Search This Blog

Thursday 29 April 2021

How dangerous are pharmaceutical drugs? And how long does it take drug regulators take action to protect patients? Does the pharmaceutical companies have a licence to kill?

The magazine WDDTY (What Doctors Don't Tell You) is one that everyone interested in their health and well-being should subscribe to. It often uncovers interesting and important medical research that usually does not attract attention anywhere else, and certainly not the attention it deserves, and patients need. It did this again in its April 2021 edition.

            "Researchers from the SONAR (Southern Network on Adverse Reactions), which represents drug researchers at 50 medical universities, tracked the history of 15 drugs and one medical device that had either resulted in payments or more than $1 billion in damages or had at least 1,000 reported cases of patients who had died or suffered serious reactions between 1997 and 2019".

The conventional medical establishment (CHE) will usually admit that all their pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines can cause patient harm; although they heavily discount the seriousness of this admission. Yet the drugs examined in this study were clearly the most dangerous pharmaceutical drugs that have ever been promoted and used by the CHE.

Drug regulators, like the FDA in the USA, the EMA in Europe, and the MHRA in the UK, are supposed to protect patients from medical harm. It is their primary duty. The SONAR study informs us about how well they undertake this task by looking at how many people died before action was taken (if this was known), and for how long was the drug prescribed before it was banned? This is a summary of what they discovered.

  • Epoetin: number of deaths unknown: 13 years
  • Darepoetin: number of deaths unknown: 5 years
  • Celecoxib: 7,000 death: 7 years
  • Rosiglitazone: 47 death: 8 years
  • Zoldendronic acid: number of deaths unknown: 3 years
  • Pamidronate: number of deaths unknown: 16 years
  • Gadodiamide: number of deaths unknown: 17 years
  • Levofloxin 66,000 deaths: 29 years
  • Valdecoxib 99,000 deaths: 4 years
  • Hydroxy-ethyl starch: 900 deaths: 5 years
  • Phenylpropanolamine: number of deaths unknown: 62 years
  • Rofecoxib: 270,000 deaths: 2 years
  • Aprotonin: 22,000 deaths: 13 years
  • Fenfluramine-Phentermine 300,000 deaths: 1 year

Details of many more pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have had to be withdrawn or banned (eventually) because they have caused serious patient harm can be found here.

Asleep on Duty? Incompetence? Or worse? Are drug regulators more concerned with the financial integrity of drug companies than protecting patient from serious harm. This is what WDDTY concluded:

           "This deadly hesitation is often the result of several factors: bureaucratic incompetence by the regulator and its cosy relationship with the drug company; the deliberate hiding of inconvenient data, and executives from the drug company threatening or bullying independent researchers who have discovered the drug's dangers."

Whatever the reason one thing is certain. Dangerous pharmaceutical drugs, however serious their so-called 'side effects', however many people they kill, do not appear to be a cause for serious CHE concern. If a drug kills thousands of patients; if it is prescribed, and known to be dangerous for many years, even decades, little is done about it.

  • Even when a dangerous drug is eventually banned little or no action is taken against the drug company, the drug regulator, or anyone else within the CHE.
  • Even though each of these drugs went through years of 'scientific' testing, there has never been a serious examination into the integrity and honesty of the  'science' behind the drug, why it was pronounced 'safe', and why medical science consistently fails to pick up the lethal dangers of pharmaceutical drugs. Could this be, for instance, that drug companies pay for the science?
  • The drug is usually withdrawn quietly, surreptitiously. 
    • The government rarely comments, or investigates why its citizens have suffered. 
    • Conventional medical bodies, who have instrumental in prescribing the dangerous drug, are usually too embarrassed, or too busy in its own self-justification, to comment. 
    • And the mainstream media (MSM), who have usually played a leading role in advertising and promoting the drug, are not interested in critically examining the activities of drug companies who have been harming their readers and viewers.
  • Even if patients sue the drug company, they find this difficult and massively expensive against a powerful enemy. And even if they win their case the drug company is usually fined trivial amounts of money. No drug company executive has ever been prosecuted or convicted of manslaughter or homicide.

So the pharmaceutical industry appears to have a licence to kill, back by government, CHE, and the mainstream media (MSM) 

Silence is the usual reaction to the withdrawal of a dangerous drug or vaccine. But the situation is much worse than this. It is still happening today. We have not reached the end of the process that has been going on for over 100 years. Why should today's drug and vaccines be any different?

