Search This Blog

Friday, 29 January 2021

The Covid-19 Pandemic. A Medical Fiasco! What NHS Policy could have been if it embraced Natural Medical Therapies

The health system in most countries is now dominated, if not entirely monopolised by the Pharmaceutical Medicine Establishment. It certainly is in Britain's NHS (National Health Service) where natural medical therapies have little or no place within it; indeed the NHS is led by people who are positively, and often gratuitously hostile towards it.

This should not be the case. The NHS should be embracing health freedom, offering patient choice, and organising itself according to the current government's 2010 manifesto which stated "No treatment for me without me". Indeed, the original constitution of the NHS included the commitment to offer patients "the best available treatment"but it now excludes what many people, an increasing number of people, consider to be 'the best available treatment'.

So let's consider what might have happened in 2020, at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, if the NHS had been open to natural medicine, its ideas and principles?

Let us imagine that within the NHS two separate sections had developed alongside each other, each one offering its distinct brand of medicine and patient care. 
  • Conventional medicine would have focus, as it did focus on its fight with illness and disease mainly through its pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, its diagnostic testing, and all the other features we all know well. 
  • The other section would have had an entirely different approach to health, one which focused on the immune system, and the need to support natural immunity. It would include many natural medical therapies, including homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism, acupuncture, osteopathy, chiropractor, and many more. These therapies, in their different ways, all work alongside the body and its natural defences against illness and disease.

If such a structure had existed within the NHS there would have immediately been a different response from the two sections at the beginning of the pandemic. 

  • Conventional medicine (ConMed) would have admitted that it had no vaccine to prevent patients contracting the infection, and no treatment if they contracted it. 
  • The Natural Medicine section (NatMed) would have offered several possibilities of treatment through several therapies.

Homeopathy would have offered both preventative and treatment options based on the remedies that homeopaths have used for influenza, and influenza-type illnesses, for over 220 years now. Indeed, this has happened in countries like Cuba and India, and by homeopaths practising privately throughout the world, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Naturopathy would have also been able to offer a positive response. It quickly came up with at least 12 rapid reviews to the treatment of acute respiratory tract infections which informed naturopathic practitioners with respect to Covid-19 pandemic. As with homeopathy, if they had a voice within the NHS, these treatments would have been made readily available to patients.

Herbalism, similarly, came up with treatment options soon after the pandemic broke. The National Institute of Medical Herbalists, for instance, prepared a statement about the treatment of the Covid-19 infection in March 2020. This was also information the NHS denied itself in favour of their unitary pharmaceutical approach.

Acupuncture, alongside herbs and moxibustion, have also been active, finding effective treatment for Covid-19 that produced "significant outcomes for patients". Again, it is unfortunate that these were not outcomes offered to NHS patients. They could have been, had the NHS had been a more open and flexible approach to the provision of health care.

Now a disclaimer. There are probably many other natural medical therapies that have been able to contribute to the treatment of Covid-19, but were kept outside the NHS monopoly. However, these four therapies indicate the potential benefit to the NHS, and to all those patients who suffered and died with the virus - had the NatMed section been in existence.

If NatMed had existed it would immediately have been able to offer patients a choice of both preventative and treatment options. Indeed, it would have been tasked with offering them, and allowing patients to make their own informed choice of the treatment they want. The panic created by the NHS, with the support of government, conventional medical science, and the mainstream media (MSM), would not have been unnecessary, nor would the despair, and the growing anger, about ConMed's hopeless response to the pandemic.

So in early 2020 ConMed would have informed us, just as the NHS did, that it had no treatment other than the rather hopeless and forlorn task of ‘chasing’, 'subduing', and 'destroying' the virus. It would have suggested what it did suggest, that hand washing, social distancing, wearing masks (eventually) and lockdown might be effective, and that in the longer term the pharmaceutical industry might develop a vaccine.

Nat Med, however, would have recommended a different strategy. It would not chase the virus, but instead seek to support and strengthen the immune system, based on its belief that natural immunity was the best defence to any viral threat, including Covid-10. It would have supported the importance of hand washing and social distancing as temporary, initial responses, and if necessary, lockdown too. But it would have been able to offer treatment, which in itself would have offered hope and positivity, and engaged everyone in the positive task of protecting themselves. The 'Big Brother' approach of a deeply paternalistic government would not have been necessary; the individual patient would have been encouraged to take responsibility for his own health. How would this have happened?

The first task of the NatMed section of the NHS would have been to help each individual assess the strength of their immune system. Initially this may have been done through self assessment, a questionnaire, perhaps, that asked questions about the person's life style, diet and nutrition, their fitness, their general susceptibility to infections generally. In addition, it would have asked about the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines people were taking, as it is known that the 'side effects' of many of these are known compromise natural immunity. In particular, it would have wanted to identify those patients who were taking immunosuppressant drugs. Then, treatment would have been individualised.

People with good immunity would be asked to respect those people with compromised immunity, but otherwise to get on with their lives, as normal, albeit with greater care and awareness of other people with weaker immunity. In doing so they would have been advised about natural prophylactic treatments, for example, the regular use of homeopathic remedies, like Anas Barb and Arsenicum Alb.

People with lower, or poor immunity would have been identified, and asked to isolate themselves whilst their immunity was professionally tested and assessed. Techniques of testing the immune system already exist but would have been reviewed, refined, and professionally applied to anyone with compromised immunity. Natural prophylaxis would have been offered, and treatment would then depend on the individualised assessment of the immune system. They would have been asked to socially distance, and/or lockdown accordingly whilst awaiting treatment.

In this way social distancing, self isolation and lockdown, would have been individual decisions, not decisions imposed upon entire communities.

Information Campaigns. NatMed treatment would have focused on the support and strengthening of natural immunity. There would, no doubt, have been a nationwide information campaign aimed at informing everyone about how they could enhance their immune systems. It would, therefore, have been a campaign that would went much further than hand washing, the wearing of masks, social distancing and lockdown.

Life Style Advice. NatMed would have given general advice to everyone; and specific advice to each person with compromised immunity. This would have involved advice regarding possible life-style improvements (relating, for instance, to alcohol, smoking and taking pharmaceutical drugs), diet and nutrition (with particular attention to foods rich in vitamins and minerals), developing a sensible exercise regime, and stressing the importance of Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and other dietary supplements.

