Pharmaceutical Medicine. How effective are doctor-prescribed drugs and vaccines? How long should you continue taking drugs?

Just how effective are pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that our doctors prescribe to us? Almost every week we hear about some new drug that is a 'miracle' cure for some illness; and currently we are all waiting for the pharmaceutical industry to deliver a vaccine that will be the answer (the only possible answer) to the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. 

We have all been programmed to believe that conventional medicine has all the answers to illness and disease - but does it?

There has been a meta-analysis (June 2019), a comprehensive review of randomized clinical trials published in three of the main medical journals. It revealed a total of 396 'medical reversals'. 

A medical reversal is described as a medical practice that is found to be "no better than a prior, or lesser standard of care", a 'low level' medical practice that is "either ineffective or that cost more than other options but only offer similar effectiveness". Conventional medicine seems to use these meaningless terms or phrases in order to ensure that most people don't understand what they are talking about. Well, let's put it more simply.

What this meta-research has shown, yet again, is that most conventional or pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are of little value. They are ineffective. They don't work.

• This is why, year by year, more people get sick, take pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, but they do not get better. 
• Instead, more patients are prescribed these useless drugs, on the basis that they have to be taken for a lifetime. In other words - they just do not work.
  
• This is why, year by year, the NHS (and conventional medical organisations around the world) cannot cope with the rising levels of illness and disease, always need more money, and routinely complain about the 'lack of resources'.
  

 I wrote about the over-hyping of drug effectiveness, and the consequences, in my E-Book, 'The Failure of Conventional Medicine'. I reproduce part of this here.

            "The conventional medical establishment regularly overstate the claims they make about drug and vaccine safety and effectiveness, particularly when a new drug or vaccine is about to be marketed and taken by patients. The drug companies have a financial interest in doing so. We are told, regularly, that some new treatment will transform the lives of people suffering from this illness, or that disease.

            "Yet the reality is that most drug tests reveal something much more modest. For instance, drug testing may have indicated that a drug will give a 25% reduction in symptoms for about 20% of people suffering from a disease. What this means is that 75% of the symptoms will remain for 20% of sufferers, and 100% of the symptoms will remain for the remaining 80% of sufferers!

            "Rarely, if ever, has a pharmaceutical drug merited the iconoclastic headlines that regularly appear in our mainstream media, which inform us that they are 'miracle cures', or ‘magic bullets’, that will free mankind from the ravages of some illness or disease. The mainstream media is always ready, if not eager to submit the propaganda of pharmaceutical companies to us, usually without question or demure. They meekly cooperate in the pharmaceutical industry's effort to persuade us about the magical qualities of every new drug or vaccine, and they hide anything that might suggest they might be ineffective or unsafe.

            "The result is that many sick people, suffering from incurable diseases, wait patiently and expectantly for medical science to come up with a cure before they die.After all, this is what we have all been led to believe, scientific medicine will eventually conquer disease. Sadly, most people have been, and will continue to wait in vain for a future that never arrives!

            "A more sober and realistic experience suggests pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are rarely as effective as claimed, and in time most of them are soon found to be ineffective, unsafe or dangerous. And sometimes quite lethal. Perhaps they are as safe as the drug testing and drug regulatory regimes throughout the world can make them - but as will be seen this not very safe at all.  

So if you are one of the many, many patients who have been ill for a long time, when nothing your are prescribed makes you better, when you get sicker week by week, when you are on drugs which have serious side effects, you need to discover natural medical therapies. They are all more effective - and certainly safer. 

Why Homeopathy? is my E-Book that looks at specific illnesses and diseases, and compares conventional and homeopathic treatment of them. You will be surprised at the number of illnesses conventional medicine openly admits it has no effective treatment. This is why more and more people are switching from pharmaceutical medicine - particularly in the longer term it just does not work! It is ineffective.

Just how long would you consider using a car, or a washing machine, that did not work?

 

The Pharmaceutical Industry. Dishonesty, Corruption and Fraud. Ely Lilly & Prosac - the drug that causes violence & suicide

Prosac, an SSRI antidepressant drug, was once hailed a 'wonder drug', a 'magic bullet', the solution to the problem of depression. Decades later it is still being prescribed, regardless of the horrific 'side effects' it is now known to cause (not to mention its limited ability to treat depression). In its praise one American psychiatrist, Peter Kramer, said in his 1993 book 'Listening to Prozac'  that the drug could make even people without depression “better than well”. The mainstream media, as usual, shared this pharmaceutical enthusiasm, and the sales of antidepressant drugs climbed astronomically; and been steadily increased since that time.

