Covid-19 Vaccines: have two vaccines already been banned? And are we allowed to know?

The original blog was deleted by Blogger because, they said, it violated their "community guidelines". If so Blogger is a censorship organisation that tries to stop people knowing about the withdrawal of two Covid-19 vaccines. This is a re-writing of that blog that emphasises this point.


I have heard (!) that two Covid-19 vaccines have now been withdrawn from the market because they were unsafe, and no-one wanted to buy them, or take them. The two vaccines had much in common:

• they were both described by the Pharmaceutical Establishment, and Medical Science, as “safe and effective”,
• national drug regulatory bodies were prepared to approve them, if only for 'emergency use',
• government, the mainstream media, and the conventional medical establishment combined for over 3 years to repeat their 'Narrative' which persistently urged us to take the vaccines,

• Governments, including the British government tried to mandate both these vaccines, that is, they tried to force people who wished to remain "vaccine free" to take them,
• the mainstream media constantly castigate and dismissed as denying "medical science", "vaccine deniers", "disinformation peddlers", and "conspiracy theorists", anyone who declined to take the vaccines. 


The AstraZeneca vaccine was the one given to most British citizens in 2021. The company (fairly quietly) dropped the vaccine in 2022, they claimed on commercial grounds (thr AZ vaccine was never approved in the USA and several other countries; it was effectively banned in a number of European countries, and was no longer being used in the UK). Another 'commercial' reason could be that the AZ vaccine is now subject to a large number of compensation claims by patients who have been damaged by the vaccine. Such claims, of course, will be strongly contested by government (who will have to pay any compensation awarded), and the pharmaceutical industry (who have been given immunity from any liability). Here are some of my sources to this information (which perhaps Blogger might like to confirm).

• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68977026
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-withdraw-blood-clots-b2541291.html
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/07/astrazeneca-withdrawing-covid-vaccine/
• https://news.sky.com/story/astrazeneca-starts-worldwide-withdrawal-of-covid-vaccine-13131585

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was given to 19 million USA citizens before it was (even more silently) withdrawn from the market in June 2023. Here are some references to this withdrawal

• https://www.reuters.com/article/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-revokes-emergency-use-authorization-for-jjs-covid-vaccine-idUSKBN2XN3UM/
• https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/15/health/johnson-johnson-covid-vaccine-end/index.html
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-05/fda-revokes-authorization-of-j-j-s-unpopular-covid-vaccine
• https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/06/j-fda-revokes-authorization/
• https://www.fda.gov/media/169003/download
  

Again, if these references to the withdrawal of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine are in any way incorrect, then I confirm that Blogger has every right to take down this blog.
 
However, if these reports are correct little more needs to be said, except perhaps that most people who took these vaccines throughout the world remain blissfully unaware of the patient harm about the harm that these dangerous pharmaceutical drugs have caused. It is, therefore, legitimate to ask,

• How many people actually know that these two Covid-19 vaccines have been withdrawn?
• How many people have been damaged by these vaccines, and remain unaware of what caused serious harm to their health?
• How many people will continue to accept the other Covid-19 vaccines, still available, because they have not been informed of their dangers?
  

And Blogger needs to ask itself whether these people have a right to know the fate of these two Covid-19 vaccines: or whether they should censor the information on their platform.

And it is important to note that the strident Covid-19 vaccine 'Narrative' goes on, albeit more quietly, less insistently than before. Government, mainstream media, and conventional medical authorities like the NHS in Britain, continues to offer annual Covid-19 'boosters', presumably on the basis that the Covid-19 vaccines are "safe and effective". If so, their position can be described as a triumph of hope over experience!

However, their position is worse than this. What we are facing here is massive dishonesty. I have written in more detail about this dishonesty many time previously on this blog, and elsewhere. I have always provided evidence of this dishonesty, for example at this link.

So I continue to insist on saying we have a medical system that is dominated and controlled by a pharmaceutical industry that has proven itself to be fundamentally dishonest, fraudulent and corrupt.

Blogger will have to decide for itself whether it supports arguments that are fully backed-up with clear and obvious evidence.

A Health Debate: "disinformation", "anti-vaxxer", "conspiracy theorist"

Twelve years ago I wrote a series of 7 article that argued we needed a serious health debate. The problem in having such a debate, since then and before, has been that one side, the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment (PME), has not wanted to take part in any such discussion. And since the so-called Covid-19 pandemic their refusal to engage has been considerably worse.

Instead the PME has done its best to close down all discussion on important health issues. One of its principle weapons to end debate has been the simple strategy of using certain dismissive words/phrases - such as "disinformation", "anti-vaxxer", "conspiracy theorist", et al.

All these terms are used to stand down discussion on the basis that the best form of defence is attack! The best way of avoiding discussion is to disparage and dismiss anyone, and everyone who disagrees with you.

Essentially, this position happens mainly when one side of an argument, usually the dominant side, but which, for whatever reason, is losing the argument. Why risk a discussion when it might risk undermining the power dynamic, the status quo? It happens regularly, for instance, when a politician, ahead in the polls, refuses to debate with an election rival. It happens when an employee asks an employer for a raise.

Yet it has become commonplace within the field of health, dominated by an immensely powerful pharmaceutical industry. Why should the medical establishment want to risk its dominance? Why should it waste time on anyone who has the audacity to suggest that their drugs and vaccines are neither "safe or effective"? Why should they engage with anyone who suggests that diet and exercise are more important than popping their pills? And there is certainly nothing to gain from speaking to anyone who believes in natural medical therapies, like homeopathy.

So shut down discussion by dismissing all such people who are spreading "disinformation", "anti-vaxxers", or "conspiracy theorists". End of argument, end of discussion.

One ongoing problems is that whilst these terms are used by an elite they are picked up by those who have a closed mind, or those who do not want to consider anything outside what they are being told. Conventional wisdom rules! Leave things as they are. We are busy people, we have other matters to deal with. Those in power must surely know best; they are the experts.

Perhaps the use of "conspiracy theory" is the worst of these repudiating terms. After all there are some very peculiar, even laughable conspiracy theories, ranging from the Flat Earth Society, to Holocaust denial, to fake moon landings, to the assassination of J.F. Kennedy, and the destruction of the twin towers in 9/11.

Yet if and when we come across any of these alleged conspiracy theories it is incumbent upon each of us to consider them, and make up our own minds about their validity. We should not dismiss any one of these, completely out of hand! We should examine the evidence, we should listen to both sides of the argument and reach our own conclusions. This is what intelligent, informed people do.

This is especially important when it comes to health issues. Whether the earth is flat, or the Holocaust did not happen, etc., etc., they are not relevant to our day-to-day lives. They may be interesting, but they are not of immediate concern to our future lives. Health is relevant to each one of us, right now, today, tomorrow - and the medical treatment that we are offered and accept can have a devastating affect on our future wellbeing.

The PME has been telling us for over 200 years that their drugs and vaccines are “safe and effective”, that they have overcome, even vanquished many former 'killer' diseases. Indeed, in the last 4-5 years we have been pummelled with these argument regarding the Covid-19 virus. It was a dangerous pandemic that would kill millions, only the vaccine could save us, and then only if we all took it. And no contrary view or argument being allowed to interfere with the pharmaceutical narrative.

So much of what most people believe and understand about health, and medical treatment, comes entirely from pharmaceutical promotion, and this system of medicine's very specific approach to health. Alternative views are not well known or understood, not least because neither government, conventional medicine, or the mainstream media, are prepared to discuss them with us.

For most people, the health debate is just not happening. The pharmaceutical message reigns supreme, largely unchallenged, dismissed as "misinformation". 

