Search This Blog

Thursday 15 December 2022

Fergus Walsh. BBC Medical Editor? Or Big Pharma Salesman?

Fergus Walsh is officially the BBC's Medical Editor, but he has been its medical correspondent since 2004. It would appear that his main job, either on behalf of the BBC, or the pharmaceutical industry, is to provide propaganda for new 'breakthrough' drugs and vaccines that will 'transform' or 'revolutionise' the treatment of a particular illness or disease. Here are just a few or Walsh's published pieces, of which there must now be many hundreds!

Newborns to get rapid genetic disease diagnosis (2022)

BioNTech: could Covid vaccine technology crack cancer? (2022).

Alzheimer's drug hailed as 'breakthrough'. (2022).

Take-at-home treatment for spinal muscular atrophy (2021).

How breakthrough coronavirus drug dexamethasone was found (2020).

Coronavirus: encouraging results in vaccines trials (2020).

Gene therapy first to 'halt' most common cause of blindness (2019).

Breakthrough treatment for MS patient (2016).

Gene editing technique could transform future (2016)

Windpipe Transplant Breakthrough (2008)

You will see that all these pieces, and so many, many more over the past two decades, have a similar format. *It's a terrible disease. *The drug/vaccine is a revolutionary breakthrough in treatment. *Medical science confirms the drug works, and will be successful. *The treatment is not available now, but will be in one/two/three years time. *The drugs adverse reactions are usually not mentioned. 

Walsh's promotion of these drugs/vaccines is entirely free for the drug industry, by a broadcaster that should not advertise! Another problem with Walsh's optimism about pharmaceutical drugs is that it raises the hopes of patients, only to dash them again when ultimately they are prescribed, and prove to be useless in practice, or worse than useful because of their adverse reactions.

This does not matter because Walsh's pieces also have another characteristic. They are never followed up. The 'good news' story is about the future. It is never about today. And tomorrow never seems to happen!

Walsh has been very successful in promoting pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. He was certainly instrumental in promoting the Covid-19 vaccines, not least the AstraZeneca vaccine. He has been less successful in telling us about the outcomes of the drugs he had promoted. For example, to my knowledge he has never told anyone that the AstraZeneca vaccine has been either banned in some countries, or universally abandoned around the world, as in Britain - largely because of the adverse reactions it has caused - reactions that he has never mentioned, and continues to ignore.

So is there any evidence for these successful breakthrough treatments? Can the ongoing travails of the NHS provide us with firm evidence that illness and disease is being reduced, that patients are getting any benefit from these treatments? Or are most of them (like the AstraZeneca vaccine) been abandoned, because they have proven to be either largely ineffective, or just too dangerous.

Conventional medicine throughout the world, and particularly within the NHS, is now dominated by pharmaceutical treatments. No matter how successful Fergus Walsh has been in promoting them, on behalf of the drug industry conventional medicine continues to be stubbornly unable to prevent or treat serious illness and disease. Most chronic diseases are now running a record, epidemic levels - and rising.

Notwithstanding, Walsh continues to come out with these pieces of 'good news' on a regular basis, even at this time when the failure of pharmaceutical medicine is becoming increasingly apparent. His optimism about drugs may not benefit patients but they most certainly benefit the pharmaceutical industry. 

It might be accurate to say that Walsh is one of their most successful salesmen.

For more information about the harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs, and the failure of conventional medicine, go to these links.

Iatrogenic Disease. The Disease Inducing Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs and Vaccines.

The Failure of Conventional Medicine.

Thursday 8 December 2022

A Christmas Turkey? The impact of the veterinary 'treatment' of Bird Flu!

If you are having difficulty buying a turkey this Christmas you might want to ask a simple, but important question.

Why do we cull flocks of birds who have a simple infection?

Conventional medicine, for both humans, animals and birds, has a serious problem with infections. And if you are struggling to find a Turkey for Christmas this year, and/or are amazed at the increased cost of doing so, you are, like so many others, experiencing the consequences of this fundamental medical failure. First, ask yourself this question.......

What sort of medicine would actually kill its patients, and then have the audacity to call this 'treatment', and describe what it does as ‘medicine’?

In veterinary medicine the culling of patients often happens; too often. And it happens with illnesses and diseases that are relatively mild, and from which most of the patients will recover in time.

Avian or Bird Flu: where flocks of birds (including turkeys this year) are forced to live indoors because being outside, in the open air, able to move around freely, is thought to be too dangerous by veterinary medicine! And then all the birds are culled if just one of them becomes ill.

Foot and Mouth: where herds of cattle are routinely slaughtered, considered unfit for human consumption, and buried and burnt in mass graves.

TB: Not only are herds of cattle slaughtered if one of their number is tested for TB, but badgers too are culled because they are thought to cause it (although there is little or no evidence for this).

I wrote more about the 'medical' practice of killing here in 2020.

First, do no harm! Allegedly this is the first principle of conventional medicine, although it is routinely ignored. What more harm can medicine do than to slaughter its patients, to do so intentionally, and to kill them in the name of 'medical treatment'?

I have been arguing that pharmaceutical medicine has been failing for over 15 years now - and surely there is no better demonstration of medical failure than by 'treating' sick patients by killing them?