Joseph Wesbecker, from Louisville, Kentucky, USA was prescribed Prozac in 1989, and after taking the drug for about month, shot dead 8 work colleagues, wounded 12 others. and then killed himself. Survivors of the massacre, and relatives of the dead, took Ely Lilly, the drug manufacturer, to court. It was then, and is now, one of countless of mass killings in the USA. So in the early 1990's Dr Breggin was asked to evaluate the scientific basis for the claim that Prozac was causing violence and suicide, and claims the company had been negligent in the development and marketing of Prozac.

Eli Lilly won the case, was exonerated, and absolved of any blame for murders by the jury, which decided that the evaluation and testimony of Dr Breggin had not proven that Prozac was at fault. The judge suspected at the time that the trial had been rigged, and that Eli Willey had withheld damaging evidence from the court. Dr Breggin described this situation in his book, 'Medication Madness', published in 2009. Apparently, for many years after the trial, both plaintiffs and attorneys remained unaware of some the documents Breggin had evaluated. Then, in 2004, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) were sent the documents, anonymously, and they published an article about them.

Even so, it took longer (some 30 years in total) for the full truth to come out. Eli Lilly had secretly paid plaintiffs a total of $20 million to conceal damaging evidence that the company had concealed vital evidence that would have, if made public at the trial, damaged the reputation (and thus the sales) of the drug. The judge and jury knew nothing about this payment. 

What also became clear was that Eli Lilly had, just previous to this trial, pleaded guilty to 25 counts of failure to report adverse reactions to another of its drugs, Oraflex. They feared that the Prozac jury would be more inclined to rule against them if this was known - so they settled out of court to prevent the court from hearing about it. It seems that Eli Lilly has a track record of concealing damning truths about their drugs.

The Judge, John Potter, had suspected that Eli Lilly had bribed both the plaintiffs and their lawyers before the jury verdict. He uncovered evidence of bribery, and fought Eli Lilly for several years after the trial but was unable to obtain proof of the Prozac payoff. So the company succeeded in keeping its criminal action from public view, and were able to continue selling a drug (and have been selling it to this day).

All this information has been gleaned from a variety of sources

• What your doctor might not know about Psychiatric Drug Facts
• Prozac maker Eli Lilly subverted mass murder trial 
• Eli Lilly paid $20 million in  hush money over Prozac mass shooting lawsuit
  

Eli LIlly's victory also sent a powerful message to lawyers and plaintiffs about the odds of winning judgments against powerful drug companies. There seemed little prospect of proving that Prozac was a grave danger.

It is also known now that the original FDA examiner had refused to accept Prozac because he knew that it caused aggression and violence. However, the drug was approved by the regulator, Prozac came to market, and has stayed there ever since. So much for the robustness of the drug regulation system! As Keith Scott-Mumby has stated (in his book, "Psychiatry without Drugs", if Eli Lilly had lost the case it could be the end of the a marvellous gravy train for the industry, stating that 1 in 5 USA citizens are on some form of psychiatric medication.

            "The drug ... was 'exonerated' and now it’s difficult to get the bent psychiatric profession to tolerate the idea that their stupid drugs are causing mass murders. Prozac and other SSRIs KILL people."

Yet the dishonesty, corruption and fraud was not just the mean saving Prozac's reputation. It also meant the link between Prozac, other subsequent SSRI, antipsychotic drugs, and violence also failed to be highlighted. Wesbecker was crazy, that's why he committed the murders. It had nothing to do with the drugs. Yet Wesbecker was not known to have murderous or suicidal tendencies prior to taking Prozac. And he was not the last mass killer on SSRI antidepressants. Since that time hundreds of mass shooters have been done by individuals on psychiatric drugs.
 
Indeed the situation within the conventional medical establishment is now ever worse. As Mumby says, the call is now for more drugs, to drug more 'crazy', patients who psychiatry believe might do harm, and have 'tendency to violence'. They are then put on psychiatric drugs, drugs with 'violence' as a well known side effect, clearly listed on Patient Information Leaflets.

