The Anti-Vaccine movement. Why is it growing so quickly? Why is conventional medicine so desperate to prove vaccines do not harm us?

The conventional medical establishment is desperate to convince us all that vaccines are safe, that they do not cause patient harm, and particularly that there is no link between vaccines and autism. Anti-vaxxers, they say, are a danger to public health, subjecting us to deadly diseases such as measles and mumps.

Over the last week I have had three reasons to consider the nature and background of conventional medicine's desperation, each one making it clear that the future credibility of conventional medicine is now at stake.

• If vaccines are found to damage our health, particularly if there is any link between vaccines and autism the reputation, conventional medicine is as good as finished. 
• Moreover, it is no longer just about the damage pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines causes to patients. It is also that doctors would have been found out - denying the damage they must know is being caused.
• If this ever becomes clear, patients would never again trust pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines; and never again trust the doctors who have been lying to us. And entire industry would be effectively destroyed

So the stakes are high, and this is why the protestations of doctors about vaccines safety are becoming increasingly desperate.

1. A question recently posed on the Quora platform
"Why is the anti-vaccine movement growing so quickly?"

Most of the answers the question received did point out that people patients with vaccine damaged children were unlikely to continue using them just because doctors continued to insist that they are 'entirely safe'. From experience they know otherwise!

In my answer I said that whilst the ant-vaccine movement continues to be quite small, it was growing, and that in future there were two main factors that would only accelerate its growth.

First is conventional medicine’s continuing insistence that vaccines are ‘entirely safe’, and that any safety concerns were generated by ‘misinformation’ and 'false news'. This 'misinformation' usually comes from people who have seen the damage vaccines can cause! The problem that conventional medicine has is that drug damaged families are now everywhere, and unless or until the state is prepared to ‘liquidate’ us, the story of vaccine harm will continue to be told.

Indeed, there are many sources of information that will keep the story of vaccine damage alive. If we look at VAER’s data (the USA vaccine court) we can see quite clearly that despite doctors telling us that vaccines are safe the USA government is paying out huge sums of money, every year, to damaged families - money that would not be awarded without good reason or justification.

Moreover, there is the damage (or the known 'side effects') that are outlined in 'patient information leaflets' (or PILs) that accompany each and every pharmaceutical drug and vaccine. In other words, although doctors continue to insist vaccines do not cause harm, the evidence of harm is contained within their own medical literature.

Second, the dominance of the conventional medical establishment has made it increasingly arrogant, so arrogant in fact that it is now trying to impose their drugs and vaccines on all of us - whether we want them or not, on the basis that

• ‘They’ know best! 
• ‘We’ are misinformed and ignorant, that we need doctors to tell us what is best for us. 

Everywhere the Orwellian state beckons, not least in the USA, the so-called ‘land of freedom’. And from what I can see and hear (from England) the pharmaceutical companies are winning this battle. Enforced medication is dominant within USA politics, in the mainstream media, in health services. Yet it is also opposed, everywhere, by proponents of personal freedom, and democracy. I suspect that the war will be won by the strongest argument, and people will ultimately choose personal choice, and health freedom, over mandatory medicine imposed by the corporate-dominated state.

In my answer I said that I was not an ‘anti-vaxxer’, per se, but someone who believes in (i) the medical principle of “first, do no harm’, and (ii) the political principles of freedom and democracy. The vaccine issue is about both these elements, and conventional medicine will find it difficult to prove that their drugs and vaccines do not cause patient harm, it explain why it is necessary (in a democracy) to force people to accept mandatory medicine.

The desperation of the conventional medical establishment is about their ability and confidence that they can do either, in the longer term.

2. Responses to another Quora question
But then I looked at another Quora post. This asked the more direct question - "Did your child get autism after vaccination?". I strongly suggest that you have a look at some of these responses. Certainly, I was astonished to see the number of responses - it had received over 100. And when I looked at the nature of many of the responses, which I skim-read, it suggested that they were highly sophisticated and technical responses which could only have came from people with a vested interest in conventional medicine. They suggested, perhaps, that this was a co-ordinated response, linked to the desperation to 'prove' that there was no direct link between vaccines and autism.

So the question must be asked - what is this desperation all about? Why such a huge, co-ordinated response to the question of the link between autism and vaccines?

It is also notable from several 'parents' of autistic children who used the argument that they did not blame vaccines for their disability. Some said it was 'just a coincidence' that the symptoms of autism came shortly after the vaccine! A coincidence that happens so frequently? Others said that "they would have developed autism anyway, even if they did not have the vaccination". Others said that their children were so pleasant, intelligent and loving they would not want them to be any different, leaving me wondering what would have been wrong with them being pleasant, intelligent, loving - and normal?

3. Research funding for research in vaccines, aluminium toxicity and autism
The third reason were articles that have appeared in the Times, and the websites of Natural News and Age of Autism, concerning Professor Chris Exley, of Keele University. described by the Times as "a controversial British academic who claims childhood vaccines can cause autism".

Professor Exley has been blocked from raising funds by scientific research councils after protests by health scientists and 'experts' who were 'infuriated' when he told parents that the aluminium in vaccines may cause “severe and disabling” autism. The Times likened him to Andrew Wakefield, whose 1998 claim that the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine caused autism led to a fall in immunisation rates.

As the Age of Autism website explained, Exley has resorted to crowd funding to pursue his research into aluminium toxicity. It comments that this kind of drama has unfolded many times before - a well respected doctor or researcher who begins to ask questions about vaccine safety as a result of scientific research, and his/her career is adversely affected as a result.

The Natural News article uses the headline "Medical police state cuts off research funding from scientist who found that vaccines cause autism". The term 'medical police state' might be appropriate, even if many may find that rather too sensational. Yet the situation certainly indicates the power of the pharmaceutical industry, and its ability to controls conventional medicine, and the funding of medical science. Aluminium is a known poison, and an ingredient of many of the vaccines that are injected into our children's bloodstreams. The conventional medical establishment clearly does not want medical science to investigate what happens when aluminium is injected into us - which, at best, sounds very unscientific, and at worst suggest that doctors are afraid of what such research might discover about the safety of vaccines.

So how will this all progress? The conventional medical establishment will, in their desperation, continue to deny that vaccines cause harm, and the pharmaceutical industry will continue to plough its huge profits into making sure that doctors, politicians, the media, et al, have a vested interest in not informing us.

Yet despite this the anti-vaccine movement will grow, albeit slowly, because the evidence of the harm caused by conventional medicine is there for anyone to see, not least by those people and their carers who have been damaged by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. And if too many people get to know this it would be the end for a medical system that has dominated health care for over a century.

In the end the truth will prevail!

