How safe are Covid-19 Vaccines? What is happening around the world? And what are the official websites telling us?

What is the truth about the Covid-19 vaccines? Whatever the arguments for and against them everyone needs to know whether the vaccines are safe, or whether they can cause serious adverse reactions, and even death. We all have to make an informed decision, based on the evidence made available to us.

The Government, the Conventional Medical Establishment (CHE) and the mainstream media (MSM) are all absolutely certain about this. The vaccines are safe, entirely safe. Everyone should get vaccinated. They speak with one clear and decisive voice. Any information contrary to this advice is 'misinformation', 'fake news', or 'conspiracy theory'. And, we are told, listening to 'anti-vaxxers', or responding to 'vaccine hesitancy', could be serious enough to cost us our life. The vaccines are that crucial!

This official message has been consistent and implacable. Often issues of this importance will lead to discussion, disagreement, and argument. Government will debate with opposition parties; newspapers will examine, investigate, and provide us with their conclusions, which usually vary between paper and paper; television news will interview people with different views. But none of this has happened for over a year now. The seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines, have not been a matter for disagreement. 

I AM AWARE OF THAT A DEBATE IS GOING ON. INDEED I AM PART OF THE DEBATE. But the debate Is going on Out Here - it cannot be heard in Parliament; or within conventional medical circles, or even within the MSM, or so-called 'Free Press'. It is not welcome

THE SAFETY OF COVID-19 VACCINES

Yet there are events happening around the world, and published within official government and health websites that raise serious questions about what we are being told, and suggests that we are not being given the whole, unvarnished truth. Moreover, this official information is not open to challenge. It exists - open to interpretation, yes; challengeable, no! I will focus on two issues.

• Over 20 countries around the world have, at one time or another, suspended one or other of the new Covid-19 vaccines. Denmark has permanently banned two of them (the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines) as a result of the serious adverse reactions suffered by patients. This has been done whilst other countries continue to denied them. This raises important questions. Is it safe for the citizens on one country to take the vaccines, whilst it is unsafe for the citizens of another country to take them?

The suspension and banning of the Covid-19 vaccines is something that can be discussed, debated, and argued about; but the different reactions, the different stances, cannot be denied. And if there is an issue here it is surely one that is important to the personal decision we should all be taking about whether to have, or to refuse the vaccines. If people merely follow Government / CME / MSM advice and get vaccinated without being aware of this debate they are not making an informed choice.

• Official statistics about the reported side effects of the Covid-19 vaccines is another factor. The figures of patient harm are much greater, and more serious than we are being told, indeed, they are on a scale vastly greater than has been admitted by government, the CHE or the MSM. And these are statistics taken from official government/health websites. So they are not misinformation; but it is not information that is being shared widely with the public. Most people are blissfully unaware of what is happening. 

At the time of writing, there have been over 1,000 reported deaths in UK; nearly 4,000 in the USA; and more that 7,500 in the European Union - all these people dying within a few days of receiving the vaccination.

The websites carrying this information, and the sources of their information, are impeccable. As well as death many other serious health conditions have been reported, and so should be linked with the Covid-19 vaccines: it is not just blood clotting. The information is undeniable. Is the importance and seriousness of the information is open to discussion? Yes. Is it of crucial importance to people in making an informed choice about taking the vaccines? Yes. Is it being share with the public? No. But the information is undeniable, and it is evidenced here on these websites.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting#annex-1-vaccine-analysis-print

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-vaccine-injuries-climb-pfizer-seeks-full-approval/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=4d3a5a92-4213-46f8-a5f5-c14b564d90cf 

https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/7766-dead-330218-injuries-european-database-of-adverse-drug-reactions-for-covid-19-vaccines/

Unfortunately few people will bother to research these specialist websites. They will listen to, trust and rely on what the government, doctors, and their mainstream news sources tell them. Why should they do otherwise? They would not provide them with misinformation; would they?

If the adverse reactions have been mentioned at all it is usually heavily discounted, or even denied. Or the people/organisations that provided the information will have been discounted or abused; dismissed as 'anti-vaxxers' peddling harmful misinformation.