Drugs used to 'treat' a problem - that actually cause the problem.

The pharmaceutical industry is dishonest, corrupt and fraudulent. It gets away with it because it is rich, influential and powerful. And they spend their wealth on ensuring we do not need to hear about the harm they cause to patients, and profit from harming patients, and get richer, more influential and powerful.

It is a vicious circle that can only be broken when we patients put an end to it - by saying 'No' to pharmaceutical medicine.

Dishonesty, Corruption and Fraud in the Pharmaceutical Industry. It's been going on for years

Would you consider buying a second-hand car from these pharmaceutical drug companies? 

If not, why are we still accepting their drugs and vaccines?

If you believe that the pharmaceutical industry is honest enterprise, placing the best interests of its patients at the heart of its business, it is time you looked closely at the history of dishonesty, corruption and fraud it has been found guilty of during the last 20+ years.

Over this time pharmaceutical companies have been subject to a succession criminal cases, court rulings, and the imposition of heavy fines and compensation payments to victims of their drugs and vaccines. Many of these emanate in the USA, but all the drugs mentioned have a world-wide distribution. This is a just brief summary of some of the bigger, recent cases.

Pardue Pharma. 2007
Purdue Pharma was fined $634.5 million for fraudulently selling the painkilling drug, Oxycontin, suggesting it was less addictive, and less likely to be abused than other painkillers. The company was also charged with using misleading sales tactics, minimizing the risks of the drug, and promoting it for uses for which it was not approved.

Bristol-Myers Squibb. 2007
Bristol-Myers Squibb were fined $515 for illegally promoting its antipsychotic drug, Abilify, to children and older people, despite a 'black box' warning about possible fatal side effects. The company was also fined for giving payments, and offering expensive presents and vacations to doctors and pharmacists who dispensed the drugs.

Eli Lilly. January 2009
Eli Lilly was fined $1.42 billion following government investigation into its promotion of the antipsychotic drug, Zyprexa. Zyprexa had been approved for the treatment of certain psychotic disorders, but Lilly admitted to promoting the drug to older people to treat dementia. The government also proved that Eli Lilly had targeted primary care physicians to promote Zyprexa for unapproved uses, and had trained a sales force specifically to disregard the law. They were also found to have failed to divulge important side effect information. Zyprexa was marketed as a sleeping aid for older people because one of its side effects is sedation, even though the drug also increased the risk of death!

Pfizer. September 2009
The drug company, Pfizer, was fined $2.3 billion, at the time the largest health care fraud settlement, and the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the USA. Pfizer pleaded guilty to misbranding the painkilling drug, Bextra, with the intent to mislead and defraud, and promoting the drug to treat acute pain at dosages the drug regulator, the FDA, had previously deemed dangerous. In 2005 Bextra was banned due to safety concerns. It was also found that Pfizer had promoted three other drugs illegally, the antipsychotic Geodon, an antibiotic Zyvox, and the anti-epileptic drug, Lyrica.

AstraZenica. April 2010
AstraZeneca was fined $520 million following allegations that it llegally promoted the antipsychotic drug, Seroquel. The drug was approved for treating schizophrenia and bipolar mania, but AstraZeneca had promoted Seroquel for a variety of unapproved uses, such as weight loss, aggression, sleeplessness, ADHD, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, depression, and dementia. AstraZeneca denied the charges, but nonetheless agreed to pay the fine to end the government investigation! During the hearings it was found that the company promoted the drug for weight loss by highlighting one favourable study but burying others that linked it to substantial weight gain!

GlaxoSmithKiline and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2010
In February 2010, the USA Senate Finance Committee, in a 334 page report, found that the diabetes drug Avandia was linked with tens of thousands of heart attacks, and that the drug company, GlaxoSmithKline had known about this for many years but kept them from the public. The report also criticised the FDA. It found that although members of staff expressed concerns, the drug regulator (sic) connived with the drug company to 'overlook' and 'overrode'  patient safety concerns.

Bristol-Wyers Squibb. 2010
This story has been taken from the magazine 'What Doctors Don't Tell You", May 2019, in an article "Institutes face $1 billion lawsuit for wartime experiment, indicating the dishonesty and fraud is not a recent development as far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned.