BBC News. The subliminal advertising of vaccines, free vaccine promotion, measles scaremongering, and mandatory drugging

The BBC is the most ardent and effective promotors of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

The BBC's promotion of vaccines and measles scaremongering reached new heights of dishonesty and notoriety yesterday (25 April 2019). The story was covered in much of the British mainstream media, but not with the wall-to-wall coverage made possible by the BBC's continual news and current affairs coverage throughout the entire day. It left their editorial guidelines (accuracy, impartiality, not causing harm or offence, fairness, and independence from external interests) in tatters.

The story the BBC told us throughout the day is simple. It is the tale of the powerful Conventional Medical Establishment, including the NHS, medical science, politicians and government. I do not intend here to go into detail of yesterday's BBC's coverage - beyond outlining these highlights (or lowlights) of the case the BBC made.

• There are epidemics of measles occurring around the world
• Measles is a terrible killer disease
• Measles has been controlled by vaccines since the 1960's
• Too many children are now not being vaccinated
• It is unvaccinated children who are now contracting measles
• Parents who don't vaccinate their children are misguided and misinformed
• Vaccines are entirely safe, medical science has proven this
• No child has ever been hurt of damaged by vaccines
• Anti-vaccine websites are largely to blame for low vaccine take-up (and should be shut down)
• The nonsense 'herd immunity' theory was promulgated
• Homeopathy was attacked, several times, without the right to reply
• Vaccines should be made mandatory

Those who put forward these arguments were exclusively a selection of politicians, government spokespersons, senior NHS officials, conventional doctors, and a parent of a child who had allegedly suffered from measles. They all of whom supported the BBC's position.

No-one who might have challenged any of the above arguments or assertions (all highly challengeable) were asked to give their views. Nobody who disagreed with any of the BBC's arguments were interviewed, but they were abused in their absence.

Worse, without any exception, BBC journalists and presenters vehemently supported these arguments, often pushing the people interviewed to express themselves more aggressively. On the early morning Today programme, one spokesperson from NHS England was criticised by Nick Robinson because she contradicted Simon Stephens, CEO of the NHS, who had earlier emphasised how serious the situation was. She did not believe it was quite as serious as he had suggested. Nick Robinson was clearly in total exasperation with this contradictory idea. He was clearly not looking for discussion, and just asked her to give 'her view' about how important vaccination was for children. She complied, and a little later the Secretary of State for Health was asked to comment on this 'difference of view'. He came down firmly on Nick Robinson's side. It was indeed a deadly serious situation, he confirmed.

This is typical BBC journalism. I have commented on the BBC's refusal to take part in a real health debate many times (do a search on 'BBC' above to find all my previous blogs on the BBC's coverage of health issues), and so I no longer expect any objectivity or fairness in their news coverage.

The main point I wish to make here is that the BBC (a public services broadcaster which is not supposed to involve itself in advertising) is providing the pharmaceutical industry with many hours of free and uncritical advertising.

Moreover, it is subliminal advertising. Most people would not have recognised or understood what they were hearing to be advertising, yet it would still have had a strong and powerful influence on peoples views on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

We are used to advertising. We know when a car, or a washing machine, or a washing-up liquid, (or anything else) is being advertised. We can recognise that what we are being told is promotional, part of selling a product. But not in this situation. No-one from any pharmaceutical company had to say a word. The companies who manufacture and profit from the MMR vaccine were not interviewed, and did not have to pay a penny in order to promote it!

This was all done for them, by BBC journalists, by conventional doctors, by the NHS, by government and politicians.

So to many people this was not advertising - at least not as most people know and recognise it! This is not a car maker, or washing machine manufacturer, or a detergent company selling its wares. The promotion was being done by independent people with no obvious connection with drug companies. This was a news story, and there was no obvious promotion of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

These 'independent' people were telling us that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are good, necessary for us all, essential for good health. There were no obvious vested interests - so surely what we are being told must be right. 

Moreover, no-one was arguing against anything that the BBC was saying. Anyone who might have put forward a different view were not interviewed, whilst at the same time, in their absence, their reputation was being routinely undermined!

The primary purpose of this particular day of subliminal advertising soon became obvious. If people could not be persuaded about the rightness of vaccination, if parents continued to refuse to have their children vaccinated, they would have to be forced to do so.

• Mandatory vaccination. 
• Forced medication. 
• The end of any pretence of health freedom, or patient choice 

And perhaps another casualty - any idea that 'press freedom' is alive and well in this country, that indoctrination is a thing of the past, that the public is being properly informed, and that patients have all the information they need to make an informed choice about the medicine they want to use for themselves, or their children.

STATINS. They may not work, they may cause serious harm, but still the battle to control our minds continues

Statin drugs have become ubiquitous, one of the most prescribed and profitable pharmaceutical drugs used in conventional medicine. I have written about them many times before, usually about their safety, and the growing number of dreadful side effects they are know to cause to patients who take them.

Now there is evidence that they do not work!

MIMS, the website for conventional health practitioners, has recently published (April 2019) evidence of a large British study that showed that "Half of Patients on Statins do not reach cholesterol goals".

Perhaps it is one thing to take pharmaceutical drugs now known to cause liver and kidney failure, diabetes, muscle weakness, cataracts, dementia and even death because there are positive benefits. But when there are NO benefits to at least 50% of patients taking them?

Yet doctors continue to struggle to get more of us to take these drugs. Dr Joseph Mercole wrote an article, in the very same month (April 2019), about 'cholesterol managers' (doctors?) who wanted to double statin prescriptions". This is, of course, what doctors have been trying to do for 20 years, and more. We have been told, routinely, that Statins are 'entirely safe', that they reduce cholesterol, which in turn reduces heart disease and stroke, and therefore save lives - and that we should all be taking them!

I am not going to repeat here the damage to our health that Statin drugs have been causing, and continue to cause to our health, but I refer you to some of my previous blogs

• Statins. From wonder drug to killer drug
• The dangers of statin drugs
• The Failure Conventional Medicine. Statins: those nice, safe drugs we should all be taking!
• FDA Warning. Statins now linked to Memory Loss
• Cholesterol, Medical Science, RCT's, and Statin Drugs

So doctors are continue to ask us to risk all this damage to our health - for a drug that does not work!

And to then continue believing in the veracity of a medical system that tells us a drug is entirely safe when it isn't, that tells us a drug is effective when it isn't, and even then to want more of us to start taking an ineffective and safe drug? It is beyond all credibility!

THE HPV VACCINES. Doctors insist they are safe, that our daughters should be vaccinated. So what does the Patient Information Leaflet say?

The HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, have been described as "the world's most dangerous vaccine". Yet our doctors, and conventional medicine generally, continues to insist that HPV vaccines are very safe. So who is right? And in particular, does the conventional medical establishment actually know that this vaccine is causing harm to patients - as it is actually in their medical literature - and they are not telling us the whole truth?

