Search This Blog

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.


Wednesday, 31 March 2021

Steroid Drugs - dependency and an adult emergency card. Is this really medicine?

 Just how effective and dangerous are these pharmaceutical drugs if you have to carry this card? The clues can perhaps be spotted in the following words taken from this "Steroid Emergency Card".

  • "the patient is physically dependent on daily steroid 'therapy'".
  • "critical medicine".
  • "It must be given/taken as prescribed and never committed or discontinued".
  • "Missed doses, illness or surgery can cause an adrenal crisis requiring emergency treatment".

The conventional medical establishment should be deeply ashamed that any pharmaceutical drug that leave patients in such circumstances, should be considered an 'medicine', and that such a drug should be inflicted on any patient.

I can only recommend that patients who have to carry such a card, or anyone taking drugs that can have this outcome, or anyone offered these drugs, should consult with a qualified and registered homeopath to see what can be done to help them.

A copy of this card was taken from this MIMS website.

The steroid emergency card should be given to all patients with primary adrenal insufficiency and those who are steroid dependent.

Tuesday, 30 March 2021

Covid-19 Vaccines. What can we learn from the countries suspending them, and from others content to continue using them?

It's simple! Surely? Either a vaccine is safe or it's not safe. And on the basis of the medical professions principle of "First do no harm" any vaccine that is not safe should not be used by patients, especially when the vaccine has been 'fast-tracked' into our arms.

It has been hard to keep track on which countries have had sufficient doubts about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines, and have suspended their use; and which of these countries have suspended them but been quickly reassured, or pressured into reintroducing them. Certainly these countries have done one or the other.

  • Austria
  • Bulgaria 
  • Cyprus
  • Estonia
  • Latvia
  • Luxembourg
  • Lithuania
  • Romania
  • Denmark
  • Norway
  • Iceland
  • The Netherlands
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Romania
  • Slovenia
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Thailand

Note: Canada joined this list following the writing of this blog.

However, most other countries appear to have no qualms about any of the vaccines. This is not an unusual phenomenon. I have often wondered why it is that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are considered 'safe' in some countries, but suspended or banned in others because they are unsafe. I have pondered on  whether the citizens of some countries are less hardy than those of other countries; but this always seems unlikely.

A more likely explanation is that the history of every pharmaceutical drug and vaccine is a struggle: between a growing awareness of the serious adverse reactions they cause; and the denials of the conventional medical establishment that pharmaceutical drugs can cause patient harm.

For instance, it was reported yesterday (even by BBC News) that one drug, Mediator, banned in 2009 after 33 years of causing serious heart failure, and the death of over 2,000 people, has resulted in a court finding the French drug company guilty of aggravated deceit and involuntary manslaughter. The drug regulator was also fined for failing in its primary duty - to protect the public from dangerous drugs. (This website outlines several other similar histories of banned drugs).

So is this what is happening to the Covid-19 vaccines? Even though it is early in their use, vaccination did not start until the very end of December 2020, there appears to be a growing number of concerns about the vaccines, concerns that are being either ignored, denied or discounted by the conventional medical establishment. This fits into a pattern that I have described before when talking about "the Ages of Drugs". Here are some recent expressions of concern.

The European drug regulator, the EMA, has recently conceded that one vaccine "may" cause blood clots, but still insists that they are "still safe and effective", and countries should continue to use it. Such cases, they say, are 'very rare'. This response fits the time-honoured tradition in conventional medicine - a drug or vaccine is safe - until such time it has proven to be so harmful it cannot be defended any longer.

At the same time there was this EMA pronouncement, that new research from Norway and Germany linked one Covid-19 vaccine with blood clots. So the debate will continue is not resolved by denials.

Indeed, such official assertions will never end the debate. They will perhaps be sufficient for governments and the mainstream media (MSM). But if the past is anything to go by new evidence of patient harm will emerge as time passes, and is perhaps already emerging. 

For example, one scientist has told the USA drug regulator, the FDA, that they are ignoring "clear and present dangers" associated with the Covid-19 vaccines, and warning that many will die needless "if we carelessly and indiscrinately" vaccinate people already infected with the virus. Is this true? We will probably not know for quite some time - as the drug regulator appears to be ignoring any such possibility!

