tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41554214245960881522024-03-18T21:17:16.068+00:00Homeopathy Safe MedicineSearching for safe medicine: wellness without harm.
Exposing harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs, vaccines and other conventional medical treatment.
Commenting on current medical issues from a 'natural health' perspective.Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comBlogger1156125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-86515899473918935432024-03-17T13:23:00.001+00:002024-03-17T13:23:49.114+00:00Good Health. If Conventional Medicine has failed, what is the alternative? A new NHS - a 'Natural Health Service'?<p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">For over 100 years now most people have relied on Conventional or Pharmaceutical for their health care. </span><span style="font-size: medium;">Most people have become dependent upon it.</span></b><br /></p><p>Most countries now have some form of subsidised health care service that dominates and controls the treatment we look to when we are sick. Today, most people rely entirely on conventional medicine because we believe it to be the best, if not the only system of medicine available to them.<br /></p><p><b>Yet regular readers of this blog will realise that conventional medicine is failing, and failing badly, to meet the health needs of people around the world - for three main reasons. </b></p><p><b><span> </span>(i) Conventional medicine costs the earth.</b></p><p>Spending on conventional medicine has risen, year by year, for decades now. And the demand for even more money and resources continues, year by year. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that health care costs are in the process of bankrupting the economies of many wealthy nations, and is already out of reach of many less affluent nations.<br /></p><p><span> </span><b>(ii) Conventional medicine is ineffective.</b></p><p>Despite this epidemic of health spending, the rising levels of medical costs have not run parallel to improved health but to epidemic levels of chronic diseases, ranging from allergy, Alzheimer's disease, autism, autoimmune diseases, cancer, dementia, diabetes, epilepsy, heart, kidney, and liver disease, mental health complaints, and much more. <br /></p><p><span> </span><b>(iii) Conventional medicine is dangerous.</b></p><p>Pharmaceutical medicine has also added to the national burden of sickness and disease through the 'adverse drug and vaccine reactions' known to be caused by pharmaceutical drugs. These adverse reactions are more than mere 'side effects', as they are usually described; they are often fully blown diseases, and they clearly contribute to growing levels of sickness, and to those epidemics of chronic disease.</p><p><b><span style="color: #800180;">So what is the alternative to conventional medicine?<br /></span></b></p><p>Many more people are now realising this, especially since the health fiasco of the Covid-19 pandemic. For over a year conventional medicine had no treatment to offer us, except for the the ludicrously inadequate entreaty to hand wash, social distancing, face masks, lockdown, test and trace, et al. </p><p>Thereafter we were pressured to take vaccines which we are now learning have caused such enormous patient harm.</p><p><b>So what do patients do now, when illness strikes, and we want to avoid the dangers of conventional medicine? </b>Our first thoughts are to consult a doctor, or go to hospital, with the almost inevitable outcome of being prescribed pharmaceutical drugs. If this is not a good idea, if it is no longer something we want to do, what are the alternatives? What can people do to get better, or maintain good health? <br /></p><p>Fundamentally, for anyone who recognises the failure of conventional medicine, there is only two choices available: (i) to take the risk, and continue to trust the pharmaceutical medical establishment, or (ii) to start to trust your body again, and recognise the power of our natural immune system.</p><p><b style="color: #800180;">The Immune System</b></p><p>During the Covid-19 pandemic the pharmaceutical medical establishment (supported by government and the mainstream media) told us that <b>only their vaccines could save us</b> from the illness, that without it millions of people around the world would.</p><p>Strange that we have barely had vaccines for 200 years, with most being developed over the last 60 years. So the question arises. What previously 'saved us' prior to the introduction of vaccines?</p><p>The answer, of course, is natural immunity. Even during the gravest epidemics in human history most people survived! The 13th century Black Death is reputed to have killed 1/3rd of the population - which means that 2/3rd of the population survived! And it has always been thus, through the Great Plague, the multiplicity of 19th century epidemics, and the Spanish flu of 1918. During this time we did not understand how the immune system worked. This knowledge has only developed comparatively recently. Yet the pharmaceutical health services discounted this during the Covid-19 pandemic - only vaccines would work!</p><p>The science of immunology is comparatively young, starting really only during the 19th century. Our understanding is now more detailed. It is recognised that the immune system is an important
branch of the medical science, that natural immunity protects us from infection and illness through many different lines of defence. Unfortunately, as has become so common within conventional medicine, immunology focuses more on the
immune systems that is not functioning properly, rather than to study what can be done to ensure that natural immunity continues to function properly. <b>In other words immunology has focused on why 1/3rd of people die, rather than why 2/3rd survive epidemics!</b><br /></p><p>What is now understood is the damaged or compromised immune systems result not just in susceptibility to infection, but in diseases
such as autoimmunity, allergy and cancer, and many of the other epidemics of chronic disease mentioned above, as well as many common
disorders not traditionally recognised to be caused by immunity, including metabolic,
cardiovascular, and neurodegenerative conditions.</p><p>So in looking for a 'new' approach to medical care should be based on relying on the immune system, and in particular, why 2/3rds of the population survive. We need to return to a medicine whose purpose is to upon our own natural immunity, recognising that ill-health always strikes down those people whose natural immunity is weakest. It is not that germs kill us, it is more that germs seek out the weakest, the most vulnerable. It is people with weak, compromised or suppressed immune systems that become ill and die. It is the survival of the fittest.</p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Therefore, any successful medical system has to be able to do just one thing - to support and strengthen our natural immunity.<br /></b></span></p><b><span style="color: #800180;">How do we support our Immune System? <br /></span></b><p>We now know the principles of supporting and strengthen our immune systems. <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-immune-system-supporting.html" target="_blank">I have written in more detail about this before, here</a>, basically outlining 4 fundamental strategies that are known to be important in supporting and strengthening our natural immunity.</p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Diet and Nutrition</li><li>Exercise</li><li>Freedom from stress</li><li>Refusal to take pharmaceutical drugs</li></ol><p>Each of these components concern life-style, they are not dependent upon complicated or expensive medical interventions. But each requires a medical system that disseminates this knowledge, and provides professional guidance about life-style choices. It is this that would form the basis of any new, more successful medical system: not a <b>National</b> Health Service but a <b>Natural</b> Health Service.<br /></p><p>Yet it is exactly this kind of medical advice and guidance that has not been available to people during the Covid-19 pandemic. If the NHS had offered this it would have been an alternative to face masks, social distancing, lockdowns, and test and trace, all of which depend upon <b>identifying and "chasing" an invisible virus!</b> And almost certainly this would have meant that we would not have had to endure the human tragedy, socially, economically, and in terms of health, that has resulted from the Covid-19 vaccines. </p><p>Most people, apart from those people with a compromised immune system (usually the result of poor life-style choices, including the taking of pharmaceutical drugs) would have been able to continue leading their social and work lives quite normally. In turn this would have meant that the economy would have not been damaged. Our mental health would not have been harmed, And much, much more.