Treatment. NatMed treatment options would then have been offered to each patient with compromised immunity, and they would  have been asked to make informed personal choice. As the treatment programme progressed their immune system would have been regularly retested improvements noted, and treatment modified accordingly.

The outcomes of each treatment, including conventional medical treatment, would have been studied for its efficacy, and comparisons made. The safest and most effective treatments would inform future advice to patients.

Recognising Dangers and Personal Responsibility. The NatMed approach to Covid-19 would have one further difference to the ConMed approach. The dangers, and the possible deaths, that the virus would cause would have been openly recognised. Epidemics always cause death, with people with a compromised or poor immune system were particularly at risk. But the focus would not be on the NHS, or the government, to assume responsibility for saving us. Or for me saving you; or you saving me. Everyone had a personal responsibility to save themselves. Everyone would be entitled to the treatment of their choice; but everyone likewise had things they could do to protect themselves.

Social, Emotional and Economic Outcomes. The NatMed approach to Covid-19 would have been a more realistic approach to the Covid-19 pandemic, but also one that would have avoided the government taking on powers that have constrained our personal freedoms and liberty, to act in ways that have caused so much distress in our social and emotional lives, which have damaged mental health of so many people, destroyed viable jobs and livelihoods, and probably wrecked the national economy.

Patient Choice. Many people may have preferred to go along with the ConMed approach, and that would have been perfectly possible, even though it has had so little to offer or to recommend it. People could have been given the option to lockdown, whilst allowing others to get on with their lives, albeit with the support of NatMed.

What would the outcome have been had NatMed being in place during 2020? The question many people will ask is which section of this imagined NHS would have been more successful. The sadness is, of course, that this is an imagined scenario. If it had been in place in 2020 patient outcomes could have been measured, and we would have known more about the relative efficacy of each approach. 

However, as a homeopath, and listening to what homeopaths have been doing throughout the world to deal with this pandemic, I have little doubt that we would not be looking at a death toll of over 100,000 British citizens, and the chaos and nonsense that we have had to endure at the behest of the conventional medical establishment (which has led and controlled government policy). Moreover, we would all know much more about what we could do for ourselves in order to maintain and improve our health.


Wednesday, 27 January 2021

Are the Covid-19 vaccines working? Are they reducing the number of cases yet?

I have consulted my crystal ball in order to answer this question. In terms of the present situation the question has already been answered in another blog; but what of the future? The Covid-19 epidemic has been with us for over a year now. The new vaccines have been with us for just a few weeks, and many millions of people throughout the world have already received the vaccination. 

So what of the future? How will the pandemic be viewed in terms of what saved us from the terrible ravages of Covid-19?

Of one thing we can all be absolutely certain - that the number of new cases, hospitalisations, and deaths, will all reduce over the coming weeks and months.

Why am I so certain of this? Because in the historial past this is what has exactly what has happened in any and every epidemic there has ever been! An epidemic starts, suddenly, it causes death (usually amongst those people who less able to cope with the virus, or the bacteria), and just as suddenly it goes away. This has always been so, and unless someone can tell me why this pandemic is any different, Covid-19 will do exactly the same.

But there will be a twist as far as Covid-19 is concerned. People are now getting vaccinated in their millions. We already know the vaccines are causing harm, and killing people around the world. This website is seeking to collate the damage that has been reported, thus far. But no matter. As the number of new cases, hospitalisations, and deaths decline (as they inevitably will), the conventional medical establishment will take the credit for this reduction; they always try to claim the credit now, for example, as they have done so brilliantly with measles.

So we will overcome Covid-19 in the weeks and months to come, and we will be told that our immunity has been entirely the result of the new vaccines. It will have nothing to do with the natural immunity gained by the millions of people who contracted the virus, and survived; or the many more millions who had a strong immune system capable of dealing with the virus either without any symptoms, or without getting seriously sick.

Perhaps this is why the World Health Organisation (WHO), a creature of the conventional medical establishment, has recently changed its definition of 'Herd Immunity'. Herd immunity occurs when sufficient people acquire immunity to an infections disease so that it no longer spreads widely in the community. This definition was once supported by WHO, but in October 2020 it quietly revised the definition to remove natural immunity, and immunity through infection, in favour of vaccine protection. As the Dr Mercola link above states, "immunity developed through previous infection is the way it has worked since humans have been alive" but in the modern world of conventional medicine this no longer applies.

            "This perversion of science implies that the only way to achieve herd immunity is via vaccination, which is blatantly untrue."

The perverse logic is that all those people who survived the Spanish ‘flu outbreak in 1918 did so because of a vaccine - that did not exist at the time! Our survival had nothing to do with natural immunity. Similarly, all those people who survived the Black Death in the 14th century, or the Great Plague of the 1660’s, did so because of a non-existent vaccine! This is ludicrous, of course, but it is a message that we will all be hearing soon.

We will be deluged by claims of vaccine effectiveness, offered to us by our governments, the conventional medical establishment, the NHS, and the pharmaceutical industry. And the mainstream media (MSM) will go along with this medical nonsense, as meekly and compliantly as they always do now with any claims being made by conventional medicine.

The question is - will we be naive enough to believe it? 


Are the Covid-19 vaccines working? Are they reducing the number of cases yet?

This is the answer to a question above, asked on the Quora website, and answered by Sean Ballington. I have asked his permission to publish it on my blog - as it is not only a brilliant answer - it is entirely accurate.

According to the government...

If I get vaccinated:

1.- Can I stop wearing the mask?

        Government Response - No

2.- Can they reopen restaurants, pubs, bars etc and everyone work normally?

        Government Response - No

3.- Will I be resistant to covid?

        Government Response - Maybe, but we don't know exactly, it probably won't stop you getting it

4.- At least I won't be contagious to others anymore?

        Government Response - No you can still pass it on, possibly, nobody knows.

5.- If we vaccinate all children, will school resume normally?

        Government Response - No

6.- If I am vaccinated, can I stop social distancing?

        Government Response - No

7.- If I am vaccinated, can I stop disinfecting my hands?

