they did not work - I changed them to something that did work. If they worked - the regularity of the prescription was reduced to “take as necessary”. Usually, once a remedy began to work, this proved to be with decreasing frequency. “Deprescribing” remedies was never an issue!

With conventional medicine the situation is different. There seems to be an automatic, inevitable presumption in favour of continuing drugs, almost regardless of the outcome.

• If a drug works (even minimally) the patient is presumed to need it, will not be able to cope without it, so patients are encouraged to continue taking it.

• If a drug does not work, the patient remains ill, so the assumption is that they still need it, perhaps in a stronger form, or another similar drug; otherwise the illness will get worse.

So all patients need to ask whether these assumptions are medical one’s, or based on the business model of conventional medicine. Selling drugs, after all, is what the pharmaceutical industry, which dominates conventional medicine, does!

Reading the Medscape article reminded me that the prescription of “Lifetime drugs” is common, perhaps even routine. The is despite the fact that taking a drug over an extended period of time is likely to increase both the likelihood of causing serious adverse drug reactions, and the need for increasingly stronger drugs, alongside the creation of drug tolerance and dependency.

Nowhere is this more so than with psychiatric medicine. This can be quickly demonstrated by looking at the known “side effects” of antidepressant drugs (for example see this account from the MIND website), and antipsychotic drugs (see this similar account from MIND). They include many serious illnesses and diseases such as heart and liver problems, diabetes, problems with vision, seizures (fits). But there are others which would clearly prejudice the patients lifestyle and quality of life, including confusion and agitation, sedation, sleepiness, decreased alertness, drowsiness, hallucinations, suicidal feeling and behaviour

Imagine living with a drug that you have to take for the rest of your life that might be subjecting you to these so-called ‘side effects’! Yet this is what conventional medicine does, routinely.

So perhaps it is a positive sign that at least one section of the Conventional Medical Establishment is starting to think about ‘deprescribing’ their use. Whether it happens, or not, is another matter.

Moreover, confidence in the positive impact of pharmaceutical drugs are invariably exaggerated. The ‘medical science’ that informs and supports the use of prescribed drugs is not as strong as most people assume. Most drug trials do not describe ‘cures’ but in the main suggesting that they can help:

• to reduce the severity of a condition by 30% (or similar),

• and then only in 25% of patients (or similar).

So what ‘medical science’ is usually saying is that 75% of patients will not be helped at all, and even those who are helped are still likely to continue suffering some 70% of the illnesses impact.

In this way pharmaceutical drugs are given too much credit for what they can actually do! I have written about this over-confidence before in medical spheres other than mental health. For instance, when chronic pain is treated (as it is routinely) with pain killing drugs patients will usually find that the more painkillers they take, the more they need, and that increasingly strong doses, with stronger ‘side effects’, are required as the pain gets progressively worse. Eventually, when painkillers no longer work, a limb replacement operation is often required. For two examples of this ‘long journey’ into chronic ill-health see two of my articles, both written in 2018, about “A long journey through pain and painkilling drugs to surgery”, and “Ronald. A patient nearing the end of a long journey through pain, painkilling drugs, chronic pain, and Tramadol”.

These examples of life-time drug prescriptions will be well known to many people. If we open our eyes we can see them all around us. The problem is that most people, brought up to believe in the ‘miracle’ cures of conventional medicine, do not associate the long-term drug taking with the exacerbation of health problem.

Taking pharmaceutical drugs, for any condition, is rarely anything more than a temporary fix, and more often than not is a ‘fix’ that will exacerbate, rather than improve, patient health. Almost inevitably taking one drug leads to two, then more; and to the prescription of stronger, more toxic drugs, ending with major (often brilliant) invasive operations, spiralling ill health, and ongoing long-term chronic disease.

 

The Immune System. It is the only mechanism we have that keeps us well, and can make us well when we fall sick.

 Hello All

Another one of my posts, titled above, has been deleted (censored) by Google. This is the email that I received from Blogger. 

"As you may know, our Community Guidelines (https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy) describe the boundaries for what we allow – and don't allow – on Blogger. Your post titled 'The Immune System is the only mechanism we have that keeps us well, and can make us well when we fall sick.' was flagged to us for review. We have determined that it violates our guidelines and deleted the post, previously at https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2026/03/the-immune-system-is-only-mechanism-we.html.

"Why was your blog post deleted?

"Your content has been evaluated according to our Misleading content policy. Please visit our community guidelines page linked in this email to learn more.

I have asked Blogger to review this decision but I am fully aware that they will not do so. Google is firmly committed to the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment, which brooks no dissent from the narrative.

However, you are still able to read my "misleading content" on my favoured Substack platform (click on this link). I would urge you to do so in order to decide for yourself whether it contains "misleading content". And whilst you are there you can either 'subscribe' to receive all my future articles (free), and 'follow' me on the platform (also free).

Blogger/Google's censorship of genuine health discussion demonstrates the lengths that Pharmaceutical Medicine will go in order to stifle debate on important issues relating to our health.

 

Addendum 6th March 2026

I have a tiny apology to make to Blogger. They have 'reinstated' my 'misleading post', presumably because it is no longer a 'misleading post'. Strange that. I have not changed it in any way, shape or form. But whereas I said that would not reinstate it (a statement based on past experience) they have now done so. Thank you. 

          "We have re-evaluated the post titled 'The Immune System is the only mechanism we have that keeps us well, and can make us well when we fall sick.' against our Community Guidelines. Upon review, the post has been reinstated. You may access the post at https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2026/03/the-immune-system-is-only-mechanism-we.html."

So perhaps this is a small victory for freedom of speech, even for Patient Choice and Health Freedom too?