         "John Hopkins University, the drug giant Bristol-Myers Squibb and the Rockafeller Foundation face a £1 billion lawsuite for their part in a US government experiment that infected hundreds of Guatamalans with syphilis in the 1940's. The experiment was set up to text the newly developed drug penicillin as a therapy against sexually transmitted diseases. It remained secret until 2010.... since when the three institutions have been fighting legal action... The complaint cites that several John Hopkins and Rockefeller Foundation doctors were involved in the experiement, along with four executives from Bristol Laboratories and the Squuibb Institute... John Hopking University has apologised for its involvement in the experiment, but the Rockefeller Foundation .... denies any wrongoiding. The drug company has refused to comment".

Merck. November 2011
The drug company, Merck, was involved in a huge scandal over its dangerous painkilling drug, Vioxx. It was fined for selling the drug to treat rheumatoid arthritis, for which it had not been tested, over decade earlier. Indeed, they were found to have illegally promoted Vioxx for three years, even after they were reprimanded for doing so in September 2001 by the USA drug regulator, the Food and Drug Administration. In the following year, Merck was fined a further $321 million in Boston, USA.

GlaxoSmithKline. 2011
In December 2011, GSK were ordered to pay $3 billion "to settle United States government civil and criminal investigations into its sales practices for numerous drugs". This involved a variety of illegal activities, including illegally marketing drugs, paying off doctors to promote dangerous drugs, and manipulating scientific data to get dangerous drugs approved.

GlaxoSmithKline, January 2012
In January 2012, in Argentina, GSK was fined 400,00 pesos when 14 babies died in an illegal vaccine trial. It was stated that the doctors took advantage of the many illiterate parents who took their children for treatment by pressuring and forcing them into signing 28-page consent forms, and getting them involved in the trials. In Europe and the USA laboratories are not allowed to conduct such experiment, so it was done in third-world countries instead.

Abbott. February 2012
A Colombian court ruled that Abbott Laboratories had overcharged the Ministry of Health for drugs, "maintaining the price of an HIV medicine above the reference price" and "flouting a government order". The court’s decision was described as a groundbreaking condemnation of pricing abuses by pharmaceutical companies".

Abbott. May 2012
Abbott was fined $1.5 billion for its illegal promotion of the antipsychotic drug, Depakote. Abbott admitted it had trained a special sales team to target nursing homes, promoting the drug for the control of aggression and agitation for dementia patients. Depakote had not been approved for this purpose, and Abbott could not demonstrate evidence that the drug was safe or effective for this purpose. The company had also promoted Depakote to treat schizophrenia, again with evidence of its efficacy in treating this condition.

GlaxoSmithKline. July 2012
GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay $3 billion in civil and criminal liabilities following its promotion of several drugs, as well as its failure to report negative safety data, and making unsupported safety claims, in particular for its diabetes drug, Avandia. The company was aware that the drug increased the risk of heart attacks and congestive heart failure, but they withheld this information for seven years! During this time the drug was prescribed to patients, who were unaware that GSK were intentionally putting their lives at risk in order to sell the drug. The company also pleaded guilty to promoting the antidepressant drug, Paxil, for patients under 18 although it had never been approved for that age group. GSK were also found guilty of paying bribes to doctors, with one attorney prosecuting the case saying that the company used every imaginable form of high-priced entertainment and paid millions of dollars in bribes to doctors. One doctor is reported as receiving $275,000 to promote just one GSK drug!

A full account of the dishonesty and fraud perpetrated in this case is contained in the book "Children of the Cure", written by David Healy, Joanna LeNoury and Julie Wood,

AstraZenica. July 2012
A USA federal judge found that AstraZenica had attempted to block the FDA's approval of generic versions of its antipsychotic drug, Seroquel. Its patent had expired in March.

Pfizer. August 2012
Pfizer were forced to pay $60 million after bribing European and Asian health officials to dispense their drugs and vaccines. The fraud involved doctors and public health officials in Bulgaria, China, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Italy, Kazakhstan, Russia and Serbia. When the company realised they might be caught they apparently attempted to hide the illicit transactions by burying them in accounting records as 'business expenses'.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. October 2012
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals agreed to pay $95 million after it had promoted several drugs for non-medically accepted uses. These drugs included the stroke-prevention drug, Aggrenox, the lung disease drugs, Atrovent and Combivent, and also the high blood pressure drug ,Micardis. The FDA said that Boehringer had improperly marketed the drugs and "caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs."