And this at a time when national health services, around the world, are being "broken" by unprecedented epidemics of chronic sickness and disease.

The result is that all our politicians can think of doing is to throw yet more money at the same, old, failed pharmaceutical medical treatment!

Loosening the Grip of Pharmaceutical Medicine on our Health Services

When we seek out health services, in most countries of the world, we will almost inevitably get some form of pharmaceutical, drug-based medicine, delivered by medical staff who are totally committed to the idea that drugs and vaccines will (i) maintain our health, and (ii) return us to health when sick. This is certainly so in Britain, where the NHS now provides pharmaceutical medicine with a complete monopoly.

For a growing number of people this is unsatisfactory. It is not conducive to health freedom and patient choice where each individual ican choose the medical treatment we wish to have. Even if the NHS was dominated by Homeopathy, or Ayuveda, or any other natural therapy, it would be the same - not everyone wants to use the same medical treatment - and most people would like to know about the options available to them, their safety, and their effectiveness.

The basis on which a medical monopoly that has been awarded to pharmaceutical medicine is the subject of an article by the Alliance for Natural Health, which is a supporter of informed choice in the provision of health services. The article, Loosening Big Pharma's Grip on our Health, asked whether there needed to be more or less regulation of health services in response to this market dominance of a single medical system. It discussed the 'rigged' market in health, it made a distinction between Government and Market regulation, and looked at the costs of Big Pharmas current monopoly. It is a thoughtful article that ANH asks to be widely circulated - so I have reproduced the article in full here.

    "Drugs made by one of the largest and most profitable industries in the world - with 80 years of experience behind it - appear to have had little impact on curbing spiraling rates of chronic disease. Healthcare systems are at breaking point and most governments and politicians seem to studiously avoid pointing out what seems so obvious to so many of us.

Mainstream medical systems rely heavily on expensive, often dangerous, drugs to treat symptoms rather than targeting the underlying causes of disease. This pill-for-an ill, drug dominated model that’s driven by crony capitalism comes at a massive cost to both individuals and society.

At the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), we’re dedicated to challenging this broken system and advocating for a healthcare approach based on sound principles and ethics, rooted in prevention, natural health options, and the freedom to make informed choices. It is our hope that a new political landscape that is supportive of natural health will unfold, at least in the US, when the Trump-Vance Administration takes the reins in 2025, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in an influential role.

Pharmaceuticals are tightly regulated. But for whose benefit?

A rigged market in healthcare

While markets are often criticised for being profit-driven, they also provide a powerful regulatory mechanism. When markets are free, competition ensures that businesses, regardless of their motivations, must consider the needs of their customers and employees. Selfish business owners can’t thrive unless they deliver real value. In a truly free market, a company that ignores its customers’ needs or disregards safety concerns will ultimately fail. But for this self-regulating system to work, it must operate independently—without interference that protects bad actors.

The healthcare industry does not operate in a free market, but rather in one that is highly regulated, the regulations having been carefully tailored to Big Pharma’s interests, not those of citizens. The result is that Big Pharma enjoys a protected monopoly that it has built over decades through its revolving doors with government agencies, notably the FDA. In a system where the rules of the game are rigged in favor of FDA-approved drugs, it’s no wonder that natural health options—like dietary supplements, lifestyle changes, and preventive care—are marginalised. Instead of being held accountable by market forces, Big Pharma thrives on government interventions that limit competition and create massive profit margins.

Government Regulation vs. Market Regulation

Many assume that government regulation is necessary to protect public health and safety, but regulations often fall short. Ponder this: If drugs require regulation to ensure their safety, effectiveness and quality—these being the three pillars of drug regulation—how come properly prescribed drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer, and that most drugs don’t work in most people? With Big Pharma’s tentacles so deep into regulatory agencies, transparency so compromised that crucial data are routinely hidden from public view, and conflicts of interest rampant in ways that sway judgment, objectivity and the opportunity to work in patients’ best interests, should we really expect Big Pharma to be the trusted custodian of our health?  

Consider that nearly half of the FDA’s budget comes from the drug industry in the form of user fees—the money Big Pharma pays the FDA for drug approval. Then there’s the revolving door between Big Pharma and the FDA, where many FDA officials use their time at the agency as a stepping stone to more lucrative employment in the sector they are meant to oversee. Is it any wonder that the FDA has repeatedly attacked and undermined the natural health sector?

Clearly, Big Pharma’s monopoly power comes not from free-market success but from political protectionism. Without government intervention propping up its control, Big Pharma wouldn’t stand a chance against natural health alternatives. These alternatives include inexpensive nutrients and herbs delivered as supplements that build resilience and prevent disease, and changes to conventional dietary and lifestyle norms that are plunging huge numbers ever deeper into metabolic disease. A sick child is the most precious asset to Big Pharma which can then hope for a lifetime’s worth of income from that individual.

The industry profits when people are chronically ill, relying on drugs to manage conditions rather than resolving them. Statins and the latest skinny jab, semaglutide (trade names Ozempic and Wegovy), are examples of long burn wins for Big Pharma.

In a true free market, these pharmaceutical monopolies would be exposed to competition from safer, preventive options, ultimately benefiting public health.

Big Pharma’s Monopoly and Its Costs

The cash flow made possible by monopolies allows pharmaceutical companies to influence politicians and medical societies, as well as steer the direction of medical research. The end result is a healthcare system where patients and practitioners alike are funneled into a drug-dependent approach, ignoring or actively discouraging preventive solutions that could improve quality of life and reduce healthcare costs.

Imagine a world where governments stopped propping up these monopolies. A natural health solution like diet, exercise, or a range of dietary supplements that could become the preferred choice over expensive, side-effect-laden drugs. Consumers could choose health solutions that are more in line with their personal values, budgets, and well-being goals. Commercial speech wouldn’t be constrained in ways that prevent companies from providing truthful information to the public. Big Pharma’s reliance on government regulation and monopoly pricing would collapse, and the market would then do what it does best: encourage quality and innovation by responding directly to consumers’ needs. Like nature, the fittest or best products would flourish in the marketplace, the ineffective ones would fail, and companies that sold products that were dangerous, if the risks were not adequately communicated, could be sued—rather than being protected by government or law (in the case of vaccines) as they are today.

Backroom deals are rarely for the benefit of patients and the public.

A New Approach for True Health Freedom

ANH believes that natural health freedom is only possible in a system where government power doesn’t create or sustain monopolies. People deserve access to preventive healthcare options that aren’t crowded out by a system that prioritises profit over wellness. A free market in healthcare would pave the way for greater transparency, accountability, and choice, empowering individuals to take charge of their health with natural and preventive options.

Ending Big Pharma’s monopoly on our health isn’t a matter of simply “deregulating”; it’s about ending the crony capitalism that keeps monopolies alive. Removing these artificial supports would allow for real competition in healthcare, enabling natural health options to thrive, lowering healthcare costs, and improving outcomes.

The healthcare revolution we need isn’t a top-down, regulatory-heavy approach. It’s a move toward real freedom, with health freedom being central. That’s because our health—for most people anyway (even if it isn’t always recognised until it’s lost)—is our most important asset. With a free market, individuals and patients have access to the health solutions of their choice, free from interference by captured government agencies and the media.

At ANH, we’re fighting to protect this freedom and support for health systems where disease prevention, natural health choices and unalienable rights are not only respected, but facilitated and encouraged. The endgame? Human vitality and flourishing."

 

Perhaps more than any other organisation of which I am aware, the ANH adopts the most intelligent and considered approach to the important concepts of health freedom and patient choice. I recommend that everyone supports them in their work.