        Government Response - No

8.- If I vaccinate myself and my grandfather, can we hug each other?

        Government Response - No

9.- Will cinemas, theatres and stadiums be reopened thanks to vaccines?

        Government Response - No

10.- Will the vaccinated be able to gather?

        Government Response - No

11.- What is the real benefit of vaccination?

        Government Response - The virus won't kill you.

12.- Are you sure it won't kill me?

        Government Response - No

13.- If statistically the virus won't kill me anyway ... Why would I get vaccinated?"

        Government Response - To protect others.

14.- So if I get vaccinated, the others are 100% sure I'm not infecting them?

        Government Response - No

So to summarise, the Covid19 vaccine...

  • Does not give immunity.

  • Does not eliminate the virus.

  • Does not prevent death.

  • Does not guarantee you won’t get it.

  • Does not prevent you from getting it.

  • Does not stop you passing it on

  • Does not eliminate the need for travel bans.

  • Does not eliminate the need for business closures.

  • Does not eliminate the need for lockdowns.

  • Does not eliminate the need for masking.

  • So...what the fook is it actually doing?

So according to Sean the vaccines are a waste of time and public money. I could not agree with him more!

Tuesday, 26 January 2021

NHS Boss Attacks Homeopathy: it is putting people at risk: meanwhile he watches on, helpless, as 104,000 people die with Covid-19

Sir Simon Stevens is the National Health Service (NHS) Chief Executive in England, an organisation that is now close to collapse. Indeed, for the last year we have all been asked to 'Save the NHS' because it cannot save itself, allegedly as a result of the Covid pandemic. Yet, in fact, the NHS crisis this winter is not significantly worse than the crises that we have been witnessing now every winter for decades (go to 'search' at the top of this page; type in 'NHS Crisis' to find all my previous blogs on this subject, dating back to 2012).

So Sir Simon Stevens has the responsibility for saving the NHS, and one strategy he has adopted for doing so is to embark upon a gratuitous attack on homeopathy through the pages of the Sunday Telegraph (25th January 2021).

            "The head of NHS England last night warned that homeopaths had 'crossed the line' after a Sunday Telegraph investigation disclosed some were peddling myths that taking duck extract was as effective as the coronavirus vaccines. (He) said that people taking their advice from homeopathy were putting themselves at risk, and warned they would slow down the nation's vaccine efforts".

Before responding to this let's be absolutely clear. The NHS has had little or nothing to offer patients who have contracted the Covid virus throughout 2021. NHS nursing and care staff have done sterling work for patients, and this needs to be applauded. Yet there has been no medical treatment. At the time of writing the NHS claims the Covid-19 pandemic has killed over 104,000 people (and rising) in Britain, and during all this time the NHS has been able only to watch over them as they died.

The reason is that the NHS has become totally dependent on a single form of medicine, conventional medicine, dominated as it is by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Other medical therapies, including natural therapies like homeopathy, have been deliberately excluded from the NHS. Stephens has been at the helm whilst the pharmaceutical monopoly has been established. At the beginning of the Covid crisis the conventional medical establishment had to admit that it had no treatment, and it has subsequently been in a state of panic ever since, as more and more people have died with the virus.

So what does Stevens do? He continues to place his reliance, totally, on conventional medicine, and he continues to exclude and gratuitously attack any medical therapy that is not beholden to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

So what has pharmaceutical medicine achieved since the inauguration of the NHS in 1948? There have been promises that it is "winning the war" against illness and disease. New drugs and vaccines have regularly been presented to us as 'miracle cures', 'wonder drugs' that will "transform medical treatment". Illness and disease would be eradicated because of the wisdom of conventional medical science. There has been no transformation, no eradication. The outcome of all these many NHS promises has been quite different:

  • Infectious Disease. The Covid-19 outcome has not only been a medical disaster; it has been a social, emotional, and economic disaster too. It's ability to deal with viral epidemics is no better now than it was in 1918 when conventional medicine was faced with the so-called Spanish Flu.
  • Chronic Diseases. Almost any form of chronic disease anyone could possibly mention (arthritis, asthma, autism, cancer, dementia, diabetes, eczema, mental health, et al) have increased from 1948 levels and risen to new epidemic proportions; and they continue to increase.
  • Pharmaceutical Drugs and Vaccines. Thousands of new drugs have been brought to the market, many as wonder drugs, prescribed to patients, only to be found to be ineffective, harmful, or both, with most of them eventually either abandoned or banned.
  • Covid-19 Vaccines. This is an outcome that will become more apparent in future months. These vaccines, that Stevens believes to be so important to bring us out of the pandemic, are already known to be causing serious patient harm, including death.

And yet Sir Simon Stevens refuses to look inwardly at the possible reasons for conventional medical failure. He steadfastly refuses to look outside the box to see if there might be alternative treatments that might help the patients who are dying under his care, and make life easier for his exhausted nursing and care staff - even when he has had to continue admitting that his NHS has no effective treatment available!

And then he has the audacity to attack homeopathy!

It is fortunate for Stevens that he faces only an obedient and compliant 'free' media, which either cannot, or will not, question him about NHS failure, and why, year in, year out, the organisation that he leads finds itself in an ever-deepening financial crisis. As I have said many times before, on this blog, the crisis is NOT financial, it is MEDICAL. The NHS is investing in a failed medical system. And the more Stevens spends on pharmaceutical medicine the deeper the NHS crisis becomes.

Other national health services, notably in India and Cuba (and more recently, it seems, in Bavaria, Germany) are now investing in homeopathy. In addition, homeopaths around the world, including in Britain, are working with their patients, seeking to protect them from Covid, and to treat them if they contract it.

Does it work? The homeopathic community, patients and practitioners, thinks so. Stevens does not even want to look, preferring to continue on his myopic path, and attacking anything that lay outside his experience.

And Stevens is right about one this. Homeopaths are, indeed, using 'duck extract'! For anyone who is interested in safe and effective protection from this Covid-19 pandemic, and can consider with an open mind, free from bias or vested interests, it is an alternative that NHS patients could very well do with at the moment. It is a remedy called Anas Barbariae, otherwise known at Oscillococcinum, made from the diseased liver of a duck. I have used it as prophylaxis (prevention) of 'flu now for many winters, as have many of my family and former patients. It rarely seems to fail to protect us. It is disappointing that Stevens is unable to consider it, that he does not make it readily available on the NHS. But homeopathy is available to anyone with a more open mind.

