Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines were not “safe and effective”. They were being regularly withdrawn, effectively banned, because of the serious patient harm they were known to cause.
Disease and chronic ill-health were becoming out-of-control epidemics, and the more drugs we were taking, and the more money we spent on them, the sicker we become.
Pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines were clearly implicated in our declining health. The official list of ‘adverse drug reactions’, part of conventional medical literature, clearly demonstrated this.
It was also clear that our declining health, and the ever-increasing financial demands to spend ever-more on pharmaceutical health care, was beginning to bankrupt health services around the world, but especially in countries dominated by drug-based medicine.
At the same time, drug companies were regularly and increasingly embroiled in medical and financial dishonesty and fraud, and the resulting court cases (mainly in the USA) were imposing large penalties on a corrupt industry..
So, I asked, how could pharmaceutical medicine survive? Surely people would notice, and turn to safer, more effective medical therapies? Perhaps I underestimated how adept the very rich and very powerful pharmaceutical establishment was in using its influence and wealth to take complete control not oly of the medical infrastructure, but the mainstream media, and government too. And as a consequence how little most people, most patients, were aware of the damage that the conventional medical system was doing to their health.
The Impact of the Covid-19 ‘Pandemic’.
Covid-19 was an extreme pharmaceutical over-reach - even for an arrogant medical profession wedded to it. A group of greedy drug companies, and the even greedier people associated with them, sought to make a fortune - first by frightening people into believing that the pandemic was deadly serious and real - that it was a serious threat to the lives of millions throughout the world - and then (when we were all suitably scared) they would sell us a dodgy, untested, experimental vaccine that would ‘save’ us all.
The harm caused by the Covid-19 vaccines has triggered a reaction greater than anything before it. Whereas with previous medical scandals the problems could be successfully ignored, denied or deflected by the Medical Establishment, this one proved more difficult to hide. It has created more scepticism and opposition than ever before - and the debate is continuing.
Yet the war against medical corruption, even after the Covid fiasco, has yet to be won. As I wrote in a recent article on this forum, the history of the Covid-19 fiasco is still being written. The conventional medical establishment is in denial, it still continues to tell us that the virus killed millions, that the vaccines that saved us, and they continue to peddle their vaccine boosters on us.
So what will the history books be saying about Covid-19 In 10 or 20 years time? They may yet tell us that the Covid-19 vaccines did win the battle against a virulent killer virus. Conventional medicine successfully achieved this with the disastrous Smallpox vaccines of the 19th and 20th centuries; the equally disastrous Polio vaccines of the 1950’s; the Measles vaccines of the 1970’s - and every subsequent vaccine that has been imposed upon us. They all ‘saved our lives’: and still few people noq question this historical ‘wisdom’.
I get the impression that the Covid-19 reaction is now confronting pharmaceutical medicine with stronger opposition than any of those previous epidemic. Yet, however strong the arguments and statistics against the official medical narrative might be I still fear whether this will necessarily appear in the history books.
Further, I am doubtful about whether the majority of people/patients are ready yet to listen to arguments hostile to a medical system - a system upon which we have relied, and placed our faith and trust in, for so long. For this to happen people will need to know what is going to replace the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that now dominate health care services.
The Nature of the Opposition to the Conventional Medical Establishment
So where do we all go from here? There is little doubt that a sizeable proportion of population is losing ftrust in pharmaceutical medicine. People are not stupid. There is more reluctance to take drugs, and vaccine hesitancy is growing.
Yet we should not underestimate the importance of the decisions people will have to take once they agree that conventional medicine is both ineffective and unsafe. Patients during the last 100+ years have placed an extraordinary level of trust in pharmaceutical, the efficacy of their drugs/vaccines, and the concept that ‘scientific’ medicine will (eventually) overcome all illness and disease. Long gone are the days when the idea that “an apple a day will keep the doctor away”. People want their doctor, and most people continue to place their faith in them.
So what are people going to do? To where, to whom, and to what will they turn as an alternative? Is the new opposition to conventional medicine offering them anything to replace (the almost blind) faith people have in their doctors and their medicine?
Whenever people are uncertain, disoriented and confused, their initial response is to do nothing, to retreat, to carry on regardless, to continue to do what they feel safe doing. They won’t listen to criticism, however credible, if they have nothing to fall back on. They would rather not believe, or they will discount the criticism directed at something that has become their part of their normality. For many, the failure of the medical system has been too difficult to make sense of it, or to fully contemplate the implications. It is easier to carry on taking the pills, rolling up their sleeves to take the vaccines, and to trust that their doctors would not give them medicine that made them sick.
I would argue that the critics of the Conventional Medical Establishment have a problem in this respect. Those of us who criticise and oppose conventional medicine have little unity of thought into the future direction medicine will take, beyond the opposition to the dishonesty, corruption and failure of pharmaceutical medicine. The opponent to medical orthodoxy might be placed into three broad groups.