</p><p><b style="color: #800180;">Natural Immunity as an individual strategy</b><br /></p><p>The National Health Service will not transform into a Natural Health Service very soon! But the good news is that those people who are looking for an alternative to pharmaceutical medical care can adopt this strategy TODAY. We do not need to be advised to eat a better diet, or adopt a sensible exercise regime, to reduce the levels of stress (often the self-imposed stress) in our lives, and to stop taking pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. We can all learn about it, and do it NOW.<br /></p><p><b style="color: #800180;">People with Compromised Immune Systems</b></p><p>People with a compromised immune systems would need more medical support that goes beyond advice and guidance on the immune system. Yet they do not need medical support from the medical system that prescribes harmful drugs and treatments that are known to compromise immunity. Indeed, they have even more reason to avoid the drugs and vaccines of pharmaceutical medicine. </p><p>Immediately, they might need to be protected by strategies such as hand washing, social distancing, and lockdowns. They would need to be protected from the germ, whilst measures are put in place to strengthen their immunity. But other therapies are available, all of which are based on supporting and strengthening natural immunity.<br /></p><p><b style="color: #800180;">Natural Medical Therapies</b><br /></p><p>All natural medical therapies, from acupuncture, homeopathy, herbalism, naturopathy, aromatherapy, hypnotherapy, reflexology, yoga, et al., are based on the principle of supporting and strengthening natural immunity. Indeed, pharmaceutical medicine is the only medical system that does not (more interested in promoting drugs and vaccines).</p><p>Any Natural Health Service would gradually have to transfer its attention, and some of its resources, to these natural medical therapies. They are not as expensive as conventional medicine. They are all safer than conventional medicine as the 'adverse reactions' to treatments are limited, and certainly not disease-threatening, or life-threatening. And their effectiveness in terms of patient outcomes could easily be monitored, and compared with conventional medical outcomes.</p><p>Again, there is no need to wait for these therapies to be offered. They are all available right now, although not usually within a national health service, which means that the therapist would need to be paid directly. All the individual has to do is to learn about them, and initiate contact.<br /></p><p><b style="color: #800180;">The Remnants of Conventional Medicine in a new NHS<br /></b></p><p>The organisation of the NHS (from national to natural) would obviously be subject to enormous but gradual change, but it is important to understand that much medical care that is usually encompassed within the heading of "conventional medicine" would continue.<br /></p><p><b>Drugs.</b> The use of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines would gradually be reduced by any medical health service that focused on supporting and strengthening the immune system. This is happening, and will happen anyway, as more people realise that drugs are one of the major causes of serious disease epidemics that we are experiencing now. </p><p>Many more natural therapists would be needed, and many fewer doctors (whose expertise is necessarily dominated by a knowledge of pharmaceutical drugs) would be needed.</p><p><b>Testing.</b> The ability to recognise what is going on within the body would continue to be required within a revamped NHS, albeit it a modified way. Much of the current testing would not be required, especially when therapies like homeopathy are used, as natural therapies do not necessarily need an illness to be diagnosed. For instance, in an viral epidemic, testing to prove the presence of a virus would less important than the ability to test the strength of an individual's immune system. So all testing would gradually be refocused on assessing and supporting the patient health rather than fighting unknown, and unseen pathogens, or similar.</p><p><b>Surgery</b>. Most surgical activity would need to continue for those patients who require it. However, with patients taking fewer drugs, thus ingesting less toxicity, there would likely be a reduction in the need for operations such as organ and limb transplantation <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/02/organ-transplants-and-limb-replacements.html" target="_blank">(which usually result from many years of failed pharmaceutical treatment)</a>.<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Regarding health there appears to be three inexorable and inevitable processes going on</span>. </b></p><p><span> </span>First, people will always want to avoid being sick, and will look to the safest, and more effective medical system available to them. This has always been so. <br /></p><p><span> </span>Second, people are realising that pharmaceutical medicine, after 70+ years of dominance, is no longer one of those medical systems that can guarantee wellness to anyone.</p><p><span> </span>Third, this leaves people have two choices; to continue to rely on pharmaceutical drugs; or to rely on our immune system, which we has always protected us (whether we knew it or not), which is understood better now, and which, ultimately, is the only thing we have that we can rely upon.</p><p><br /></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-64527479693354953892024-03-04T12:51:00.171+00:002024-03-05T12:53:00.099+00:00An Asthma Drug Kills: so the Drug Regulator does another "Review". Is this enough?<p><b>Montelukast</b> is an asthma drug, better known as <b>Singulair</b>. It has caused the death of patients who have taken it. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/03/a-healthy-kid-dies-and-there-has-been-no-change-parents-anger-over-lack-of-warnings-for-blockbuster-asthma-drug" target="_blank">This Guardian headline (3 March 2024) says that <i>"a healthy kid dies and there has been no change": parents’ anger over lack of warnings for blockbuster asthma drug. Teenager Harry Miller took his own life two years after being prescribed montelukast. His family say they were not made aware of the reported psychiatric side-effects of the drug".</i></a></p><p>The parents were not told about the "side effects" of the drug? (And is <b>death</b> really a <b>"side effect"</b>). I am surprised that anyone should be surprised at this statement! Too many people trust their doctors, implicitly, and put their complete faith entirely and completely into the hands of a medical system that has always peddled dangerous drugs and vaccines. </p><p><a href="https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/montelukast/side-effects-of-montelukast/" target="_blank">I checked to see what the NHS website now says about the "side effects" of this drug - 4 years after Harry's death</a>. It highlights Diarrhoea, High Temperature, Headaches, stomach pain, feeling or being sick, and a mild rash. Then it goes on to mention, under 'serious side effects', that a doctor should be called if <i>"you notice changes and you become depressed, aggressive or you're thinking of harming yourself"</i>.</p><p><b>This is presumably the doctor who prescribed the drug and omitted to tell the parents about the 'side effects' of aggression and self-harm (suicide) that it was known to cause. </b></p><p>Yet what does my go-to website for pharmaceutical harm, Drug.com, say about Montelukask? It's all there, within a black box warning<span style="font-size: small;">.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"><span> </span><span> </span></span><a href="https://www.drugs.com/sfx/montelukast-side-effects.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span><i>"</i></span><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #202227; display: inline; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Warning: Serious Neuropsychiatric Events. Serious neuropsychiatric (NP) events have been reported in patients taking montelukast. The types of events reported were highly variable, and included, but were not limited to, <b>agitation, aggression,<span> depression</span></b></span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #202227; display: inline; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><b>, sleep disturbances, suicidal thoughts and behavior (including suicide)</b>. The mechanisms underlying NP events associated with montelukast use are currently not well understood. Because of the risk of NP events, the benefits of montelukast may not outweigh the risks in some patients, particularly when the symptoms of disease may be mild and adequately treated with alternative therapies."