Sanofi-Aventis. December 2012
Sanofi-Aventis paid a fine of $109 million after it was found that the company gave doctors free units of the drug Hyalgan (an injection to relieve knee pain) to encourage those doctors to buy their product. Sanofi lowered the effective price by promising doctors free samples, although it continued to charge government programmes high prices by submitting false price reports.

Amgen. December 2012
Amgen paid $762 million after criminal and civil charges that the company had illegally introduced and promoted several drugs including the anaemia drug, Aranesp. The company pleaded guilty to illegally selling Aranesp at doses the FDA had explicitly rejected, and for an off-label treatment that did not have FDA approval.

Wyeth. August 2013
Wyeth paid $500,000 when charged with illegal marketing of their immunosupressant drug, Rapamune. One comment made about this case said that "Wyeth's conduct put profits ahead of the health and safety of a highly vulnerable patient population dependent on life-sustaining therapy,"

Johnson and Johnson. November 2013
Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay a $2.2 billion fine following criminal and civil charges relating to three of its drugs, Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor. The drug company had promoted these drugs for uses that had not been approved  by the FDA as safe and effective. They had also spent large sums promoting the drugs to dementia patients in nursing homes, and paid bribes to doctors and pharmacies. Johnson & Johnson also admitted it had promoted Risperdal for the treatment of psychotic symptoms in non-schizophrenic patients, for which the drug was not approved.

Endo Health Solutions. February 2014
Endo Health Solutions, and its subsidiary, Endon Pharmaceuticals, paid $192.7 million to resolve criminal and civil charges arising from Endo's marketing of the drug, Lidoderm. The company admitted that it promoted Lidoderm for uses for which it was unapproved.

Novartis and Roche. March 2014
Italian medical authorities fined two Swiss pharmaceutical companies, Novartis and Roche Holdings, a total of $250 million for colluding to keep doctors from prescribing a relatively inexpensive eye treatment in favour of a more expensive drug.

Takeda and Eli Lilly. March 2014
These two drug companies were fined $9 billion in Louisianna, USA, after they concealed evidence of a link between their diabetes drug, Actos, and bladder cancer. They were subject to thousands of lawsuits after the drug regulator, the FDA, issued a warning in 2011 that the drug might increase the risk of bladder cancer, and the drug companies denied any link. As well as bladder cancer the drug has also been linked to cognitive heart failure.

GlaxoSmithKline. June 2014
GlaxoSmithKline were ordered to pay $105 million to 44 states for providing it sales representatives with financial incentives to make misleading claims and statements to doctors about its drugs Advair, Paxil and Wellbutrin. The company was sued for deceptive trade practices and violations of consumer law.

Johnson and Johnson, Pardue Pharma and the Opioid Scandel (2019)
Opioids were involved in almost 400,000 overdose deaths in the USA between 1999 and 2017. In Oklahoma alone, since 2000, some 6,000 people died from opioid overdose, and many more suffered from dependence and addiction. Earlier in 2019 Oklahoma State had settled with Purdue Pharma ($270m) and Teva Pharmaceutical ($85m), but Johnson & Johnson continued to deny 'wrong-doing'. However in August they were fined $572m (£468m) for its part in fuelling Oklahoma's opioid addiction crisis. The case was the first to go to trial  but there are about 2,000 opiode lawsuits filed against other opioid makers and distributors around the USA.

Johnson & Johnson paid for a marketing campaign that minimised the addictive quality of painkillers, minimised their risks, and promoted their benefits. They were said to be the opioid "kingpin" in an industry-wide campaign to profit was these drugs, and the judge said that the company had contributed to a "public nuisance" in its deceptive promotion of highly addictive prescription painkillers.

For more information on the Opioid Scandel visit this Mercola website, which begins with this statement. "Opioid overdoses kill more than 130 people in the U.S. daily1 in an unprecedented crisis that continues to spiral out of control."

AND SO IT GOES ON.........
The list of fraud and dishonesty practised by the pharmaceutical companies is a long one, and an ongoing one. Those mentioned above are just a few selected examples from recent years. They are not isolated incidents. They have become a regular part of the pharmaceutical business. They form a pattern of behaviour that has continued over many decades.