What sort of medicine would even think about doing such a thing?
    * A medical system that has no alternative, no effective treatment (as otherwise they would surely use it)?
    * A medicine that has little or no understanding of natural immunity, and so does not include it in the treatment strategy?
    * A medicine that is allowed to discount the real costs of its ‘treatment’
             - to the birds
             - to the cost of food (even during a period of super-inflation)
             - where the cost is charged is made only against taxpayers!

Yet there is a further issue. Infections also provide pharmaceutical medicine (of which veterinary medicine is part) with a huge business opportunity, usually via the sale of vaccines. Their strategy is always the same: create as much fear about the illness or disease as possible: then persuade us that only pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines can save us from disaster; and offer them to patients, courtesy of the public purse, free of charge.

Conventional medicine has, to date, resisted resorting openly to this lethal treatment for human patients. However, the strategy remains similar when compared to veterinary treatment.

    * a costly fear campaign, based in the fact the conventional medicine has no safe or effective treatment,
    * hygiene is considered the first essential response in order to kill the infection,
    * lockdown, keeping flocks indoor, in conditions that are both unnatural and unhealthy for the patient,      * then introducing treatments, however dubious; and if they do not work, or if they kill the patient, blame the infection rather than the treatment.

We should all be aghast at the inability of pharmaceutical medicine to cope with bird flu; its lack of treatment, it use of fear and panic to obtain compliance to useless and dangerous treatments. Just as with our recent experience with Covid-19, which imposed severe mental, social and economic losses, especially for the most vulnerable. 

Nor was the virus responsible for the harm. The damage to people's health, the uprooting of people's lives and livelihoods, the destruction of the national economy, especially for the less well-off, have all been caused by the medically driven policies used to deal with the virus - NOT THE VIRUS ITSELF.

Covid-19 will have longer-term consequences too - medically-driven government policies are threatening the ideals of patient choice, health freedom, and personal liberty generally. But at least humans were not culled - except that the Covid-19 vaccines are now known to have killed many thousands people around the world.

Conventional medicine is deeply paternalistic in its attitude towards patients, whether human, animal or avian. The "we-must-save-your-life" attitude of conventional medicine, supported by government; and the utter and complete compliance of the mainstream media in promoting these government/medical policies, is all aimed at taking away personal responsibility. And uppermost in these policies is the utter failure to inform us about how exercise, good diet, and living in good environmental conditions, and much more, can to support and strengthen the immune systems of patients against infections.

So the only living creatures that get a worse deal that humans when faced with an infection are birds and animals. So we can perhaps be thankful that humanity has not been culled as a 'medical' response to relatively mild infections. We just have to put up with a shortage of Turkeys at Christmas, a small price to pay, however expensive the remaining birds might be!

It is often said that "Turkeys do not vote for Christmas". This is probably so. But with equal certainty they would never vote for the medical system that is tasked to look after their health!


The Myths of Conventional Medical Success. The Covid-19 Pandemic - the history is being written NOW

Around the world the fiasco of the Covid-19 vaccines is becoming apparent, at least outside the conventional medical establishment. Over 12 billion doses of these vaccines have been injected into people. An in countries where vaccination rates are higher the worse the Covid-19 situation has become. This has been apparent for some months - Covid-19 cases have been rising where vaccination rates are high, but the upward trend did not happen in less heavily rates apply, like Africa. Africa has had fewer vaccinations, fewer cases, fewer hospitalizations, and a lower death rates.

The problem faced by the 'advance' or 'developed' world has been that it could afford to vaccinate more people, for free. The advantage of less developed areas has been that it could not do so. 

  • Where there has been mass vaccination, there has been a pandemic!
  • Where there has been no mass vaccination, the 'pandemic' has not happened!

This is not a new or unusual situation. We have been brought up to believe that vaccines are safe and effective. They are not - and they never have been. I have written before on the myths of vaccine success, about smallpox, about polio, and about measles

Now I suspect we will soon be hearing that the awful Covid-19 pandemic was also ended because of the success of the vaccines! The lie is already being told.

Since writing these three blogs I have discovered another book on the subject, "The Poisoned Needle: Suppressed Facts about Vaccination". It was written by Eleanor McBean. What makes this book even more interesting is that it was written in 1957. So for polio and measles it was a contemporaneous account of what was happening, both with the polio vaccines, and the early days of the measles vaccines. It is not an historical document. For that reason alone it is worth reading, and what is demonstrated is that at the very time that smallpox and measles were (allegedly) being overcome by vaccines, many doctors (many quoted in the book) were very clearly contradicting the propaganda of the conventional medical establishment.

We are often told that history is written by the victorious, and so provides us with a sectional account of what actually happened. Vaccines were not victorious, with smallpox, polio or measles, but conventional medical propaganda most certainly was. Before reading the McBean book I had little or no idea that there was so much opposition to the vaccines at that time.

Yet the same message comes across as is happening now with Covid-19. 

    * The vaccines were exacerbating the problem.

    * It was not until vaccination programmes declined, and people began to refuse the vaccines, that the diseases began to decline, and were brought under control.

The same thing has happened with the Covid-19 pandemic (as I predicted it would in a blog in early 2020). The Covid-19 vaccines have been an unmitigated disaster; they have not prevented the vaccinated contracting the disease; or transmitting it; or being hospitalised; or dying. 

Indeed, they made all these outcomes far worse.

