Search This Blog

Friday 19 November 2021

In Response To Forced Vaccination and Mandatory Medication

I reserve my right to be ill.

> and I assert my right to respond to my illness, including the threat of illness, in my own way.

You are not responsible for my health; nor do I give you permission to take control of it.

> you do not control how I support my immune system.

I am not responsible for your health, nor do I seek your permission to take charge of it.

> I do not and cannot control how you look after your immune system.

I have never given you permission to take responsibility for my health.

> I do not accept that you, or the government, knows better than me.

I believe that natural immunity is superior to vaccine immunity.

> I am entitled to believe this, and I don't care if you disagree with me. 

You may believe that vaccine immunity is superior to natural immunity.

> You may, but you do not have my permission to impose your beliefs on me.

I nurture my health through natural immunity, through diet, nutrition, exercise, and life-style.

> as I believe this is more important to my health than vaccine immunity.

I do not accept the pharmaceutical medicine has anything to offer me, or my health.

> you might think it does, and if so you, are absolutely entitled to do so.

If and when I am ill I will turn to natural medical therapies, not pharmaceutical medicine.

> this is entirely my choice, my decision; for which I take full responsibility.

Medical Negligence. A huge cost to patients, the NHS, and the national economy

The NHS is dominated by pharmaceutical medicine. And pharmaceutical medicine can, and often does, cause serious harm and injury to the patients it treats. This is costing the NHS dearly, at every level. Patients are harmed. The NHS has to pay compensation for the damage it has caused. And the national exchequer has to foot the ever-increasing bill.

This is why the Parliamentary Health and Social Care Committee is looking into the situation, seeking reforms to reduce massive cost of litigation.

The Medical Defence Union (MDU) is the UK's leading provider of medical indemnity, and clincial negligence claims for the medical profession. In the evidence it gave to the committee it said that litigation was now costing £2.2 billion annually. This massive sum is a rarely considered cost incurred by the NHS. The MDU's head of Professional Standards and Liaison, Dr Michael Devlin, told the inquiry:

            “The MDU has been sounding the alarm about the cost of compensation claims against the NHS for years, so we are relieved that the Health and Social Care Committee is examining the case for NHS litigation reform. Amounts being paid out in compensation annually are spiralling, increasing nearly 50% in the last five years from £1.48 billion to £2.2 billion last year..... With the NHS facing a funding crisis, we simply cannot sit by any longer and ignore numbers like £2.2 billion". (My emphasis).

So what is the MDU's solution to the problem? 

  • To ensure that there are fewer mistakes? 
  • To reduce the harm caused to patients? 
  • To better understand the nature and cause of the mistakes that are damaging patients? 
  • To look for safer treatments?

None of this appears to be what the MDU has in mind, at least not according to Dr Devlin, who continued:

            "The government must grasp the nettle and reform the system surrounding clinical negligence, so that it is fairer and mirrors society’s ability to pay. Reforms to the system for compensating patients could make a significant difference. One example is the need to ensure payments for long term care are based on the cost of NHS rather than private care, as is currently the case. Clinical negligence claims are not an indicator of poor medical standards nevertheless legal reforms must go hand in hand with improvements in patient safety. A learning culture in which incidents are thoroughly investigated and lessons learned and shared must be fostered.” (My emphasis).

So the MDU's answer to the problem, it would appear, is for the NHS to pay less compensation; and for patient's damaged by pharmaceutical medicine to receive less.

The GP magazine, Pulse, seems to have come to a similar conclusion in an article dated 12 November 2021. It stated that NHS Resolution, "an arm’s length body of the Department of Health and Social Care. that provides expertise to the NHS on resolving concerns and disputes fairly, sharing learning for improvement and preserving resources for patient care" said in their annual report that general practice could face £44m in Covid-related clinical negligence claims alone. It said that an estimated £44m, out of a forecast £885m total new claims due to the pandemic, may come through the clinical negligence scheme for general practice in 2020/21. It said that Trusts are expected to face negligence claims of £665m, then amazingly, that Covid-19 "would mean lower numbers of claims due to clinical work being cancelled - reducing claims by around £400m and resulting in a £500m net expected impact of the pandemic on claims made against the NHS".