 

Autoimmune Disease. The Cause of Serious Illness and Disease. The Dilemma of Pharmaceutical Medicine

Our immune system keeps us well, free from illness and disease. At least this is what all natural medical therapies believe, and what Conventional Medicine used to tell us. But Conventional Medicine now seems increasingly to want to distance itself from this understanding. It now seems intent to devalue our confidence in the immune system. Rob Verkerk PhD, founder, Alliance for Natural Health, described our immune system thus:

   “Our immune systems, a complex network of organs, cells and proteins, work tirelessly, every millisecond of every day, defending our bodies from infection, protecting our own cells, as well as the microbes our bodies decide are good for us. This is an incredibly complex and skilful operation that we tend to take for granted—until it stops working as it should.”

Autoimmune Disease

I awoke recently to yet another "ground-breaking medical treatment", this time for Lupus. Read about it here, in this ITV article, 'Groundbreaking trial offers new lupus treatment'. Conventional medicine prides itself in its ability to diagnose serious illnesses and diseases, like Lupus, however when it come to identifying causation it is much less confident. When I was writing my Iatrogenic Disease e-Book I discovered so many serious illnesses and diseases where Conventional Medicine states, very clearly, that the cause was "unknown" or "uncertain"; and goes on to offer either (i) no causal reason, (ii) a description of what is happening, see here for example, or more recently blames (iii) our genetics, or the failure of our immune system, and similar.

One example of this failure to distinguish between 'description' and 'causation' can be found in most conventional medical explanations of Alzheimer's Disease. This is how the British NHS website described the 'cause' of Alzheimer's Disease.

        "Alzheimer's disease is thought to be caused by the abnormal build-up of proteins in and around brain cells. One of the proteins involved is called amyloid, deposits of which form plaques around brain cells. The other protein is called tau, deposits of which form tangles within brain cells".

The formation of "plaques" and "tangles" in the chemistry of the brain is NOT the cause of the disease. The healthy brain does not have them, so the cause would describe why those "plaques" and "tangles" formed in the first place. I have written about many more examples of conventional medicine using 'description' as a 'cause' here.

This is a real problem for conventional medicine - because without knowing the cause of illness it cannot possible hope to treat it successfully.

The ITV article on lupus, above, also provided no causal explanation of lupus, just an unsupported, un-evidenced statement that it is an 'autoimmune disease'. This is what the British NHS website tells us about its cause.

        "(Lupus) is an autoimmune condition, which means it is caused by problems with the immune system. For reasons not yet understood, the immune system in people with (lupus) starts to attack and inflame healthy cells, tissue and organs".

So this is not even a description of lupus masquerading as the cause! It is an unsubstantiated statement of a cause - one which offers no explanation as to why the immune system has acted in this way; it even admits that it does not know why it has acted in this way!

Conventional medicine now routinely underestimates, or even dismisses the role of our immune system, whose job has always been to ensure that the body is functioning normally, free of illness. If it is not functioning properly, something is wrong, something is causing it!

Infection is often used as a 'cause' of illness: it's the germ, bacteria, or virus that causes the illness. Or could it be that the germ is the result of a condition, something we find, in over-abundance, in an already sick patient? If it is the cause, why has the immune system been able to recognise and deal with it? Natural medicine understands that it is a compromised immune system that causes illness. The bacteria or virus is one that usually co-exists with us, part of us, we are made up of 'germs', with whom we usually live in harmony.

Autoimmune disease goes one stage further in conventional medicine's understanding of causation. The immune system is turning in on itself, it is "too active". So why has it decided to harm rather than protect us? Conventional medicine does not have explanation. Wikipedia's explanation of autoimmune diseases demonstrates this:

        "The exact causes of autoimmune diseases remain unclear and are likely multifactorial, involving both genetic and environmental influences. While some diseases like lupus exhibit familial aggregation, suggesting a genetic predisposition, other cases have been associated with infectious triggers or exposure to environmental factors, implying a complex interplay between genes and environment in their etiology".

It is these 'genetic' explanations of autoimmune disease that has led to the the new 'ground breaking' method of treating Lupus - leading to the "genetic engineering of cells".

        "The therapy works by genetically modifying cells to enable the body’s own immune system to recognise and attack problem cells, offering people a possible cure".

However, yet again, the proper response should have been to ask another question - why is the immune system doing this? What has caused the immune system to malfunction? Is the genetics of cells responsible for the condition? If it is not the cause, it might not be any part of the solution!

Could it just possible be pharmaceutical drugs? The result of more "adverse drug reactions"? Are 'autoimmune diseases' really iatrogenic? Conventional medicine already knows that many of its pharmaceutical drugs cause autoimmune diseases, notably antibiotics, painkillers, anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, as wel as most vaccines. So, in order to prevent and treat autoimmune diseases, like lupus, would it not be more sensible to look at these drugs as, at least, part of the causation?

There is a group of pharmaceutical drugs called "immunosuppressants"? Their name provides a clue to the impact they have on the body. They suppress the immune system! And if the immune system is suppressed we get ill! Even conventional medicine knows this. It really is as simple as this! Most explanations of the role of these immunosuppressants drugs are similar, but this is taken from the Cleveland Clinic, and is perhaps the most honest about their usage, and the impact on the immune system.

        "Immunosuppressants are drugs that prevent your immune system from attacking healthy cells and tissues by mistake. Healthcare providers prescribe immunosuppressants to treat certain autoimmune diseases and prevent organ or stem cell transplant rejection. These medications also increase your risk of infection because your immune system isn’t working as it should".

Conventional medicine appears to be somewhat confused. It believes that the immune system is 'overactive' and attacks 'healthy cells and tissues by mistake'. It does not say why the immune system is making such mistakes! So drugs are used that suppress the immune system - they admit that this increases the risk of infection 'because your immune system isn't working as it should'. So the immune system is now suppressed, it is not overactive.

Conventional, drug-based medicine has done something that it always does - it has interfered with the normal functioning of the body.

We should note that Conventional Medicine never evidences why the immune system has become 'overactive'. Usually most websites just make a statement - that the immune system can be overactive, and that certain diseases (more than 120 of them) are caused by its inability to recognise 'the good' from 'the bad'. Statements are not evidence! At best the idea of an 'over-active immune system' is an opinion, a theory.   

This 'pain assist' website tries to inform us about the cause of an over-active immune system - but again fails to do so.

        "The exact cause of overactive immune system is not clearly understood but certain factors are known to precipitate it. Genetic changes can be one of the major reasons of autoimmune diseases. There can be various other factors such as stress, hormonal changes, infections and chemical toxic that could lead to these problems".

The Cleveland Clinic website is no more informative, and under the heading "Causes of an over-active immune system states that:

        "Doctors still don't know exactly why the immune system sometimes fails. But there are clues to how it happens. The immune system is an integrated network that’s hard-wired into your central nervous system.... so, when it’s healthy, everything works automatically. But things go haywire when the system starts to crumble. For example, if you don’t sleep well and get stressed out, your body will produce more of the stress hormone cortisol. Over time, high cortisol levels can have a degenerative effect on your body. Healthy bone and muscle break down and slow the healing process. Cortisol can interfere with digestion and metabolism, as well as adversely affecting your mental functions”.

So once again conventional medicine is making claims about disease causation, that it is a faulty immune system, but without giving us any evidence, or being able to say what is causing the fault. Is there really such a thing as an 'overactive' immune system? Or is it just an excuse, an attempt to deflect the real cause?

The cause of a malfunction immune system is most likely to be pharmaceutical drugs. Perhaps it is just too embarrassing for conventional medicine to admit this. Or perhaps the pharmaceutical industry is just so powerful within conventional medicine that our doctors dare not do so.