  • Medical science is still telling us that new pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are 'entirely safe'. The Covid-19 vaccines are being pronounced 'safe' right now, even though within days/weeks/months the drug regulators received reports of death, anaphylactic shock, blood clots, and many other serious reactions.
  • Some drug regulators have been forced to review these new vaccines; but as usually they have dismissed and discounted the reports; they are 'coincidences', or even if they do harm, the 'benefits outweighed the disadvantages'. The conclusion is always that the vaccines are safe.

So this is the start of the same weary and predictable process, the same lethal game of damaged patients having to prove the latest pharmaceutical wonder drug/vaccine is NOT safe, and to do so against the formidable might of the CHE, and the government and MSM supporters, who insist that they are safe - and will no doubt continue to do so for as long as they can. 

How many deaths will the Covid-19 vaccines be allowed to kill? And for how many years? Before they too are either banned?

The saga continues...... watch this space!

Wednesday 28 April 2021

MSM. The advertising and promotional arm of the Pharmaceutical Industry

The pharmaceutical industry is not allowed to advertise their drugs in Europe, and most other countries with the exception of the USA and New Zealand. The situation varies, but the advertising of prescription only drugs is not allowed in the UK; but non-prescription, or ‘over-the-counter’ drugs can be advertised. However, this does not worry the drug companies!


So how does this work in the UK, and most of the rest of the world?

  • A drug company wants to promote a drug or a vaccine to the public. 
  • They write a press release
  • They give it to all the mainstream media (MSM) outlets. 
  • The press release is dutifully published by a grateful, dependent and compliant MSM.
Moreover, the press release will be published in full, without changes or amendments, without comment, without question, and without further investigation.
  • At the same time, the drug company will put the MSM in touch with doctors and specialists from the NHS (not from the drugs company, this would be advertising) who have been ‘primed’ to speak on the subject. The MSM will interview, often at length, they will reinforce the positive message. 
  • The drug company will also suggest that the MSM speak to certain patients, or to a patient support group, or health charity (especially those generously funded by drug companies). These people are also interviewed by the MSM.

So we have a headline, a lengthy article; or 5–10 minutes of radio or television time, devoted to the drug, or the vaccine, and its benefit to the NHS, and to individual patients. The drug company will appear to be entirely absent, uninvolved, disinterested. This is not Ford advertising their cars, or Indesit advertising their washing machines. It is not advertising at all. It's news. Moreover, it's good news - another medical breakthrough. It's a matter of important public interest.

It's subliminal advertising - at its best and most insidious.

  • At no time will the MSM mention, or question, or investigate any adverse drug/vaccine reactions or serious side effects - even when these are already well known, and easily found within the literature of the conventional medical establishment.

So the pharmaceutical industry has no problem advertising their drugs and vaccines in Britain, or anywhere else. In fact this kind of subliminal advertising has a very particular benefit!

When we see an advert for a Ford car we know it is advertised by the Ford Motor Company. It is partial. We know other makes of car are equally good. When we see an Indesit washing machine advertised we know it is promoting a product in order to persuade us to buy one. We know it’s self-interested promotion, and that there are other washing machines available. We can take it, or leave it.

When we see a subliminal advertisement from a pharmaceutical company we don’t realise that the information is coming from a drug company. It's news. Pharmaceutical medicine has done it again. They are ridding the world of illness and disease. We are led to believe that the information is coming from a reputable news source, interviewing independent, disinterested doctors, and patients who  have benefited. It's “good news”; we can all rejoice at this impartial, non-advertising information.

A similar advert within the MSM would cost the advertisers very significant amounts of money. Drug companies are given this subliminal advertising, and it is entirely free. All they have to do is to produce a press release, and to offer up spokespeople who will (be paid?) to corroborate the message. 

This is all Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson have had to do in order to promote their Covid-19 vaccines. The result is staggering. The majority of people believe they are safe and effective. We have been led to believe they will save and world, and return us to normal life. 

Yet has anyone seen an advert for any of these Covid-19 vaccines?

Indeed, the MSM has done much more than this to promote the Covid-19 vaccines for the drug companies. 
  • The MSM was instrumental, alongside government and the NHS, in creating the panic about the virus - a panic that will eventually have to be assessed alongside the seriousness of the pandemic. It was this panic that created an unprecedented demand for the only solution offered against the virus.
  • It was the MSM who told us about the solution to Covid-19 - that only vaccines would save us, and return life back to normal.
  • The MSM has done all the marketing the drug companies could ever have hoped for.
  • And the entire cost has been borne by the taxpayer.