Yet this is not the message coming from governments, from conventional medical authorities, or from the mainstream media. The pandemic is in steep decline, and entirely unsupported and uncorroborated, statements are being made about the "success" of the vaccines role in this decline. There is no evidence for making these claims; indeed all the evidence is suggesting quite the opposite.

    So what will the outcome be? 

    Who will write the history of the Covid-19 pandemic? 

    Will it be the evidence that the pandemic was exaggerated, that the vaccine did not stop it, that the vaccine caused more patient reports of harm than any other previous vaccine, or drug? 

Or will pharmaceutical propaganda be able to persuade future generations that the vaccines saved us?

This Medscape article (part of the conventional medical establishment), entitled "Opposition to vaccines has a long history" states that opposition to vaccine started in the 1860's, against the smallpox disease.

            "To fight this disease, countries implemented the first set of laws ever to mandate vaccination. "When vaccination becomes a political matter, resistance to vaccination does as well. And so, from 1860 to 1870, we see anti-vaccination leagues being established - the first of which appear in England." These leagues against "vaccine tyranny" came about following the United Kingdom's Vaccination Act of 1853, which required infants to be vaccinated against smallpox within 3 months of being born. The smallpox vaccine did not become mandatory in France until 1902, which was "quite late." 

There is little doubt that Covid-19 has been a significant event in the minds and experience of most people. People were offered the vaccines, many took it. They were the offered another dose, but fewer took it. They were offered boosters; but take up declined with each one. People learnt, just as people learnt about the harm caused by other vaccines

But what will history say, who will write the story? Whether the significance of Covid-19 will be sufficient to persuade enough people to challenge conventional medical wisdom (propaganda) is another matter. The conventional medical establishment will not admit that the vaccines they promoted caused harm. The drug companies made too much money from them to do so. Governments gave too many assurances for too long about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, as did the entire mainstream media. 

To admit that the were wrong would be just too embarrassing for any of them; they will stick to their narrative, and seek to write the narrative into our history books.

So what they will all do is what what they have always done. They will deny that they are wrong, they will stick to their narrative, regardless of the available evidence. They continue to repeat the same message - the vaccines are safe and effective. And they will hope that they have enough control over the information that we receive to ensure that, as the events fade from our memory, we will only see and believe the 'history' they will write.

It is our task to ensure they are not successful.

Thursday 1 December 2022

Alzheimers Drug Lecanemab Hailed as Momentous Breakthrough in Treatment of Dementia

Lecanemab has been heralded as good news for a medical system that is rapidly breaking down, Alzheimer's disease at epidemic levels, and the NHS now in terminal decline? 

Headlines in all the mainstream national media yesterday (30th November 2022) certainly suggests that it is. The Alzheimer's Society has described Lecanemab as "momentous"

Yet is it really "good news"? Let's look more closely into what we are being told.

    1. Lecanemab slows down the destruction of the brain by up to one-quarter. 

    2. Lecanemab ends decades of failure in the development of effective drug treatment for Alzheimer's.

    3. Lecanemab could be the first of many more, improved Alzheimer's therapies in the years to come.


Each of the media reports I have seen, including BBC News, the Guardian, the 'I', the Times, LBC, tell us the same thing. No doubt they have all read a pharmaceutical drug release, and have reported it to us without question or serious discussion. Each sought to tell us just how good this news is, trying their hardest to justify the optimism.

However, there are many reasons for caution about this "breakthrough" - if not for downright cynicism!

* Early Onset. Lecanemab, we are told, works only in the very early stages of Alzheimer's disease. It is acknowledged that it would have no effect on those with moderate to severe dementia. And of course it would have no effect on people suffering from other forms of dementia.

* Early Diagnosis. There is no current protocol/technique/procedure to diagnose Alzheimer's in its early stages. I have heard that only 2% of people with Alzheimer's are diagnosed at this state, so many people will have dementia long before it is diagnosed, and the drug is no longer any good.

* The future promise. As usual, the 'good' news about this drug are projected into the future. Lecanemab might be available to prescribe in 2024. And any new "improved" drugs deveoped from Lecanemab would extend this much further into the future.

* Beta Amyloid. Lecanemab is described as attacking the "sticky gunge", called beta amyloid, that builds up in the brains of those suffering with Alzheimer's disease. Yet there is growing evidence (not mentioned) that this 'sticky gunge' is not the cause Alzheimer's, but merely a symptom resulting from the disease.

* Delaying the Onset of the Disease. If, as promised, Lecanemab delays the progress of the disease by one-quarter we need to understand exactly what this means. If it takes someone 2 years to progress to 'moderate' or 'advanced' dementia, and drug will extend this period to just 2.5 years.

* Adverse Reactions. Mainstream media announcements of new 'miracle' drugs happen regularly (and rarely/never come to fruition). Rarely are we informed of serious side effects, even if they are known. With Lecanemab, however, we have already told that it is known to cause brain welling and bleeding. Even in the drug trial, alone, 7% of patients had to be withdrawn because of serious adverse reactions.


* Treatment. Apparently treatment is to be conducted by infusion every two weeks, in a hospital setting. This is at a time when when the NHS is under severe pressure, and the additional time and resources this will cause will only add to this. The NHS is already unable to cope with the levels of sickness and patient demands for health care.