Disease Epidemics. Robert F Kennedy and his policy objectives. And Britains Mainstream Media

The appointment of Robert F Kennedy to head the Health and Human Services (HHS) administration in the USA has come with the usual criticism from the British mainstream media, not least BBC News, who dismissed him gratuitously as "an anti-vaxxer", a supporter of "conspiracy theories", and much else.

I was going to blog about this but then read this article by Robert Malone, MD. I have his permission to share it here as it is a very good outline of what Kennedy stands for, his policy objectives, and what he hopes to achieve in office.

The article also reflects back on the honesty of the mainstream media, and their routine attacks on anyone who has the audacity to criticise pharmaceutical medicine, or to suggest that it might be responsible for some of the disease epidemics now ravaging the world - or those parts of the world dominated by drug-based medicine.

Republished by permission from the Report from Planet Earth substack by the Author, Robert Malone, MD.

        "Despite the huge amount of appropriated funds and the strenuous efforts of many individuals working in healthcare, Americans have increasingly suffered from a range of acute and chronic conditions over recent decades. As an influential member of the Trump administration, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will have the opportunity to begin a reversal of this trend. He is developing plans to revamp the Federal agencies that regulate the medical and pharmaceutical industries.

Mr. Kennedy has presented incontrovertible data about the state of our health. He says the first step towards change is reforming policies and restoring compromised government oversight.   

It will take a concerted effort to convert a system that has allowed an array of degrading health conditions and an avalanche of human suffering. The statistics compiled by reliable scientific sources reveal details of this staggering crisis.

• Six out of ten adults in America are living with a chronic illness. 74% of American adults are overweight or obese. Rates of kidney disease and autoimmune conditions are going up. Cancer rates among young people are rising.
•  One-third of American teens are taking a prescription drug and nearly 30% are pre-diabetic. More than 18% of adolescents have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. In 2020, 77% of young adults didn't qualify for the military based on their health scores, forcing the military to lower its standards.
• Health problems of young Americans begin at an early age even as they receive vaccines to protect them from illness. The CDC currently recommends at least 70 doses of 18 different vaccines from infancy until age eighteen, yet children have never had more acute and chronic ailments. These vaccination protocols urgently need re-evaluation.

The increasing use of prescription drugs by all Americans presents a dire warning. However, due to the unprecedented influence of lobbyists, elected representatives have allowed the pharmaceutical industry rampant freedom to sell questionable products.

Washington has not solved the problem of the revolving doors between Big Pharma and government regulators. This is the primary reason federal agencies are paralyzed by corporate interests and remain negligent in their protective roles. 

Americans are also barraged with a one-sided view about the benefits of pharmaceuticals. The United States is one of two countries in the world where prescription drugs can be advertised. This inappropriate promotional effort has a secondary consequence; news and information about pharmaceutical issues cannot be trusted when coming from networks dependent on this huge source of income.

Mr. Kennedy’s efforts to initiate meaningful change to the current system continue to be dismissed by mainstream news media. Big Pharma’s concerns about earnings overshadow what is best for patients. Profitable symptomatic drugs dominate treatment while funding research to understand the underlying causes of illness is secondary. 

Mr. Kennedy’s critique of the standards and practices that have allowed dangerous pharmaceuticals on the market is not speculative. Government oversight has become lax and needs a dramatic overhaul. An assessment of Big Pharma's motivation and practices is overdue. 

In addition to improved oversight of treatment with drugs, the causes of acute and chronic illness must also be examined.

RFK Jr. also points to the sound evidence that increasing amounts of environmental toxins are likely factors contributing to high rates of disease. While many other countries have restrictions reflecting these concerns, the government has failed to protect Americans; the United States has some of the weakest standards in the developed world.

As of 2019, the U.S. permits the use of 72 pesticides that the European Union bans. The government also allows chemicals in food and skincare that are outlawed in Europe. Some of these additives are quite common in our daily lives.

The direct relationship between exposure to toxins and well-being has been effectively obscured by the corporate interests overseeing medical care and agricultural guidelines. 

Despite growing awareness over decades that chronic diseases and acute illness are often preventable with a natural diet of fresh food free from chemicals, at least 71% of medical schools still don’t require a course in nutrition.

Dietary recommendations are coming from those swayed by corporations profiting from denatured foods. 95% of the members of a USDA panel who updated the most recent nutritional guidelines had conflicts of interest.

Financial incentives for improving diet and physical fitness must become central to the U.S. Government’s contribution to supporting a vital population.

Mr. Kennedy has rightly pointed out that the other important issues facing us today will only be resolved by making America healthy again. Considering how ill Americans are, anyone who doubts his premise that monetary interests and political corruption have driven the rise of acute and chronic disease — is supporting the continuing corruption.

The great challenge of improving the nation’s health should not be on one man’s shoulders — it is everyone’s responsibility. Any resolution of the healthcare crisis will be accomplished only by a united effort across political lines.

 

My concluding comments: If I was a USA citizen I would not support the Trump administration in most of his policies and appointments. But I can be selective, I can exercise my judgement. Most of what Robert Malone has said above is little different to what I have been saying on this blog for over 15 years now.

The mainstream media's response in Britain demonstrates that by dismissing Kennedy in the unreasoning way they have done this morning they are under the control, and probably in the pay of the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment. As Kennedy suggests! The media exercise little selectivity in what they say about anyone who does not support the conventional medical narrative, or points to the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and the patient harm they are causing, especially over the last 75 years.

So I hope that in 4 years time many more people will understand Kennedy's message, that he accomplishes most of what he has set out to achieve, and that he will open up a more open, honest and transparent health debate in the USA, in Britain, and around the world.

---

Is Dementia Preventable? The Dishonest Discussion of Disease Causation?

Why, when we consider the causation of serious illness and disease, is it rarely (if ever) associated with pharmaceutical drugs? Usually every other known cause (even the most unlikely suggestions) is mentioned - but never when drugs and vaccines are implicated?

The question arose for me when I read this article on the causation of dementia - "Almost 50% of Global Dementia may be Preventable". I have seen articles like this many times before, on many different diseases - articles that appear to be a comprehensive outline of all the known causes of a specific disease. What they all omit are well-documented facts - that pharmaceutical drugs are also a known cause. 

Shortly after reading this article I saw this "What Doctors Don't Tell You" article which does exactly the same thing. So not even WDDTY don't tell you what doctors don't tell you! That it is well known that drugs can cause dementia!

In fairness (to a magazine to which I subscribe) WDDTY did correct the situation in another article, "Dementia could be caused by Polypharmacy" in which it is said

            "Polypharmacy - taking three or more medications at the same time - could be increasing the chances of dementia. Around 82% of dementia patients are taking multiple prescription meds, say researchers from the University of Plymouth (Aging and Disease, 2022’ doi: 10.14336/AD.2022.0829). In a study of more than 33,000 dementia patients, the researchers discovered that polypharmacy was very common in the final five years before a dementia diagnosis. Around 65% of the patients were taking multiple meds for respiratory or urinary infections, rheumatism and heart disease, while a further 22% were being treated for infection, cardio-metabolic disease and depression".

It goes on to suggest that doctors "need to understand the way common drugs can impair cognition", not least as dementia cases are projected to rise to 1.6 million in the UK alone by 2040.

Yet doctors should already know that pharmaceutical drugs cause serious illness and disease as it can be seen very clearly in conventional medical literature. I have written about this before - the medical profession know full well that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines cause dementia. How? The 'Patient Information Leaflets' (PILs) that accompany every drug and vaccine packet provide warnings about the (euphemistically called) 'side effects' of drugs; and many of them are known to cause 'confusion', 'disorientation', and many other accepted symptoms of dementia.