So it is unlikely that the pharmaceutical industry will want to rescind the advertising ban of their vaccines and drugs. Why should they? The kind of promotion the MSM has given these drug companies over the last 15 months has been phenomenal. If they had to pay for it would have cost them a prohibitive sum money - for less effective advertising and promotion


Tuesday 27 April 2021

WHO AM I? I am a Pro-Choice Well-Being Advocate

If, like me, you are fed up with being abused by government, the mainstream media (MSM), and conventional medicine about pharmaceutical vaccines, let's make a stand!

  • I am not going to have the Covid-19 vaccine, no matter what these 3 pillars of our society say.
  • I am fed up with being called an 'anti-vaxxer', or 'vaccine hesitant' - this does not explain my position.
  • I am fed up with being told that only vaccines will save the world, return social life to normal, and rescue the economy.
  • I am fed up with being ignored, never given the chance to explain my position on MSM, and never being given a right to reply to abuse (much of it by journalists).
  • I am fed up with insistent reminders from the NHS that I should get vaccinated.

So, the first issue. How should I describe my personal stance? I have been discussing this with several colleagues, and I have decided that this is how I would like to be described.


I believe in patient choice, and more widely, in health freedom. This means, in negative terms, that I refuse to be forced into accepting pharmaceutical medication. I believe I have good evidence and information on which to base my stance, both negative and positive. First, the negative reasons.

  1. The treatments offered by the conventional medical establishment (CHE) are not effective. Most of them do not work, and the efficacy of all pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are grossly exaggerated by CHE and the mainstream media (MSM).
  2. CHE drug treatments are all dangerous, with adverse drug/vaccine reactions ensuring that their disadvantages far outweigh any benefits.

I do not care if you agree, or disagree with this stance! That is entirely your prerogative. I can defend my position with good quality information, much of it coming from the literature of the CHE itself. I have written a book, freely available on the internet, called "The Failure of Conventional Medicine" and in this I fully explain my position. You may disagree, although you cannot disagree without first knowing what my position is. I am not an 'anti-vaxxer', or 'vaccine hesitant' - without very good reason.

All I ask is that you first seek to understand my position. Do not dismiss me without first knowing what this is.

I am fully aware of the position of CME on vaccination. Everyone does! We have heard nothing else from government, health authorities, and the MSM for over a year now. And these sources of information have been most careful to ensure that my position, as a pro-choice well-being advocate, has never ever been presented or explained.

So what is a 'Pro-Choice Well-Being Advocate'?

First, we are people who believe that personal freedom and liberty is important; and that there is no freedom more important than the freedom to choose our medical treatment when we are ill. We believe that it is unacceptable for government, or one particular medical system, or the corporate-dominated and controlled MSM, to encourage/oblige/force anyone to take pharmaceutical medication. 

And we demand full information, from all side of the health debate. Moreover we want this information to be freely and transparently available to everyone - so that we are all able to make an informed choice. An informed choice is not necessarily a 'correct' choice, or a 'sensible' choice, or even a 'wise' choice; but it is a choice that should not forced on anyone by the 'experts' of one particular medical system.

Second, pro-choice well-being advocates believe in something that is vitally important. Our belief is no longer accepted by the CME but this does not make the CME right. Our reasons for not getting vaccinated are for good positive reasons:

  • they are reasons connected with the immune system, supporting and strengthening natural immunity to infection and illness, through diet, nutrition, exercise, life-style choices. And (for me) with homeopathic prophylaxis; and ultimately (should I fall ill) having homeopathy at my side for treatment.

It does not matter to me if you believe this is inadequate, that you think this will not protect me from Covid (or anything else), and that I should still have the vaccine. That is YOUR assessment of what heath is all about. It is most definitely NOT mine! It is not about well-being!

Third, well-being is an importantly different concept to today's normal definition of 'health' - which is why I prefer the term. We believe that everyone is equipped by nature to stay well. Certainly, we can compromise our well-being by poor life-style choices, bad diet, or indeed through the harmful side effects of conventional medical treatment. But this does not make germs (bacteria or viruses) an enemy. They become an enemy when we undermine our personal protection against them. We recognise that we live with germs every second of every day, and that the secret of well-being is to live with them, alongside them, in harmony.