* Expensive. We are also told that the drug will be "extremely expensive", thus adding to the rapidly growing costs of conventional medical treatment, and the parlous state of NHS finances.

No doubt worse will follow. As with all pharmaceutical drug trials, the benefits of Lecanemab will (i) likely have been exaggerated, (ii) the adverse reactions to the drug not be known, or they will be under-stated, or not studied. Lecamemab is unlikely to be any different!


Evidence of the failure of the NHS, dominated and controlled as it is by pharmaceutical medicine, is now clearly visible for anyone who wishes to see. Nobody needs to be told about the parlous state of the nation's health, after 80 years of conventional medical treatment. The NHS is falling down around us. 


Yet the mainstream media, even at such a time, continues to pin it's hope on yet another pharmaceutical drug. This constitutes the victory of hope over experience! In terms of the ever-growing Alzheimer's / dementia epidemic, a genuine medical breakthrough would more likely happen if conventional medicine was able to identify what is causing an epidemic that has been getting progressively worse for at least the last 80 years!


This would be possible. Conventional medical literature is able to point us to where this breakthrough might come. It already knows that large numbers of pharmaceutical drugs can cause symptoms such as confusion, memory loss, amnesia, disorientation. These drug side effects are something that the conventional medical establishment are fully aware - but keeps absolutely silent about.


I have outlined on another website just some of this evidence that doctors know that pharmaceutical drugs can cause these symptoms of dementia, alongside just some of the scientific studies that have demonstrated the link.

The problem with this evidence is that it is not welcome to the medical establishment, not least people who have been engaged in the business of prescribing these drugs. For doctors, and other medical practitioners, it is difficult to admit that their medical treatment, used increasingly over the last 80 years, might be a major cause of the dementia epidemic. 


The conventional medical establishment would rather ignore the evidence - AND COME UP WITH YET ANOTHER DRUG TO COVER UP THE HARM CAUSED TO PATIENTS.


So Lecanemab is likely to be yet another dead-end drug. The 'wonder drug' will have little impact on the ever rising numbers of people who are suffering dementia. Nor will it provide any significant help to individual dementia patients. It may raise hopes and expectations. But ultimately it will dash them in a matter of a few years. If Lecanemab follows the same trajectory as other wonder drugs, when its side effects become fully known, it will be quietly dropped.


Remember - this is not the first time that new 'wonder' drugs have been advertised by conventional medicine, through the mainstream media. This link made similar claims for a drug called aducanumab! 

And here is another from 2015 - a drug called solanezumab.


And there have been many more, like these, going back over a decade.

April 2007. "Scientists 'reverse' memory loss".
June 2008. "Dual action Alzhemer's drug hope".
July 2008. "Praise for new Alzheimer's drug".
July 2008. "Alzheimer's drug 'halts' decline.
May 2009. "Drug Trials 'reverse' Alzheimers".


The fate of other, previously heralded "Wonder Drugs" for other illnesses.

Just a selection! Can you spot any that have actually worked?


Acomplia. What happens to all the 'Wonder Drugs' and 'Miracle Cures' of conventional medicine? 


New Wonder Drug for Cancer (or is it really that good?)


Canakinumab. A New Wonder Drug! Promoted by the mainstream media


Multiple Sclerosis. Another miracle cure? Or another dangerous blind alley? 


AND SO IT CONTINUES................


Wednesday 11 May 2022

Partygate and Beergate. The stupidity of enforcing autocratic laws and Covid-19 rules and the prosecution of those who created and defended the stupidity!

UK politics is dominated by a 'debate' about Covid-19 rules during lockdown. This constitutes nonsense, built on the foundations of more nonsense and complete incompetence.

Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, constructed and imposed the Covid-19 lockdown rules on us all, reinforcing their importance in incessant daily press conferences. His government passed the deeply undemocratic legislation that enabled these autocratic rules to be legally drawn up. And he watched on as the police tried to enforce them.  

  • He then broke his own rules, apparently on numerous occasions.  
  • And then lied to Parliament about his law-breaking.
  • Party Gate had emerged!

Sir Keir Starmer, as Leader of the Opposition, did not construct or impose the Covid-19 lockdown rules, but he regularly criticised the government for not imposing them more strictly for longer. He also fully supported the autocratic legislation that underpinned the rules. Then, as Party Gate emerged, he criticised Johnson for breaking the rules, but it is now being suggested that he too broke the rules.

I do not speak for either man, but I do castigate them both for their part in creating and supporting these crass, stupid, senseless, and ultimately useless rules in the first place. Beer Gate had emerged.

It has long been my opinion that stupid rules should be resisted and broken in order to demonstrate their stupidity. Yet this was not what either politician did. They supported the rules, emphasised their importance, and then broke them. As frontline politicians this was their second act of rank stupidity - stupidity built on the foundations of stupidity.

Both men are both equally responsible for the very predictable failure of very silly rules that were never going to be either an adequate or sensible response to the pandemic.

Yet it is important to remember that neither of these politicians was actually responsible for these autocratic laws, or the senseless Covid-19 rules. The policy of both the UK government and opposition was (we were regularly told) "informed/guided by the science". Pontius Pilates ruled 2000 years ago, and like him, Johnson and Starmer washed their hands of the responsibility: these were the rules put forward by SAGE, a collection of mainstream medical scientists whose opinions were sacrosanct and unchallengeable. It was the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) that ruled!