Since 2006 conventional medicine has offered the HPV vaccine to all girls, from age 12 to 18. The human papillomavirus (HPV) is a common group of viruses that have been linked to several types of cancer, and the vaccine is supposed to protect young girls from cervical cancer, but also from rarer HPV-related cancers like anal and genital cancers, and cancers of the head and neck.

First, why has the HPV vaccine been described as "the world's most dangerous vaccine"? I was able to write this about the vaccine in September 2013, that is, a mere seven years after its introduction, and five years after its introduction in the UK. This is what I wrote.

     "It  has been calculated that 1,700 young girls have been killed or suffered permanent disability after being given the HPV vaccine, and a further 19,500 young girls have suffered 'non-serious' reactions. 

http://www.wddty.com/safe-hpv-vaccine-kills-up-to-1-700-young-girls.html

     Further, this article provides VAERS (US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) statistics showing that the HPV vaccine has caused the following adverse reactions in the USA:

• Deaths: 140
• Disabled: 952
• Did not recover: 6,032
• Abnormal pap smear: 531
• Cervical dysplasia: 214
• Cervical cancer: 64
• Life-threatening: 562
• ER visit: 10,557
• Hospitalized: 3,065
• Extended hospital stay: 234
• Serious: 4,091
• Adverse events: 30,352

In this 2013 blog "HPV Vaccine. We need to protect our daughters from this" I go into further detail of the dangers of the vaccine, including links to several actual cases of healthy young girls suffering serious, life threatening, and life transforming side effects including severe seizures, disability and death.

POSTSCRIPT (May 2019)
The manufacturer of Gardasil, Merck, has been formally accused of fraud and a host of other serious charges, including bribery, stealth marketing and 'hard selling' relating to this vaccine. 

Despite this, when we look at what the conventional medical establishment says about the safety of this vaccine, it remains very coy, and so far at least, it has been less inclined to be as honest about the dangers of HPV vaccine as they are now with the DPT vaccine, and the MMR vaccine (see both links to previous blogs).

So what does NHS says about the safety of HPV vaccines?
The NHS website, on its main pages on the HPV vaccines, demonstrates this coyness about the known side affects of the HPV vaccines. So, for instance, it begins by saying that

               "..... it's natural to be concerned that you or your child will have a side effect after having a vaccination. While all vaccines have the potential to cause side effects in some people, the reality is that most tend to be mild and do not last longer than a few days. Some people do not get any side effects at all." (my emphasis).

So the NHS website outlines a number of the more common, less serious side effects of the vaccine, which includes pain at the injection site, swelling and redness, high temperature, shivering, extreme tiredness (fatigue), headache, muscle and joint pain.

It then continues to list more serious side effects, each time describing them as 'rare', and discounting their seriousness in a number of ways. It says, for example, that to have a 'balanced' view, "the potential side effects have to be weighed against the expected benefits of vaccination in preventing the serious complications of disease" (my emphasis). 

The NHS also argues that not all illnesses that occur after vaccination will be a side effect, that as millions of people are vaccinated "it's inevitable that some will go on to develop a coincidental infection or illness shortly afterwards". So what are these 'coincidental infections or illness'?

• An immediate allergic reaction, or anaphylactic shock. It describes these as "dramatic and potentially life threatening" but then says that they are "very rare, occurring in less than 1 in a million cases, and are completely reversible if treated promptly by healthcare staff."

The Under-Reporting of Side Effects (thus making them 'Rare')

It is important to comment on the alleged frequency of these reported side effects. Several studies have calculated that only 10% of drug (and vaccine) side effects are ever reported. I wrote about this in this blog. What this means that 90% of side effects are not reported, so these 'rare' or 'uncommon' side effects are not 1 in 1,000 but 1 in 100, and 1 in 10,000 means 1 in 1,000!

Some studies indicate that 10% is actually an under-estimate, that a more accurate figure for under-reporting might be 1% - in other words that 99% of these 'rare' or 'uncommon' side effects remain unrecorded. This would mean that they happen in 1 in 100, or 1 in 10 vaccinated children.

On another NHS page there is more detail about the side effects of HPV vaccines, although it continues to discount their seriousness.

Very common side effects of the HPV vaccine

More than 1 in 10 people who have the Gardasil HPV vaccine experience:

• redness, swelling or pain at the site of the injection - the most common side effect, but it should wear off within a couple of days
• headaches - but these don't usually last very long. ( my emphasis)

Common side effects
More than 1 in 100 people, but less than 1 in 10, who have the Gardasil HPV vaccine experience:

• bruising or itching at the site of the injection
• a high temperature or feeling hot and shivery
• feeling sick (nausea)
• pain in the arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet or toes

Rare side effects
Around 1 in 10,000 people who have the Gardasil HPV vaccine experience:

• an itchy red rash (hives)

Very rare side effects
Less than 1 in 10,000 people who have the Gardasil HPV vaccine experience:

• difficulty breathing and restriction of the airways

Then more NHS coyness when they use what, to me, seems to be an entirely new defence of vaccine harm that discounts the importance of patient-reported side affects, favouring instead the evidence provided by 'medical science' in clinical trials.

               "People have reported other side effects, but because these come from people reporting side effects themselves rather than from controlled clinical tests, it's not possible to say how often they happen or to how many people." (My emphasis).

So after discounting them, the side effects of HPV vaccines that patients have reported are then listed as:

• bruising or bleeding more easily
• chills, weakness, tiredness or general feeling unwell
• swollen glands
• pain or tenderness in the joints or muscles
• being sick (vomiting)
• fits (seizures)

This is followed by yet more discounting when the NHS states that most of these symptoms are reported "after any kind of vaccination". This is a bit like saying that being knocked over by a Ford is acceptable, because other cars will do the same amount of damage! This highly defensive approach is at best suspicious, and at worst alarming. These are NOT minor side effects, they are serious, and should not be discounted in this way.

Patient Information Leaflets (PILS)
So what do the vaccine PILs, documents produced by the drug companies, say about the safety of these vaccines.

Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline)
The Cervarix PIL first outlines a long list of precautions and warnings about when the vaccine should not be taken - presumably because it would be unsafe to do so, and only the most healthy should have the vaccination.
          • if you are allergic to any of the active substances or any of the other ingredients of this vaccine (listed in section 6). Signs of an allergic reaction may include itchy skin rash, shortness of breath and swelling of the face or tongue.
          • if you have a bleeding problem or bruise easily.
          • if you have any disease which reduces your resistance to infection such as HIV infection.
          • if you have a severe infection with a high temperature. It might be necessary to postpone the vaccination until recovery. A minor infection such as a cold should not be a problem, but talk to the doctor first.

There then follows warnings about having the vaccine alongside other pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, in pregnancy, when breastfeeding, or when driving or using machinery.