And for every case brought to court there are probably hundreds more that never reach that stage, or which go unexamined.

(This information was first published in my "The Failure of Conventional Medicine" website)

No one can examine this plethora of cases without realising that pharmaceutical companies are not open, honest and trustworthy businesses; nor can anyone believe that they place patient safety before corporate profit.

Nor should anyone believe that any drug they produce are safe, or even effective. Most of the drugs mentioned in the above list of criminal cases are still being used by conventional medicine with patients.

And hopefully no one who knows anything about this long history of dishonesty, corruption and fraud will be tempted to take any pharmaceutical drug or vaccine in the future.

 

Pharmaceutical Drugs and Vaccines. Are they safe? Look at the Patient Information Leaflet before you decide

Are pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines safe? Although national and international health bodies tell you they are, doctors will reinforce the message, and the mainstream media will agree with them, without question, the doubts continues. We are reluctant to accept them. So when we are ill, and go to the doctor, should we accept their assurances on the safety of drugs and vaccines?

The message of this blog has always been consistent. Do your own research. Make up your own mind. Make an informed choice, based on the best available evidence.

It is not as difficult to do this research as you might think. Drug companies are obliged to tell us about all known and accepted adverse drug reactions, or side effects - and they do this in Patient Information Leaflets (PIL's) that come with each drug or vaccine. It is important to read them before ever agreeing to take any pharmaceutical drug or vaccine

After all, you would not buy a car, or a washing machine, or anything much else, purely on the say-so of the sales representative who is trying to sell it to you. You would read up about the product, find out about the experience of other people who have bought one, and see if there are better alternatives. You would do your research, and make your own informed choice.

Making an informed choice about a particular vaccine has just become much easier, thanks to the Children's Health Defense CHD) who have produced a webpage, "Nearly 400 Adverse Reactions Listed in Vaccine Package Inserts". This webpage provides direct links to the package inserts for all vaccines licensed for use in the USA (but which is equally relevant to vaccines used all over the world). CHD says this about these package inserts, or PILs.

            "In addition to containing bits of practical information for the clinicians who administer the vaccines, the inserts provide members of the public with one of their only opportunities to learn about a vaccine's contraindications, warnings, precautions and - perhaps most importantly - potential adverse reactions."

             "The inserts communicate the information about adverse reactions in two distinct sections: 'clinical trials experience (Section 6.1) and 'Data from post-marketing experience' from the U.S. or other countries (Section 6.2)."

This is the information every patient needs in order to make up their mind about taking a pharmaceutical drug or vaccine. Remember this is not information that is coming from those of us who have already determined that vaccines are not safe. This is information coming directly from the vaccine manufacturers - information from the conventional medical establishment itself.

In an earlier CHD article, "Read the Fine Print. Vaccine Package Inserts reveal hundreds of medical conditions linked to Vaccines", published in April, 2020, CHD summarized the post-marketing data for over three dozen vaccines given routinely to American infants, children and adolescents.

        "That tally showed that vaccines touted for the prevention of 13 illnesses but have been linked to at least 217 adverse medical outcomes, reported after the vaccines were tested and licensed, including serious infections, autoimmune conditions, life-threatening allergies and death."

CHD's comprehensive survey of vaccines demonstrated several things - from the evidence provided by the pharmaceutical industry itself:

• Every single vaccine on the childhood/adolescent vaccine schedule is responsible for at least one adverse event.
• Vaccines can cause the very illnesses—or adverse consequences of those illnesses—that they are supposed to prevent.
• Vaccines can also cause other serious infections.
• Vaccine adverse events affect numerous body systems, including the immune and nervous systems.  

Remember and note well - this is not MY information, or CHD's information, it is information that the conventional medical establishment is obliged by law to give us - and it completely contradicts the routine assertions of conventional medical authorities that vaccines are safe.

In its latest article, CHD provides direct links to PILs for all DPT, MMR, flu, hepatitis, and all other vaccines types. Patients are not usually shown these vaccine inserts by doctors, but now we don't even need to ask for them, or open the packet! We have access to all we need to know about the vaccines doctors want us to take.