Another headline I have seen recently is that the number of women losing their unborn child after have the Covid-=19 vaccine has increased by 366% in just six weeks. Is this true? I have no idea. This is not a source that I know, and it is likely to be dismissed as 'misinformation', or more likely just ignored, or if this is not possible, denied and/or discounted. But official denials, whether of 'coincidence', or 'the advantages outweighing the disadvantages', will not end the concern.

Then more evidence of vaccine promotion surfaces, and this also impinges on the sceptical mind, suggesting that conventional medicine is looking for bigger markets rather than patients who need safeguarding. Covid-19 vaccine tested on babies even as death toll mounts is one headline. One company, Moderna, has started testing their vaccine on children between the age of 6 months and 11 years - at the time when the USA VAERS reporting system has received 31,079 adverse reaction reports, including 1,551 deaths. And we have been told for the last year and more that Covid-19 virus barely affects children. So why is this being done? More questions that will be asked, and will need an answer.

So will these Covid-19 vaccines be around in 5, 10, or even 33 years? The answer is uncertain, and is likely to remain uncertain. The history of pharmaceutical drugs suggests that there will be increasing evidence that they cause patient harm; and that this evidence will be refuted and denied. So this uncertainty will likely go on for many years to come. 

But if past performance is a good indicator of future performance the evidence against these vaccines will build. Conventional medicine does not apply the precautionary principle, so the vaccines will be used until such time as they can no longer be defended. I hope I am wrong, but believing the official assurances of medical science about drug and vaccine safety is not a safe thing to do.

As in the case of Mediator, people will be assured about the safety of the vaccines; so many more people will accept the vaccines; but it could be decades before the harm they cause is fully accepted by the conventional medical establishment, and action taken.

Since conventional medicine has dominated medical provision it has always been thus!


Thursday, 25 March 2021

Justifying Unsafe Medication. "The Drug is safe. Carry on taking it. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages. If you are harmed it's just a coincidence""

All pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have side effects, most of them have very serious, disease-creating side effects. Even doctors will sometimes admit this! It is a fact confirmed in conventional medical literature. We only have to take a look at the Patient Information Leaflets that accompanies every drug and vaccine to see some of the serious patient harm they can cause.

So how does the conventional medical establishment (CME) justify giving us 'medicines' that cause patient harm, and can make us seriously sick? They have several strategies.

    The CME tells their patients that there is no other treatment (forgetting that natural medical therapies are treating patients diagnosed with every conceivable illness, every day, entirely safely, and usually quite effectively).

    The CME denies that an adverse drug/vaccine reaction has anything to do with the drug/vaccine. "It's just a coincidence", they tell us, "what happened would have happened anyway". This is has been the main CME reaction to the reports that Covid-19 vaccines were causing blood clots.

    The CME say that the drug is "well tolerated". This is an admission that there might be a few slight, non-serious side effects, but they not serious enough for the patient to worry about.

Yet perhaps the most important of all the CME justifications used to encourage patients to take harmful medicine is that "the advantages outweigh the disadvantages".

This phrase enables CME to hide serious and harmful drug/vaccine side effects. It states that they might indeed cause patient harm; but they do so much good it is worth taking the risk. This apparent 'cost-benefit' analysis allows doctors, when they can no longer hide the fact that a drug/vaccine is causing harm, to shift from “the drug is safe” position, to another apparent reason to take the drug.

Yet "the advantages outweigh the disadvantages" is essentially a meaningless phrase, empty words, just another ploy to justify giving patients dangerous medicine.

  • Where can we find this calculation? I have never seen one, they are nowhere to be found! It is usually just a bald statement, completely unsubstantiated, without substance, but masquerading as science, and pretending to be fact.
  • The Advantages. Invariably these are heavily exaggerated, usually taken from when it was first put through medical testing, with hopelessly optimistic projections, and prior to its introduction to real patients.