Anas Barbariae is available from all homeopathic pharmacies around the world. For instance, a small bottle costs £4.50 from Helios. Every pharmacy will advice you (but be forewarned, they are currently extremely cautious about giving any advice on the telephone, in case the Sunday Telegraph, or similar, are embarking on another scam attack on homeopathy). I usually take one remedy, each month, during the flu season, although during this Covid-19 pandemic I am taking a weekly dose.

Just think how easily Sir Simon Stevens could find out whether this is a useful, inexpensive, safe, effective alternative to vaccination. His NHS could easily undertake a study to compare the outcomes of this, and other natural treatments, with conventional medicine. Instead he clearly prefers to attack any medical therapy other than the one he supports.

Moreover, this is not all that homeopathy does. The main strategy of homeopathy is to support the immune system, to enhance our natural immunity from infectious disease. This is something the Stevens-led NHS has never told us about during the last year - diet, nutrition, exercise, life-style choices. But turning to this strategy is a choice we all have. 

I only wish more people would observe the chaos that controls the NHS, 

and begin to question whether there are not better alternatives.



Thursday, 21 January 2021

The Myths of Conventional Medical Success. Conquering Measles

Conventional medicine claims that measles is one of its most important success stories. Conventional medical literature routinely refers to measles as 'a killer disease' that has been conquered, eradicated by the programmes of mass vaccination, developed for children from the 1960's onwards. As a result of this medical success measles is no longer a killer disease - thanks to the MMR vaccines.

This is the propaganda of conventional medicine - in a nutshell. However, even a cursory look at the history of measles, using official statistics, will quickly dispel this myth.

Epidemics of the 19th Century

Measles has been around for millennia. This has been described by the Los Angeles Times in 2015. It states that measles was first identified by physicians in Asia and North Africa during the 3rd to 10th centuries AD; that a Chinese alchemist differentiate measles from smallpox in 340AD; and it lists some of the early known epidemics, notably in 1492 when Christopher Columbus, and early European explorers, introduced it to native Americans. They had no resistance to the virus, and to many of the other infectious diseases that were introduced. Alongside these other diseases, measles had a devastating effect.

        "By some estimates, the native American population plunged by as much as 95% over the next 150 years due to disease"

Yet it is perhaps during the 19th century that measles epidemic attracted most attention throughout the world. In Britain the incidence of measles probably rose as a result of the Agrarian Revolution, which removed people from their village communities, and the Industrial Revolution, which deposited them in the new industrial towns.

So the measles epidemics of the 19th Century developed amongst populations that lived in poverty, in squalid overcrowded housing, poor working conditions, with extremely poor nutrition, amidst disease-promoting insanitary circumstances. Measles epidemics occurred regularly, on average about every five years or so during the first half of the century.

During all this time conventional medicine had no effective treatment for measles. Some comparisons have been made comparing Homeopathic and Conventional Medical Treatment for measles and other disease epidemics during this time, and without exception, it was homeopathy that was more successful in keeping patients alive.

Public Health Measures

As the 19th century progressed the importance of public health policy was gradually realised. These policies led to improved housing, improved sanitation, improved water supply, improved nutrition. Living standards improved, greater affluence was generated, and poverty was reduced.

Official evidence shows, quite clearly, that these measures brought about the decline in both incidence of measles, and mortality rates.

1900 to 1968 - the decline in measles continues

The decline in measles continued rapidly into the 20th century, during which time (although not wanting to repeat myself too much) conventional medicine had no treatment for measles, or any of the other infectious diseases - and of course no vaccine.

This graph demonstrates that between 1900 and 1968 (when the first vaccination programme was introduced) the decline in the incidence of measles did not deviate from its downward trend. It shows clearly that the vaccine made no difference at all.

Measles Mortality England & Wales 1901 to 1999
Moreover, as this graph demonstrates, the deaths caused by measles had already declined by 99.4% between 1900 and 1968 - so mortality rates too was a trend that had started long before the introduction of the vaccine.

 

The Successful Use of Statistics as Propaganda

The introduction of measles vaccines did not alter either the incidence, or the deaths caused by the disease. Each graph continued to decline in much the same way that it had been doing for 100 years!

Perhaps it is time we recognised that statistics can be used to demonstrate or prove anything; and that the conventional medical establishment has been second to none in its brilliant promotional use of statistics. 

What they have achieved is truly remarkable. The pharmaceutical industry has taken credit for 'conquering' measles when the credit is due (almost entirely) to public health measures and increased affluence. Conventional medicine takes a year in the 19th century, when the incidence of, and death rates from measles are at their highest, compares it to the current situation, and then seeks to convince us that the improvement was caused entirely by vaccines. It represents a significant victory of fiction over fact!

The fact is that measles has not been a major 'killer disease for a very long time; that the MMR vaccines have not protected us from it; and (of course) the conventional medical establishment still has no treatment for measles.


Monday, 18 January 2021

Covid-19 Vaccines: Growing number of reports of serious side effects: Everyone needs to use the Regulatory Reporting System

It is becoming clearer each day that the new, largely untested Covid-19 vaccines are causing serious side effects, including death, facial paralysis and allergic responses. However, it is also clear they are NOT being reported to drug regulatory agencies. And that that neither government nor the mainstream media (MSM) are interested. Certainly the conventional medical establishment (CME) is doing its best to ignore, deny, or obfuscate rather than admit the damage they are causing with yet another group of vaccines.

For anyone who has not heard about the serious harm Covid-19 vaccines are causing this link takes you to a webpage that is collating all the reported side effects from around the world. It is already a lengthy (and growing) list of reports of serious reactions to the vaccines.

Yet the situation is more serious than this. I am hearing regularly from homeopathy colleagues, and other natural therapists, that their vaccinated clients, friends and family are complaining of a variety of side effects. The problem of non-reporting has become systemic. 