ADVERSE EVENTS REPORTED IN PACKAGE INSERTS

CHD then go further, providing us with details of all the adverse events caused by vaccines listed in the package inserts. This is useful not only for those who are deciding whether to take a vaccine, but for those who have already taken a vaccine, and who might want to link the vaccine with illness and disease they contracted as a direct result. These include all the following:

• Allergy
• Autoimmune disease
• Blood and Lymphatic systems
• Cardiac (heart)
• Congenital
• Death
• Ear and Labyrinth
• Eye
• Gastrointestinal
• General, including Injection Site
• Hepatobiliary / liver
• Immune system
• Infections and infestations
• Investigations
• Metabolic
• Musculoskeletal and connective tissue
• Nervous system
• Psychiatric
• Respiratory, thoracic, mediastinal
• Skin and subcutaneous tissue
• Vascular
• Urogenital

So clearly, on the evidence of conventional medicine's own literature, there is NO area of the human body that vaccines cannot seriously harm.

But I have missed one area, an important area, DEATH, as reported in PILs! There were two separate entries listed under death

•  Death itself; known to be caused by the Gardasil/Gardasil 9, MMR-II, Rotarix, and RotaTeq vaccines.
• and Sudden Infant Death (SIDs, cot death), caused by the Infanrix vaccine.

So, are vaccines safe? How is it that doctors, with this information at hand, can look at us and tell us that vaccines are safe, that they will not do us harm?

However, there are two other things to bear in mind when looking at this information provided by the conventional medical establishment. 

1. The only adverse reactions that find their way into any PILs are those that have been accepted by the conventional medical establishment. There are many, many more that are not listed because doctors continue to deny them, and in the past they have continued to do so until denial is no longer possible.  
2. Adverse drug reactions are known to be seriously under-reported. Several studies have shown that only between 1% and 10% (at the very most) of these are ever reported - because doctors are 'too busy', or refuse or just 'forget' to do so. This is why they are then able to say that particular side effects are "rare", or "uncommon" - not because they are rare and uncommon, but because they are rarely or uncommonly reported by doctors who are obliged by law to do so.
   

So if you want to make an informed choice, you can do no better than to start by looking at the evidence available in these two Children's Health Defense articles.

Veterinary Medicine. A monopoly occupation that kills its patients

I can think of only one profession, the veterinary profession, that routinely kills its customers (or patients). Even so, when animals are sick, the veterinary industry has been given a monopoly in the treatment of animals, and here, in the UK, this monopoly is supported by the law.

Coronavirus COVID-19 has demonstrated that when humanity faces an infection, the conventional medical establishment is prepared to wreck people's social and emotional lives, impose non-sensical restrictions, undermine human rights and freedoms, and destroy national economies. 

Yet animals get a much worse deal! When they get an infection, conventional veterinary medicine  will routinely destroy them, often alongside their colleagues, in healthy herds or flocks. And they do so, most often, because they have no effective treatment available.

Mad Cow Disease. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is a progressive neurological disorder that affects the brains of cows. It is caused by an infection. It was was first identified in the 1970s and is related to Scrapie, a similar disease that affects sheep. There is no known treatment for either BSE or Scrapie; so all infected animals are routinely killed, along with their colleagues. 

The first major outbreak of BSE came in the United Kingdom in 1993, although it probably began some 20 years earlier. It caused havoc in farming, raised serious questions about how government (advised of course by medical science) handled the situation, and because it could be transmitted to humans as Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. Apparently 176 Britons and nearly 50 others around the world, contracted it, and it has been estimated that the whole episode has cost the British taxpayers many £billions.

In 2000, 14 years after the outbreak, the UK government admitted as the result of a costly independent inquiry that the failures of successive administrations had contributed to the BSE catastrophe. It did not criticise a medical system that advised these successive administrations!

Foot and Mouth Disease. In 2001, there was a Foot and Mouth epidemic in Britain. The response was one of utter fear and panic. 11 million cows and sheep were slaughtered. 2030 farms that were infected had all their animals culled. 7485 farms, whose animals were not infected, were also killed - because they were within a 5 mile radius of an infected farm. 

In other words, 79% of farms that suffered this fate were uninfected. 

The epidemic is reputed to have cost the UK government £8 billion. The government's slaughter policy was sanctioned and approved by conventional medical science. They were based on fears generated by computer predictions emanating from Neil Ferguson, of Imperial College, London. This man has subsequently made similar hopelessly outlandish computer 'predictions', most recently concerning the Covid-19 pandemic.