When I first wrote about "the ages of drugs" in 2007. I described the process that every pharmaceutical drug/vaccine has taken during its descent from "wonder drug" (Childhood) to "banned drug" (Old Age). Into the 'advantages' column the CME places all the original, inflated claims from the drug's 'childhood' period. In the 'disadvantages' column is placed the now known adverse drug reactions, seriously under-reported as they are, and always heavily discounted.

It is rather like buying a second hand car, when we are told about its benefits when it was new, but glossing over the years of wear-and-tear it has gone through since then.

This bogus 'cost-benefit analysis' is a deception, designed by the CME to encourage us to continue taking a drug or vaccine known to be harmful, and to hide the too-often obvious fact that conventional medicine has nothing better, nothing safer to offer its patients. 

It has one further advantage. It means the CME does not have to investigate any further into the criticism of the drug/vaccine. "The advantages outweigh the disadvantages" seems to accept the criticism - but without actually doing anything about it, so not taking the issues seriously, ignoring the "first do no harm" principle it purports to follow, and giving the drug/vaccine a few more additional years it invariably does not deserve.

Beware doctors justifying the drugs and vaccines they want you to take!


Mandatory drugging is gaining ground, massively boosted now by the fear that has been generated over the Covid-19 pandemic. So when patients refuse to take a pharmaceutical drug or vaccine (for whatever reason) the conventional medical establishment (aided and abetted by government, and the mainstream media, MSM) wants to force them on us. They know best! We are just foolish!

  • Mandatory drugging is the anathema to health freedom and patient choice.
  • Enforcing medication represents the ultimate failure of conventional medicine, the inability to convince patients of the value and safety of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

So why is forced medication gaining ground? Why is it happening (mainly) within democracies? Indeed, why do the vast majority of patients quite willingly allow doctors to impose pharmaceutical drugs on them, even when there is known, well documented evidence that they cause patient harm and create illness? And why has mandatory drugging been allowed to gain ground in parts of the world (the USA, UK, Europe, Israel, et al) that can so often heard espousing their commitment to personal freedom and liberty?

Whilst at college I read a book by Erich Fromm, written in 1942, called "The Fear of Freedom". During the time of fascist and communist dictatorship it asked some basic questions about humanity, and its attitude towards freedom.

  • does modern man really want freedom?
  • or are we intrinsically afraid of it?
  • is the fear of freedom the root of the 20th centuries predilection for totalitarianism?

Fromm's argument may provide a clue to why so many people accept conventional medical autocracy, including the long term absence of any serious debate about the almost complete dominance pharmaceutical medicine has within our national medical provision; and more recently, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the acceptance of horrendously damaging government health policies involving social distancing, lockdown, et al, which have led directly to the most serious, indeed disastrous social and economic breakdown. All with hardly a whimper! This is what Fromm said.

        "The rise of democracy, while setting men free, also created a society where man feels isolated from his fellows, where relationships are impersonal and where insecurity replaces a sense of belonging. This sense of isolation drives man to a devotion and submission to all-powerful organization from the state." 

Recently I was reminded of Fromm when I read this piece from the Off-Guardian by Tim Foyle, "On the psychology of the conspiracy denier". Foyle also begins by asking an important question.

  • Why is it that intelligent, thoughtful and rationally minded people baulk at the suggestion that sociopaths are conspiring to manipulate and deceive them? 
Foyle continues by making a series of statements, all without too much danger of contradiction; and all of which can be associated with the dominance of the conventional medical establishment, and the threat to health freedom.
  • that history catalogues the machinations of liars, thieves, bullies and narcissists and their devastating effects,
  • that in modern times evidence of corruption and extraordinary deceptions abound,
  • that politicians lie and hide their connections,
  • that corporations routinely display utter contempt for moral norms
  • that corruption surrounds us.

He goes on to talk about "revolving doors between the corporate and political spheres, the lobbying system, corrupt regulators, the media and judiciary mean that wrongdoing is practically never brought to any semblance of genuine justice."

He then reminds us that the the mainstream media (MSM) makes noise about these matters occasionally but never pursues them with true vigour. And that in the intelligence services and law enforcement wrongdoing on a breathtaking scale is commonplace and that, again, justice is never forthcoming. He says that government repeatedly ignores and/or tramples on the rights of the people, and actively abuses and mistreats the people.