This was why there was so little difference between government and opposition policies towards the pandemic, why neither Conservative, Labour or any other politician, came up with anything better, or even marginally more sensible. That is what happens within an autocracy - laws are enacted, rules are made - and no-one questions them (and anyone who does is pilloried for doing so). The problem was that from the very beginning conventional medicine admitted it had no treatment. It could only recommend social distancing, face masks, testing and tracking, lockdown, and the like. It was all they had to offer; but to hide their embarrassment they had to offer something, anything!  And then the debacle of the Covid-19 vaccines.

Stupidity and incompetence underlay two years of failed medical policies all the political parties pursued. It may be that Johnson and Starmer both realised that both the policies and the rules were stupid. But what they apparent did not recognise is that you cannot propose policies, and enforce rules, and then break them - however stupid and unreasonable they might be.

What we should be doing now is to ask all our politicians (in every country of the world):

  • Why did you fail to question the medical science from whom you sought advice?
  • Why did you so meekly support autocratic laws, and nonsensical rules?
  • Why have you not recognised that conventional/pharmaceutical medicine is failing?
  • Why have you not learnt that vaccines have never worked?

Will they ever realise that their total and abject reliance on conventional medical science is what is bankrupting our national health provision, and causing the epidemic levels of sickness and disease we are now experiencing?


Autism rate rises to 1 in 44 children in USA. And we are still told the cause is 'unknown'

At the end of 2021, the CDC announced that autism rates in the USA had risen to 1 in 44 children. They published an analysis of 2018 data from nearly a dozen USA states confirming that the autism rate for 8 year old children had risen from 1 in 54 in 2016, from 1 in 150 in 2000, whilst in the 1990's prevalence estimates ranged from 1 in 2,500 to 1 in 1,000. The autism rate is also high in France, 1 in 144, in Iceland, 1 in 139, and in Austria, 1 in 138. The study said this:

            “We found autism prevalence to be 3.6% in New Jersey overall, but higher in one region (5.4%) and in multiple areas approaching 7.0%. We identified significant variation in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) prevalence by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES) and school district size. Mapping prevalence in smaller, well-specified, regions may be useful to better understand the true scope of ASD, disparities in ASD detection and the factors impacting ASD prevalence estimation.”

In July 2020 I wrote a blog on the subject of autism, referring specifically to 157 research papers that supported the Vaccine-Autism link. I put a link to this webpage on my Facebook page, who quickly tagged this as "False rating on content shared by Safe Medicine Homeopathy' and that it's been reviewed by Science Feedback. Facebook also put an article against my blog entitled "How we know vaccines do not cause autism", and threatened to reduce the distribution of my page because 'misleading content', stating:

            "Pages and websites that repeatedly publish or share misleading content will see their overall distribution reduced and their ability to monetise, advertise and register as a news Page removed. People will also be able to see if a Page has a history of sharing false news."

This is typical of Facebook, and social media generally. They have succumbed to the pressure from the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) to censor anything and everything that speaks against their business interests - selling pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. The CME already controls the mainstream media, and now want to get social media under its control.

So autism is an epidemic, and year by year it is getting worse! And the CME is doing everything it can to deny that the drugs and vaccines listed here have anything to do with it, and to stop us getting to know.

So do the 157 research papers exist? 

Yes, they do; you can see them all outlined here for yourself if you click on the link, and then read each one of the studies for yourself.

The position of the CME is that there is no autism epidemic. Denial and censorship reign. J.B Handley outlines and demolishes their position in his blog, "There is no Autism epidemic - a pernicious rumour".

I too have dealt with it too, in my "Iatrogenic Disease" and "Why Homeopath?" e-books. This is what I said in the former.


"The conventional medical system are in denial about the cause of Autism. Indeed, it has worked very hard to hide from the public the cause of Autism. The NHS Choices website typifies this approach when it says:

               'The exact cause of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is currently unknown. It's a complex condition and may occur as a result of genetic predisposition (a natural tendency), environmental or unknown factors.'

It goes on to talk about inherited genes that make some children more vulnerable to ASD. It speaks about 'environmental triggers', such as premature birth, and exposure to alcohol in the womb. It says there is 'no conclusive evidence' linking either pollution or maternal infections in pregnancy to the condition. 

It does say that 'certain medications' are a possible trigger, and does mentions Sodium Valproate (a pharmaceutical drug used to treat epilepsy during pregnancy, and known to cause other birth defects).

Yet the NHS goes much further in its denial of the autism epidemic, and dismisses out of hand any connection between autism and childhood vaccinations. 

    'In the past, a number of things were linked to ASD, but extensive research has found no evidence to suggest that any of these contribute to the condition.' (My emphasis).

These 'past connections' include the MMR vaccine, and thimerosol, the mercury-based compound that is used as a preservative in many vaccines. Wikipedia, always a supporter of the conventional medical establishment, goes along with these denials.

    'Many causes of autism have been proposed, but understanding of the theory of causation of autism and the other autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is incomplete. Research indicates that genetic factors predominate. The heritability of autism, however, is complex, and it is typically unclear which genes are responsible. In rare cases, autism is strongly associated with agents that cause birth defects. Many other causes have been proposed, such as childhood immunizations, but numerous epidemiological studies have shown no scientific evidence supporting any link between vaccinations and autism.'