Yet there remains another question even more important question. If these important official figures are correct, why is it that we are not being told about them? Why are they being censored?

• Why is the conventional medical system (CHE), which is allegedly committed to the Hippocratic oath of "First, do no harm", allowing vaccines to be rolled out when they are aware (or should be aware) they are causing serious patient harm? Do they not have a duty to inform us?
  
• Why are governments around the world complicit in this, even taking draconian powers over our personal freedoms, undermining our social and emotional lives, destroying so many jobs and livelihoods, in order to ensure that we are vaccinated? They too must know about these official statistics. Do they not have a duty to inform us?
  
• Similarly, why does the mainstream media (MSM) not investigate these matters? Are the statistics correct? How serious are they? Is the medical system protecting us from harm? Is the government telling us the whole truth to its citizens? Do they not have a duty to inform us?
  

Instead, all three do no more than to justify their stance. They are still doing it. The vaccines are safe. Side effects are mild; or it is merely an unfortunate coincidence that patients are getting blood clots, et al, and even dying. And, of course, the “benefits of the vaccines outweigh the disadvantages” - although we are never told what lies at either side of this often-used equation.

So what is the agenda of people who are telling us this? What is the agenda of government, the CHE and the MSM. They are all aware of this, or they should be; but they have never mentioned the large numbers of people who have died of the Covid-19 vaccines, not to mention the other serious side effects. None of the families have been interviewed. None of the medical experts have bothered to tell us about them. And Governments continue to peddle the partial propaganda of the pharmaceutical industry.

MEDICAL SCIENCE

The political, medical, and journalistic agenda is the one set down by conventional medical science. Government is 'following the science'; these are not their policies, policy is informed by science. And science is sacrosanct, it speaks with a single voice, and it tells us that Covid-19 is a serious pandemic, that the only solution to it are the new vaccines, and the vaccines are safe. 

Yet Denmark hears this science too; and comes to a decision different to the decision taken in the UK, the USA, and much of the rest of the world. How can it do this?

Does 'science' speak with one voice, as we have been told now for over a year? Is the science sacrosanct, or does this so-called 'science' have to be interpreted?

It is clear that there is more that one voice, that medical science is not sacrosanct. Medical science is not just a matter of combining two chemical and observing the reaction. It is a complex matter of what data is collected, how it is collected, and how it is interpreted. And the statistics that result are open to many different interpretations. Medical science does not have all the answers, and it is so much under the control of the pharmaceutical industry that the answers it provides cannot be relied upon.

When we can see this, understand it, realise what is happening, is it possible to continue trusting the Government, the CHE, or the MSM? They are not doing their job. The entire conventional medical establishment (which now seems to include national governments, and the MSM) are complicit in the failure to discuss the issues. 

I ask - seriously - would anyone buy a second hand car from these people? 

Health, above all else, is a matter of trust. Would you allow yourself to be injected with any vaccine, or persuaded to take any pharmaceutical drug - unless you were utterly confident that you were being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? But the 'whole truth' is being censored - by a pharmaceutical-led cabal that now includes not only important medical authorities, including drug regulators, and the WHO, but also governments, and the MSM. We are increasingly being controlled, not just about what we do, but what we must think, what we must believe, and what our values should be.

What is the difference between Medical Science and the Real World?

Conventional medical science is usually based on 'Randomised Controlled Trials' (RCT's), often described as by conventional medical practitioners as "the Gold Standard" of scientific investigation. What this means, in essence, is that medical scientists seek to fix two criteria, for example:

• on one side, the condition - obesity or weight loss, 
• on the other side, the medicine(s) used by complementary medicine for the treatment of obesity or weight loss.

The problem with this method is that in real life these two variables cannot be so easily 'fixed'. And when medical science tries to fix them, the method they choose usually has more to do with the outcome they want to achieve than any kind of scientific objectivity. (I have explored the bias of conventional medical science in more detail on this link). 