  • Some patients don't realise they are suffering a side effect. 
  • Some patients realise it is a side effects but decide to cope because they believe they can cope.
  • Some patients do tell their doctors but they do not report it (one such report I have heard, for example, is that the doctor just treated the side effect with steroid drugs). 
  • Other doctors just refuse to accept that the problem is a side effect of the vaccine. They have, remember, been telling us these vaccines are safe, and to admit they are not safe is perhaps too professionally sensitive.

The important point is this: all reports of vaccine reactions should be reported to the appropriate drug regulatory agencies, and recorded by them - but it is clear this is just not happening. If it is not happening it is a breach of the law in most countries. It is not a question of doctors reporting them only IF they feel there is a link: they are obliged, by law in most countries, to report them. The entire system of drug regulation depends upon this as only when they are reported will the dangers of these vaccines be realised, and made known to patients, through Patient Information Leaflets and similar.

The message of this blog is clear. When someone, anyone is vaccinated, and suffers a reaction, slight or serious, it should be reported. Again, in most countries drug and vaccine side effects can be self reported. In Britain, for example, you can go to this website, the Coronavirus Yellow Card Reporting Site, and send in your experience post vaccination.

  • When a side effect is reported it is added to the information base for the vaccine concerned.
  • If it is not recorded it allows the CME to claim that the vaccines are 'safe'; that any particular side effect is 'rare' or 'uncommon'. 

So other people will unfortunately believe CME's safety claims, there will be no evidence to the contrary, so they too will decide to get vaccinated on that basis, and some of these people will also suffer harm.

SO IF YOU DECIDE TO TAKE ANY PHARMACEUTICAL DRUG OR VACCINE 

KEEP OTHER PEOPLE SAFE

PLEASE REPORT ALL SIDE EFFECTS TO YOUR DRUG REGULATOR

In the USA?  

This is what you do to report a drug/vaccine side effect there.


Friday, 15 January 2021

Democracy, Health Freedom; and the political marginalisation of social groups.

It is often said that an important test of the strength of any democracy is the smooth transfer of power from an outgoing government to an incoming government. Given recent events in the USA who can doubt this is an important test. But there is another, equally important test; that democratic government is, or should be, ruling in a way that supports opponents, not just supporters, those who voted against it, as well as those who voted for it.

Democratic politics in recent years has produced a number of surprising outcomes. The election of Donald Trump was just one of these. The UK's decision to leave the European Union was another. Neither was expected. The growing opposition to medical responses to the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as increasing the apparently increasing resistance to vaccines, may be another. This latter opposition will be the main focus of this blog, but the origin of each of the three situations is probably the same: the discounting and neglect of an important minority. So let us try to analyse what links these three 'surprising' outcomes. What sort of questions should we be asking to explain why modern electorates are making such apparently strange decisions.

TRUMP

Trump came to power with the support of a section of the USA population which thought itself to be, and is often described itself, as neglected, or 'disenfranchised'. These right wing groups did not feel the dominant political elites in Washington had done anything for them, so voted for Trump as they believed he was someone who reflected their concerns, and might represent their interests. So Trump was elected to 'drain the swamp'. Trump gave them a voice, they listened to him, liked what they heard, and voted for him. For all his many failings he brought back into politics a large disaffected, dissatisfied marginalised electorate. Or, to put this in reverse, Trump's surprise victory was built on the back of decades of mainstream political neglect that had gone on for decades.

BREXIT

The unexpected Brexit Referendum result had similar origins. The political establishment at Westminster did not see it coming, and had not prepared for it. 'Remainers' were shocked; the referendum was supposed to rectify the divisions of the Conservative party; leaving the EU was never the intention. 'Leavers' did not expect to win either. The result was that neither side had a plan or strategy ready. The reason for this shock result was similar. There was a growing number of people who felt politically marginalised and socially neglected. Many of them had not voted for many years as it seemed to matter little whether there was a Conservative, Labour or even a Coalition government - nothing changed, ever. And by voting contrary to the expectations of the political elites they were drawing attention to themselves; the vote was as much a protest as it was a belief in what they were voting for.

HEALTH

The health issues against which government, the NHS, and the mainstream media are railing against is broadly, although not entirely similar. There exists two broad sections of the community who feel marginalised, and deprived of a voice. Both groups wonder why the NHS has been failing to deliver wellness for decades. The background has been regularly discussed on this blog.

  • Every winter, for decades, there has been an NHS crisis. Every year the NHS is promised, and given more money to cope with rising patient demand - only for a similar crisis to emerge again the following year. 
  • The incidence of chronic disease, including cancer, dementia, autism, arthritis, diabetes, etc., has increased year on year. Sick patients have demanded and received more treatment, more drugs, more vaccines, more operations; but even then nothing seemed to change. 
  • Every year a new flu outbreak has brought the NHS to its knees; waiting lists lengthen, there is a shortage of beds, people have to wait on trolleys in corridors, or in ambulances, and 'elective'. operations are cancelled.
So each successive year has led to rising levels of dissatisfaction, usually directed at the government (blamed for the perceived 'underfunding' of the NHS), that is, everything would be alright if only the NHS had even more money

Then came Covid-19, a killer influenza-type epidemic, for which (not unusually) conventional medicine had no treatment. As a result the NHS message was a fearful and panic-creating one. Be afraid! The virus could strike anyone, at any time, anywhere. We had to wash our hands and socially distance. At first we were told masks were not necessary; later they became essential. Later, still with no treatment to offer, and an increasing number of people contracting the virus, the viability of the NHS became an issue. Just as it has done for many years. Another NHS crisis; although this time government handed the responsibility to us. They could have any resources they wanted. But we had to save the NHS. So we had to lockdown in order to spread out the incidence of the disease.

Ten months and three lockdowns later many people have an inevitable feeling of deja vu. It's the same old medical failure to cope, for reasons not significantly to any other year. Even the 'new variant' of Covid-19 seems suspect. Is this another excuse for the failure to cope with the virus? How many 'new variants' will there be? Cynicism sets in, politicians and doctors have made promises galore; but there is still no end in sight. The hardships continue, with no end in sight other than more promises about a vaccine.