Most sources of information about autism follow this conventional medical line, and come up with similarly unsatisfactory explanations about the causes of autism. More than any other illness there is a complete denial that vaccines have played any part in causing the autism epidemic we have witnessed in recent decades, and which continues to grow.     

     'However, one of the leading conventional medical authorities, CDC (Centers for Disease Control) were forced to admit that there was no scientific proof that vaccines do not cause autism, conceding that reassurances to parents that childhood vaccines don't cause autism was not based on any scientific evidence."


Although this was written several years ago nothing has changed. It would appear that however serious the autism epidemic becomes, conventional medicine will continue to deny that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines might be the cause. The CME is in complete denial, and this has serious consequences for the children of the future, and the parents who are not being told about the possible/like association.

Complete denial is a position the CME adopts when other chronic diseases, like those mentioned here, becomes epidemic.

  • We don't know what causes it, but it definitely isn't us! 

As long as the CME sticks to this stance it will continue to cause an increase in autism (not to mention other chronic diseases), AND it will remain incapable of developing any relevant response or treatment. 

So the Autism epidemic is likely only to get progressively worse!

Thursday 5 May 2022

Covid-19 Vaccines. Increased Illness and Death since their introduction. Misinformation? Cause for concern? Or a matter for the attention of conventional medical authorities?

The increase in illness and death since the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out has been widely publicised in the non-mainstream media in recent months.

Is it true?

The mainstream media, alongside governments and the conventional medical establishment either do not mention this, or dismiss such reports as "fake news" or "misinformation".

Yet is it misinformation? And is calling such reports 'misinformation' a sufficient response?

At the centre of this 'disinformation' campaign has been the Daily Expose, and here are just four links to some of their recent claims.

Covid-19 Vaccines increase risk of miscarriage by 1518%

Covid-19 Vaccines: study shows they have increased risk of stroke by 11361% 

Death rates are higher after mass vaccinations

Covid-19 increase risk of death by 4800%

Each article refers to data that has been taken from government and official medical sources, and the statistical analysis of this data has been undertaken by Daily Expose staff. It is not alone. There are many other such reports, coming from the Children's Health Defense, the White Rose, the Daily Sceptic, the Vaccine Reaction, and many others.

So is this all about statistics? - "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"?

I am not a statistician, and in all honesty statistics usually leave me cold. So what am I, indeed all of us, to believe? Several thoughts pass through my mind when I see these, and similar articles. 

  • It could be disinformation, like governments, medical authorities, and the mainstream media tell us.
  • It could be the application of an inaccurate or misguided statistical analysis. 
  • Or it could be the truth. 

Yet to determine whether such reports are factor fiction, we would all need to have an advanced degree in statistics in order to examine the methodology that is being used! The only other alternative is to decide, like most other people do, that it would be simpler to dismiss these alarming reports as 'misinformation', to meekly accept what we are being told - and get on with it.

I don't believe we should do this. Instead, I recommend using certain other criteria to ascertain the truth.

First, we should "follow the money". Who gains from, what are the vested interests behind, both sides of this argument? 

  • The 'misinformation' response is clearly in the interests of the conventional medical establishment, not least the drug companies, and those those who have been promoting, and benefiting from the promotion the mass vaccination campaigns. 
  • It is more difficult to see how the Daily Expose benefits, financially or in any other way, from publishing this information. They are small, independent news organisation with a relatively small readerships. They are not large companies that generates large sums of money and income from such reports, their findings are not profitable.

So let's examine the 'disinformation' response in more detail. Why is it disinformation? Why should it be summarily dismissed? 

And it is when I ask these questions that I become sceptical of the 'misinformation responses  of the conventional medical establishment - it is not an argument - it is not backed up by an explanation - or by any discernable counter argument. Just dismissing something as 'disinformation' seems to be nothing more than an uncorroborated statement of denial.

When faced with evidence/allegations that the Covid-19 vaccines have caused serious harm to people there appears to be little (actually no) explanation or argument coming from either the pharmaceutical industry, the government, conventional medicine, or the mainstream media, about why the evidence is 'misinformation'. 

  • Is the data being used incorrect or inaccurate?
  • And if so, why?
  • Is the statistical analysis being use to reach these conclusions flawed? 
  • And if so, why?
  • Or do we just have to believe that it is "misinformation" because we are told it is misinformation!

When something like a vaccine, or any other pharmaceutical drug, is subject to criticism or attack an appropriate response would be to counter this with information and evidence. Instead, we are greeted with a deafening silence; and if not silence, with a single-word dismissal.


Wednesday 4 May 2022

Singulair. How long does it take Pharmaceutical Medicine to identify and take action against a dangerous drug?

I have written this blog many times! Same words, same arguments, just another pharmaceutical drug! The story goes like this:

  • a drug is approved by drug regulators as 'safe' and 'effective',
  • thereafter it is prescribed to 1,000's of patients, who suffer harm because it is not safe,
  • the drug regulators know but do nothing, they permit doctors to continue prescribing it,
  • the patients are not told about the harm the drug causes, and more patients are harmed,
  • only after many years, often many decades, is action taken against the drug to protect patients.

This story has be repeated time and time again during the past 70 years. The latest is the allergy/asthma drug, Singulair (montelukast) is not unique, just another drug in a long line of drugs to slowly progress to withdrawal, or a ban. Here are the facts.