As far as side effects are concerned, there is the usual discounting of their seriousness - "all medicines can cause side effects, although not everybody gets them". These mirror the side effects already listed in the NHS webpage, but also include the following:
               • upper respiratory tract infection (infection of the nose, throat or trachea)
               • dizziness
               • other injection site reactions such as hard lump, tingling or numbness.
               • allergic reactions, including itchy rash on hands and feet, swelling of the eyes and face,
difficulty in breathing or swallowing, sudden drop in blood pressure and loss of consciousness.
               • swollen glands in the neck, armpit or groin
               • fainting sometimes accompanied by shaking or stiffness

Gardasil (Merck)
The Gardasil PIL provides very similar information to the Cervarix PIL, including several warnings and precautions about who should not have the vaccine. They should not be taken if:

               * you or your child is allergic (hypersensitive) to any of the active substances or any of the other ingredients of Gardasil (listed under “other ingredients”– see section 6).
               * you or your child developed an allergic reaction after receiving a dose of Gardasil.
               * you or your child suffer from an illness with high fever. However, a mild fever or upper
respiratory infection (for example cold) itself is not a reason to delay vaccination.
               * if you or your child has a bleeding disorder (a disease that makes you bleed more than normal), for example haemophilia
               * has a weakened immune system, for example due to a genetic defect, HIV infection or
medicines that affect the immune system.
               * Fainting, sometimes accompanied by falling, can occur (mostly in adolescents) following any needle injection.

The PIL, as usual, discounts the importance of the side effects of Gardasil, and then lists the following:

Very commonly (more than 1 in 10 patients), side effects found at the injection site include: pain,
swelling and redness. Headache was also seen.

Commonly (more than 1 in 100 patients), side effects found at the injection site include: bruising,
itching, pain in extremity. Fever and nausea have also been reported.

Rarely (less than 1 in 1000 patients): hives (urticaria).

Very rarely (less than 1 in 10,000 patients), difficulty breathing (bronchospasm) has been reported.

These side effects, apparently, were all noted in the clinical trials of Gardasil, and yet again the PIL discounts patient reports, despite the fact that patients are reporting actual side effects, actual patient harms, but this seems to be considered less important, less reliable, and less a matter of concern.

Side effects that have been reported during marketed use include:
Fainting, sometimes accompanied by shaking or stiffening, has been reported. Although fainting
episodes are uncommon, patients should be observed for 15 minutes after they receive HPV vaccine.

Allergic reactions that may include difficulty breathing, wheezing (bronchospasm), hives and rash
have been reported. Some of these reactions have been severe.

As with other vaccines, side effects that have been reported during general use include: 

• swollen glands (neck, armpit, or groin); 
• muscle weakness, 
• abnormal sensations, 
• tingling in the arms, 
• legs and upper body, or confusion (Guillain-Barré Syndrome, Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis); 
• dizziness, 
• vomiting, 
• joint pain, 
• aching muscles, 
• unusual tiredness or weakness, 
• chills, 
• generally feeling unwell, 
• bleeding or bruising more easily than normal, and 
• skin infection at the injection site.

What this demonstrates is that Conventional Medicine DOES know that HPV vaccines are harmful, but are reluctant to admit it until more evidence of harm is found.

So what are the side effects waiting to be found? The Drugs.com website provides details of all known Gardasil side effects, but in addition highlights several very serious side effects not mentioned by the NHS, or on the PIL. Anyone who is considering having this vaccine should visit and read this website, which is owned by a company controlled that are controlled by the pharmaceutical industry.

•     Anxiety
•     back, leg, or stomach pains
•     chest pain
•     difficulty with breathing
•     difficulty with swallowing
•     dizziness or lightheadedness
•     fast heartbeat
•     general body swelling
•     swollen, painful, or tender lymph glands in the neck, armpit, or groin
•     tenderness, pain, swelling, warmth, skin discoloration, and prominent superficial veins over the affected area
•     tightness in the chest
•     unusual tiredness or weakness
•     Diarrhoea
•     difficulty with moving
•     joint pain or swelling
•     muscle ache, cramps, pain, or stiffness
•     upper abdominal or stomach pain
•     Bloating
•     Constipation
•     Indigestion
•     pain, swelling, or redness at the injection site
•     pains in the stomach, side, or abdomen, possibly radiating to the back

The Drugs.com website also gives this information to healthcare professionals (which they will almost certainly not pass on to patients) - but it is quite horrendous.

• Injection site pruritus, injection site haematoma, injection site induration, injection site haemorrhage, injection site cellulitis
• Fatigue (54.6%), headache (53.4%), pyrexia (13%), fever of 99.5F or higher (12.9%)
• Chlamydia infection, malaise
• Asthenia, chills
• Myalgia (48.8%)
• Arthralgia (20.7%)
• Back pain
• Appendicitis, gastroenteritis
• Pancreatitis
• Respiratory
• Nasopharyngitis, oropharyngeal pain, influenza, cough, nasal congestion, upper respiratory tract infection, pharyngitis
• Pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, asthma
•  Bronchospasm
• Asthmatic crisis
• Pulmonary embolus
• Migraine
• Autoimmune disease

Drugs.com then go on to describe some 'postmarketing' reports of the following serious medical conditions.

• Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis
• Guillain-Barre syndrome
• Motor neuron disease
• Paralysis
• Seizures
• Syncope (including syncope associated with tonic-clonic movements and other seizure-like activity) sometimes resulting in falling with injury
• Transverse myelitis

And then Drugs.com moves on to some "new medical conditions potentially indicative of systemic autoimmune disorders included:

• arthralgia/arthritis/arthropathy, 
• autoimmune thyroiditis, 
• celiac disease, 
• diabetes mellitus insulin dependent, 
• erythema nodosum, 
• hyperthyroidism, 
• hypothyroidism, 
• inflammatory bowel disease, 
• multiple sclerosis, 
• nephritis, 
• optic neuritis, 
• pigmentation disorder, 
• psoriasis, 
• Raynaud's phenomenon, 
• rheumatoid arthritis, 
• scleroderma/morphea, 
• Stevens-Johnson syndrome, 
• systemic lupus erythematosus, 
• uveitis, 
• alopecia areata, 
• ankylosing spondylitis, 
• autoimmune thrombocytopenia, 
• myocarditis, 
• proteinuria, 
• skin depigmentation, 
• dermatomyositis, 
• vasculitis, 
• vitiligo

And so it goes on listing the side effects of Gardasil that are really serious medical conditions, until we come to the most horrendous admission of all

DEATH

Drug.com also mentions death as a side effect, but it is said to be "uncommon" - just 0.1% to 1% - including deaths during clinical trials "which were generally assessed as not vaccine related".

In conclusion, I have called the reluctance of conventional medicine to highlight the known and serious side effects of HPV vaccines 'discounting' and 'coyness'. This is being generous. Doctors, after all, regularly tell us that these vaccines are safe. 

Do these known side effects appear 'safe' to you?

Remember, the most serious of these known side effects are not mentioned on the main NHS page at all, and most doctors certainly do not mention them when talking to the mainstream media, and presumably to their patients too.