So, our response to Covid-19 is much the same as it is for measles, pertussis, HPV, influenza, et al; plus every other disease for which conventional medicine wants to force drugs/vaccines on us. We support well-being every day by maintaining our immune system, by strengthening our natural immunity. And, importantly, we get on with life without the panic and fear we have been witnessing over Covid-19.

We are not selling drugs or vaccines? We are not promoting anything. We are not profiting from what we do. We believe we keep well, and protect ourselves from illness, by looking after ourselves.

Fourth, we recognise that we are all responsible for our own well-being. Health does not come from a bottle of pills, or even an injection. It comes from within ourselves. What this means is that I cannot be responsible for your health, and that I cannot expect you to be responsible for my health. Well-being is about the decisions we each make about our lifestyle. This is not a selfish position. It is not a decision at all. It is the reality. Our health is in our own hands; it is our responsibility; we make ourself well, or susceptible to sickness, by our own decisions. 

When we get ill natural medical therapies are there to help us support and strengthen our immune systems; but part of that consultation will almost inevitably involve a discussion about the lifestyle choices we have made, and what we can do to enhance our well-being.

Fifth, we recognise that one of the main side effects of pharmaceutical medicines is to compromise our natural immunity, to make the patient more rather than less susceptible to illness. So we avoid them. Pro-choice well-being advocates do not recommend chasing germs, and killing them, as the CHE does. We take this position because we believe, ultimately, they are counter-productive to our well-being.

So advocates of pro-choice well-being cannot agree to vaccination. It is not because we are 'anti-vaccine', or 'vaccine hesitancy'. It is because, for us, health comes from within. We do not believe that conventional medicine is helpful, that it does not understand health, and that ultimately it is contrary to our wellness and well-being.

Thursday 8 April 2021

Covid-19 Vaccines. MSM begins to examine safety, and links with blood clotting

The mainstream media (MSM) in the UK have begun to report on the link between Covid-19 vaccines and blood clots. They have been forced to do so. They can no longer justify telling the public that these vaccines are 'entirely safe' - as they have been doing for months. But welcome as this change may be it needs to be challenged. Let's go over the history of media coverage of these vaccines since they were introduced at the end of December 2020.

  • Initially we were told that the vaccines were entirely safe; without reservation or caveat.
  • The vaccines would get our lives back to normal.
  • Early reports of serious side effects were completely ignored, never mentioned.
  • As reports of adverse reactions continued to come in they were denied (they were misinformation, fake news, conspiracy theory); even though they were reported by the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA, and published on the official government website.
  • Anyone who dared mention them were abused by the MSM as 'vaccine hesitant', 'anti-vaxxers'; their voices were never eard; they never asked to share their views by the MSM; and they were subject to increasing censorship on social media; I was myself banned on both Twitter and Linkedin.
  • Then several countries suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine, with blood clots being the cause of concern. The concerns of these countries were dismissed as 'sour grapes', countries whose vaccine rollout was not a 'good' as the UK's. It was an entirely ‘political’ action; it had nothing to do with health.
  • Yet the reported links between the vaccines and serious side effects continued to come through; and even the MSM could not ignore the evidence being provided by the MHRA. The MSM have been forced to respond, patient harm had to be addressed.
  • It has been addressed in several ways. "There was no proven link". "The numbers were so small". "It was just 'coincidence'" (the patient became ill at the same time as having the vaccine). "All drugs and vaccines had side effects". "These was nothing to worry about".
  • Then the MHRA decided that there was a link between the AZ Covid vaccine and blood clotting. So the MSM could no long ignore the information. No-one under 30 were to be given the AstraZeneka vaccine. So there was a link, the conventional medical establishment (CME) had to admit it. But the vaccines still had to be defended - so the public was told that the “benefits of the vaccines outweighed disadvantages”, and we were urged to continue taking the vaccine.

This is where we are now, at the time of writing. It is typical of what happens to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines - starting life as safe wonder drugs - and as patients in great numbers take them serious adverse reactions are discovered, demonstrating that the drug/vaccine is neither as safe, nor as magical in their treatment of illness. 

The 'disadvantage of the 'benefit'/'disadvantage' equation is the first quiet recognition that the initial claims of drug safety were not true.

The coverage of the MSN has not changed. It still provides the public with the views of the CME, the 'experts' who told us about the safety and effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines. They were never questioned about this at the time. Now they are not being questioned, called to task, about why they got it wrong. They offer their excuses, and these are never challenged. 