Foyle states that none of this is controversial - and he is right. And he asks why most people refuse to acknowledge what is going on - in front of their eyes.

            "Why, against all the evidence, do they sneeringly and contemptuously defend the crumbling illusion that 'the great and good' are up there somewhere, have everything in hand, have only our best interests at heart, and are scrupulous, wise and sincere. The the press serves the people and truth rather than the crooks? That injustice after injustice result from mistakes and oversights, and never from that dread word: conspiracy?

Why indeed! Foyle's analysis is certainly germane to the almost non-existant health debate, notable mainly by its absence. It explains why so many people believe what they are told by the conventional medical establishment; and why apparently 'free' people allow their governments to impose dangerous drugs and vaccine on them. He goes on to ask - where does such an inadvertently destructive impulse originate? And he places it at the very beginning of human experience.

            "The infant places an innate trust in those it finds itself with - a trust which is, for the most part, essentially justified. The infant could not survive otherwise".

            "... the innate impulse to trust the mother never evolves, never encounters and engages with its counterbalance of reason (or mature faith), and remains forever on its 'default' infant setting".

So if the sociopaths are in full control of the pharmaceutical medical establishment, they are in control because we have never learnt to look after ourselves, we have never learnt to live our lives without being told (and preferring to be told) how to live our lives. The medical establishment stresses the importance of drugs and vaccines to our health; and most people go along with this. And as drugs are hugely profitable, pharmaceutical profits have enabled the industry to take complete control of medicine, at each and every level. Moreover, they have been able to subvert governments, and the MSM, who have willingly joined the medical establishment; and now the social media is going the same way.

So is the problem that we are afraid of health freedom? Would we rather be told what to do then to look at what we are being told, question it, and to make an informed choice? Do we prefer to believe that good health comes from a packet of pills, and that immunity from illness and disease comes only from a vaccine?

Natural medical therapies, such as homeopathy, have a different view. Therapists tell their patients that we are each responsible for the maintenance of our health; through good diet and nutrition; through adequate exercise; through sensible life-style choices; et al. This is right because it is right! It is the reality of life. 

The problem with this approach to health is that it puts each one of us, individually, in charge of our own health. We are, after all, responsible for making the key decisions about our health. Natural medical therapies are safe and effective. They will help us when we are sick; but ultimately it is the individual who is in charge of his/her own destiny. Sadly,  it would seem that, for too many people, this is just too much responsibility.

Friday, 19 March 2021

Covid-19 Vaccines are pronounced "safe". How much can we rely on this? The Ages of Drugs: is a new saga beginning?

Anyone who is relying on conventional medicine to overcome the Covid-19 virus is probably ignoring the best defence we have, and even putting their lives at risk.

I am reminded of a story that a Christian friend once told me about "The drowning Christian". It concerns a man faced with imminent death by drowning. He is offered help; by someone in a canoe; another in a speed boat; and eventually by a helicopter. He refuses all these offers of help preferring instead to 'rely on God'. He drowns; and when he meets his God he asks why he did not help. God reminded him that he did send two boats and a helicopter! 

This modern-day parable is told by Christians to gently to encourage us all to help ourselves rather than to rely on any blind faith in God to solve our problems for us.

The fact is that we are all well equipped to help ourselves against viruses! My good, deeply religious friend would no doubt remind me that God has provided us all with an immune system, that we have been given natural immunity from disease. It is not necessary to wait for a vaccine, or indeed anything else that conventional medicine might offer as 'the only' solution to the problem.

The problem with pharmaceutical medicine is that it wants us to place our faith in vaccines. Throughout the pandemic conventional medical 'science' has focused on the need for a vaccine to the almost total exclusion of any mention of natural immunity.

The importance of our immune system is stressed by homeopathy, and most other natural medical therapies. There are two problems with reliance on the immune system. One is that we all have to work quite hard to support and strengthen our natural immunity (I have written about this recently, here). And second, it is not a profitable strategy for the pharmaceutical industry. So the conventional medical establishment wants us to believe that our salvation (literally, that word has been used) rests entirely with pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and that we should rely on them to the exclusion of everything else.