So why is this not mentioned in the above Medscape article? And why has the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention (on which the Medscape article is based) not mentioned it either. Both these highly prestigious medical journals must be fully aware of this. The Medscape articles states:

            "Nearly half of dementia cases worldwide could theoretically be prevented or delayed by eliminating 14 modifiable risk factors during an individual's lifetime, a report from the Lancet Commission on dementia prevention, intervention, and care. The report adds two new modifiable risk factors for dementia - high cholesterol and vision loss - to the 12 risk factors identified in the 2020 Lancet Commission report, which were linked to about 40% of all dementia cases. The original Lancet Commission report, published in 2017, identified nine modifiable risk factors that were estimated to be responsible for one third of dementia cases."

So the 14 'risk factors' outlined by the Lancet Commission, and in the Medscape article, notably exclude pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. The risk factors mentioned are:

• excessive alcohol intake,
• traumatic brain injury,
• air pollution,
• not completing secondary education,
• hypertension,
• obesity,
• hearing loss,
• smoking,
• depression,
• physical inactivity,
• social isolation,
• diabetes,
• high cholesterol,
• vision loss.

So why are pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines not mentioned? Did both the Lancet and Medscape forget? Throwing the net wider, why does the mainstream media not investigate the cause of the dementia epidemic? Why is the Government not interested? Why don't more patients (and families) question the omission? As usual with the conventional medical establishment, there is absolutely no transparency or honesty.

The underlying problem is that health, and healthcare services, are controlled by powerful vested interests which I collectively call "the pharmaceutical medical establishment". This includes government, conventional healthcare organisation, national drug regulators, and the mainstream media. Together they form the main sources of information that we (patients) have about matters health issues, and they make it impossible for us to make 'informed decisions' about whether or not to take drug and vaccines. 

So there is no debate. Within the pharmaceutical medical establishment is conducting a monologue, a "Narrative" like the one to which we were subjected over the Covid-19 pandemic. It is a monologue that no-one can question because they do not have the full information. Essentially this monologue is subjecting us to pharmaceutical advertising and promotion. Moreover this is promotion of a very special nature as the drug companies are not allowed to advertise (in Britain), and they do so subliminally, via government, the NHS, and the mainstream media.

So the Medscape and Lancet omissions were probably intentional. Both these medical journals, however prestigious, knew that they were not allowed to include pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines in their (otherwise) comprehensive list of dementia risk factors. The pharmaceutical industry is just too powerful, too influential, to allow information like this to reach the public. It would consider it to be 'bad publicity' for their drugs.

Moreover, medical journals (indeed the entire pharmaceutical medical establishment) are reluctant to admit that the drugs and vaccines they have hitherto regularly recommended can actually cause serious patient harm. The admission, for them, would presumably be too embarrassing.

After all, if 'pharmaceutical drugs' had been added to the risk factor list it would be yet another 'preventable' cause of dementia that would increase significantly the 50% of 'preventable' risk factors mentioned. The problem for drug companies is that preventing this particular cause of dementia would be particularly easy - patients could just stop taking the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

And the drug companies would certainly not want us to do this!

 

Economic Inactivity. 2.8 Million People Unemployed

It's not just the NHS that is "broken", as I have discussed here recently. Regrettably there is a corresponding lack of ANY understanding about WHY the NHS is broken, and WHAT has led to the abject failure of the NHS over the decades. The reason I put forward to answer these vital questions has been discussed regularly on this forum during the last 15 years; but (it would appear) no-where else.

Whilst most people may know that the NHS has a problem, few people seem to know, or ask about the underlying cause of that problem. Certainly no politician appears to know, not least Britain's new Labour government. And they are not alone. Every British political party is committed to "saving the NHS", and they are all are willing to throw any amount of money into propping it up. This approach is based on the assumption that there is nothing wrong with the NHS - other than underfunding. It just needs more money, more resources. This is not so.

Britain spends over £180 billion on the NHS (2022-3)! In comparison we spend only £81 billion on Education; and £52 billion of defence.

So why don't we throw another £22 billion at the NHS, just as the government did this week - in the forlorn hope that this will be sufficient to "save" it. If, as I suspect, it proves not to be enough than more money will have to be found. This assessment of the travails of the NHS, and our knee-jerk response to them, has not changed in over 70 years!

The problem with the NHS is not resources, it is about how, and on what, they spend these resources. The NHS has long sold its soul to pharmaceutical or drug-based medicine and I have long argued this case, here on this blog and elsewhere. The drug-led approach of the NHS employs treatments that have limited, marginal effectiveness. And these limited benefits are gained only at the expense of causing serious iatrogenic harm - euphemistically called "side effects" or "adverse drug reactions" - which are really serious illnesses and diseases. The argument is not based on my personal opinion, but on the available medical literature. We only have to look at the package inserts (Patient Information Leaflets, PILs) which come with each and every pharmaceutical drug and vaccines. These drugs have been used liberally by the NHS since 1948 to treat patients. They cause disease, not least the kinds of chronic disease, leading to long-term sickness, that is making it increasingly difficult for so many people to work, and support themselves and their family.

In order to see how serious the problem of pharmaceutical drug-taking is, take a look at my "Iatrogenic Disease" e-book, in which I list nearly 100 serious medical conditions, and the specific drugs and vaccines that are known to cause them.

Economic Inactivity

One problem the new Labour government wants to address to get Britain working again, and to deal with the problem of long-term ill-health. The Labour party manifesto stated that after 14 years of Tory government (2010 to 2024) large numbers of people have become economically inactive, effectively excluded from the labour market, and that nearly one million young people were not in work, or learning, and that the economic cost of worklessness is becoming a major issue. The problem of long-term sickness is discussed in more detail here in an article published by the Alliance for Natural Health.

Indeed, the problem is well recognised. Back in November 2023 the (then) Tory government stated there were over 1,100,000 people with long-term health problems, disabilities, or long-term unemployment. They had a plan to get them back to work, a plan focusing mainly on providing support and sanctions for anyone who were not actively looking for employment.

Now the Labour government's “Back to Work Plan” states that tackling economic inactivity is central to their number one mission: to "grow the economy". The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has stated that "rising levels of economic inactivity are unacceptable and that immediate action must be taken. 9.4 million people are now economically inactive, a record 2.8 million people are out of work due to long-term sickness, and 900,000 young people (1 in 8) are not in education, employment, and training". She continued:

    “Earlier this week the Health Secretary set out how cutting NHS waiting lists will get Britain back to health and back to work, and how by taking bold action on public health we can build the healthy society needed for a healthy economy."

So the new government believes that the problem of economic inactivity is a health issue, and to deal with it they have to address the ongoing failure of the 'broken' NHS to cope with the ever-growing levels of sickness and chronic disease that are clogging up waiting lists, access to treatment, etc.

The assessment that the problem of economic inactivity is about health is undoubtedly correct; but it is the right conclusion for the wrong reason! The problem for most people who are too sick to work is not that they have been waiting too long for medical treatment. It is because the medical treatment they have received hitherto via the NHS has (i) not made them better, and (ii) caused them to be ill and/or incapacitated.

So government policy is to give the NHS more money to the NHS, so that 'economically inactive' people can be given more pharmaceutical drug treatment - in other words, more of the same. The NHS has been doing this for over 75 years, and during all this time, chronic disease, in all its many guises, have reached epidemic levels - and they continue to rise inexorably. And as our NHS has generated increasing levels of chronic disease, as its medicines have made people sicker, it is almost inevitable that more people are becoming 'economically inactive'. 