And it must also be noted that neither the NHS, or the PILS, mention the side effects for which the USA's Vaccine Court is paying out massive compensation, including cervical dysplasia and cancer, hospitalisation, disability and death. These 'side effects' have been reported to VAERS (the USA's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System), and if $millions have been paid out in compensation by the USA government, they would have been reported to conventional medicine, and in particular to the drug regulators around the world.

So clearly, all these conditions, including the possibility of death, should be mentioned as a possible side effect by the NHS and in the PILS. But they is not. Is the conventional medical establishment 'discounting'? Are doctors being 'coy' with the information they are prepared to give patients? Can the information we are being given about HPV vaccines be considered to be accurate, or the whole truth?

Or is the information we are getting from the conventional medical establishment both deceptive, dishonest, and detrimental to human health and wellbeing?

MMR VACCINE. Doctors insist they are safe, that our children should be vaccinated. So what does the Patient Information Leaflet say?

Doctors insist that MMR vaccines are "entirely safe", indeed, so safe that many doctors throughout the world want the vaccination of babies and young children to become compulsory. We are told that questioning the safety of vaccines is 'false news', it's misinformation, and its dangerous.

I disagree with all this, as do many other people, so conventional medicine dismisses us as 'anti-vaxxers'. So where is the evidence that this vaccine is unsafe, and if so, where can parents find it?

The amazing fact is that the serious harm that can be caused by vaccines, including MMR vaccines, can be found in conventional medical literature. Indeed, it can be found in the patient information leaflets (PILs) that come with the vaccine itself.

Yet doctors rarely show these PILs to parents prior to vaccinating their children, preferring to hide them behind vague and platitudinous statements about vaccine safety.

WHAT CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE TELLS US
First, let us look at what doctors are telling us, what they want us to know. The UK's NHS provides us with the conventionally accepted message about its safety.

               "MMR is a safe and effective combined vaccine that protects against 3 separate illnesses - measles, mumps and rubella (German measles)"

So does this "safe and effective" MMR vaccine have any side effects? This is what we are told.

               "The side effects of the MMR vaccine are usually mild. It's important to remember that they're milder than the potential complications of measles, mumps and rubella. Side effects include:

• developing a mild form of measles that lasts for 2 to 3 days (this is not infectious)
• developing a mild form of mumps that lasts for a day or two (this is not infectious)

In rare cases, a small rash of bruise-like spots may appear a few weeks after the injection."

That's all, except that the NHS denies absolutely and pointedly that there is any link between the MMR vaccine, autism and bowel disease. The same NHS link provides another link to download an NHS leaflet which outlines just how safe the vaccine is (and how dangerous Measles, Mumps and Rubella are, and that it has been the vaccine that has reduced their incidence).

               "The combined MMR vaccine has been safely protecting children for many years in many  countries worldwide. In the UK, millions of doses have been given since it was introduced in 1988. Before vaccines can be used, they have to be thoroughly tested for safety. Although there may be some side effects from vaccination, they are usually mild and much less severe than the disease itself. Serious reactions following vaccination are rare. Many studies have taken place to look at the safety and effectiveness of MMR vaccine. The evidence is clear that there is no link between MMR vaccine and autism."

So does this NHS leaflet say any more about the side effects of the MMR vaccine? Yes, but it provides only more reassurance, more platitudes about its safety.

               "Not everyone gets side effects from the vaccine. To provide protection, the vaccine mimics the three infections that it protects against. Some people may get a rash that looks like a mild form of measles, the face may swell to look like mumps or they may have pains in the joints like rubella. These side effects occur in a small percentage of people after the first dose.

               "The side effects from the measles part of the vaccine are usually seen when the vaccine starts to work - around 6-10 days after vaccination. Swelling of the face or joint pains tend to come on around two to three weeks after vaccination when the mumps and rubella vaccines start to work.

               "Side effects such as a rash or neck swelling only last for around 2–3 days and are not infectious. This means that if you do develop these side effects, you cannot pass on the infection to others. On rare occasions, a reddish purple rash that looks like tiny bruises can occur up to six weeks following vaccination.

So the message to parents from the NHS, from conventional medicine, is clear - the side effects of MMR vaccines are not very serious at all.

Yet conventional medicine, the NHS, and our doctors know full well that this is untrue - and they know because their medical literature tells them that it is not true.

WHAT CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE KNOWS BUT PREFERS NOT TO TELL US
The NHS uses two MMR vaccines, Priorix, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and M-M-RvaxPro, manufactured by Merck. The NHS provides links to the Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) for both these vaccines.

1. Priorix
There are lots of contra-indications, warnings and precautions provided in the PIL, all suggesting that the vaccine is not as safe as we are being told. I would add that there is little evidence that doctors or nurses giving the vaccine ever check all these prior to vaccination.

"Priorix should not be given if
     • you are allergic against any of the components of this vaccine (listed in section 6). Signs of an allergic reaction may include itchy skin rash, shortness of breath and swelling of the face or tongue;
     • you are known to be allergic to neomycin (an antibiotic agent). A known contact dermatitis (skin rash when the skin is in direct contact with allergens such as neomycin) should not be a problem but talk to your doctor first;
     • you have a severe infection with a high temperature. In these cases, the vaccination will be postponed until recovery. A minor infection such as a cold should not be a problem, but talk to your doctor first;
     • you have any illness (such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS)) or take any medicine that weakens the immune system. Whether you receive the vaccine will depend upon the level of your immune defences;
     • you are pregnant. In addition, pregnancy should be avoided for 1 month following vaccination.

Warnings and precautions
Talk to your doctor or pharmacist before you receive Priorix if:
     • you have disorders of the central nervous system, a history of convulsion accompanying high fever or family history of convulsions. In case of high fever following vaccination please consult your doctor promptly;
     • you have ever had a severe allergic reaction to egg protein;
     • you have had a side effect after vaccination against measles, mumps or rubella that involved easy bruising or bleeding for longer than usual (see section 4);
     • you have weakened immune system (e.g. such as HIV infection). You should be closely monitored as the responses to the vaccines may not be sufficient to ensure a protection against the illness (see section 2 “Priorix should not be given if”).

In addition, it should be noted that the PIL provides other warnings about interactions with other pharmaceutical drugs, and regarding pregnancy, breast feeding and fertility.