1. The Disaffected and the Cynical. So social life is disrupted; our contacts with friends and relatives is severely restricted; we cannot go out; we cannot sit on a park bench; the police are urged to get tougher on such criminality (!); leisure and hospitality venues are closed; we cannot celebrate weddings, or anything much else; we cannot see loved ones sick in hospital; we cannot attend funerals. Cynicism and disaffection is the result:
  • Lockdown might be survivable for those living in decent housing, with space and gardens to enjoy, with money to spend, and in the warmth of the summer. Those living without these advantages found it harder; living closely together, without space, doubly hard for those living amidst domestic violence or abuse; more cynicism arising for those who realised that the politicians imposing lockdown benefited from large homes and gardens.
  • The mental health of many people has suffered as a result of isolation, loneliness, and the suspension of normal life. Medical treatment for sick people, often very sick people with cancer or serious organ failure, was stalled, or indefinitely postponed, with many patients in these circumstances dying.
  • Jobs and livelihoods have been compromised and destroyed by lockdown. The national economy is suffering to an extent that cannot be accurately predicted. For those who have lost their jobs, their expectations, the future looks bleak.

Nor is there any relief emanating from the Westminster political elites. The Government has demonstrated it is incompetent. The main opposition (and all the smaller political parties) have criticised the policy, but only to the extent that it has acted too late, or not strictly or hard enough. They want more of the same failed policies.

People, not unreasonably, want to return to normal life. They want to go out, to socialise, to do the things they enjoy doing. So many people have done just this, often breaking the rules in doing so; and they are castigated by the mainstream media for doing so. More alienation.

But instead they are blamed. The Government, which has had to explain the failure of its policies, begins to blame the people who are breaking their rules. The virus is spreading because these people have gone to the beach, a park bench, held a party, or attended an illegal rave. The problem is not the policy! It is the people who are breaking the rules; if only they would do as they were told, stick to the rules, and conform. It is their fault the virus is out of control - so they have blood on their hands.

Alienation is the result. Just as Trump's followers wanted a voice, just as Brexit voices wanted to protest, large numbers of people feel dissatisfied with a policy that is clearly not working. Many may not know why they break the rules, other than are angry or fed-up, they do not verbalise what they are feeling. Many may feel guilty about it, and certainly cannot justify what they are doing, or why they are doing it. They just feel isolated, alone, alienated from everything going on around them.

THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION

Throughout 2020 there has been an incessant, monochrome, coverage of the Covid pandemic. The government, with the (almost unanimous) permission of Parliament, has taken powers never before known outside wartime. It is as though we fought and won our liberty and freedom, and constructed our democracy, in vain. They have justified taking these powers, apologised for asserting these powers, and having to re-assert them each time they fail to work. Nothing has changed. The policies remain the same, but the intensity of the justification for those policies increases.

Opposition political parties have all criticised government policy; but only to the extent that they have not imposed their policies soon enough, or aggressively enough. More lockdown is required. Effectively, the political establishment at Westminster is united; TINA applies - there is no alternative. So nothing new or different is likely to come from Parliament, from the dominant political classes.

Nor is there any questioning from the mainstream media (MSM), which is entirely in line with government policy. It delves into daily medical statistics and government interpretation of those statistics - the number of positive tests, the number of hospitalisations, the number of deaths. A succession of conventional medical experts from the NHS, and from Academia, are paraded and interviewed, all of them 'on message'. Many members of the public are also interviewed, but only if they are 'on message', can 'enhance' the message, and if any (mild) criticism of the policy is preceded with "I understand the reason for the policy, but ....."   

So all the MSM does is to repeat the same message, time and time again, incessantly. It's the same message: wash your hands: keep your social distance: stick to the rules: comply with lockdown; and wait for the new vaccines to save us.

So alienated people have consistently been told they are wrong, they are entirely on their own, their thoughts, feelings and actions are the subject of disapproval. They have been effectively excluded, the entire world seems to be against them. They have no voice. They feel abused. Yet all they are doing is asking legitimate questions.

GOVERNMENT POLICY AND MEDICAL SCIENCE

Governments around the world are keen to let us know that their policy is not really their policy at all. They have been developed in accordance with the advice and expertise of conventional medical science. Immediately this brings into the picture another group of alienated people, people who also feel entirely ignored, discounted, and usually ridiculed and vilified too. They have been regularly and gratuitously harangued them over recent years by governments and the mainstream media. And the NHS, dominated by the conventional medical monopoly that controls it, has virtually banished them from their midst.

2. Alternative Medicine. This second group consists of a growing band of people who have (i) lost confidence in conventional or pharmaceutical medicine; and (ii) worse still (sic) people who actually choose to use natural medical therapies as their preferred route to personal health care. These people disagree with TINA - there certainly IS an alternative! Vaccines are not the only way the world will be saved.

I am one of these people, so don't just add us to the group who disapprove of government policy on Covid-19, lockdown, and the importance of vaccination. We can explain why government policy is misguided and utterly foolish. Our cynicism is based on our personal experience, our particular expertise, and our use of natural therapies for their medical treatment. This is not the place to justify our views - but all natural therapy is firmly committed to the immune system, and the support and strengthening of natural immunity.

We do not trust the NHS, or what conventional doctors are telling us. Above all, we don't trust pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, believing them to be largely ineffective, dangerously unsafe, a threat to natural immunity. We know this from personal experience, and from our intellectual curiosity. We have read the evidence, we can point to the Patient Information Leaflets that accompany each drug and vaccine and which confirm that are not safe as doctors tell us. We are also aware that many vaccine users have been compensated (largely through government-sponsored vaccine compensation schemes) as they have been seriously damaged by them. And natural therapists have all treated people who have been damaged by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

The conventional medical establishment (including government, the NHS, and the MSM, enjoy stating the natural therapies don't work. We have to laugh as we are not given the right to reply! How do we know they are wrong. We are people who  have been ill, and been cured with natural therapies. So we know they lie; that they are speaking for their masters, supporting pharmaceutical domination of medicine.

Some go even further. The leader of the UK's main opposition Labour party, Keir Starmer, actually wants to criminalise us as he considers that we are responsible for 'vaccine hesitancy'. Now that is real marginalisation, real alienation!

THE WAY MAJORITIES TREAT MINORITIES

Mainstream politicians need to do some serious reflection on how they deal with minority groups. If they don't there will be more Donald Trumps' gaining political power, more Brexit decision foisted on them by an alienated population.