Epidemic levels of chronic disease, and economic inactivity, is a secondary cost of a failed medical system. These secondary costs are not the direct cost incurred by the NHS, staff costs, premises, testing, vaccines, drug treatments, operations,and other treatments, but the unintended consequences that have arisen directly from the mal-functioning of the NHS. A few examples outlined in the above link include...

• The Arthritis epidemic that stunts people's life, makes people increasingly immobile, and prevents sufferers from working, and earning their own living.
• The Asthma epidemic that now curtails the ability of so many people to lead a full, active and independent lives.
• The Cancer epidemic that incapacitates, and cuts short the working lives of so many people, who are left requiring both increasing medical, social, and end-of-life care.
• The Diabetes explosion, alongside its many related conditions, that now incapacitates so many more people than ever before, increases their need for life-long medical and social care, and reduces their capacity for work.

The new Labour government does not understand this. Its plans for reorganising the NHS do not focus on failed medical treatment. On receiving the highly critical Darzi Report it has committed itself to three 'missions' on health:

• Moving the focus of health care from Hospital to Home: a good idea for a variety of reasons, but it does nothing to move NHS treatment away from its total commitment to pharmaceutical (drug-based) medicine.
• Moving from Analogue to a Digital record system: no doubt a positive move to ensure better communication within the NHS, but a 'mission' that has little/nothing to do with the treatment that will be offered to patients.
  
• Moving from a Sickness service to a Prevention service, certainly a necessary and sensible change, but not if (as I suspect) 'prevention' involves an increasing number of vaccinations, and the 'preventative' use of well-known and over-used pharmaceutical drugs like aspirin, Beta Blockers, and Statins, and many others.
  

So none of these three missions are designed to alter the medical treatment that is offered by the NHS. Our government will now be spending in excess of £200 billion on the NHS. And because it does not recognise the underlying problem, it will continue to be in crisis. Soon doctors will tell us yet again that they require another major increase in an "under-resourced" health care system.

It is impossible to fix anything that is "broken" unless we know how it is broken, and what has broken it. And to continue throwing resources at a "broken" system, with money being spent on the same solutions, is not just misguided it is foolish. It is the triumph of hope over experience, an abject failure to assess accurately and correctly the roots of the NHS problem.

We need an NHS that is capable of standing up to the drug companies, questioning and researching the efficacy of pharmaceutical, drug-based medicine. We need an NHS that begins to recognise (again), and focus its work on the importance of the immune system, and begins to stress (again) the importance of life-style decisions, diet and nutrition, exercise, stress management, and similar, in supporting our natural immunity. Above all, we need an NHS that is prepared to look at and compare the relative effectiveness (patient outcomes) of pharmaceutical medicine when compared to other natural medical therapies such as homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, herbalism, and the like.

In fact, this has already been recognised, and recommended by a group of MP's in December 2018 when the All-Party Parliamentary group for integrated healthcare released a report which stated that changing health needs required a different approach, and recommended the greater use of complementary, traditional, and natural medical therapies "to rescue the NHS from financial crisis". Their report stated that in 70 years of the NHS there were a growing number of people suffering from long-term illnesses, and that this posed a significant threat to the future sustainability of the NHS.

The lobbying of this group was clearly, and sadly, not as powerful or effective as the Pharmaceutical lobby. Its recommendations were, however, exactly what is required to respond to the 'broken' NHS, and to address the needs of the increasing number of people who are 'economically inactive'.

Is anyone prepared to listen yet?

Why are we so sick the "broken" NHS can no longer cope?

The British NHS is in crisis. Levels of sickness and disease are now so high this government organisation, funded to the extent of over £180 billion annually, cannot cope with demand. The parlous state of the NHS was described in some detail in my last blog, "The NHS Crisis: Another Installment?", using the recent Darzi report as evidence. Since the general election in July this year the new Secretary of State for Health has described the NHS, very simply and succinctly, as "broken". 

However, there is one question that the Darzi report, the NHS, and the conventional medical establishment generally, has never asked - so as a result it is never answered.

"Just why are we so sick now?" 

Actually the Conventional Medical Establishment is fully aware of both the question, and the answer; that one important cause of illness and disease is Conventional Medicine itself. The answer is in plain sight. It is in the conventional medical literature. My question here is: why is this obvious answer to NHS problems never admitted, never discussed, never mentioned?

After all, the NHS is a huge operation; so why has it been 'broken'? The Kings Fund outlines just how big the NHS has become:

• In 2022/23, the Department for Health and Social Care spent £182 billion. This money is used to fund a wide range of health and care services, including GP services, the ambulance service, mental health services, community and hospital services, all commissioned by the NHS, as well as public health services that are commissioned by local authorities. It also funds some social care services mainly through local authorities.
•  In 2022, Britain spent 11.3% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health, and this was just above the average for comparable countries. So it is not under-funded, as is so often claimed.

So given this huge annual expenditure, it is surely right to ask what is causing these unprecedented levels of sickness with which the NHS cannot cope? There are several routine answers put forward to explain this.

    1. An Ageing Population. And the assumption that an ageing population, as it gets older, also get sicker. As I have written before this is an assumption that should not be made.

    2. New Medical Treatments are getting progressively more expensive. This is undoubtedly so; whilst the NHS is bankrupt, the pharmaceutical industry is getting progressively richer, as is the medical supply industry which surround it.

    3. Poor Diet and Nutrition. This is also an important element in the nation's health; however, it is an element about which the NHS is usually relatively quiet, both in promoting a more healthy diet, and using nutrition to assist in the treatment of illness.

    4. Tobacco and Smoking. Despite the reduction is smoking, especially over the last 50 years, this is still routinely cited as a reason for our 'out of control' levels of sickness.

    5. Plus a variety of "Nonsense" reasons (about which I will shortly be writing another blog, but they point to absurd reasons that just cannot explain the levels of sickness that we are now experiencing).

To demonstrate my point I am going to use this recent article on Dementia from Medscape, which states that dementia is "highly preventable". How? The article mentions a number of factors, including illnesses like type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, hypertension, high LDL cholesterol, certain forms of cancer; and it focuses on behavioural 'risk factors' such as a lack of physical activity, cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and obesity. The article also mentions cognitive engagement and isolation, and the specific risks of social isolation, which are exacerbated by untreated hearing or vision loss, and low educational attainment. It also mentions traumatic brain injury from an accident, or from contact sports, and environmental risks like poor air quality.

So, as in so many conventional medical explanations of ill-health, it is the patient who is primarily at fault! And medicine sees it's role in helping the individual to modify their behaviour. The 'solution', we are told, is to "inform our patients about these risk factors and what can be done in terms of behaviour modification, increased screening, and treatment for these conditions". This, it says, can go a long way "in helping our patients reduce their risk for dementia".

Yet the conventional medical profession must know that it is, itself, responsible: that it is the cause, and probably a major cause, of unprecedented levels of sickness and disease. Surely they have read their own literature? Yet iatrogenic illness and disease is rarely mentioned by doctors, by the NHS, by Medical Science, by the Conventional Medical Establishment, by our government, or by the mainstream media. So why the silence?

The evidence implicating NHS treatment can be found in the medical literature. It's in the Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) that accompany ever prescribed drug and vaccine, they list (at least some) of the 'side effects' and adverse reactions that drugs/vaccines are known to cause. Iatrogenic disease has been known about since (at least) the early 1950's.