<span> </span></span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #202227; display: inline; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span><br /></span></span></span></i></span></a></p><p>So the problems of this asthma drug are known by conventional medical authorities. Yet the drug has been prescribed in most countries since 1998, over 25 years! And as the Guardian article intimated, until recently it was a 'blockbuster' drug. In 2020, two years after Harry's death, Montelukask-Singulaire was still the 14th most commonly prescribed drug, and therefore, highly profitable for the drug company.</p><p>Montelukask-Singulaire is yet another example of the dishonesty of the pharmaceutical industry, another medical tragedy waiting to be made public. Informing patients about serious adverse drug reactions means that they will be more cautious about taking it, thus harming the attractiveness and profitability of the drug. Yet Merck, the drug company, knew that its asthma drug could lead to suicide. Indeed, a group of parents have been trying to sue the company for many years, but as this Children's Health Defense link said, in June 2023, the legal action was unsuccessful, <i>“stymied by an effective corporate liability shield: the doctrine of federal pre-emption”</i></p><p><b>What this means is that drug companies are prepared to harm us for profit!</b> They have, after all, been doing so for many decades, with many other pharmaceutical drugs, and if you believe this is an over-statement of the situation I have listed some of the more serious medical scandals that demonstrate the assertion <a href="https://s-scrutton.co.uk/Failure_ConMed/hiding-medical-failure/21-dishonesty-and-fraud.html" target="_blank">at this link</a>. And, of course, there have been literally hundreds of pharmaceutical drugs that have been banned or withdrawn over the last 70 years, and more; I have listed many of these <a href="https://s-scrutton.co.uk/Failure_ConMed/medical-failure-demonstrated/6-banned-drugs.html" target="_blank">at this link</a>.</p><p>Yet such is the parlous state of drug regulation now it would seem that pharmaceutical drugs that harm patients are no longer banned or withdrawn. As with Montelukask-Singulaire they are "placed under review", and doctors are restricted to when, and to whom, they can be prescribed! But what this means is that highly profitable drugs continue to be prescribed. This asthma drug was highly profitable: which, of course, is probably the main reason for it not being banned, or withdrawn. <b>And why people like Harry are dying.</b></p><p>Drug Regulation around the world is now dominated, under the firm control, of pharmaceutical interests. Originally, the main purpose of drug regulators like the MHRA in the UK, the FDA in the USA, and the EMA in Europe, was to protect patients. They now fail to do so. In the UK this possibility has, at last, been recognised by a small group of MP's in the UK Parliament, where an all-party group have stated that the MHRA were aware of heart and clotting issues arising from the Covid-19 vaccines were known about as early as February 2021, <b>but did not highlight the problems for several months</b>. </p><p>The result of this concern, perhaps coincidentally, has been that the Chief Executive of the MHRA has suddenly announced her resignation from the post! <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/27/mhra-covid-vaccine-side-effects-mps-all-party-parliamentary/" target="_blank">This was reported in the Telegraph 0n 27 February 2024</a>. The MP's have also warned that the MHRA's Yellow Card reporting system, which encourages patients and doctors to report their concerns about adverse drug reaction, <i>"grossly underestimates"</i> the size of the problem of patient harm by pharmaceutical drugs, in some instances picking up just 1 in 180 cases of the harm drugs have caused.<a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-demise-of-pharmaceutical-drug.html" target="_blank"><b><br /></b></a></p><p><a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-demise-of-pharmaceutical-drug.html" target="_blank"><b>I have been writing about the problem of pharmaceutical drug regulation, and the patient harm caused by these drugs, for many years.</b></a><b> </b>Perhaps, now, at long last, something will be done, although this issue too will probably have to be 'reviewed' many times before any effective action is taken! Perhaps it will make parents, like Harry's, more aware that pharmaceutical drugs are dangerous, and that no-one within the NHS will protect them. </p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>And during these interminable drug reviews there will undoubtedly be many more "Harry's", people who pay the ultimate price for the mayhem being caused by pharmaceutical medicine.</b></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"> </p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-80735659227120182782024-02-15T10:27:00.001+00:002024-02-15T10:27:09.383+00:00Health Freedom: a vital principle we need to fully understand and defend with passion<p>Health freedom is under serious attack, mainly by the conventional medical profession, which thinks it knows best, and politicians who believe they know what we all need to protect ourselves. The Covid-19 Pandemic was, of course, the most recent and most serious attempt to undermine our right to choose how we treat ourselves when unwell. The pharmaceutical medical establishment tried to mandate (force) vaccines on people who wished to remain vaccine free.</p><p>The pandemic campaign to impose vaccines us all (when we were not ill) was tragically successful, perhaps not with those who had good reasons to support their view that they did not want the vaccine, but with those who were less certain. After all, we were all told to take the vaccine, we were not given any good reasons for refusing it. The Covid-19 narrative, repeated ad nauseam by government and mainstream media for over two years, gave us no reason to assume the vaccines were anything other than "safe and effective".<br /></p><p>Whenever a Political Establishment wants to impose something on its citizens there is always a government willing to force it on them. The pharmaceutical industry, and powerful player in the politial establishment, wanted to force their vaccines on the entire population in order to maximise sales. They had sufficient influence and control within government, and politicians willingly gave their willing, unquestioning and active support. The mainstream media went along with it all, meekly accepting the imposition and enforcement of mass vaccination without demur.<br /><br />History should teach us that this has always been so. Even in times when the political establishment was headed by war lords, or kings, or emperors, or an aristocracy, or an industrial elite, remaining “in power” has meant that the wishes of the rich and powerful had to be enacted. Today, governments around the world are dominated and controlled by immensely rich and powerful global corporations; and of these there is none more powerful as the Pharmaceutical Industry.<br /></p><p>The Covid-19 pandemic, and the forced medication that was permitted, has demonstrated that the pharmaceutical establishment
controls governments, conventional medicine, and the mainstream media. During the last 3–4 years it has been able to convince us (frighten us) that
there was a pandemic, so awful, so deadly, that only the vaccines could save us, and that people just had to be forced
into taking one of these untested, experimental vaccines. So as far as implementing vaccine mandates were concerned, most governments were quite prepared to put the necessary legislation into effect.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yet the governments of the rich and powerful have their problems. There has always been a small but significant part of the population who are able to think for themselves, and recognise that what is being imposed (forced) on them is not in their best interest. Not even the strongest war lords survived forever; not even the most powerful empires and kingdoms. In time they have all fallen, usually through their own incompetence, privilege and arrogance.<br /></p><p>Imposing drugs and vaccines seems always to have been attractive to autocracies (whether a real autocracy, or one masquerading as a democracy). <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-myths-of-conventional-medical.html" target="_blank">Perhaps one of the earliest, and best examples of this can be seen in the history of the smallpox vaccination in the mid 19th century - click on this link to read an outline of this history, rarely told.</a> Your will see that, as with Covid-19, smallpox was a frightening disease; people were scared; conventional medicine, even then, was arrogant enough to believe it had the solution; and the governments of the day were willing to pass the necessary legislation to enable the imposition of a vaccine mandate. </p><p>However, as with Covid-19 vaccines, the smallpox vaccine caused so much patient harm that eventually the population rebelled against it, refused to take it, to the extent that within just a few years the first mandatory vaccine was quietly dropped (although conventional medicine did not drop the propaganda that the failed and harmful vaccine had been successful in eradicating the disease!)