Supporters of a reformed, restructured, reconstituted form of pharmaceutical drug-based medicine
Much of the opposition to the conventional medical establishment comes from those who clearly believe that Covid-19 (and other recent medical disasters) is just a temporary blip. Once the corruption has been dealt with, once the system becomes more transparent in everything it does, once it has returned to the scientific method, conventional medicine can again (?) be “safe and effective”. They recognise serious mistakes have been made that has undermined confidence in the integrity of medical science. They recognise the over-dominance of the pharmaceutical industry within medicine. They recognise, and focus upon the actions of just a few greedy people, and a greedy drugs industry. But once these errors have been remedied everything can get back on course. The system can be reinstated, and if reform is done properly patients will be in safe hands.
This is a perfectly reasonable position, as long as the necessary changes can be made, and then sustained, on a long-term basis. However, for some (including myself) it is too late for this to be achieved. The trust of so many people has evaporated too completely to be restored. Moreover, there is little that pharmaceutical medicine can point to that demonstrates that drugs and vaccines have hitherto, or will ever, be able to fulfil these expectations.
Having said this, if this route can lead to more effective and safer medicines, and successful treatments can be developed, it is a perfectly legitimate objective to pursue.
Supporters of preventative medicine
There is another group of critics who are more sceptical about the future of drug-based medicine. They place their confidence in developing a medical system that relies more on the prevention rather than the treatment of illness - on social prescribing, on diet and nutrition, on sensible exercise regimes, and the like. The future of medicine, as they see it, is to prevent people getting ill.
Indeed, much of what they call for is already in position, albeit to a limited extent. As confidence in drug-based medicine has declined in recent years preventative medicine has come more to the fore. So it is certainly not unreasonable to want more of it, and to place less reliance on the treatment of sick people with pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. It is a sensible position, and one that many patients will gladly follow.
Yet the main problem with this approach is that once someone does become ill there appears to be few ideas about what effective treatment could be offered to sick patients.
Supporters of Natural Medical Therapies
The supporters of homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic, osteopathy, et al, such as myself, argue that using these therapies would be a more positive direction for future health care services to take. Unfortunately conventional health services around the world have spent much of their time and effort denigrating them, and trying to limit and restrict patient access to them, especially in the last 20-30 years.
Yet all alternative therapies continue to exist mainly because the patients who to use them, and pay for them, want them. They are not usually subsidised by national health services, except in few countries like India and Cuba. They would have gone out of existence long ago if they were not effective in treating illness. So they must, at least, be part of the future direction of health care services.
It is also true that natural medical therapies work on a different basis, with different ideas and approaches. Homeopathy, for instance, works on the basis that “like cures like”, that a substance that causes the symptoms of illness will cure the same symptoms in a sick patient. Pharmaceutical medicine operates on an entirely basis, for instance, a patient with fever will usually be given a drug to reduces that fever. This is treatment by opposites. The point is - can two diametrically opposed medical strategies both work?
Hitherto, conventional medicine has emphatically said “No”, and has too often tried to undermining natural therapies, for instance, by ridiculing homeopathy, and getting it proscribed within the UK’s NHS. Homeopathy has always asked for all rival medical treatments to be scientifically compared within clinical settings. So can such a working arrangement be developed to support ‘integrated’ medicine.
Without such agreement I suspect that the pharmaceutical industry will continue to prevail.
Patient Choice and Health Freedom
In the longer term the differences amongst the critics of pharmaceutical medicine might be a positive thing. In matters of health there is a need for a greater diversity of treatment to offer patients. It is positively unhealthy for one medical system to dominate, as has increasingly been the case in recent decades. Medicine should be open to the possibility that there are many different ways to respond to ill-health.
A greater diversity of treatment options would place medical freedom, and patient choice, at the forefront of post-Covid medicine. The three groups outlined should not be in opposition to each other. Health provision should be allowed go in different directions. Patients should be enabled to make an informed choice of treatment options. Patient outcomes of the different treatments should be subjected to scientific comparison. And from these studies patients will be able to make up their own mind about their own medical treatment.
Never again should we submit to a medical system that believes it has all the answers to ill-health, that in their arrogance they know best - to the extent that they believe they have the right to force those treatments on us. Never again should anyone in medicine be allowed to mandate vaccines, or any other form of medical treatment. This arrogance leads only to the kind of failure we have been witnessing over the last 100 years.
So the best outcome of the current health debate will be that all these medical approaches will develop and prosper, that never again will any one system of medicine become dominant in health provision. If all three positions I have outlined can work together, patients themselves can make their own decisions.
“No treatment for me, without me”
Without a positive offer of this sort, many people will not feel sufficiently safe to leave the (albeit false) security of pharmaceutical medicine - however ineffective, however dangerous, however corrupt and dishonest it is. People will need more than just being told that the pharmaceutical medicine has failed. They need to have something they can hold on to, something they can believe might be better than what they have at the moment.
This post, and all my new posts, are now published on my new forum at Substack. Please click on this link.