Reliance on the Covid-19 Vaccines - the beginning of a new saga?

Most people have been waiting for the Covid-19 vaccines. For months we have all been told these vaccines were going to be our saviour, they would return us to normal life, ending the need to wear masks, to socially distance, and to lockdown. Yet now, even after many millions of people have been vaccinated, this is not happening - even for those people who have been vaccinated. 

Then reports started to emerge about people dying shortly after they had been vaccinated. So most European countries suspended one of the vaccines. Days later the drug regulator, the European Medicine Agency (EMA) has assured us that despite the deaths, this vaccine is safe, and the vaccination programme should continue.

So are the vaccines safe? Are the reports of serious side effects, including blood clots and death, to be discounted this easily? And with such complete certainty?

There is little doubt that a new saga has started, as it does with most (if not all) pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. I have described the process before as 'The Ages of Pharmaceutical Drugs', and also when describing 'The Dangerous Drugs of Today'. 

            "There is a regular pattern of 'new' drugs replacing 'old' drugs, always accompanied by strident claims about their miraculous capabilities for the new one - only for these new 'wonder' drugs to be withdrawn (as silently as possible) just a few years later. One of the recurring features of pharmaceutical drugs is that each one appears to pass through a specific life cycle.

Birth. The new drug is announced as a 'medical breakthrough' that will transform the lives of patients who suffer from a particular disease. We are told that they have been 'scientifically' tested, and found to be both safe and effective. 

Childhood. The drug is prescribed to patients, often in great anticipation. However, it is quickly discovered that the new wonder drug has 'side effects', or 'adverse reactions' (which should be known as Disease-Inducing-Effects, or DIEs). However, in these early, hopeful days these are usually considered to be unimportant. The argument is usually that the benefits of the drugs to patients greatly outweigh these ‘minor’ disadvantages.

This is where the Covid-19 vaccines are at the moment - in their childhood - not such a wonder drug - and with the first signs of patient harm having emerged, albeit quickly denied or dismissed. Adulthood will follow, when more serious evidence of patient harm emerges which cannot be denied or ignored, and the use of the drug has to be restricted, prescribed only with great caution, alongside increasing patient 'hesitancy'. Old Age then follows when "patients begin to realise some of the problems caused by the drug, and as a result there is increased resistance to taking them. Doctors are finally forced to accept that the drug does cause damage to patients. The use of the drug declines, and its profitability is severely reduced. By this stage, however, Big Pharma has often come up with a 'new' replacement drug".

The final stage, Death, has been the ultimate fate of most pharmaceutical drugs throughout history. This now happens only "when the drug has been found to be either ineffective or unsafe (and has become less profitable too). But tragically this never happens before millions of patients have been allowed to suffer serious harm to their health, and the drug can be banned "as quietly and surreptitiously as possible" to avoid any negative publicity.

During all this time pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are kept alive by conventional medical science, and a drug regulatory system, both of which have fallen completely under the control of pharmaceutical interests. Both are supposed to protect patients from harm, but essentially they each now serve the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, providing assurances about drug safety. Add to this the fact that the pharmaceutical industry has a long history of dishonesty, corruption and fraud - briefly outlined here.

So this is not a medical system that anyone should trust with their health and well-being. Everyone has within them the means of protection. Like the drowning man we should rely on what we have, some might argue the things God has given us, rather than what is being offered, rather dubiously, by a pharmaceutical industry whose track record in treating illness and disease is quite appalling.

If conventional medicine had our best interests at the forefront of their agenda it would been emphasising the importance of each of us tending to our immune systems, developing our natural immunity through diet, nutrition and exercise, et al. Instead, it has been intent on forcing yet another vaccine on us. It won't be entirely clear, perhaps for many more years just how harmful these vaccines are.