<br /><br />Similarly, more people are now realising that the Covid-19 vaccines have caused serious patient harm. This will only increase, not least when we are all told that the much lauded Oxford University, AstraZeneca vaccine is now effectively banned around the world. People will resist again. They are already doing so; the drug companies cannot sell the vaccines as they had hoped, and their profits are falling. </p><p><b>People have always, and will always resist ‘medical mandate’ imposed on them, and with good reason.<br /></b><br />Imposing health mandates is attractive to drug companies. It enhances their profits. They have the power to influence and control politicians and governments, conventional medical authorities, and the mainstream media. But in promoting forced drugging it goes completely against the concept of <b>health freedom</b>, which has long and distinguished roots in human history. Here are just a few of the many sources.<br /></p><p></p><p><b>Hippocrates Oath (460-377bce)</b><br /> <i>“I will not give anyone poison, if asked, nor take the initiative of such a suggestion”</i><br /><br /><b>Code of Medical Ethics<br />Article 36: article R4127-36 of the Public Health Code<br /></b> <i>“The consent of the person examined or treated must be sought in all cases. When the patient, in a state of expressing his will, refuses the investigation or treatment proposed, the doctors must respect this refusal after informing the patient of his consequences”. </i><br /><br /><b>Nuremberg Code (1947)<br /></b> <i>“The consent of the human subject is absolutely essential, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights resumed this ban against unintentional experimentation, in its 1966 test, which states:<br /> “No one may be subjected without his consent to medical or scientific experiment”.<br /></i><br /><b>Geneva Statement for Doctors (1948)<br /></b> <i>“I will respect the autonomy and dignity of my patient. I will not use my medical knowledge to infringe human right and civil liberties, even under force. I will keep absolute respect for human life, from conception. I will consider my patient’s health as my first concern”.</i><br /><br /><b>Helsinki Declaration (1996)<br /></b>The Declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles regarding human experimentation developed originally in 1964 for the medical community by the World Medical Association. It is widely regarded as the cornerstone document on human research ethics (Wiki).</p><p> <i>“The participation of persons capable of giving informed consent to medical research must be a voluntary act. No person capable of giving that informed consent can be involved in a search without giving their free and informed consent”.<br /></i><br /><b>Oviedo Conventional (1997)<br />Article 5:<br /></b> <i>“An intervention in the field of health can only be carried out after the data subject has given free and informed consent. This person is given prior adequate information about the purpose and nature of the intervention, as well as its consequences and risks. The data subject may, at any time, freely withdraw his consent”.<br /><br /></i><b>Loi Kouchner (2002)<br />Article 111-114: <br /></b> <i>“Every person shall make decisions concerning his health with the healthcare professional and taking into account the information he provides him/her.The doctor must respect the will of the person after informing them of the consequences of their choices. If the person’s willingness to refuse or discontinue treatment puts his or her life and risk, the doctor must do everything to convince him or her to accept the much needed care. No medical or treatment can be practiced without the free and informed consent of the person and this consent can be withdrawn at any time”.</i></p><p><b>Salvetti Stop (2002)<br /> </b><i>“No medical treatment is mandatory in the European Union: “as a non-voluntary medical treatment, mandatory vaccination is an interference with the right to privacy, guaranteed by Article 8 of the</i> <i>European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”.</i><br />(Salvetti v Italy - ECHR decision of 9 July 2002. No 42197/98).<br /><br /><b>French Civil Code<br />Article 16-1<br /> </b><i>“Everyone has the right to respect their own bodies. The body in inviolable”.<br /></i><br />Yet governments around the world have been content to repudiate these principles and policies in pursuit of enforcing vaccine mandates on behalf of the Pharmaceutical industry.<br /><br /><b>UK Government (2012): "Shared Decision Making: Liberating the NHS: No decision about me without me"<br /><span> </span></b><i>“Making shared decision making a reality: no decision about me without me”. <br /></i><br /><b>Council of Europe<br />Resolution 2361 (2021) <br /> </b><span> </span><i>“Advisory opinion: the Assembly urges member states and the European Union".</i><br />Article 731: <br /><span> </span> <i>“To ensure that citizens are informed that vaccination is no mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to get vaccinated, if he or she does not wish to do so personally”.<br /></i>Article 732: <br /> <span> </span><i>“To ensure that no one is discriminated against for not being vaccinated, due to potential health risk or not wanting to get vaccinated”.</i><br /><br /><b>(Note. Most of this information on the principles of health freedom was put together by a source that I have since lost. Please advise if you are aware of the source. I am happy to add a full reference to it here).</b><br /> <br />Health freedom is a vitally important principle. For the future we need to recognise that powerful corporations will want to undermine it, that governments are willing to concede it, and that the mainstream media is likely to meekly acquiesce to it. The most recent example of this, the mandating of untested, experimental Covid-19 vaccines, is as invidious as anything perpetrated by the German Nazi regime in the 1930's and 1940's, and condemned at the Nuremberg trials. In both cases large numbers of people were subjected to experimental medical treatment, without their informed consent, and with the grievous suffering that resulted.</p><p><b>There is little doubt that it will happen again, possible in the near future. We should use the intervening time to ensure when it does more people are aware that their health freedom is a precious gift that they should treasure, and defend with some passion.<br /></b><br /><br /></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-58392135420398405532024-02-12T15:28:00.001+00:002024-02-12T16:02:06.974+00:00Wygovy; weight loss, and pharmaceutical drugs<p>The obesity/diabetes drugs, Wygovy and Ozempic have become a pharmaceutical best sellers. They are making the drug companies very wealthy! The active ingredient, semaglutide, helps control blood sugar, lowers appetite, and makes patients feel "full". The current claim of medical science is that these semaglutide drugs can lead to weight loss of more than 10%.</p><p>Given the burgeoning epidemic of obesity around the world this claim is an attractive one for so many people who find losing weight difficult. The sales of these drugs increased rapidly in 2023 following their promotion by the mainstream media's on behalf of the drug companies. They were "breakthrough" drugs, we were told by all media outlets.</p><p><b>(Have you noticed how little advertising the pharmaceutical industry has to do for itself? A press release usually does it, with the media content to pass on the advertising, free of charge, without any apparent investigation into the claims being made).<br /></b></p><p>The drawbacks of these drugs are already well known:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>When patients stop taking the drug they put this weight back again.</li><li>The drugs are not recommended for more than two years (so they have to be, or should be stopped within that time, making any gains reversible).</li><li>Such are the concerns about these drugs the UK's NHS only prescribe them to patients who fulfil certain criteria, within a limited number of specialist weight-loss management clinics.</li><li><a href="https://www.drugs.com/sfx/semaglutide-side-effects.html" target="_blank">Semaglutide is already known to cause serious side effects</a>, these including anxiety, bloating, nausea, vomiting, blurred vision, confusion, constipation, diarrhoea, depression, fever, headache, indigestion, nightmares, seizures, tightness in the chest, trouble breathing, unusual tiredness or weakness, acid/sour stomach, heartburn, and much more.<br /></li></ul><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph e1jhz7w10">To date these disadvantages have not slowed down burgeoning sales, especially as some pharmacies are selling them directly to the public, at a monthly cost of around £100 to £200.<br /></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph e1jhz7w10"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Have we been here before?</span></b><br /></p>For anyone who believes they have heard this before, can I refer you to one of my previous blogs, written in March 2018: <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2018/03/accomplice-what-happens-to-all-wonder.html" target="_blank">Acomplia. What happens to all the 'wonder drugs' and 'miracle cure's of conventional medicine?"</a> Read the blog for a fuller description of events, but broadly this is what happened to Acomplia.</div><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Acomplia was an obesity drug, approved in 2006, and hailed as a new 'wonder drug'.</li><li>In 2008 the drug was refused a licence in the USA, and withdrawn in the UK and Europe, particularly over fears of serious adverse reactions, particularly depression and suicide.</li><li>The medical science, which had proclaimed this wonder drug, was found to be 'faulty'. <br /></li></ul> <i>"one study discovered that one-third of people on the drug lost 10% of