So when the NHS does NOT provide patients with medical treatment it is calculated that it will save money! No treatment, no harm!

Perhaps they might have added that many patients are better off without the kind of 'treatment' currently being offered by the NHS! A doctor is quoted as saying the the forecasts are "concerning" but "not surprising", which again suggests that harming patients within the NHS is the expected norm.

The same doctor added that "since the first lockdown in March 2020, we’ve supported members with nearly 7,000 complaints and adverse incidents. While this isn’t an increase overall on numbers compared to pre-pandemic, we are surprised at the volume, given public understanding and sympathy with healthcare professionals, and also because complaints processes were put on hold at the height of the pandemic."  

NHS medical staff, it would appear, actually expected patients to be more 'understanding' and 'sympathetic towards medical negligence!

What this all demonstrates is that medical mistakes have become a routine, and accepted part of the performance of the NHS. 

I wonder how many patients realise this, or are told this, when they go to see their local GP, or walk through the door of an NHS hospital? The Pulse article certainly makes it clear what doctors wanted - 'reassurance' that complaints were dealt with 'proportionately and fairly' - and that compensation is 'more reasonable'. One doctors is quoted as saying

            "A package of legal reforms is needed to control rising costs and help to strike a balance between compensation that is reasonable, but also affordable for the NHS and society." (My emphasis).

So it is clear that within the NHS there is a routine acceptance that pharmaceutical medicine will cause patient harm, that is it, perhaps, a 'matter of concern', but the primary concern of the NHS is to protect itself from compensation claims for medical negligence. It has to be 'affordable' for the country so the solution is to reduce the cost. Patients can be seriously harmed by pharmaceutical medicine; but the objective is to make it cheaper!

The NHS considers the dangers of pharmaceutical medicine to be unavoidable. Nothing can be done about it. The costs (about 1.5% of the total NHS budget) are already factored into the NHS's budget plans. And more harm is expected in the future.

Yet no action is suggested to reduce medical negligence. It is notable that there is no suggestion that other medical therapies, safer natural therapies like homeopathy, should be reintroduced back into the NHS, so that patients could be offered a choice between risking medical negligence with conventional treatment; or to choose treatment that will not damage the patient, that will not  significant additional costs to the NHS, and an unnecessary charge on the national exchequer.

That would, of course, be too simple!

Postscript May 2022 

More evidence that concern about high levels of compensation being paid to damaged patients is not about concern for patients, or the dangerous medical system that is harming them, but concern about the costs!

Thursday 11 November 2021

Dapagliflozin. Yet another pharmaceutical drug is banned

 Another pharmaceutical drug has been effectively banned by the NHS

This happens on a regular basis; but banning a drug is now done with the minimum of fuss and publicity. The pharmaceutical medical establishment seems to think it is better for us patients not to know about it!

The drug is called Dapagliflozin, sold under the name of Forxiga, amongst many others. The headline is that it is "no longer indicated" for Type 1 Diabetes. What this meansis  that the drug was once "indicated" for use with diabetes patients.

"No longer indicated" is a lovely, neutral (meaningless?) phrase, so much nicer than "withdrawn", or "banned"! It means the same though - the drug has been used because it was previously considered to be effective and safe; but it is no longer considered to be either effective or safe.

This is not an unusual event. There has been a long history, stretching back many centuries, of hundreds of pharmaceutical drugs that have been banned, withdrawn, or are "no longer indicated".

All these drugs have caused significant patient harm. Yet all these drugs were initially approved for use with patients, deemed by medical science to be effective and safe. Dapagliflozin was approved in 2012 in Europe, and 2014 in the USA. So much for medical science! 

            "Dapagliflozin was found to be safe and well tolerated by healthy volunteers in double-blinded, placebo controlled ... studies".