As far as health is concerned they need to start asking serious questions about why the NHS (and other national health services around the world) are in constant crisis, why patients are being asked to 'save' failing health services, why the response to Covid-19 has been so lamentably unsuccessful, and why medical 'experts' have led them to impose absurd policies on everyone, policies which are seriously harming the national economy, and the social and emotional life of everyone.

In particular they need to ask why there has been virtually no mention of the importance natural immunity, and how our immune systems can be supported and strengthened as a primary defence against Covid-19; and why natural therapies have never been asked to assist the NHS. Perhaps Mr Johnson, Mr Starmer, and other leading politicians, should begin to listen and engage with the very people they are alienating.

Tuesday, 5 January 2021

Dangerous Pharmaceutical Drugs. How long does it take the Conventional Medical Establishment to act to protect patients?

The pharmaceutical drug, isotretinoin (which also goes under the alternative names Accutane, Roaccutane, Reticutan, and Rizuderm), in a drug used by conventional medicine for Acne. It is a dangerous drug. Even a single dose is known to cause severe birth defects, or even the death of a baby. The drug is also known to cause chelitis, epistaxis, hypertriglyceridemia, pruritis, xerosis cutis, decreased hel cholesterol, increasing liver enzymes, increased serum triglycerides, musculoskeletal signs and symptoms, dry nose, xeroderma and xerostomia.

Regardless of this harm it is still being used. It would appear that no drug or vaccine is too dangerous for conventional medicine to give to patients. Isotretinoin was first used in the 1930's, although it was developed by the drug company Hoffman-La Roche in the 1980's. The impact on pregnant women was known from the early stages of its development - but it did not stop its development, or indeed its sales. Indeed, it is estimated that over 13 million patients were treated with the drug.

After some 40 years, in November 2020, the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA (the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) called "for information to be considered as part of an expert review". Presumably it had (rather belatedly) recognised the dangers of the drug.

I first heard about this drug in an article in WDDTY (What Doctors Won't Tell You) in March 2002, in which some of the drugs' long-term side effects were outlined. Then, two years later, in August 2004 WDDTY stated in another article that the drug could cause Guillain-Barre paralysis. Then, in October 2005, WDDTY wrote about the drugs 'ability' to cause birth defects. The information was taken from the journal of the AMA (the American Medical Association, 2005; 294: 1481). By this time, the ability of isotretinoin to cause birth defects had already known for over 20 years! Yet the drug was not banned, or withdrawn; but 'restrictions' and 'requirement' were put in place.

            ".. physicians who prescribe the drug to a pregnant woman must first sign a form called 'iPledge', while patients who want to take it while pregnant must sign an informed consent form and also obtain counselling about the risks of taking the drug.  Wholesalers and pharmacies must also comply with special requirements before issuing the drug."

In 2009 Roche Pharmaceuticals discontinued the manufacture and distribution of Accutane, their version of the drug. This was not because of any concern for patients, but owing to the high cost of defending personal-injury lawsuits in the USA. They were okay with harming their patients; but not if the cost of denying the harm caused became too high. This approach encapsulates the business ethics of the pharmaceutical industry.

However, generic versions of the drug, such as Roaccutane, remained in use with patients. If a drug can be sold for profit, it will be sold, quite regardless of patient harm.

So the MHRA is taking action nearly 40 years after this drug was first introduced, but even now, the drug is not being withdrawn or banned - it is merely "a call for information"

            "This review is being undertaken by the MHRA with advice from the Commission on Human Medicines and the Isotretinoin Expert Working Group due to concerns about the possible association between isotretinoin and suspected psychiatric and sexual disorders."

Suspected psychiatric and sexual disorders? Is this new then? Does conventional medicine give patients drugs like isotretinoin for nearly 40 years blissfully unaware that they cause 'psychiatric and sexual disorders'? It would appear to be so as websites like Drugs.com and RxList, even now, do not mention anything about 'erectile dysfunction' and 'reduced libido'.

Remember - this is the history of just one drug. But this is not untypical of the hundreds of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have been withdrawn and banned over the years. And it will certainly not be untypical of the thousands of other pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines currently being prescribed today. The pharmaceutical medical establishment sells drugs, wherever and whenever it can. They are not, and never have been, deterred by evidence of patient harm.

So why should anyone believe that any pharmaceutical drug or vaccines, sold by drug companies today, are any safer or less harmful than these previously banned drugs?

Isotretinoin is just another dangerous drug.

 

Sunday, 3 January 2021

Vaccines and Medical Experiments on Children, Minorities, Woman and Inmates (1845 - 2007)

This blog concerns the history of outrageous medical experiments conducted for the Pharmaceutical Industry by Medical Science between 1845 and 2007.

This blog is providing a link to an article published in 2007 on the Natural News website. I have tried to provide this link to my Twitter and Facebook followers: but both these organisations are censoring it - they do not want us to know about the diabolical standards and ethics of conventional medical science. And this, of course, at a time when we are all being urged to take the new, fast tracked COVID-19 vaccines we are being assured are 'entirely safe'.

Perhaps they are, perhaps not. But we are entitled to know about the history of conventional medicine's willingness to experiment with our health, all in the interests of 'medical science'. Historically (at least) we are not dealing with honest people working in an honest industry. But we are dealing with powerful people working within a powerful industry.


The long history outlined in this link (which can be accessed directly at the moment) should be read by everyone who is taking pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

The timeline was originally put together by Dani Veracity, and edited and updated by Natural News in 2007. Each of the outrageous medical experiments have been fully referenced. As the article says: "Here's what's really happening in the United States when it comes to exploiting the public for medical experimentation". It is, of course, the same medical system that dominates health care not just in the USA, but throughout most of the world.


PS. If I discover that some internet platforms are censoring direct access to the website, I will reproduce the article here.

Friday, 1 January 2021

The NHS Crisis (January 2021). The COVID-19 Pandemic, and an organisation heading for new levels of serious medical failure.