Singulair was first approved 1998. The approval of any drug by any drug regulator (whose primary task is to protect patients) means that the regulators consider the drug to be both safe and effective.

Singulair obtained further approval as treatment for "exercise induced asthma" in 2008. So presumably drug regulators still considered the drug to be "safe" and "effective".

However, Singulair has been known to cause very serious adverse health reactions for a very long time, as outlined in this website. The 'side effects' listed here show just how dangerous this drug is - a drug that is still approved by drug regulators around the world.

Yet these adverse drug reactions, known for over 20 years now, have made little difference. As usual, dangerous drugs are allowed to be prescribed by the conventional medical establishment to patients even when they know perfectly that the drug is causing serious patient harm throughout the world.

It was not until March 2020 that the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added a 'black box' warning, the agency’s strongest label warning, for "serious mental health side effects".

This means that patients have been allowed by the conventional medical establishment to take Singulair for over 20 years before any serious attempt was made to inform patients of its dangers. During this time  many thousands of patients have been seriously harmed - most of them believing that the drug doctors had prescribed for them were be safe and effective.

And the situation continues. Singulair remains in use. Doctors were 'warned' by the Black Box, but the drug was neither withdrawn, or banned; doctors can still prescribe it.

So now lawsuits have been filed in USA.

            "... plaintiffs, including the parents of children who suffered psychiatric disorders after taking Singulair, are filing lawsuits that accuse Merck of designing a defective drug, negligence and failure to warn about the risk of mental problems."

As I have said many times before, the implications of this situation are important for us all to consider.

No-one can assume, at any time, that any prescribed pharmaceutical drug, or any vaccine, is safe.

I will no doubt be writing this blog again, many times in the future! Same words, same arguments, another pharmaceutical drug!

Friday 29 April 2022

Conventional Medical Treatment. Why is there growing dissatisfaction amongst patients?

People have had a love affair with pharmaceutical medicine for many years. We have been led to believe it is the route to good health. The UK's NHS has been a much loved institution since it was first established in 1948, and conventional medicine continues to dominate health provision in health provision all over the world, with constant demands for more funding. 

Yet is public approval now beginning to falter?

The approval of conventional, or pharmaceutical medicine has survived despite escalating levels of chronic disease over the years, and now running at epidemic levels. It has survived despite thousands of pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines, presented initially as 'entirely safe', and 'game changers' in the treatment of this, or that illness, being 'banned' or 'withdrawn' when they were found to cause patient harm. When the drug did not make patients better, regardless of being put on these unsafe drugs for their entire lifetime, pharmaceutical medicine has continued to remain popular.

Yet will conventional medicine survive after its abject failure to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic? Will more people start to realise that our love of affair with conventional medicine has been misplaced, that pharmaceutical medicine is of limited value, and a demonstrable record of failure? 

We have been told since 2020 that government policies on Covid-19 (in most countries of the world) have been based the best 'medical science' available. Yet an increasing number of people can now see that these policies, the policies advocated by conventional medicine, have been a disaster.

  • The Virus: the Covid-19 virus was probably engineered in a research laboratory in Wuhan, China, and although this was initially denied, the suggestion is now more widely accepted, and evidence is accumulating.
  • Masks: there has never been any science to support the wearing of masks as a protection against Covid-19; yet despite actually being told this in the early days of the pandemic, they were subsequently made compulsory.
  • Lockdown: the failure of lockdown policies is demonstrable, as are its negative outcomes - on mental health, on child development and education, on jobs and livelihoods, on the economy, on personal liberty, and much else. Now (after more than two years) these failures are now being discussed.
  • The Vaccines: the vaccines have clearly not worked, in the way we were told they would work. They have neither stopped the vaccinated contracting the virus, nor prevented the transmission of the virus. Moreover, the Covid-19 vaccines have caused more serious harm, and death to patients, than any other vaccine in the history of vaccinations.

Throughout the Covid-19 saga we have been urged to "save the NHS", as if the pandemic was a greater threat to the institution, and to the pharmaceutical drugs to which it is committed, than to patients! Actually, it probably was! In Britain we were urged to stand on the street, night after night, to applaud NHS staff, alongside rainbow and 'thank-you' signs to illustrate the reason for the applause. 

Now, there is a growing understanding that the fear and panic over the virus was largely induced by conventional medicine (with the unstinting support of government and the mainstream media), that the harm caused by the virus was grossly exaggerated, and that the Covid-19 virus has proven to be no more of a threat to us than any other seasonal influenza outbreak.

The applause often reminded me of the Soviet-styled clapping of political leaders, the engineered worship of a powerful (but a failing and increasingly absurd) political elite.

To an extent the applause was understandable. My issue is not with NHS staff, it is with the medicine to which the NHS is now totally committed. The staff were on the front life, they were responsible for for looking after very sick and dying patients, and the manufactured panic did seem genuine enough to most people at the time.

Yet there are now signs that confidence in conventional medicine is might now be changing. Public satisfaction with the NHS has fallen to the lowest levels for over 25 years. So what has caused the change?