Nor are the critics of the CME approach to vaccines being given any more coverage or credibility. They were right; but they continue to be ignored. Those critics would be telling the public about the gathering evidence about reports of vaccine harm, which continue to appear in the official CHE sources, from the 'experts' themselves, but which continue to be ignored.

The MSM is still not being told the truth by the CME, the so-called experts. And the MSM don't bother to check what they are being told. Nor do they bother to ask anyone who would be prepared to tell them. For instance:

  • the problem with Covid-19 vaccines does not begin and end with blood clotting, it goes much further. The MHRA tells us that:

        "The most frequent adverse reactions in trials were pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, myalgia (muscle pains), chills, arthralgia (joint pains), and fever; these were each reported in more than 1 in 10 people." (My emphasis).

Since the vaccine was rolled out at the end of December 2020, as of 28th March 2021, (about 3 months), "43,491 Yellow Cards have been reported for the Pfizer/BioNTech, 116,162 have been reported for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine, and 418 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not specified."

These are not small numbers. And it does not reflect what the public has been told for the last 3 months, that the vaccines are safe. Yet the MHRA report provides information about the much more serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines, including:

  • severe allergy, including anaphylaxis.
  • Bell's Palsy.
  • Thrombo-embolic events.
  • Death

Yes, death; something the MSM has rarely (if ever) mentioned. Both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines are killing people. This is not an issue just because people are losing their lives - but also because the public are not being told. Do we not need to know? Should we not be told? Ask the government why the public is not being informed. Ask conventional medical experts why they are not telling us, whilst continuing to urge us to get vaccinated. Ask the MSM why they are ignoring the facts, as outlined by the MHRA, the UK's drug regulator, on the official government webpage.

        "The MHRA has received 302 UK reports of suspected ADR;s to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 472 reports for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine, and 12 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified". 

So 786 deaths in the UK, still entirely ignored by the MSM, information kept from the general public most of whom do not read official government websites.

I have watched this figure increase week by week. And week by week people are agreeing to vaccination on the basis that the vaccines are entirely safe - they have never been told otherwise. They certainly don't realise that vaccinated people are dying. They have not been told so they cannot make an informed choice.

It appears that the AstraZenica vaccine is grabbing most MSM attention, but it is difficult to see why this is. UK data, and similar figures in the USA and elsewhere around the world, suggest that this vaccine is no more or less harmful than any other Covid-19 vaccine. All the Covid-19 vaccines are causing serious patient harm, including death. And the public is not being told - by the medical authorities, by government, or by the MSM. Why?

Of course, any mention of 'blood clots' in the MSM is nearly always accompanied with the word 'rare'. This is part of the normal CHE reassurances. The vaccines might be causing blood clots; we might be concerned (if we knew); we might stop giving the vaccine to the under 30's; but don't worry - it is rare. So play the game of Russian Roulette, and hope for the best. And don't think about the fact that only 1% to 10% of drug/vaccine side effects are ever reported - which means that the numbers affected can be multiplied by at least 10, and probably 100. So not so rare, perhaps, but we are still urged to get vaccinated!

The Future - how will this story develop?

So where is this situation heading? On the basis that "the best predictor of the Future is the Past", whenever we predict the future we should learn from the past, in this situation from the history of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. If we look at this, what I have outlined above is not new or unusual, it has happened before, time and time again, and it is likely to be repeated here too.

I have written about "The Ages of Drugs" before, describing the decline of the many drugs that start life as ‘wonder drugs’ and which, over the years, become just another failed, ‘banned' drug. Each drug begin life heralded by great claims of conquering disease, overcoming and changing our experience of illness. They all finish their lives when it is decided that cause too much harm to patients to continue using them.

This ageing process is usually slow. The CHE has developed ways of slowing down the process. So the MSM are still talking exclusively to the same pro-vaccine ’experts’, members of the CHE. It is just that in future months the reassurances will sound ever-more hollow to anyone aware of what is happening, or have themselves be harmed by the vaccines.

And those of us who were right about the vaccines, who have been accused of 'misinformation', 'fake news', and 'conspiracy theory' will still be censored. The public cannot hear what we have to say, we excluded from the MSM, and increasingly censored by social media.

What we are witnessing with Covid-19 vaccines is ‘The Age of Drugs’ - the continual drip of information which I predict will ultimately destroy the reputation of these Covid-19 vaccines, and the ill-informed trust the public has in them. 

We have been here before with many other pharmaceutical drugs so there is no reason to believe it will not happen again.