their body weight, and 60% lost a less impressive 5%. Apparently, what
the study did not say was that everyone in the trial was also on a
low-calorie diet, and virtually everyone put the weight back on once
they stopped taking the drug".</i></div><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"><br /></div><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"><b>I will copy the conclusion of the Acomplia episode here, and predict (with a high degree of confidence) that this will be the conclusion of Wygovy/Ozempic story within the next few years.</b></div><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"> </div><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"><br /></div><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"><span style="font-family: courier; font-size: x-small;">"The European Medicines Agency (EMA) commented that the drug had proved less effective in <i>'real life'</i> than in clinical trials. <b>Patient hopes raised in the 'science' laboratory but dashed in real life</b>. So it had been decided to suspend the licence for Acomplia as:<br /></span>
<span style="font-family: courier; font-size: x-small;"><br />
<i>"New data from post-marketing experience and ongoing
clinical trials indicated that serious psychiatric disorders may be more
common than in the clinical trials".</i><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: courier; font-size: x-small;"><br />
So Acomplia demonstrates better than most pharmaceutical drugs the many
aspects of the hopelessness of medical science and drug regulation,
which in the interests of selling drugs raise hopes, but lead only to
further patient damage.<br /></span>
<ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-family: courier; font-size: x-small;">The NHS resorts to a drug for a condition that would be better treated via life-style and dietary treatment.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: courier; font-size: x-small;">The drug is significantly less effective than the trials (the
medical 'science' funded by the pharmaceutical industry) suggested.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: courier; font-size: x-small;">The full side effects of the drug remain unknown through all the
'scientific' drug testing, the regulator process, the licensing, and the
prescription of the drug.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: courier; font-size: x-small;">The side effects turn out to be considerably more serious than the original condition or illness.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: courier; font-size: x-small;">And a drug thought to be unsafe in one country (the USA in this
case) is considered to be perfectly 'safe' in others (indeed, most of
Europe) - before it is withdrawn there too.</span></li></ul>
<div><span style="font-family: courier; font-size: x-small;">
There is no such thing as a wonder drug, or a miracle cure, there never
has been, and there probably never will be (on the basis that future
performance is best predicted by past performance). So the next time the
mainstream media, or your doctor tells you about a remarkable new
treatment - run a mile, very, very quickly!"</span></div>
</div><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"><span style="font-size: small;">There are already signs that these drugs will soon have to be withdrawn, with one p</span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #333333; display: inline !important; float: none; font-family: Merriweather; font-size: 16px; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">harmaceutical consultant saying <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/calley-means-ozempic-tucker-carlson/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender-wk&utm_id=20240211" target="_blank">that Ozempic, <i>"the hot new weight-loss drug"</i>, poses medically dangerous gastrointestinal and mental health risks but fails to address the root causes of metabolic conditions</a>.</span></div><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">So I will get back to you when pharmaceutical drug history repeats itself, as it so inevitably does. In the meantime it seems that these new obesity/diabetes drugs are going to cause a lot of patient harm in the years to come.</span></b></div><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"><br /></div>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-37239601294980349392024-02-07T16:07:00.002+00:002024-02-07T16:07:44.155+00:00The Financial Consequences of Sodium Valproate<p><a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2024/02/sodium-valproate-anti-epileptic-drug.html" target="_blank">Sodium Valproate</a> is a demonstration that our medical system is failing. It has given pregnant women a drug that has caused an estimated 20,000 children born with serious birth defects, that is, 20,000 people who will require medical intervention and support for the rest of their lives. Compensation and damages will add to the cost of the NHS, the demand on taxpayers money, in a health service, and a national economy that is already under serious pressure. <br /></p><p>I have written about these "secondary costs" of a failed medical system (pharmaceutical medicine) before, see these links. They explain why conventional medicine has always demanded more and more resources, and why it will always do so.<br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-secondary-costs-of-conventional.html" target="_blank">The Secondary Costs of Conventional Medicine (October 2018)</a></li><li><a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-secondary-costs-of-failing-medical.html" target="_blank">The Secondary Costs of a Failing Medical System (January 2019)</a></li><li><a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-economic-crisis-self-inflicted.html" target="_blank">The Economic Crisis. A self-inflicted wound resulting from a failed medical system. The secondary cost of a failed medical system (November 2020)</a></li></ul><p>The scandal of <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2024/02/sodium-valproate-anti-epileptic-drug.html" target="_blank">Sodium Valproate</a> starts, but does not end, with the damaged lives of young children, their families, or even the compensation/damages claims that will be forthcoming. It is the ongoing, or secondary costs that will stretch long into the future. Parents cannot work because they have to care for their children. Children lose their potential to develop into full citizens who can contribute to society as otherwise they would have done. As they grow older many will depend on benefits and other support. And, of course, the ongoing medical treatment needed to deal with the consequences of the harm done by Sodium Valproate.</p><p>The Independent Medicines and
Medical Devices Safety Review’s (IMMDSR) report, <b>‘First do no harm’</b>, referred to in yesterday's blog, outlined some of the harm caused by this dangerous drug. The report makes it clear that the babies are born with <b>birth defects</b> that include <b>spina bifida</b>, <b>autism</b>, <b>malformations of the brain,
heart, and kidneys</b>, and in severe cases, <b>death</b>.</p><p>Yet when conventional medicine talks about what has caused these diseases they rarely mention that they might be cause by prescribed pharmaceutical drugs.</p><ul><li><b>Spina Bifida</b>. The NHS says that <i>"It's not known what causes spina bifida but a number of things can increase the risk of a baby developing the condition". </i>They
mention lack of folic acid, family history, genetics, obesity and
diabetes; and they mention epileptic drugs, including Valproate; but
discount this by emphasising that doctors will not prescribe them <i>"if there's a chance you could get pregnant while taking them, but they may be needed if the alternatives are not effective"</i>.</li><li><section><b>Autism</b>. The NHS says that <i>"nobody knows what causes autism, or if it has a cause"</i>.