So patients have been prescribed all these banned pharmaceutical drugs, often for decades, and patients have suffered damage as a direct consequence. So much for what is supposed to be the first principle of medical ethics - "First do no harm"!

            "This webpage outlines the long list of side effects known to be caused by this drug - even though doctors were advised it was "well indicated", were prepared to prescribe it, and have caused their patients to suffer from anxiety, bladder pain, bloody or cloudy urine, blurred vision, chills, cold sweats, confusion, cool, pale skin, decreased frequency or amount of urine, depression, difficult, burning, or painful urination, dizziness, fast heartbeat, frequent urge to urinate, headache, increased hunger, increased thirst, itching of the vagina or genitals, loss of appetite,loss of consciousness, lower back or side pain, nausea, nightmares, seizures, shakiness, slurred speech, swelling of the face, fingers, or lower legs, thick, white vaginal discharge with mild or no odour, trouble breathing, unusual tiredness or weakness, vomiting, weight gain. And these are the "more common" side effects of the drug. Read the entire page. Doctors were actually warned that the drug was known to cause gangrene

No wonder, perhaps, that Dapagliflozin has been banned, however belatedly!

But banning a pharmaceutical drug is different now. There has been NO public announcement. NO admission of culpability. NO apology. Just an explicit instruction to doctors - its use has to be 'discontinued', with immediate effect. In other words, the drug is now known to be dangerous.

            "It is recommended that use of dapagliflozin in patients with type I diabetes is reviewed and discontinued by or in consultation with a specialist and that this is done as soon as clinically practical. With the removal of the type I diabetes indication, the previously published risk minimisation materials for the drug will no longer be available."

This is what happens whenever anyone goes to see their doctor. They risk being prescribed drugs, described as safe, which are not safe; described as effective when they are not effective. And what this situation shows is that the drugs doctors are prescribing today are no safer, and no more effective, than the drugs they have prescribed to us in the past. You are NOT safe in your doctors hands.

So anyone who is currently taking pharmaceutical drugs or vaccines today should ask themselves - what guarantee do you have that these drugs are safe, and will not suffer the same fate as Dapagliflozin? And do you really want to continue risking drug damage?

Wednesday 10 November 2021

Once anyone believes good health comes from a bottle of pills, or a vaccine, that person has lost his battle with ill-health.

Once anyone believes good health comes from a bottle of pills or a vaccine, that person has lost his battle with ill-health.

Thanks to the Organic Consumers Association for this marvellous thought........

 “No authority during Covid-19 has said:

  • People are sick, they need more time outdoors.
  • People are sick, they need more touch. 
  • People are sick, they need healthy gut flora. 
  • People are sick, they need pure water. 
  • People are sick, they need less electromagnetic pollution. 
  • People are sick, they need less chemicals in food. 
  • People are sick, let’s put diabetes warnings on soda pop. 
  • People are sick, let’s encourage them to meditate and pray more. 
  • People are sick, let’s get them in the garden. 
  • People are sick, let’s make our cities walkable. 
  • People are sick, let’s clean the air. 
  • People are sick, let’s provide free mould remediation on all dwellings.
  • People are sick, let’s promote education about local herbs.
  • People are sick, let’s make the best supplements and practices of the biohackers and health gurus available to all.
  • People are sick, let’s heal our agricultural soils.’

These are the real principles of maintaining and regaining good health. 

How much more healthy, safer from illness and disease, would we all be if conventional medicine were to tell us this, rather than pushing pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines?

Tuesday 9 November 2021

The Menopause, HRT, and Breast Cancer

I have written about the menopause, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and breast and cervical cancer many times before. To do so again is certainly deja vu! But headline health news recently provided us with "good" news - at least this is how it has been universally heralded:

HRT Prescription Charges to be Reduced.

       "The cost of repeat HRT prescriptions will be cut in a move set to save women who rely on the treatment 'hundreds of pounds per year', the government has announced. Working with NHS England, the government says it will look to implement longer prescribing cycles 'in line with NICE guidelines', so women receive fewer prescriptions, meaning they pay fewer prescription charges. The government has asked NHS England to review current practice and the barriers to implementing NICE guidance. To further improve access to HRT, the government will also look at the possibility of combining 2 hormone treatments into one prescription, so women only pay a single charge. It says this change would benefit around 10% of women accessing HRT".