That's look at an example. BBC News has recently reported that a recent Australian study has found that complementary medicines for weight loss are 'not justified'. The story can be told simply, in the words of the BBC.

            "The first global review of complementary medicines for weight loss in 16 years suggests their use cannot be justified based on current evidence. Researchers found that while some herbal and dietary supplements resulted in marginal weight loss compared to a placebo, they did not benefit health."

In other words, the medicine's used by complementary, or natural medicine, do not work; yet (it emphasises) people are spending lots of money on them.

To come to this conclusion, the RCT studies that were reviewed would have (i) fixed the medicines, and (ii) the weight loss. They would have tried hard to eliminate all other external factor.

So the over-weight patient takes the medicine; and the study finds he/she does not lose weight.

What this ignores is the consultation, the skills of the therapist, and the 'holistic' nature of natural medical therapies. The RCT's studies might reflect the practice of pharmaceutical medicine (where usually 'the problem', once diagnosed, leads to the prescription of a pharmaceutical drug), but it does not reflect what happens in real life. The consultation, and the ingredients of the conversation between therapist and patient, cannot be eliminated. 

I have treated many overweight or obese patients and the process is much more complex, much more varied than than the selection of a 'medicine'. The consultation would take in account many factors, many 'variables' that medical science, and 'gold standard' RCT's, have to exclude. For example,

• Lifestyle
• Mental health factors
  
• Diet and nutrition
• Exercise

each one, in themselves, very complex, and very individual to the patient. The therapist would seek to clarify these factors, provide advice, and respond to the patient's response to this advice.  

This is what a 'holistic' approach is all about. 

It does not focus on medicines; it focuses on the patient. It takes into consideration a variety of complicated factors. After this, and only after this, does the therapist recommend a 'medicine' that might assist the patient in the process of losing weight. Yet the 'medicine' is only a small part of the treatment, compared to the patient making lifestyle changes in all the factors outlined above.

Homeopathy treats obesity, and can help patients lose weight. This website gives a detailed explanation of how homeopaths set about the task, and the variety of factors they take into account. Yet you will notice that the remedies commonly used with patients come last; and that the choice of remedy has more to do with the patient, the individual, than the condition. Obesity is not a simple, single condition.

This is what holistic medical therapies do. It is not just about 'medicine'. Conventional medicine does NOT do this; certainly it is not done in medical science or via RCT studies. Natural therapy focuses on the individual, in all his/her complexity; it does not impose any 'controls' on what is considered important. It is holistic. It takes everything into account; and only at the very end comes up with medicine.

Conventional medicine fixes the condition (that is, obesity is the same problem with each and every individual), and then fixes the medicine (an 'off-the-shelf' solution to the over-simplified, over-generalised condition).

What this piece of conventional medical 'science' indicates is just confined and restricted conventional  medical science is. It explains why conventional medicine has little or no medical solution to the problem of obesity; and perhaps why, to cover up its inadequacy, it wants to dismiss 'complementary medicine'. It seeks to make the point that it natural medicine is no more effective than pharmaceutical medicine.

And for obesity, any other illness/disease can be substituted - the same general principle applies. 

The successful treatment of any sickness or disease is not simple or straightforward; it cannot be simplified by 'scientic methodology'.

Medical treatment must always be measured in terms of 'patient outcomes' - not medical science. 

CHRONIC DISEASE. The rise and rise of chronic diseases over the last 100 years; and the introduction of some new ones

As defined by MedicineNet, a chronic disease is a disease that persists for a long time, lasting at least 3 months, and usually much more, often many years, even decades. The most common chronic diseases are arthritis, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, epilepsy/seizures, and obesity, but there are many more, including some that were previously unknown prior to the age of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Yet despite their variety all chronic diseases have several undeniable features in common.