It does know, however, that it is <i>"not caused by vaccines, such as the
MMR vaccine"</i>. However, although it is clear from the IMMDSR report that they do know
it is caused by Sodium Valproate they fail to mention it!</section></li></ul><p><b>Conventional medicine never admits culpability, even when they know they are culpable!</b> <br /></p><p>The cost of Conventional Medicine around the world is rising exponentially, and it has been for the last 80 to 100 years. The UK's NHS has always demanded, year by year, resources, to cope with more and more sickness and disease. <b> </b></p><p><b>Why does it need more more money? Why is there epidemic levels of sickness and disease, regardless of how much is spent on treatment?</b></p><p><b>The Sodium Valproate scandal suggests that iotragenic (or doctor-induced) disease plays a very large part in this increased demand.</b></p><p>People get sick, and they are given pharmaceutical drugs that make them sicker. And then they are given more drugs to treat increased levels of sickness, leading to chronic disease, and the need for more medical care. It is these 'secondary' costs of medical failure, rarely if ever mentioned, that are fundamental to the funding of the conventional medicine. </p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>The problem of NHS funding not <i>"an ageing population"</i>; nor is it the increased sophistication (or even the increased cost) of medical treatment; or any of the other reasons routinely trotted out for medical failure. </b></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">The problem is iatrogenic. </span></b></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>It is the result of a medical system that is inherently harmful, dangerous to our health.<br /></b></span></p><p> <br /></p><p><b> </b><br /></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-62248585169376101712024-02-06T14:02:00.004+00:002024-02-07T11:46:46.248+00:00Sodium Valproate: an anti-epileptic drug that has caused patient harm for 50+ years<p style="text-align: center;"><b><i>This story demonstrates how the pharmaceutical industry makes huge profits from drugs that seriously harm patients, and how it uses it's allies, in government, conventional medicine, and the mainstream media, to make sure no-one realises that the drugs they are taking are harmful.</i></b><br /></p><p>Sodium Valproate is an epilepsy drug, an anti-spasmodic. It was first approved in 1967, over 55 years ago. Conventional medicine has known it causes patient harm for most of that time; but despite restrictions of prescribing it, it is still being prescribed, and will continue to be so. Despite the fact that it is still causing serious harm.</p><p>Anyone who knows the history of pharmaceutical medicine should not be surprised to hear this. It has happened, and it continues to happen, with most prescribed drugs. <a href="https://s-scrutton.co.uk/Failure_ConMed/medical-failure-demonstrated/6-banned-drugs.html" target="_blank">Go to this link for other drugs that have gone through a similar process</a>. Patients taking any of these drugs do not usually its history of harm, at least, not the full extent of the damage they can cause. Conventional medicine insists that they are <b>"safe and effective"</b> - for as long as they can.<br /></p><p>I wrote about Sodium Valproate 13 years ago, here, <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/search?q=epilim" target="_blank">"Epilim; a dangerous drug, but no legal redress for families"</a>. </p><p>In January 2024 NICE (the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) introduced new restrictions.</p><p><span> </span><span> </span><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-instructs-health-organisations-to-prepare-now-for-new-measures-to-reduce-ongoing-serious-harms-of-valproate" target="_blank"><i>"From January 2024, valproate must not be started in new patients (male or female) younger than 55 years, unless two specialists independently consider and document that there is not other effective or tolerated treatment, or unless there are compelling reasons that the reproductive risks do not apply".</i></a></p><p><b>Powerful advice indeed! But should not this advice have been given over 55 years ago?</b></p><p>Conventional drug-based medicine might appear to be protecting patients against dangerous drugs like Sodium Valproate, but they have not been doing so, so stringently, for the last 55 years. What this means is that the drug has been harming patients throughout this time, that drug companies have been profiting from selling it; and they can still do so as the drug continues to be available for prescription!<b><br /></b></p><p>Except, of course, that conventional medicine has known (or should have known) about how dangerous this drug was for a very long time.<br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/search?q=epilim" target="_blank">My 2010 blog on Sodium Valproate (Epilim) concerned a group of parents whose children had been harmed by this drug who were seeking legal redress. They were opposed by the drug company, the NHS, and the government - who presumably maintained that the drug was "safe and effective".</a></li></ul><p>So a drug like Sodium Valproate can be (i) tested by medical science and pronounced <b>"safe and effective"</b>; (ii) national drug regulators (whose sole task is to protect patients from dangerous pharmaceutical drugs) can examine and approve it; (iii) the drug company can sell it to medical authorities; and (iv) doctors can prescribe it to patients. And vast profits can be made, especially when the drug is protected by the conventional medical establishment, including both government and the mainstream media. </p><p>In 2020 the Independent Medicines and
Medical Devices Safety Review’s (IMMDSR) report, <b>‘First do no harm’</b>,
picked out Sodium Valproate as a particularly dangerous drug. It explored the harm it caused. There is actually a disease named after the drug - <b>foetal valproate spectrum disorder (FVSD)</b>, which is the blanket diagnosis for the wide variety of disorders and development issues known to be caused when the foetus is exposed to the drug in the
womb<span class="abt-citation" contenteditable="false" data-items="["779084798"]" id="1a84f110-a69d-40d2-b91e-a731b1328807"></span>.
The babies are born with birth defects that include spina bifida, autism, malformations of the brain,
heart, and kidneys, and in severe cases, death.</p><p><b>A Patient Safety Commissioner, Henrietta Hughes, described the ongoing use of Sodium Valproate as <i>“a
far bigger scandal than thalidomide</i></b><i>”.</i><span class="abt-citation" contenteditable="false" data-items="["2570068809"]" id="c7db0582-2620-43e7-a3a1-d886c5440303"> <br /></span></p><p><span class="abt-citation" contenteditable="false" data-items="["2570068809"]" id="c7db0582-2620-43e7-a3a1-d886c5440303">The IMMDSR report made headline news</span><span class="abt-citation" contenteditable="false" data-items="["2570068809"]" id="c7db0582-2620-43e7-a3a1-d886c5440303">, unusual for such negative news about pharmaceutical drugs. Even the mainstream media could not ignore it at the time. But eventually the publicity was effectively ignored. The fact that conventional medicine can continue to use the drug is testimony to this. Once, harmful pharmaceutical drugs were banned by drug regulators. This is what should happen but it appears that this is no longer the case - regardless of the horrendous publicity. There has been much more, as these few examples demonstrate.<br /></span></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>In January 2018 this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7nxf6O-4dA" target="_blank">BBC News video</a> talked about "the sodium valproate scandal", exposing <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7nxf6O-4dA" target="_blank">"the scandal of sodium valproate and pregnancy, and how devastatingly it could affect family for generations"</a>.</li></ul><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>In April 2022 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/apr/17/sodium-valproate-mhra-to-look-into-cases-of-unsafe-epilepsy-drug-being-given-to-pregnant-women" target="_blank">the MHRA (UK's drug regulator) looked into cases of unsafe epilepsy drug being given to pregnant women as it was "associated with birth defects", and without proper warnings being given to patients</a>. <br /></li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li> In December 2022 the MHRA recommended that no one should take the drug <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-mhra-review-into-safe-use-of-valproate" target="_blank">"without advice from their healthcare professional".</a> <br /></li></ul></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>In February 2023 <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-64709971" target="_blank">BBC News reported</a> that a woman, who three children were born with disabilities after she was prescribed an epilepsy drug during pregnancy has <i>"welcomed new GP guidance"</i>. (Note, after 55 years during which time the damage had been done, but the guidance was <b>"new"</b>). This article comments, sagely, that <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-64709971" target="_blank">"it is thought thousands of UK children have been harmed by foetal exposure to sodium valproate since the 1970's"</a>.</li></ul></div><div><p><b>One of the findings of the IMMDSR report was that the voice of the patient has been dismissed over the years, that conventional medicine (the NHS) just did not listen to them. </b>Remember my 2010 blog? The large group of parents, with damaged children, who went to court to argue that what they were being told (that the drug was <b>"safe and effective"</b>) was not correct? They lost! And as a result of this, so did many more parents whose children were born, damaged, during the next 12 years. </p><p>So perhaps the new guidelines will protect potential parents now - if doctors follow the guidelines.<b> But no-one should believe that Sodium Valproate's only adverse drug reaction is to cause serious birth defects</b>. It is now thought that male infertility can be damaged. The drug is also known