Side Effects
"Like all medicines, this vaccine can cause side effects, although not everybody gets them. Side effects that occurred during clinical trials with Priorix were as follows:

Very common (these may occur with more than 1 in 10 doses of the vaccine)
     • redness at the injection site
     • fever of 38°C or higher

Common (these may occur with up to 1 in 10 doses of the vaccine)
     • pain and swelling at the injection site
     • fever higher than 39.5°C
     • rash (spots)
     • upper respiratory tract infection

Uncommon (these may occur with up to 1 in 100 doses of the vaccine)
     • infection of the middle ear
     • swollen lymph glands (glands in the neck, armpit or groin)
     • loss of appetite
     • nervousness
     • abnormal crying
     • inability to sleep (insomnia)
     • redness, irritation and watering of the eyes (conjunctivitis)
     • bronchitis
     • cough
     • swollen parotid glands (glands in the cheek)
     • diarrhoea
     • vomiting
Rare (these may occur with up to 1 in 1,000 doses of the vaccine)
     • convulsions accompanying high fever
     • allergic reactions

After the marketing of Priorix, the following side effects have been reported on a few occasions:
     • joint and muscle pain
     • punctual or small spotted bleeding or bruising more easily than normal due to a drop in platelets
     • sudden life-threatening allergic reaction
     • infection or inflammation of the brain, spinal cord and peripheral nerves resulting in temporary difficulty when walking (unsteadiness) and/or temporary loss of control of bodily movements, inflammation of some nerves, possibly with pins and needles or loss of feeling or normal movement (Guillain-Barré syndrome)
     • narrowing or blockage of blood vessels
     • erythema multiforme (symptoms are red, often itchy spots, similar to the rash of measles, which starts on the limbs and sometimes on the face and the rest of the body)
     • measles and mumps like symptoms (including transient, painful swelling of the testicles and swollen glands in the neck).

It would appear that autism and bowel cancer has never been reported as a side effect of this vaccines, regardless of the number of parents who have claimed that their child developed autism following the vaccination.

M-M-RvaxPro
The PIL for this vaccine provides very similar information, reproduced here for clarity, particularly as doctors will usually not volunteer it behind obfuscations and protestations of 'safety'.

Do not use M-M-RVAXPRO:
     - If you or your child are allergic to any of the components of this vaccine (including neomycin or
any of the other ingredients listed in section 6)
     - If you or your child are pregnant (in addition, pregnancy should be avoided for 1 month after
vaccination, see Pregnancy)
     - If you or your child have any illness with fever higher than 38.5°C; however, low-grade fever
itself is not a reason to delay vaccination
     - If you or your child have active untreated tuberculosis
     - If you or your child have a blood disorder or any type of cancer that affects the immune system
     - If you or your child are receiving treatment or taking medicines that may weaken the immune
system (except low-dose corticosteroid therapy for asthma or replacement therapy)
     - If you or your child have a weakened immune system because of a disease (including AIDS)
     - If you or your child have a family history of congenital or hereditary immunodeficiency, unless
the immune competence of your or your child is demonstrated.

Warnings and precautions
Talk to the doctor or pharmacist before you or your child receive M-M-RVAXPRO if you have
experienced any of the following:
     - If you or your child have an allergic reaction to eggs or anything that contained egg
     - If you or your child have a history or family history of allergies or of convulsions (fits)
     - If you or your child have a side effect after vaccination with measles, mumps, or rubella vaccine
(in a single component vaccine or a combined vaccine, such as the measles, mumps, and rubella
vaccine manufactured by Merck & Co., Inc., or M-M-RVAXPRO) that involved easy bruising
or bleeding for longer than usual
     - If you or your child have infection with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) but do not show
symptoms of HIV disease. You or your child should be monitored closely for measles, mumps,
and rubella because vaccination may be less effective than for uninfected persons

There are also warnings about using this vaccine if the individual is using other pharmaceutical drugs, blood transfusions, in pregnancy and breastfeeding, and in certain other conditions.

Side Effects
Very common (may affect more than 1 in 10 vaccinees)
     * Fever (38.5°C or higher).
     * Injection-site redness; injection-site pain; injection-site swelling.

Common (may affect 1 to 10 in 100 vaccinees)
     * Rash (including measles-like rash).
     * Injection-site bruising.

Uncommon (may affect 1 to 10 in 1,000 vaccinees)
     * Nasal congestion and sore throat; upper respiratory tract infection or viral infection; runny nose.
     * Diarrhoea, vomiting.
     *  Hives.
     * Injection-site rash.

Not known (Frequency cannot be estimated from the available data)
     * Aseptic meningitis (fever, feeling sick, vomiting, headache, stiff neck, and sensitivity to light); swollen testicles; infection of the middle ear; inflamed salivary glands; atypical measles (described
in patients who received a killed measles virus vaccine, usually given before 1975).
     * Swollen lymph nodes.
     * Bruising or bleeding more easily than normal.
     * Severe allergic reaction that may include difficulty in breathing, facial swelling, localised swelling, and swelling of the limbs.
     * Irritability.
     * Seizures (fits) without fever; seizures (fits) with fever in children; walking unsteadily; dizziness; illnesses involving inflammation of the nervous system (brain and/or spinal cord).

THE UNDER-REPORTING OF SIDE EFFECTS
It is important to comment on the frequency of these reported side effects. There have been many studies that have calculated only 10% of drug (and vaccine) side effects are ever reported. I wrote about this in this blog. What this means that 90% are not reported, so these 'rare' or 'uncommon' side effects are not 1 in 1,000, or 1 in 10,000 but as little as 1 in 100, or 1 in 1,000.

Some studies indicate that 10% is an under-estimate, that a more accurate figure might be 1%, in other words that 99% of these 'rare' or 'uncommon' side effects remain unrecorded. This would mean that they happen in 1 in 100, or 1 in 10 vaccinated children.

Moreover, it should also be remembered that these PILs are produce by the drug companies, and only give information that has been proven, beyond doubt. Anything else, indeed anything that is denied (like links between the MMR vaccine, autism and bowel cancer) is not, and will never be mentioned in these documents.

What this means is that any parent who now suspects that the MMR vaccine (or any other vaccine) has caused autism is contradicted by their doctor, and the report of a link between a vaccine and a disease will never be recorded.

Yet the evidence of vaccine harm is there for anyone to see - swollen glands, insomnia, bronchitis, severe allergic reactions, seizures and fits, inflammation of the brain and spinal cord, et al - all known to be caused by a vaccine described by doctors as 'safe', with just a few, minor side effects.

Do you agree with this description? Given the information provided by the PILs, is this an accurate or honest description? Or is it deceptive? And dishonest?

Safety, perhaps, is in the eyes of the beholder! Perhaps it is an acceptable risk in the all-too-dangerous world of conventional medicine. But would most parents, who were given this information, and in a position to make an informed choice, take these risks with their young children?

DPT VACCINES. Doctors insist they are safe, that our children should be vaccinated. So what does the Patient Information Leaflet say?

Doctors insist that DPT vaccines, including the 6-in-1 used in the UK, are "entirely safe". Many doctors throughout the world want vaccination to become compulsory, and questioning the safety of vaccines is said to be false news, misinformation, and dangerous. So is there any evidence that this vaccine is unsafe, and if so, where can parents find it?