• The incidence of all chronic diseases (without exception?) have increased, often exponentially, during the last 100 years, and these rates are still increasing.
• Conventional medicine will offer explanations for these huge increases in sickness, but most of them are either irrelevant, or insufficient to explain the inexorable rise of these chronic diseases.
• Conventional medicine usually offer only palliative treatments for these diseases, but rarely any treatment that treats the disease successfully, or reduces the ever-rising numbers of people suffering from them.
• The side effects, the adverse drug/vaccine reactions to pharmaceutical medicine are known to cause the symptoms of all these chronic disease
  

As a population, after 70-100 years of burgeoning pharmaceutical medicine, we are not getting healthier. We are getting progressively sicker. We might be living longer (largely owing to improved sanitation, housing, diet, nutrition, and less poverty and destitution) but certainly most people are not able to spend these additional years positively, and in good health.

So let's examine the impact of some of the more common forms of chronic diseases, how they impact on our lives, how CHE explains them, and how it can cause them. But before doing so let's first consider an alternative view about what chronic disease is, and what causes it. This is broadly the view of homeopathy, and more broadly it is the view held by all natural medical therapies.

Chronic Disease and Homeopathy. Natural medicine believes that the human body has everything it needs to keep itself fit and healthy, long into old age. Chronic disease develops if and when we put our body under some kind of stress. Perhaps we have poor nutrition, and unhealthy diet; or we don't exercise sufficiently or sensibly; or we get into bad habits - smoking, drinking, insufficient sleep, and the like.

But chronic disease is also caused by suppressing illness, and this belief is one of the key differences between natural medical therapies and conventional medicine. For instance, homeopathy believes that suppressing minor ailments/illnesses/conditions with pharmaceutical drugs is ultimately injurious to our health. 

• So natural medicine recognises that pain is a sign that something is wrong, a warning, not something should be suppressed with painkilling drugs, that killing or suppressing pain actually worsens pain over the longer-term, and drives it deeper into the body. 
• It recognises that a fever is the body's natural attempt to fight off an infection, again, not something that should be suppressed by anti-inflammatory drugs.
• It recognises that suppressing, killing, blocking, inhibiting the normal functioning of the body in any way is what causes adverse drug reactions, and that this suppression can result in long-term chronic disease.
  

So one of the major insights provided by homeopathy, and natural medicine generally, is that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are likely to be a major cause of chronic disease. They are one explanation for the rising levels of chronic disease. So when examining each of the following chronic disease, we can examine whether conventional medicine is a possible explanation for the rise and rise of the disease. 

The last 70-100 years has seen pharmaceutical medicine become the dominant medical system, and during this time the consumption of prescription drugs has risen to levels never previously known.

ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder)

People with ADHD have trouble paying attention, have problems with concentration, daydream, have impulsive behaviour, act without thinking, have difficulty getting on with other people, or are just overly active. These traits are, to an extent, normal but for a diagnosis of ADHD to be made the symptoms have to be quite severe.

Incidence

There is probably little doubt that there have always been people in society, throughout history, that might have been diagnosed as ADHD. It is the scale that matters, and this Healthline webpage states quite clearly that ADHD was "first mentioned" in 1902, that it was not until the late 1960's that it was "formally recognised" in the USA, and that now it is "a common neurodevelopmental disorder most commonly diagnosed in children". In Britain, the NHS did not recognise ADHD as a condition until 2009. So ADHD is both common, and recent!

• The ADHD Institute in the USA says that "A mean worldwide prevalence of ADHD of about 2.2% has been estimated in children and adolescents (aged over 18 years). The mean prevalence of ADHD in adults (aged 18-44) from a range of countries .... was reported as about 2.8% overall".
• This UK website says that between 2% and 5% of school aged children now have ADHD, and that the prevalence of ADHD in the adult population is between 3% and 4%, but "the majorityof these individual are undiagnosed".
• This link refers to the Journal of Attention Disorder which published a UK research survey of 10,438 children between the ages of 5 and 15 years that found 3.62% of boys, and 0.85% of girls, had ADHD. It also says that the Lancet has estimated that the global prevalence of ADHD is now between 2% and 7%, with an average of 5%.
  