to cause of other serious conditions, such as nausea, confusion, delusions, feeling of unreality, mental depression, difficult/laboured breathing, vomiting, weakness,<sup> </sup>bleeding, encephalopathy, suicidal thoughts behaviour, and many more. <a href="https://www.drugs.com/sfx/valproate-sodium-side-effects.html" target="_blank">It's all in official medical literature! To see a more complete list of adverse reactions visit this link</a>. </p><p><b>Except, of course, that for an entirely complete list of adverse drug reactions to Sodium Valproate we might have to wait another 55 years! </b>The pharmaceutical industry is a slow learner, especially when big drug profits are being made.<b><br /></b></p><p><b>Nor should anyone believe that Sodium Valproate is prescribed only for epilepsy</b>. It is also used for people with Bipolar Disease, and Schizophrenia, Migraine - and several other illnesses.<br /></p><p><b>And many people will not know that they are taking Sodium Valporate</b>, as like most pharmaceutical drugs, it is branded under many different names. These include Absenor, Convulex, Depakene, Depakin, Depakine, Depakine, Depalept, Deprakine, Encorate, Epival, Epilim, Stavzor, Valcote, Valpakine, Orfiril, and no doubt many others. The branding of drugs seems to be done to deflect attention, and create confusion! One drug, with a multiplicity of names!<br /></p>The conclusion is easy to relate. Sodium valproate has been associated with birth defects for many years. The medical profession has denied this for 55 years, during which time thousands of patients, around the world, have been damaged. Patients were not properly informed about the dangers - not least because the medical profession were denying these dangers until recently. Conventional medicine invariably does so, and many of the drugs they say are <b>"safe and effective"</b> today are nothing of the sort. But we will not know, or be told, for many years, if not decades.<br /></div><div><b> </b></div><div><b>The fact is that most pharmaceutical drugs are harmful to patients; the medical establishment is quite aware of the harm they cause (it is in the medical literature) but it continue to allow doctors to prescribe them. Moreover, patients continue to take them because they are not adequately informed about their dangers.</b><br /></div>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-81030139838627086062024-01-31T11:38:00.000+00:002024-01-31T11:38:26.992+00:00Pharmaceutical Medicine: Outcomes, and the importance of Empiricism<p></p><p><b>Observing the outcomes of taking pharmaceutical medicine is important. Such observations are an important element of science - examining the world, investigating what is happening around us. It is called empirical science.<a href="https://studybuff.com/what-is-an-empirical-science/" target="_blank"><i><br /></i></a></b></p><p style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://studybuff.com/what-is-an-empirical-science/" target="_blank"><i><span> </span></i></a><a href="https://studybuff.com/what-is-an-empirical-science/" target="_blank"><i><span> </span>"Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or
experimentation. Scientists record and analyze this data. The process is
a central part of the scientific method."</i></a><u> <i><br /></i></u></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i>"I'm ill again, I've been diagnosed with (illness3) now!"</i></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i>"Oh! What bad luck. That's a nasty illness, I am so sorry."</i></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i>"You know I have never been well since I got (illness1) and was given that (drug) to treat it."</i></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i>"Yes, I remember. You went down with (illness2) soon after; and now you have (illness3)."</i></p><p style="text-align: center;"><i>"I'm just unlucky; or perhaps I am just getting old".<br /></i></p><p>So what has caused these illnesses? Is it a matter of luck? Can it be put down to ageing? Or are other factors involved - like the 'side effects' from the medication we have taken for previous illnesses?<br /></p><p>Since early 2021 many people have been having similar conversations regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, and the vaccines used to prevent and treat it. It is time for us all to start asking the same questions. Anyone who actually observes, and considers what they are seeing, cannot help but conclude that the world is witnessing dreadful adverse vaccine reactions, including heart disease and death. Millions of people, particularly in the most vaccinated countries, are reporting these 'side effects' to national drug regulators. One Covid-19 vaccine (AstraZeneca) has already been quietly withdrawn from the market, and described as "defective".<br /></p><p>Conventional, or pharmaceutical medicine, have always (and are clearly doing so now) routinely dismissed such observations and reports as <b>‘anecdotal’</b> and <b>‘unscientific’</b>. The problem is that medical science does not usually look at vaccine or drug harm without being paid; and drug companies won’t pay for them to do so if the outcome is likely to produce bad publicity! So such conversations pass by, never examined, never investigated.<br /><br /><b>Yet these observation are the basis of science - empirical science</b>. If something is observed it should trigger more science, more investigation either to confirm or deny the observation. <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/empirical-evidence" target="_blank">Britannica describes empirical evidence as</a> <i>"information gathered directly or indirectly through observation or
experimentation that may be used to confirm or disconfirm a scientific theory or to help justify, or establish as reasonable, a person’s belief in a given proposition. A belief may be said to be justified if there is sufficient evidence to make holding the belief reasonable."</i></p><p>So medical science usually ignores our observations about health, preferring not to investigate in case what they find is not
appreciated by their drug company paymasters.</p><p>Yet our observations are important for another, more practical reason: <a href="https://s-scrutton.co.uk/Why_Homeopathy/clinical-outcomes.html" target="_blank">what we witness going on around us is <b>a clinical outcome</b></a> - they are the outcome of an illness, and/or the outcome of medical treatment. It is a truism that patients are only interested in medical treatment only when they are sick. They then want treatments that make them better, treatments that are both <b>effective</b> (an outcome) and <b>safe</b> (another outcome).</p><p><b>Most patients are not interested in what has once took place in a scientific laboratory!</b></p><p>Yet this is why pharmaceutical medicine have never been interested in treatment outcomes. Drug companies invest in ‘medical science’ for one reason - to produce positive evidence of the safety and effectiveness of a treatment. This evidence forms the basis of their advertising and promotion; it is used to encourage people to take the treatment; it ensures that profits are made - this is their primary purpose. </p><p>Any outcome of a treatment, after this, might prove that the treatment is less safe, and less effective than patients have been told. This is not wanted. It’s bad advertising. It's not what pharmaceutical medicine wants us to know!</p><p><b>In the 1960's and 1970's conventional medicine clearly recognised the need for empiricism in medicine, and the importance of outcomes</b>. Around the world, National Drug Regulators were created in order to ensure there was no further drug scandals, like Thalidomide disaster. Each new drug had to go through a process of scientific tests; and in addition reporting systems were established. </p><p><b>These reporting system were based almost entirely on patient observations about the outcomes of medical treatment.<br /></b></p><p>The result was that many new drugs and vaccines were tested, approved by the regulator, came to the market, and given to patients. Then patients reported on adverse drug reactions; the drug regulator investigated the reports, and then took appropriate action. <b>The result was that many pharmaceutical drugs were eventually banned, withdrawn, or 'discontinued' because they were were found to be either ineffective, or unsafe for patients.</b> <a href="http://s-scrutton.co.uk/Failure_ConMed/medical-failure-demonstrated/6-banned-drugs.html" target="_blank">I have listed many of these banned drugs here.</a> It is a very long list. But what is becoming clearer, as the years have passed, is that drug regulation is no longer as effective as it was during the latter decades of the 20th century.</p><p>The reason for this is also becoming clearer. Drug Regulation is now effectively controlled by the Pharmaceutical Industry. <a href="http://s-scrutton.co.uk/Failure_ConMed/hiding-medical-failure/17-drug-regulation-medical-science.html" target="_blank">I first wrote about this situation over 10 years ago now.</a> The situation has become progressively much worse. <b>The Regulator is now controlling the Regulated.</b> Even the unprecedented number of patient reports about the harm caused by the Covid-19 vaccines, based on patient observation, have been largely ignored. It is not that the reports have been investigated, and found to be unreliable. <b>They have not been properly investigated!</b></p><p>We are sicker now than we have ever been. Name any chronic disease that has not reached epidemic proportions during the last 70-100 years - the years when pharmaceutical medicine has gradually taken over health provision, and now control it entirely.<b> </b><br /></p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Many people are beginning to ask important questions about the outcomes of conventional medicine:</span></b></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;">is what I am being told about pharmaceutical treatments honest and true?