There had been another Foot and Mouth outbreak in Britain in 1967. There was no culling. The same was true in outbreaks in 1922, 1923-4, and 1953. The ability of veterinary medicine to cope with the disease has clearly declined over the last century.

Again, veterinary medicine admitted that it had no treatment for the disease. So what is this disease, and how serious is it? This is what Britannica says: 

               "Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) (is) a highly contagious viral disease affecting practically all cloven-footed domesticated mammals, including cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs.... FMD is characterized by the formation of painful fluid-filled vesicles (blisters) on the tongue, lips, and other tissues of the mouth and on parts of the body where the skin is thin, as on the udder and teats, between the two toes of the feet, and around the coronary band above the hoof..... Because of its rapid spread and impact on animal productivity, FMD is considered to be the most economically devastating livestock disease in the world. The disease is not a human health hazard." 

Avian Flu. Avian influenza is a strain of flu virus that mainly affects birds. It can cause serious illness and death in domesticated birds such as ducks, chickens, or turkeys. In the late 1990s, a new strain of bird flu was identified which was described as 'highly pathogenic', and led to the culling of hundreds of millions of birds, including poultry. 

Yet again veterinary medicine had no treatment, and as there was an identified risk of bird-to-human, and human-to-human transmission, there was another panic. The only means of control available to veterinary medicine was to kill entire flocks of birds where there was the merest sign of infection.

Regular epidemics of avian flu have happened since then. In 2011, a mutated strain, H5N1, appeared. Vaccines that had been developed proved to be ineffective, so there was more slaughter. In 2013, the H7N9 strain appeared in China, with similar outcomes. In 2015 the USA Department of Agriculture detected bird flu (H5N2) in several flocks of turkeys in Arkansas and Missouri leading to several countries banning US poultry products. Then in 2016 there was an outbreak in turkeys in Indiana involving 9 to 10 farms, with thousands of turkeys culled.

And so it goes on. Veterinary medicine has no treatment, so animals are killed. For contracting the flu!

Swine Flu. Swine influenza starts in pigs, and is transmitted to humans. Again, there is a lack of effective veterinary treatment for animals, or safe and effective treatment for humans. Panic is, as usual, the normal response, with pigs being routinely culled in large numbers.

In response to the 2009 swine flu pandemic, which affected the human population, many governments around the world responded by the official culling of vast numbers of domesticated pigs, even though there was little evidence that pigs were responsible for transmitting the infection. 

In 2019 millions of pigs were slaughtered across most of Asia. 

In 2020 there was a mass culling of pigs in the Indian province of Assam.

Domestic Pets. Yet most people have a more direct experience of veterinary medicine's tendency to kill its patients. We take our cats and dogs to the vet, we are told they are ill, that there is no treatment, and that to prevent the animal from suffering, it is best to 'put them down'.

Most people accept this explanation, without too much thought or consideration. Indeed, I accept it; as long as the routine statement, "there is no treatment", is seriously questioned. All vets can legitimately  say is that "there is no conventional treatment". Many pets are euthanised when other medical therapies might be able to treat the disease.

So why does veterinary medicine resort to killing animals? Of course, veterinary medicine seeks to justify its policy of culling animals as an appropriate response to disease. This defence focuses mainly on stopping the transmission of the disease - not least because of the supposed benefits to us humans. This is what one BMJ paper states.

                "Euthanasia, for example, tends not to be looked on favourably in humans, whereas in veterinary medicine it might be the best approach. Similarly, culling infected individuals ... is not an option for controlling an outbreak of infectious disease in human but may well be so in animals. Doctors usually have the advantage over vets in that they can talk to their patients; for vets, life would be so much easier if their patients could talk." My emphasis.

However, the main reason for veterinary culling is that they have little or no effective treatment for infections diseases. Euthanasia does not usually concern the seriousness of the condition of animals themselves, or even a threat of transmission to humans. 

In other words, the killing of pets and domesticated animals is largely the result of medical incompetence. And in Britain we have given veterinary medicine a monopoly in the treatment of animals.

What sort of medicine is this?

A medicine that kills its patients - and calls it 'treatment'?