Patients in particular were said to be delighted at the outcome - clearly the decision is going to save them money - and this is usually a good reason for delight! But should it be? The history of HRT is closely linked to breast and cervical cancer.

  • In the early 2000's, research began to demonstrate the strong link between HRT and cancer, to the extent that the research was stopped because it was considered unsafe, and unethical to continue.
       "....several trials produced results that were so bad they had to be discontinued.  In 2002, trials conducted by the Women’s Health Initiative in the USA, described as 'the largest and best designed federal studies of HRT'  was halted because women taking the hormones had a significantly increased risk of breast  and cervical cancer, heart attacks, stroke and blood clots. More trials were terminated in 2007, when a study of 5,692 women taking HRT raised similar concerns but added 'more definition to the health risks' (WDDTY 9 August 2007, source: British Medical Journal, 2007; 335: 239-44).
  • So from 2007, some 5 years too late, HRT was virtually suspended for several years.
  • Then, in 2015, like magic, HRT was rejuvenated. The research was discounted, so doctors could began prescribing it again, and so women began taking it again - in large numbers. HRT might cause breast cancer, heart problems and dementia, but (what the hell) women should take it anyway!
  • But then, in 2016, just one year later, there was a warning. HRT could cause breast cancer! As I said at the time, it was 'old news' presented as 'new news'. But nothing was done, no action was taken to protect women.
  • Now, a further 5 years on, we are being asked to rejoice - because these dangerous drugs are to be made available to women far cheaper than they were before.

What this demonstrates, of course, is that medical science has a short memory, even about its own research, and further, that this amnesia places patients at risk of dangerous and harmful drugs. It tells us that the conventional medical establishment is prepared to give patients pharmaceutical drugs, regardless of the harm they are known to cause!

So what does conventional medicine say about the causes of breast cancer? This is just one of the serious adverse reactions to HRT, but this is what the UK's NHS state

        "The causes of breast cancer are not fully understood, making it difficult to say why one woman may develop breast cancer and another may not."

If you persevere, and continue down the page, after causes such as 'age', 'family history', 'previous breast cancer and lumps', 'dense breast tissue' (all of which the patient, nor medicine can do anything about), you get to hormone replacement, and a recognition that "HRT is associated with an increased risk of developing breast cancer". Then it suggests that

        "There is no increased risk of breast cancer if you take HRT for less than 1 year. But if you take HRT for longer than 1 year, you have a higher risk of breast cancer than women who never use HRT."

Yet surely this is what the government has now negotiated for women, cheaper repeat prescriptions for a drug that should not be used for more than one year! What kind of medicine is this? It is more than amnesia. It provides patients with price incentives to take a dangerous drug for longer, against it's own current advice!

The NHS goes on to accept that "the increased risk of breast cancer falls after you stop taking HRT, but some increased risk remains for more than 10 years compared to women who have never used HRT".

The advice for women should surely be not to take HRT. But as pharmaceutical medicine has nothing else, certainly nothing safer to offer, it is prepared to prescribe a drug that has been proven to be lethal for women for many decades - since the 1940's.

And this is done by a medical system whose first principle is supposed to be "First, do no harm".

Yet there is an alternative, a safer medicine available. It is homeopathy. Homeopathy can deal with the menopause, and do so without causing breast and cervical cancer, heart problems, and dementia.

Why Homeopathy? for the Menopause.

Postscript: July 2022

HRT and the Menopause
So HRT was safe until the early 2000's: then it was so unsafe that research was stopped because these drugs were too dangerous; then new research in 2015 (financed by the pharmaceutical industry) 'proved' it was safe...... AND NOW "new evidence" is being considered that NICE guidelines might have to be renewed - because the drug is causing breast cancer.
    * When will conventional medicine learn?
    * When will patients learn that Con Med is not to be trusted?