The 6-in-1 vaccine is given to very young babies 3 times, at 8 weeks, 12 weeks and 16 weeks old. It is supposed to protect them from diphtheria, hepatitis B, Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type b), polio,
tetanus and whooping cough (pertussis).

The amazing fact is that the serious harm that can be caused by vaccines, including DPT vaccines, can be found in conventional medical literature. Indeed, it can be found in the patient information leaflets that come with the vaccine itself - but which doctors rarely show to parents.

So check it out for yourself! First go to the NHS website. This page tells us about the 6-in-1 vaccine, Infanrix Hexa, and confirms that it is safe.

               "The 6-in-1 vaccine is very safe. It's killed (inactivated), which means it doesn't contain any live organisms, so there's no risk of your baby getting the diseases it protects against from the vaccination. The vaccine also has few side effects, although it's common for babies to be a little irritable afterwards. They may also have short-lived redness, swelling and a small bump at the injection site."

This is the message that conventional medical doctors usually give us, and left at this it might appear that 'anti-vaxxers' such as myself are trying to mislead you. But read on. It provides a link to this page, headed 6-in-1 side effects. This gives the 'common' reactions to the vaccine as follows:

• pain, redness and swelling at the injection site
• fever
• vomiting
• abnormal crying
• irritability
• loss of appetite

They say that these reported side effects happen in 1 in 10 babies.

Then they talk of the 'Rare' side effects' of the 6-in-1 vaccine (reported, they say, in fewer than 1 in 10,000 babies) which include:

• high fever
• fit
• seizures.

The reporting of side effects
Many studies have calculated that only 10% of drug (and vaccine) side effects are ever reported. I wrote about this in this blog. This means that 90% are not reported, so these 'rare' side effects are not 1 in 10,000 but 1 in 1,000. Some studies indicate that 10% is an under-estimate, that a more accurate figure might be 1%, that 99% of these 'rare' side effects remain unrecorded. This would mean that they happen in 1 in 100 vaccinated children.

Allergy
The NHS then report that "very rarely" a baby may have a severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) after the 6 in 1 vaccine, but this happens in fewer than 1 in 100,000 cases (or is this 1 in 10,000, or 1 in 1,000 cases. And if the vaccine causes anaphylaxis, what about allergy?

But parents are reassured by the NHS who states that this "can happen with any vaccine" (is this really reassuring?), and that although anaphylaxis "is a serious medical condition", all vaccination staff are "trained to deal with anaphylactic reactions on the spot, and babies recover completely with prompt treatment".

Now, go back to the first NHS page, referred to above. There was no mention here of high fever, fits, seizures, allergy, anaphylaxis! The vaccine is described as 'very safe'. Of course, 'safety' depends on the amount of risk that we, as parents, are prepared to take with our babies health!

But we need to go on. There is a link from the first NHS page to the 'Patient Information Leaflet' (PIL) that comes with the 6-in-1 vaccine. Most parents don't get to the second page, leave alone reading this PIL. And doctors rarely show parents the PIL before vaccinating their babies!

Now remember that these PILs only give information that has been proven, beyond doubt. Anything else, anything that is denied, is not mentioned in these documents, produced by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. But the 6-in-1 PIL takes our knowledge of the dangers of the vaccines to a new level. First, there is a list of 'warnings' and 'precautions', and what follows is taken directly from the PIL.

Infanrix hexa should not be given:
     • if your child is allergic to:
               - Infanrix hexa or any of the ingredients of this vaccine (listed in section 6).
               - formaldehyde.
               - neomycin or polymyxin (antibiotics).

Signs of an allergic reaction may include itchy skin, rash, shortness of breath and swelling of the face or tongue.
     • if your child has had an allergic reaction to any vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B, polio or Haemophilus influenzae type b.
     • if your child has had problems of the nervous system within 7 days after previous vaccination with a vaccine against whooping cough
     • if your child has a severe infection with a high temperature (over 38°C).

A minor infection such as a cold should not be a problem, but talk to your doctor first.

Infanrix hexa should not be given if any of the above apply to your child. If you are not sure, talk to your doctor or pharmacist before your child is given Infanrix hexa.

Warnings and precautions
Talk to your doctor or pharmacist before your child is given Infanrix hexa:
     • if after previously having Infanrix hexa or another vaccine against whooping cough, your child had any problems, especially:
               - a high temperature (over 40°C) within 48 hours of vaccination
               - a collapse or “shock-like” state within 48 hours of vaccination
               - persistent crying lasting 3 hours or more within 48 hours of vaccination
               - fits with or without a high temperature within 3 days of vaccination
     • if your child has an undiagnosed or progressive disease of the brain or epilepsy which is not controlled. After control of the disease the vaccine can be given.
     • if your child has a bleeding problem or bruises easily
     • if your child tends to have fits when they have a fever, or if there is a history of this in the family.
     • if your child should become unresponsive or experience seizures (fits) after the vaccination, please contact your doctor immediately. See also section 4 Possible side effects.
     • if your baby was born very prematurely (at or before 28 weeks of gestation) longer gaps than normal between breaths may occur for 2-3 days after vaccination. These babies may require respiratory monitoring for 48-72h following the administration of the first two or three doses of Infanrix hexa.

If any of the above apply to your child (or you are not sure), talk to your doctor or pharmacist before your child is given Infanrix hexa.

Other medicines and Infanrix hexa
Your doctor may ask you to give your child a medicine that lowers fever (such as paracetamol) before or immediately after Infanrix hexa is given. This can help to lower some of the side effects (febrile reactions) of Infanrix hexa.

Tell your doctor or pharmacist if your child is taking, has recently taken, might take any other medicines or has recently received any other vaccine.

Infanrix hexa contains neomycin and polymyxin
This vaccine contains neomycin and polymyxin (antibiotics). Tell your doctor if your child has had an allergic reaction to these ingredients.

NOTE
* THESE ARE JUST THE PRECAUTIONARY WARNINGS!
* HOW OFTEN DO DOCTORS, OR NURSES DOING THE VACCINATION, CHECK ON ANY OF THIS BEFORE VACCINATING CHILDREN?
* BUT NOW FOR THE SIDE EFFECTS......


Possible side effects
Like all medicines, this vaccine can cause side effects, although not everybody gets them. The following side effects may happen with this vaccine:

Allergic reactions
If your child has an allergic reaction, see your doctor straight away. The signs may include:
     • rashes that may be itchy or blistering
     • swelling of the eyes and face
     • difficulty in breathing or swallowing
     • a sudden drop in blood pressure and loss of consciousness.

These signs usually start very soon after the injection has been given. Talk to a doctor straight away if they happen after leaving the doctor’s surgery.

See your doctor straight away if your child has any of the following serious side effects:
     • collapse
     • times when they lose consciousness or have a lack of awareness
     • fits – this may be when they have a fever

These side effects have happened very rarely with Infanrix hexa as with other vaccines against whooping cough. They usually happen within 2 to 3 days after vaccination.