The symptoms of Dementia are known to be caused by pharmaceutical drugs. The Medscape website itself published an article, back in 2000, entitled "Definition of Drug-Induced Cognitive Impairment in the Elderly", which states the following"

        "Numerous drugs have been identified in ..... as causing a multitude of psychiatric symptoms, including hallucinations, fearfulness, insomnia, paranoia, depression, delusions, bizarre behaviour, agitation, anxiety, panic attacks, manic symptoms, hypomania, depersonalisation, psychosis, schizophrenic relapse, aggressiveness, nightmares, vivid dreams, excitement, disinhibition, rage, hostility, mutism, hyper-sexuality, suicidality, crying, hyperactivity, euphoria, dysphoria, lethargy, seizures, Tourette-like syndrome, obsessiveness, fear of imminent death, illusions, emotional lability, sensory distortions, impulsivity, and irritability, which can impact on mental capacity. Further, there are a number of medications that may be linked to causing cognitive impairment by inducing delirium, confusion, disorientation, memory loss, amnesia, stupor, coma, or encephalopathy."

In their most recent article, cited above, there is absolutely no mention that one cause of the dementia epidemic might be iatrogenic! And that consequently one solution to the unprecedented levels of sickness that has 'broken' the NHS might be to stop giving people drugs and vaccines that are actually causing unprecedented levels of illness and disease.

This is worrying because doctors should be aware that the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines they prescribed every day cause the symptoms of dementia, like confusion, disorientation, memory loss, amnesia, and many others. They include the mercury and aluminium that are the ingredients of many vaccines, including the flu vaccine; and amalgam tooth fillings; antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs; statins' sleeping pills and benzodiazepines; anticholinergic drugs; antihistamines, proton-pump inhibitors, and many more.

When you then begin to ask why the conventional medical establishment does not mention this in these 'medical' articles, the omission becomes not just surprising, but deeply worrying. Was it an error? Was it forgetfulness? Or was the omission intentional? Was the author not allowed to mention iatrogenic causes? Was censorship involved? Or is the pharmaceutical industry just so powerful within conventional medicine that the truth is not allowed to surface?

If we then widen the problem to other serious illnesses and diseases, we come to similar conclusions. These unprecedented, and ever-growing levels of sickness and disease, are in part (at least) caused by conventional medical treatment.

 Allergy is known to be caused by painkillers, sleeping pills, antibiotics, anticonvulsant drugs, insulin, immuno-suppressant drugs, vaccines - and more.

Arthritis is known to be caused by painkillers, corticosteroid drugs, antibiotics, HRT; and the toxicity of most if not all pharmaceutical drugs might be implicated.

Diabetes is known to be caused by statins, beta-blockers, antihypertensive drugs, antibiotics, antidepressants and antipsychotics, steroids (including inhalers), proton-pump inhibitors, vaccines, and many more.

Epilepsy is known to be caused by antidepressants, antipsychotics, antibiotics, painkillers, asthma drugs, vaccines, and many more.

Indeed, think of any chronic disease, for which the NHS has a long waiting list for treatment, and you will find pharmaceutical drugs known to cause it. My E-Book, Iatrogenic Disease, outlines the drugs that are known to cause about over 70 different illnesses and diseases. Most of these links between prescribed drugs and illness is acknowledged on the PILs, but the size of the iatrogenic problem goes far beyond what is admitted. Often the pharmaceutical industry will go to enormous lengths of ignore and deny links between drugs and illness, and regularly have to be forced to list them on PILs.

Autism, for instance, is almost certainly caused by vaccines, notably the MMR and DPT vaccines. But this has been robustly and vigorously denied. But even if this link is dismissed,  autism is also known to be caused by paracetamol, by antidepressants, asthma drugs, and sodium valproate. Yet if you go to the NHS website and you will find that it states that the cause of Autism remains "unknown" - the only thing it does know is that it is NOT caused by vaccines!

Yet if the conventional medical establishment is in denial, and refuses to consider the iatrogenic causes of sickness, how can it hope to resolve the demands patients are making on NHS services? An effective response would be to stop prescribing the drugs that are causing the illness! But then, what else has conventional medicine got to offer? Is it easier to blame the patient's life-style? Is it too embarrassing for doctors to admit that they have caused the sickness of the patient sitting in front of them?

Or does the NHS just need more money, to spend on more of the same pharmaceutical-based treatment? This is what we have been told for the last 70+ years. Medical science would cure us - if only it had more money! 

What too few people realise is that pharmaceutical medicine is not making us well, that it is making us sick. So sick, in fact, that the NHS is 'broken' - it can no longer cope!

 

NHS Crisis (Autumn 2024). Another Installment of Medical Failure?

I have written a series of blogs on "the NHS Crisis", the first one in May 2011, some 13 years ago, and here is yet another update. However, this time it has been written for me - courtesy of an official Government Report, "Independent Investigation of the NHS in England, which does not write off the problem as a little local difficulty that will be solved by pouring more money into a failed institution!

The report was published after a 9-week review of the NHS by Lord Darzi, an independent peer, and former cancer surgeon, initiated by the election of a new Labour government in July 2024. It has been widely reported in the mainstream media, and paints a stark picture, far beyond the usual problems with long and growing waiting lists and delays in response, diagnosis and treatment throughout the entire NHS organisation. The report states that:

• Accident and Emergency services are in "an awful state":, with long waits estimated to be causing an additional 14,000 extra deaths (annually).
•  The health of the nation has deteriorated, and has brought in "a surge in long-term mental health conditions".
• Rising levels of illness risk economic prosperity, with 2.8 million people now unable to work because of poor health.
• Britain has higher cancer mortality rates than other countries.
• Although hospital staff have increased since the Covid-19 pandemic, the number of appointments and procedures have not risen because "patients no longer flow through hospitals as the should".
• The NHS has been starved of capital investment, leading to "crumbling buildings", mental health patients in "Victoria-era cells infested with vermin" and "parts of the NHS operating in decrepit portacabins".
  

My series of blogs (use this link to see my last one, in March 2024, which gives links to all of them) have charted the rise and rise of the NHS Crisis as it has developed through the last 13 years, highlighting (i) the nature of the crisis at the time of writing, (ii) predicting that the crisis would get progressively worse, and would NOT be resolved by pouring more money into it, and (iii) that no-one has yet had the wit to work out the underlying reason for this ongoing NHS Crisis! 

Does the Darzi report, and the new government's initial response, address the issues I have raised? That's look at each one.

(i) Hitherto, the serious nature of the NHS Crisis has always been heavily discounted. It could be resolved by another management re-organisation, or (more usually) by putting in additional resources, by bringing in private investment: the problem was primarily one of under-investment. Now, we are told, the crisis will take 10 years to resolve, and no further money will be spent "without reform".

(ii) So the Darzi report has (at last) overturned the idea that the interminable saga of NHS Crises can be resolved by pouring more money into it. And for the first time in the 76 year history of the NHS, a British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, and Secretary of State for Health, Wes Streeting, have openly admitted this. So my prediction has come true.

• Keir Starmer has said that although the NHS is in a critical condition, there will be no additional money "without reform". It must, he says, "reform or die". But what reform? Another structural management reform? There have been plenty of these, and none of them have prevented the NHS crisis spiralling, year by year.
  
• Wes Streeting has spoken about the three 'big shifts' that were needed. (a) a move from hospital to community care. (b) a move from analogue to digital technology "to empower patients and give them control over their healthcare". (c) moving from a treatment model to a preventative model. These are 'shifts' that have little or nothing to do with what I argue, that it is the treatment that the NHS offers its patients that is at the root of the problem.
  