Wednesday, 17 March 2021

THE FAILURE OF CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE. NHS England needs £12billion a year extra to recover from Covid-19

NHS England (note, just England, not the whole of the UK) "needs £12 billion a year boost" to recover from Covid-19, according to a report from a leading think tank, the IPPR, and reported exclusively by Channel 4 News. It highlights the horrific legacy left by a medical system that has been completely overwhelmed by a virus.

> millions of GP appointments have been missed
> there are now record waiting lists for Mental Health treatment
> cancer deaths predicted to rise

Yet I described the antecedents of this situation 13 year ago when I wrote the first edition of my E-Book, THE FAILURE OF CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE. In the introduction to his book I asked an important, if not fundamental question: 

            .... if we spent our money purchasing something (anything) that did not work, would we continue to spend more money buying more of it?

Clearly we would not! We would look for another product, and continue doing so until we found something that worked! 

The exception to this for the last 70-100 years is that we have been buying into a medical system that quite simply does not work, and is actually harming our health.

Moreover, any government, any national health service that was focusing on patient health, any mainstream media that was prepared to ask question, and investigate, should have been able to see this situation coming. Every year, since early 2011, I have been writing at least one blog every year on "the NHS in crisis". You can see them all if you go to the top of this page and search "NHS in Crisis". This will bring up most of these blogs, whose message can be simply outlined here:

  • We have allowed the NHS to be dominated by one single form of medicine, conventional medicine, which is itself dominated by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.
  • Since 1948, when the NHS began to offer free conventional medical treatment, the incidence of chronic disease, all chronic disease, has grown to epidemic proportions; and they are continuing to rise even now.
  • Conventional medical treatment has not been able to make us well: indeed it is making us sicker; and as a result the demand for medical treatment has been rising, year by year.
  • Natural medical therapies, notably homeopathy, has been increasingly sidelined and virtually excluded during this entire period.
  • So as patient demand for medical treatment has risen over the years, the NHS has regularly demanded more money, more resources, to spend on more and more of the same, or similar treatment.
  • Each and every winter the NHS finds itself in a serious crisis, it struggles to cope with high levels of patient need; and each winter I have described these crises.
  • As a result of NHS, and patient pressure, every year, the UK government increases the NHS budget. It has risen in every respect, including the percentage of national wealth that we are now spending on health, a specifically on conventional medicine.
  • Invariably the NHS budget spends all its additional money on more of the same; more pharmaceutical drugs, more vaccines; more surgery arising largely from the failure of these drugs to treat illness and disease at an earlier stage.
  • And as the NHS offers more and more treatment, we have got sicker - there is more chronic disease than ever before - more demand for medical treatment - more pressure on the NHS - and more demand on for more spending.
The current crisis should be seen within this history of conventional medical failure. So, what is happening now might indeed be "The True Price of the Pandemic" but it is actually much more than this, at least, for anyone who is prepared to look beyond the hype and propaganda of the conventional medical establishment. The current situation, arising from the pandemic, is is just another nail in the coffin of conventional medicine, another chapter in the long-running saga of "the NHS in Crisis". Just as I predicted, back in 2007, it is the latest indication of "The Failure of Conventional Medicine".

So will the NHS be given another £12 billion, on top of the £200 billion it is already spending every year? Very probably! 

Will the new money enable the NHS to cope with the rising levels of ill-health, sickness and disease? Certainly not if past performance is an adequate predictor of future performance.

In dealing with one illness, Covid-19, with a spectacular lack of success, the drug/vaccine dominated NHS has not only been unable to cope with the virus, it has neglect other illnesses, including some of the most serious diseases. It has prejudiced the health of millions of people. And it has done so to an extent that makes it difficult to see how the NHS (in its present form, dominated as it is by conventional medicine) will be able to cope with the backlog of ill-health that has been generated over the last 70+ years.

Covid-19 (or rather the failure of the NHS to cope with it) has virtually bankrupted our economy, whole industries ruined, people losing their jobs and livelihoods, social life decimated, the creation of (what is likely to be) a mental health catastrophe, et al, it is difficult to see how the government is going to be able to continue feeding the NHS with the kind of money it is now demanding.

We have been trying to feed a bottomless hole, a insatiably greedy monster.

It is time we stopped.