Other side effects include:
Very common (these may occur with more than 1 in 10 doses of the vaccine): feeling tired, loss of appetite, high temperature of 38°C or higher, swelling, pain, redness where the injection site was given, unusual crying, feeling irritable or restless.

Common (these may occur with up to 1 in 10 doses of the vaccine): diarrhoea, being sick (vomiting), high temperature of more than 39.5°C, swelling larger than 5 cm or hard lump where the injection was given, feeling nervous.

Uncommon (these may occur with up to 1 in 100 doses of the vaccine): upper respiratory tract infection, feeling sleepy, cough, large swelling at the injected limb.

Rare (these may occur with up to 1 in 1,000 doses of the vaccine): bronchitis, rash, swollen glands in the neck, armpit or groin (lymphadenopathy), bleeding or bruising more easily than normal (thrombocytopenia), in babies born very prematurely (at or before 28 weeks of gestation) longer gaps than normal between breaths may occur for 2-3 days after vaccination, temporarily stopping breathing (apnoea), swelling of the face, lips, mouth, tongue or throat which may cause difficulty in swallowing or breathing (angioedema), swelling of the whole injected limb, blisters.

Very rare (these may happen with up to 1 in 10,000 doses of the vaccine): itching (dermatitis).

Experience with hepatitis B vaccine
In extremely rare cases the following side effects have been reported with hepatitis B vaccine: paralysis, numbness or weakness of the arms and legs (neuropathy), inflammation of some nerves, possibly with pins and needles or loss of feeling or normal movement (Guillain-Barré syndrome), swelling or infection of the brain (encephalopathy, encephalitis), infection around the brain (meningitis).

The causal relationship to the vaccine has not been established.

Bleeding or bruising more easily than normal (thrombocytopenia) has been reported with hepatitis B vaccines.


SO, TO QUOTE THE NHS WEBPAGE AGAIN (which is the information most doctors routinely give us), the 6-in-1 vaccines "is very safe". Do you agree? Given the information provided by the PIL, is this an accurate or honest description? Or is it deceptive? Dishonest?

Safety, perhaps, is in the eyes of the beholder! Perhaps it is an acceptable risk in the all-too-dangerous world of conventional medicine. But would most parents, who were given this information, and in a position to make an informed choice, take these risks with their young babies?

REMEMBER, THIS INFORMATION IS NOT MINE. IT COMES FROM THE UK'S NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE.

Health, Safety & Pharmaceutical Drugs. Pregabalin/Lyrica causes death each and every year - but doctors can continue prescribing it!

What sphere of human activity can human lives be lost on a regular basis but NOTHING is done to prevent it happening in the future?

• Perhaps a factory where workers die regularly every year?
• Or a domestic product that kills people regularly every year?
• Is there anywhere else?

In fact there is only one area of life where this is being allowed to happen

CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE & PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS

The drug Pregabalin can be used to amply demonstrates this!

Pregabalin, or Lyrica, or Gabapentin (the multiplicity of names is just to confuse patients) are drugs used to treat epilepsy, neuropathic pain associated with the brain, fibromyalgia and generalised anxiety disorder. It was first approved for medical used in 2004 in the USA, and they have been used in the UK for over twenty years. Initially it was presented to us as a new 'wonder drug', often described as 'the new valium' (a much older 'wonder' drug). Both are now known killers. Yesterday, as we will see, it became a 'class C drug' in Britain.

The side effects of pregabalin have been known for as long as the drug has been prescribed to patients. Unfortunately, patients have not been told about them. I went to the NHS website today (the day after the announcement about pregabalin becoming a class C drug) to see what the conventional medical establishment were telling patients about this drug.

               "The side effects of pregabalin are usually mild and go away by themselves. The most common ones are feeling sleepy, dizziness and headaches."

In 2016 there were 111 recorded deaths in the UK caused by Pregabalin. Even Pfizer, the drug company that manufactures Lyrica, the original brand name, said at that time

               "Caution should be exercised in patients with a history of substance abuse and the patient should be monitored for symptoms of pregabalin misuse, abuse or dependence."

This need for 'caution' has arisen, apparently, as the drug produces feelings of euphoria, relaxation and calmness, and over the years there has been a growing 'illicit' market in the drug. So doctors have been told that they can continue to prescribe these killer drugs, but they are expected to be careful that patients are not selling them on for recreational use!

So delay and prevarication is rife. This precautionary advice to doctors has been around at least since 2014 - but clearly the advice has done little good as doctors have continued to prescribe them in increasing amounts. Data provided by NHS Digital shows that prescriptions for pregabalin have risen more than 11-fold in the last decade, from 476,102 prescriptions in 2006 to 5,547,560 in 2016!

So patients are not told about the killer side effects, and doctors do not appear to mind prescribing drugs that are known to kill their patients. Presumably conventional medicine has nothing safer to offer to its patients!

Talk about making pregabalin a 'class C drug' has been mooted since at least 2017. See my blog on this subject published in 2017. This would make it illegal to possess the drug without a doctor's prescription. So yet more delay and prevarication - it was only in April 2019 that Pregabalin was actually 'reclassified' - apparently because in 2017, in Northern Ireland (alone), it caused 33 deaths, compared to only (sic) 8 deaths the previous year! 

So the drug has become a growing threat not just to human health, but to human life. And it is allowed to continue doing so by the conventional medical establishment.

And the threat is not just that pregabalin kills patients. The Drugs.com website tells us that "commonly reported" side effects of pregabalin include infection, ataxia, blurred vision, constipation, diplopia, dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, headache, peripheral oedema, tremor, weight gain, visual field loss, accidental injury, and xerostomia, plus abnormal gait, abnormality in thinking, amnesia, arthralgia, asthenia, cognitive dysfunction, confusion, oedema, neuropathy, sinusitis, speech disturbance, vertigo, visual disturbance, myasthenia, amblyopia, increased appetite, and twitching. But this is only a summary. For a more comprehensive list of adverse effects known to be caused by pregabalin go to the Drugs.com website.

However, there is another health warning to be made here! This website is owned by pharmaceutical interests, and it should be noted that 'death' is not one of the 'side effects' mentioned! So more delay, more prevarication, more hiding of evidence that conventional medicine causes serious harm to patients, and can even kill them without patients being told!

And through all this doctors can continue to prescribe this drug to their patients - just so long as they are certain we are not going to use them for 'recreational purposes', or sell them on for recreational use!

• Where else in society would this be allowed to happen?
• What has happened to the principle - "First, do no harm"?
• Where is the 'precautionary principle' in conventional medicine?
• Does Health and Safety play any role in the practice of conventional medicine?
• Is the concept of 'informed consent' completely unknown to our doctors?

And this is just one of the drugs they regularly prescribe for their patients!