The King's Fund has recently published "Public satisfaction with the NHS and social care in 2021: results from the British Social Attitudes survey". This has shown that overall satisfaction with the NHS fell to 36%, which they described as "an unprecedented 17 percentage point decrease on 2020". This was the lowest level of satisfaction recorded since 1997, when satisfaction was just 34%. More people (41%) were dissatisfied with the NHS than satisfied, and this dissatisfaction was spanned all ages, income groups, sexes and supporters of different political parties.

The reason for dissatisfaction with the NHS did not identify the failure of the medical system.The main reason people gave for being dissatisfied were waiting times for seeing a doctor, and for hospital appointments (65%), staff shortages (46%) and the long-held view that government did not spend enough on the NHS (40%). I suspect that more fundamental but unvoiced concerns have emerged over recent years.

I have heard much cynicism from erstwhile supporters of the NHS about the way Covid-19 was dealt with. There has certainly been a gap between (i) what we were told and (ii) what actually happened. For instance, when the vaccines were about to be introduced, in December 2020, we were told that they would save us, and return us back to normal life by February. Remember? The first single injection would improve the situation. Then we were asked to have a second dose. Then a booster. Then a second booster. And now we are being told that we will need to have boosters every 6 months for the foreseeable future, according to one UK government health agency.

With each injection, take up rates reduced. Fewer people were prepared to take more. This was probably because people realised the the Covid-19 vaccines were causing serious harm to patients. What other reason could there be? Even one manufacturer, Pfizer, knew about the harm their vaccine might cause. The public have not been told about this, by government, by doctors, or by the mainstream media. But when someone is damaged they think twice before getting a second, a third, and a fourth vaccine.

So there is little wonder that people are having increasing doubts about how 'scientific' conventional medicine is, and whether doctors and the NHS can be trusted. A rash of recent articles has outlined the new scepticism. The BMJ recently published an article entitled "The illusion of evidence-based medicine". The Daily Expose published an article entitled "Modern Medicine - a castle built on sand". CHD has published at article entitled "How politics corruption evidence-based medicine". And the Vaccine Reaction has published an article entitled "Trust in CDC waning".

Even the Spectator is moving into these more critical areas. The 'inescapable' conclusion of their article "The NHS is failing" is that when you compare the NHS to other similar health services in similar countries around the world the it does not merit our devotion.

            "While MPs compete to shout the loudest in their support of the UK’s health services (‘save our NHS!’), the British public has fallen out of love with it. More people are now dissatisfied with the NHS than are happy with it. This is true across all ages, income groups, sexes and voters of different political parties. Support for the NHS is now at the lowest level for a quarter of a century."

The Spectator article is written by Tim Knox, former director of the Centre for Policy Studies. He compared the NHS with the health provision in 19 other countries so it is basically a comparison of health service outcomes in other wealthy countries, all of which have a health service which is dominated by conventional/pharmaceutical medicine. It indicates that the NHS compares badly. So, for example, life expectancy in the UK is 17th out of these 19 comparable nations. 

            "Our cancer survival rates are shockingly low. We are the worst for strokes and heart attacks. We are one from bottom for preventing treatable diseases. We are third from bottom for infant mortality."

The article concludes that our health system is less successful than that of other nations, that in all comparisons used, the UK comes bottom of the league tables four times (more than any other country) and is in the bottom 3 nations for 8 out of the 16 measures.

Knox's article also makes the another important point, that the amount of money spent on conventional medicine makes little difference to patient outcomes. He looked at the American insurance based model as a possible alternative for the NHS, but found that although the USA spends considerably more money on conventional medicine than any other nation, patient outcomes were even worse.

            "If there is one country that clearly has a worse system than the UK, it is America. Extraordinarily low life expectancy, vast costs and often poor treatment means that it would be a crazy model to imitate. But that doesn’t mean we should discount an insurance model altogether. Plenty of European and western countries are able to effectively use such a model without the massive health failures we see in the US."

So criticism and dissatisfaction of conventional medical provision may be growing, but not to the point that the underlying cause of the failure of NHS medicine has been identified. 

The NHS is NOT failing because it is failing to use its resources as well as other comparable countries. Or because the insurance system, or some other type of organisational structure might be better that a tax-payer funded NHS service. There is a continued reluctance to identify what really underlies patient dissatisfaction - that the failure is the result of the pharmaceutical medical system that dominates the health service provided by the NHS, and health provision in most other countries.

Yet if patient dissatisfaction is increasing so rapidly it is difficult to see how the NHS can recover from a growing cynicism. Chronic disease, of all types, is on a steep rising trajectory. We are getting sicker, and conventional medicine is not making us better. Indeed, adverse drug reactions are making us more sick year by year. And for several decades now conventional medicine has failed to come up with any new treatments that are likely to overcome the ever-increasing levels of sickness and disease.

With waiting lists now at their highest ever levels, over 6 million people; and with projections that this could get far worse (as many as 14 million people suggested here) the cynicism is unlikely to improve.

Even the mainstream media is feeling obliged to publish details of this growing dissatisfaction with the NHS. What this means is that it will not be long before more and more people realise that it is conventional or pharmaceutical medicine that is failing. It is not funding, or the organisational structure, or the efficient use of resources. Then the rising dissatisfaction will be redirected, and is likely to increase even more. 

In the next few years we are heading rapidly towards medical chaos and breakdown.


Postscript May 2022

Patient satisfactions with doctors hits record low as face-to-face consultations become the exception.