Conventional Medical Explanations

Most conventional medical websites suggests that there is not known cause of ADHD. For instance, the Journal of Learning Disabilities says that "there is no one cause of ADHD. It is considered to be a result of an often complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors" placing 70% to 80% of the blame on genetic factors. The CDC website does suggest that it might be caused by brain injury, exposure to environmental toxicity during pregnancy or childhood, premature delivery and low birth rate. 

However, none of these causes provides an adequate or convincing explanation for the rapid recent rise in the incidence of ADHD.

Pharmaceutical Drugs

The role of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines is rarely mentioned in the conventional medical literature, except that known adverse drug and vaccine reactions include many that accurately describe the symptoms of ADHD. I have written about the ADHD / Pharmaceutical Drug link elsewhere, and the drug and vaccines implicated include drugs now commonly prescribed, such as  painkillers, antibiotics, antidepressants, and a wide variety of childhood vaccines.

The increased consumption of these pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, especially with children, almost exactly mirrors the increase of ADHD. It might be asked why this link has not been more actively investigated by the pharmaceutical medical establishment!

Allergy

There are many kinds of very different allergies, from hay fever to food allergies, from asthma to sinusitis, and so many more. Perhaps the one thing they have in common is that they have all risen to epidemic proportions during the last 70 to 100 years, and are still growing. Allergy UK bluntly states the dire consequences of this allergy epidemic to so many people.

            "Allergy is the most common chronic disease in Europe. Up to 20% of patients with allergies struggle daily with the fear of an asthma attack, anaphylactic shock, or even death from an allergic reaction".

Incidence 

Allergy UK says that the World Allergy Organisation (WAO) estimate of allergy prevalence of the whole population by country ranges between 10-40%; that more than 150 million Europeans suffer from chronic allergic diseases and the current prediction is that by 2025 half of the entire EU population will be affected; that the UK has some of the highest prevalence rates of allergic conditions in the world, with over 20% of the population affected by one or more allergic disorder; that a staggering 44% of British adults now suffer from at least one allergy and the number of sufferers is on the rise, growing by around 2 million between 2008 and 2009 alone; that almost half (48%) of sufferers have more than one allergy; and that in the 20 years to 2012 there was a 615% increase in the rate of hospital admissions for anaphylaxis in the UK.

The USA fares no better. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology delivers a variety of statistics including: about 7.8% of people 18 and over have hay fever, that worldwide, allergic rhinitis affects between 10% and 30 % of the population, that adverse drug reactions may affect up to 10% of the world’s population, and affect up to 20% of all hospitalized patients, that drugs may be responsible for up to 20% of fatalities due to anaphylaxis; that 8% of children (infant to 18) have a food allergy, and 38.7% of food allergic children have a history of severe reactions; that the prevalence of general allergy has continued to rise in the industrialized world for more than 50 years.

Allergies have, no doubt, always existed; but not to the enormous scale that is being witnessed at this time, and rising.

Conventional Medical Explanations

Conventional medicine appears to have no explanation for this prodigious and ongoing rise in allergy. An allergy is usually described as a reaction to a particular food or substance, but 'causation' is rarely addressed. It is often blamed on the immune system, whose role is to destroy harmful substances in the body; allergy happens when the immune system reacts to a substance that is not harmful, but still tries to  destroy it.

The fact that an allergy is a reaction to an allergen is a description, not a cause; because all identified allergens are normal substances that most people have always lived alongside quite happily. The 'cause' of allergy is something that makes an individual allergic to that allergen, or which makes the immune system turn against the allergen..

Pharmaceutical Drugs

Conventional medicine rarely mentions that the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines now routinely prescribed, especially to young children, are known to cause allergy. Most drugs, and probably all vaccines, have 'allergy' acknowledged as a side effect in the Patient Information Leaflets. This is conventional medicine's own literature. I have written about the main pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines implicated as a cause of allergy, including most vaccines, antibiotics, painkillers, anti-epileptics, sleeping pills, and many others.