 (iii) So the fundamental reason for the ongoing NHS Crisis has still not been identified! Why, for instance, are "patients no longer flowing through hospitals as the should"? Is the medical treatment they receive not working? The question is not even asked. And why is there "a surge in long-term mental health conditions". What is causing this surge? Again, the question is not asked, leave alone given a response. So how will these proposals get 2.8 million patients back to work - if there is to be no change to the medical treatment they receive? The misguided and thoughtless assumption that pharmaceutical medicine is treating illness and disease successfully remains firmly in place!

So what, indeed, is causing the unprecedented/epidemic levels of chronic diseases, like ADHD, Allergy, Arthritis, Autism, Dementia, Diabetes, Epilepsy, Heart/Lung/Kidney/Liver disease, Mental Health, and so many more? It has little to do with hospital care or community care, with digital technology, and moving to a 'preventative' model. In pharmaceutical medicine, prevention seems to mean giving drugs like Statins, and vaccines, earlier - whilst people are still well!

If the NHS continues to provide patients with a diet o pharmaceutical drugs, which have limited and marginal effectiveness as treatment, there is little hope that it will ever be able to reduce the number of sick patients, and the amount of sickness they present.

If the NHS continues to provide patients with pharmaceutical drugs which cause serious adverse reactions, and disease in patients, there is every possibility that the number of sick people, and the seriousness of their health deficits, will continue to increase - as they have done for the last 76 years.

So the Darzi report, and the government response to it, is positive in the limited sense that the seriousness of the problem has at last been recognised, and the futility of throwing more money in the bottomless pit of the NHS acknowledged. 

But without identifying the fundamental problem, the control that the NHS has gratuitously given to pharmaceutical medicine, and its almost total reliance on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, the solution has again been missed again.

When the NHS was established it was based on two important principles. First, that treatment should be free at the point of use. And second, that the best medical treatment should be offered to patients. I agree with both these principles, but the second has been badly neglected. 

What was not envisaged in 1948 was that the pharmaceutical industry would achieve a virtual monopoly in the treatment options offered to patients by the NHS. The only change that has taken place regarding patient treatment has been the removal of Natural Medical Therapies, including homeopathy.

Pharmaceutical drugs are not making us better. Indeed they are making us sicker. But they now have a monopoly within the NHS. Visit a doctor, go to a hospital, and you will almost inevitably receive pharmaceutical medicine. 

That is the fundamental basis of the NHS crisis.

Tess, Homeopathy, and Back Leg Weakness

Tess is my Labrador. She is 15 years old, a good age; and until recently she has been fit and well. She has never see a vet. She was treated homeopathically for all the canine ailments and did not have any vaccinations. She has been well exercised, well fed, and has become a much loved and treasured family pet.

Suddenly, a few of months ago, she lost control of her rear legs. She would collapse, and have difficult standing again. When she did walk she was limping, appeared lame, and had a slow, unstable gait.

I tried her with several homeopathic remedies, but she quickly got worse. She became lethargic, sleeping most of the time, and not engaging with anyone. She was eating (she is a Labrador)! But she was reluctant to go for a walk. One evening she was particularly bad, and I decided that this might be the end. I was not going to allow her to suffer more.

However, I decided to do a web search to see if anyone else had written about an elderly dog who had lost control of her hind legs, and how they could be treated with homeopathy. There were several websites, and all of them suggested the remedies that I had already tried. However, one discussion outlined how none of these remedies worked; and the homeopath, perhaps rather despairingly, had said, "Well, if none of those remedies have worked, you might try Calc Phos".

So I decided, as a last resort, to try Tess with Calc Phos. I looked up the remedy in the Materia Medica (which homeopaths use to link symptoms of illness with known remedy symptoms) and did not feel that the remedy was particularly relevant to her. But there was nothing else that came to mind.

Calc Phos worked wonders within a couple of days. It is several months on now, and there has been no trip to the vet! She remains an elderly Labrador. She does not walk quickly, or very far now. She still has difficulty walking on shiny flat floors in the house. But she is as well as anyone could expect of a 15 year old dog - and she is still enjoying life.

The remedy will not work for every dog with rear leg weakness, but it is a remedy that is certainly worth trying. I am so glad I stumbled upon it - it is what happens, sometimes, with homeopathy!

Vaccines: What does giving 'Informed Consent' entail?

In medicine, it appears to be generally agreed that 'Informed Consent' is important before any patient gives consent for medical treatment. However, it is clearly not universally agreed as during the last few years, during the Covid-19 Pandemic, the Conventional Medical Establishment has been party to, and supportive of, enforced or mandatory vaccination. And pharmaceutical medicine has a reputation for providing patients with "the good news" whilst remaining silent about "the bad news".

So what does giving 'Informed Consent' actually mean? Simply it is that every patient should be fully aware of both the benefits, and the risks of the proposed treatment. When pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are involved, the expected/potential benefits are always made clear. However, the risks are not; usually most conventional medical treatment is routinely described as "safe and effective".

What follows was originally posted on X by Jessica Rojas: https://twitter.com/catsscareme2021: and it is reposted here with her permission (she merely requests that you consider following her on her X (or Twitter) account. It focuses on America (although the situation is similar here in Britain and elsewhere), and focuses on the USA vaccine schedule (although similar questions can be asked regarding most conventional medical treatments).

Read it carefully - and note the complexity of the information you need before you can truly give your 'informed consent' to treatment. It is information that is not usually provided to patients prior to treatment.

   "If you are a parent who follows the CDCs VACCINE schedule, here are some facts you need to know and understand to make an informed decision.

1. I understand that the pharmaceutical company who made this vaccine has NO liability.

2. I understand that I pay a $0.75 Federal Excise Tax per vaccine, used to pay vaccine injured families through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) created by the government.

3. I understand that this vaccine contains neurotoxins such as aluminum that far exceeds “safe levels” deemed by the EPA.

4. I understand that this vaccine contains carcinogenic ingredients.

5. I understand that this vaccine was made from aborted fetal cell lines, animal and bug cells.

6. I understand that getting this vaccine does not ensure that I will be protected from the disease.

7. I understand that my child could get the very illness they was vaccinated for.

8. I understand that my child could be a carrier of the illnesses/he was vaccinated for and spread it (“shedding”) for up to six weeks.

9. I understand that my doctor may get monetarily rewarded for having a high percentage of his/her patients who are fully vaccinated.

10. I understand that if my child is injured by a vaccine, my doctor would have to spend an exorbitant amount of hours filling out paper work in order to report it to VAERS (the only way to officially report a vaccine injury).

11. I understand that my doctor has no incentive to fill out paperwork for a vaccine injury.

12. I understand that vaccine injury is under-reported.

13. I understand that vaccine mandates (like SB277) literally hand over new customers to pharmaceutical companies.

14. I understand that pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to make their product better.

15. I understand that pharmaceutical companies spend up to 4x more on advertising than they do on research.

16. I understand that corporate media gets 70% of their advertising revenue from pharmaceutical companies.

17. I understand that corporate media does not want to lose revenue, certainly not 70% of it.

18. I understand that when pharmaceutical companies conduct a study (on their own product) it is in their best interest to have a favorable outcome.

19. I understand that this vaccine schedule has never been tested on children collectively and ACIP assumes it's safe as long as different limbs are used for injection.

20. I understand that this vaccine could cause injury or death, and my child could be one of them.

21. My doctor has informed me on all the risks and side effects and has reviewed the vaccine insert with me.

22. I understand that if my child dies from this vaccine I will be awarded no more than $250,000 and most cases are never heard.

23. I understand that not one vaccine has gone through a saline placebo, double-blind study.

24. I am making an informed choice to vaccinate my child.

So if you have all this information prior to agreeing too, and receiving any medical treatment, you will be able to make a fully informed choice. Otherwise, think again! Good luck!