I have been writing about the ongoing crisis in the NHS since 2011, and it has been difficult to find a new angle on it. Each winter, for decades now, the NHS has faced the same crisis: too many sick patients, needing too much expensive medical treatment, with insufficient resources to cope with them. More money is demanded, and the NHS budget has been increased accordingly. Yet however much the NHS budget in increased the crisis returns again. 

  • Insufficient funding, we are told, year by year; we need yet more money. 
  • Nonsense, I have said; this is not a funding failure, it is a medical failure. The NHS is a prisoner of conventional or pharmaceutical medicine; this is the reason for failure; and no amount of additional money is going to change that. 
  • (To see all my previous blogs go to "search" at the top of this page and type "NHS crisis").

Spending more and more money on a failing medical system is non-sense; it is a failure to understand, and to properly analyse, what is happening to the NHS.

However, finding a new angle on the NHS crisis this year is much easier. COVID-19 has highlighted the growing failure of pharmaceutical medicine, which means that the NHS crisis cannot be resolved with more money if it is spend on the same thing. Moreover, money is no longer the problem. Since February 2020 the government has effectively given the NHS access to an 'open wallet' from which it has been told to take "whatever is needed" to deal with the pandemic.

So now, it is us, the patients, who have to "save the NHS"!

The conventional medical establishment, including the mainstream media, is telling us that the COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the situation; it is the new virus that is causing the problem; it is a completely new situation. Yet this new virus has not really transformed anything. It is the same problem, presented in a slightly different guise. The pandemic is not the problem; it is not even a particularly notable or unusual event.

The COVID-19 pandemic is not particularly different, affecting many more peoplee, or causing more serious sickness than a typical annual influenza epidemic.

We are constantly told the this coronavirus is more infectious, more deadly than the normal flu. If it is it is only marginally so. The overall death rate this year, we are told, is higher than the average death rate. If it is the difference is marginal.

COVID-10 is more of the same old excuse for the annual NHS crisis. This crisis remains what it has always been - a medical failure. The underlying problem has not changed. The NHS has no effective medical treatment to offer. This means that if the symptoms are severe patients are hospitalised; they receive all the NHS's (normally excellent) nursing care. If necessary they can access all the medical facilities intensive care units can offer. But there is no effective treatment through all this, the NHS has admitted this. This means that each patient outcome depends on whether the patient dies (usually of 'underlying health problems'), or is strong enough to survive. All the NHS can do is to take care of the patients, and wait to see which it is to be.

  • Conventional medicine has not focus on the immune system, the importance of supporting and strengthening natural immunity through diet, nutrition, vitamin supplementation, and the like. We had to wait for the vaccine, we are told.
  • There is no recourse to natural medical therapies, no request for assistance, no interest in what homeopathy, naturopathy Ayurveda, et al, could offer. Natural medicine has proven to be effective in countries like India, Cuba, and with patients everywhere who use their local natural therapists. But these therapists are excluded from the NHS, they have had to operate under the constraints of lockdown.

The NHS lacks imagination. It relies entirely on pharmaceutical medicine. It has no 'plan B'. It has become of creature of a system of medicine that has always demonstrated three main characteristics:

  • it is not effective medicine; it is not capable of making sick people better,
  • it is not safe medicine; drug and vaccine side effects, adverse reactions and DIE's, have been making sick people sicker now for decades,
  • it has always been the most expensive medical system available, largely because it is an inherently dangerous system of medicine.

So the NHS has now become

    >>> a bottomless pit, with a seemingly endless amount of money now being poured into it,

            >>> an organisation with an ongoing inability to meet the demands of sick patients,

                    >>> and which is now asking US - taxpayers and patients- to save IT from total collapse.

So COVID-19 has done nothing other than to push the NHS further towards a terminal state. Neither government nor the mainstream media (MSM) seem willing or even capable of coming to this analysis. The have become part of the conventional medical establishment. As far as they are concerned the NHS remains a national treasure, based on the solid principle of providing people with the best medicine, freely available, at the point of need.

  • So we are still being asked to praise and support the NHS, without any attempt to differentiate between supporting good nursing care and ineffective medical treatment. Both are lumped together. The former is praiseworthy and supportable; the latter is not.
  • There is still no debate, in government, in the MSM, or the NHS, about whether patients are actually being offered the 'best' medicine', or if the monopoly the NHS has given to pharmaceutical medicine constitutes good value for money, or whether it is in the best interests of patients,
  • And, perhaps most crucially of all, no-one seems to understand that the NHS has now reached the point when it can no longer make treatment available to everyone, even those patients with the most serious illnesses.
Medicine - freely available - at the point of need?

This time-honoured principle of the NHS is now being seriously undermined. The NHS crisis is no longer solely about funding. The seriousness of COVID-19 has been grossly exaggerated, but even so the NHS has clearly demonstrated it is incapable of coping with it. In the oft-repeated words of the Government and the MSM, we have to 'save our NHS'. And who is saving it? Who is paying the price? Patients who are seriously ill, and those who are likely to become serious sick, are saving it, often at the cost of their lives.

  • The destruction of the national economy, our livelihoods and jobs, the scale of which mirrors only the calamity previously caused by the two world wars, is causing unprecedented levels of harm to mental health, with markedly increased levels of anxiety, depression and suicide,
  • Enforced isolation and loneliness has led to rising levels of social distress,
  • There have been rising levels of family breakdown and domestic violence, and apparently, even a significant increase in child sexual abuse,
  • Increased levels of alcohol and substance abuse will inevitably lead to more sickness, and increased need for medical treatment,
  • An estimated 27 million doctor appointments have been 'lost', and it is estimated that over 350,000 urgent cancer referrals may have been missed because patients believed (with good reason) that the hospitals could not cope with additional demands,
  • About 50,000 "non-urgent" operations have been 'delayed'; many of these will no longer be required when patients die; and when the back-log is tackled, many patients will be considerably sicker.

So the workload of the NHS will not reduce; it will increase as a direct result of its failure to cope with the COVID-19 influenza outbreak.

This is rationing in action. Although it is not being called rationing at the moment, important decisions will have to be taken about who is, and who is not going to receive treatment for their illnesses. This is the new feature of the 2021 NHS crisis. It will get worse over the next 2-3 months. And (pandemic or no pandemic) it will return again in the winter or 2021-2022, and I will be writing about it.