Alzheimers/Dementia

Incidence:

• Worldwide, nearly 50 million people have Alzheimer’s or related dementia, according the the Alzheimers.net website. It says that only 1-in-4 people with Alzheimer’s disease have been diagnosed, and that Alzheimer’s and dementia is most common in Western Europe, followed closely by North America. It says that there was an 89% increase in deaths due to Alzheimer’s between 2000 and 2014, that more than 5 million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s, and that by 2050 it is estimated there will be as many as 16 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s.
• Alzheimer's Research UK says that there are now 209,600 new cases of Alzheimer's disease diagnosed every year in the UK.
• The Alzheimer's Society, in a major study in 2014, said that the number of people with dementia in the UK was forecast to increase to over 1 million by 2021, and by over 2 million by 2051, that the total population prevalence of dementia among over 65s was 7.1%, which was equal to 1 in 14 of the population aged 65 years and over

Conventional Medical Explanation for the rise of Alzheimer's disease, and dementia generally, is that it is the result of an ageing population. However, the most serious problem with this explanation is that younger adults, and even children, are now contracting this disease, which is usually referred to as 'early onset dementia' for those under 65 years old. Alzheimer's Research UK admits this when it says that "it is a common misconception that dementia is a condition of older age, over 42,000 people under 65 years old have dementia in the UK." The Alzheimer's Society study in 2014 found that there were over 40,000 people with early-onset dementia in the UK.

It should also be noted that there is a widespread acceptance that conventional medicine has no effective treatment for Alzheimer's disease.

Pharmaceutical Drugs. Conventional medicine rarely admits that the adverse drug reactions of a large number of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines mention many of the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease or dementia, such as confusion, loss of memory, disorientation, and others. I have listed some of these pharmaceutical drugs here, and they include vaccines, antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, sleeping pills, statins, anticholinergic drugs, and many others commonly taken by older people.

Arthritis

Arthritis is a generic term incorporating many separately diagnosed conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, gout, and many others.

Incidence:

• In the USA, 2013 to 2015, the CDC estimated that 54.4 million adults (22.7% of the population)  had some form of doctor-diagnosed arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, or fibromyalgia. It further estimated that by 2040, an estimated 78 million (26% of the population) of USA adults aged over 18 years are projected to have doctor-diagnosed arthritis.
• In the UK, Versus Arthritis states that musculoskeletal conditions sch as arthritis and back pain affected an estimated 18.8 million people across the UK in 2017. This accounted for more than 22% of the total burden of ill health in the UK.

The Conventional Medical Explanation is usually that the massive increase in arthritis pain in past decades, and as well as future projected increases, are the result of an ageing population. Lack of exercise and obesity is also regularly cited as an important factor in the increase levels of arthritis.

It should also be noted that there is a widespread acceptance that conventional medicine has no effective treatment for arthritis.

Pharmaceutical Drugs. Yet arthritis is treated, mainly by painkilling drugs, often for many years. These provide (at best) temporary relief for pain, but in the long-term most arthritic conditions get progressively worse, patients need stronger, more toxic drugs.

Yet conventional medicine rarely recognises that most, if not all pharmaceutical drugs are known to cause 'pain' as a 'side effect'. I have listed some of these drugs here, and they include not only painkillers, but corticosteroids, antibiotics, and many others.

Summary of Conventional Medicine's contribution to the rise of arthritis? 

• No effective treatment.
• Lots of non-medical reasons/excuses.
• Pharmaceutical drugs that cause the condition.
  

Asthma

Asthma is a chronic disease of the airway to the lungss, where the bronchial tubes becomes inflamed, narrowed, thus causing a blockage and consequent breath difficulties. The disease is closely linked to the functioning of the immune system.

Incidence

Asthma is an ancient condition that can be traced back to 2600bce in China, and to ancient Egypt and Greece. Yet however far it goes back into history Asthma is not running at epidemic levels, and rising. It has been estimated that since the 1980's there has been a 60% increase in the incidence of asthma, and that the death rate from asthma has doubled during the same time.

WHO has estimated that more than 339 million people had Asthma globally in 2016, and that it caused 417,918 deaths.

The British Lung Foundation has found that 8 million people, over 12% of the population, have been diagnosed with asthma. They says that this means more people have had an asthma diagnosis than have been diagnosed with all other lung diseases combined.

Conventional Medical Explanations

As usual, conventional medicine has no adequate or sufficient explanation for this exponential rise in the incidence of asthma. It will often refer to 'risk factors' of inhaling substances and particles that may irritate the airways and provoke and allergic reaction.

Nor is there any indication that conventional medicine has any successful treatment, just treatments that can reduce the severity of asthma attacks.

Pharmaceutical Drugs

Yet it is well known that there are many commonly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs that have been prescribed over the last 70-100 years that cause asthma. To mention these alone - aspirin, and other painkillers, antibiotics, childhood and other vaccines - should leave little doubt that these drugs have played an important role in the asthma epidemic.

Autism 

Autism, or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is usually described as a developmental disability. It can cause significant social and behavioural problems in young children, many have developed normally for the first year or two years of their lives. Its most notable features concern communication and interaction difficulties with other people. Autism affects children along a broad spectrum, with the ability to learn, think, and problem solving ranging from severely challenged to gifted.

Incidence

Autism was first described in the 1940's in the USA. Yet this unknown disease has become one of the most astounding stories of the last 70 years. From a virtually unknown disease, the CDC website gives the following statistics on the rise and rise of autism in the USA. In 2000, 1 in 150 children were diagnosed. In 2010 this had grown to 1 in 68 children. It is now thought to be 1 in about 45 children.

The situation is similar in other parts of the world, notably where pharmaceutical medical treatment is dominant, and the use of childhood vaccines has increased alongside the rise of autism.

Conventional Medical Explanations

Conventional medicine has no cure or indeed treatment for autism. Moreover, it usually states, quite unequivocally that it does not know what causes autism, although increasingly it is focusing on a 'genetic' aspect. Despite this, it does know that childhood vaccines are not to blame.

Pharmaceutical Drugs

There are many pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines implicated in causing autism, all of them heavily prescribed during the rise of autism. I have outlined some of these drugs and vaccines here, alongside some of the evidence linking the two.

However, such allegations are always met with resolute denials from the conventional medical establishment. The CDC, for instance, states that "some people have had concerns that ASD might be linked to the vaccines children receive, but studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing ASD". They then provide a reference to a piece of research - paid for by the pharmaceutical industry!

A similar analysis can be done for many other chronic diseases - autoimmune disease, cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, osteoporosis, Parkinson's disease, and many others. In each and every case there is"

• a massive increase in the incidence of the disease,
• an inadequate explanation for these rise by the conventional medical establishment,
• pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that are known to cause the disease, or the symptoms of the disease.
  

CONCLUSION
If we want to know what is happening to health, after 70 to 100 years when conventional medicine has been dominant, when vast sums of money has been spent on medical treatment, especially in the 'advance western world', we just have to observe what has been happening during that time.

• We are getting sicker,
• The medicine in which we have invested heavily is failing,
• A significant reason for the increased sickness we are witnessing is conventional medicine.

The failure of conventional medicine is the result of a medical system that believes it knows better than the body, that it can out-think and out-perform the body with drugs that 'kill', 'inhibit'. block', the natural functioning of the body. It has had its time.

Albert Einstein once defined insanity. It is a definition that can be ascribed to the health policies that have been pursued in most countries of the world through these decades, namely, to spend more and more on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines to deal with the ever-burgeoning levels of illness and disease.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

It is not more money, or more resources that is needed to reverse increasing levels of sickness. It is a change in what that money is spent on. The time for natural medical therapies has arrived. Natural medicine has a different understanding of what good health is. They are more concerned with wellness and well-being, more focused on the immune system, and supporting and strengthening natural immunity. Natural medicine recognises that our bodies have everything that is required to keep us well; that wellness requires sensible lifestyle choices, and that medicine is only successful if it supports, and works alongside the body.

This is why so many people are now choosing homeopathy, and other natural medical therapies, and positively rejecting pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.