</span></b></li><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;">what are the health outcomes of taking pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines? <br /></span></b></li><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;">could my illness be an adverse drug or vaccine reaction?</span></b></li><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;">when will medical science be expected to focus on adverse drug outcomes?<br /></span></b></li><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;">how many people will drug regulators allow to contract a serious disease, how many people allowed to die, before they take action to protect patients?</span></b></li><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;">why is it that politicians, governments, and the mainstream media do not tell us about what is going on?</span></b></li><li><b><span style="font-size: medium;">how much more money will we have to spend on pharmaceutical medicine before we reach the conclusion that it is ineffective, and unsafe for patients.<br /></span></b></li></ul><p><br /></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-65651548356326533832024-01-25T14:51:00.005+00:002024-01-25T16:04:17.722+00:00Measles Vaccine Campaign Targets "Unprotected Millions"<p>Measles is a highly contagious infection. During the poverty of the 18th and 19th century, following the Agrarian and Industrial Revolutions, it killed many thousands of people. However, following the public health reforms from the second half of the 20th century onwards it declined. By the 1950's and 1960's conventional medical textbooks described it as a mild condition. My mum almost certainly took me to a 'measles party' so that I could contract measles 'naturally' through contact with other children who had contracted the illness. There was little or no fear.<br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>However, when the measles vaccines were introduced, and everything changed!</b><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: left;">This is why, in the UK during the last few days, the NHS has begun a new measles campaign. <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68057317" target="_blank">BBC News has explained why:</a><b class="ssrcss-hmf8ql-BoldText e5tfeyi3" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: bold; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> <br /></b></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph e1jhz7w10" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-language-override: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size-adjust: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><i><span class="ssrcss-hmf8ql-BoldText e5tfeyi3" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span> </span><span> </span>"Millions of parents in England are being contacted by the NHS and urged to make an appointment to have their children vaccinated against measles, as cases rise across the country. </span>More than 3.4 million children aged under 16 are unprotected and at risk of becoming ill, NHS England says".</i></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>So the message is that there are 'millions of people' out here who are 'unprotected', and they urgently need to make an appointment to be vaccinated.</b></span><b> </b><br /></p><p>Otherwise, we were told, the vulnerable could suffer from a number of serious measles complications, such as pneumonia, blindness, seizures and meningitis. Babies, young children, pregnant women and the 'immunocompromised' were all particularly vulnerable to these serious side effects.</p><p>Predictably, the rest of the mainstream media carried exactly the same tale. <i>"Measles is a nasty infection, so this is serious"</i> the Guardian stated. <i>"Measles cases are rising - and its about more than vaccine misinformation".</i> And every other media outlet has relayed the same tale, often using identical language, and the the same story and statistics. It is a message co-ordinated by the pharmaceutical medical establishment!<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>So no more measles parties. No more medical textbooks stating that measles
is a mild disease. We have to be afraid, very afraid.<br /></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">Nor was there much information about the size of the problem either, except that there have been 200-300 cases of measles reported in England in the last few months. <b>Yes, 300 cases constitutes a serious medical problem! Is this true?</b> </p><p style="text-align: left;">Is the panic really about just 300 cases? The NHS is struggling; it is the process of complete financial collapse, and complete medical failure; it complains constantly that it is in need of more resources, both personnel and financial; that it cannot cope with the longest ever waiting lists; all chronic diseases are now running at unprecedented levels, and rising. And yet, despite all this, the NHS is creating this (unnecessary?) campaign - over a few hundred cases of measles!<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">But more important than this, in my view, is that there is an important new
message coming from the Conventional Medical Establishment which needs to be addressed.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Only vaccines can provide us with immunity from measles.</span></b></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">The state of our immune system is not considered, or even mentioned; presumably it has no role to play!</span></b></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">So this is where we now find ourselves. Natural immunity is something the NHS, and the wider pharmaceutical establishment, no longer considers. <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-immune-system-supporting.html" target="_blank">This might be a campaign to save us from measles; but there is no NHS advice about the need to support and strengthen our immune system, something we could all do, right now, immediately.</a> It would appear that only the immunity the NHS is concerned about concerns vaccines, at whatever cost, and not natural immunity, which is virtually free!</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">Is this clever vaccine promotion? The campaign will certainly make people scared, and as a direct result of this fear it will ensure people get the message. Fear of ill-health always sells drugs. And when fear is accompanied by the usual "safe and effective" vaccine message, it is a winner. Especially if we are then led to believe that they are the only thing that can save us from this dreadful, life-threatening illness.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">The campaign emphasises the historical importance of the MMR vaccine in reducing the incidence and impact of measles; it even said to have 'eradicated' the disease at some point. <b>It never did any such thing.</b> <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-myths-of-conventional-medical.html">I wrote about this 3 years ago, January 2021, in this blog - "The Myths of Conventional Medical Success: conquering measles". </a>Simply explained, the number of measles cases, and its seriousness, had been consistently reduced from the mid-19th century onwards, largely the result of public health improvements. By the time the measles vaccines were introduced numbers were already low, and it was no long considered to be a 'killer' disease. <b>And the vaccine made absolutely no impact on this reducing trend.</b></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">Anyone who wants to escape these regular 'epidemics', the frequent scare stories and moral panics, need to resurrect the message, expounded by the medical textbooks, and practised by the wise mother's of the 1950's, - that the secret to protecting ourselves from measles, and good health generally, comes from <b>building and maintaining a strong immune system</b>. <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-immune-system-supporting.html" target="_blank">This is a comparatively simple task, one that each of us should be doing every day of our lives.</a> Despite medical propaganda.....<br /></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Vaccine immunity has little or nothing to offer natural immunity<br /></span></b></p><p style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"> <br /></span></b></p><p style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></b> <br /></p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b></b></span>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-31600140322452161482024-01-23T12:33:00.001+00:002024-01-23T12:33:26.041+00:00New Prescribing Restrictions for Fluoroquinolone Antibiotics (to reduce risk of severe side effects)<p><b>New Prescribing Restrictions for Fluoroquinolone Antibiotics were introduced by the UK's drug regulation, the MHRA, in January 2024.</b></p><p><i><span> </span>"The MHRA has introduced further restrictions on the use of these antibiotics “to reduce the risk of potentially severe side effects”.</i></p><p>These are the headlines of a MIM<i>S </i>article, dated 22 January 2024. Clearly, it is important for all of us to know about this information. Most of us believe (because we have been told for more than 70 years now) that antibiotic drugs are <b>"safe and effective"</b>. Yet the article talks of <b>"severe side effects"</b>. What is this all about? Let's allow MIMS to explain:</p><p><i><span> </span>"This convent is only available to fully registered users".</i></p><p>Well, the MIMS website is only intended for healthcare professionals. So perhaps this reticence is understandable. Healthcare professionals will, of course, inform us about the dangers; as will government; as will the National Health Service (NHS), especially our doctors; as will our mainstream media. So what are we being told about these antibiotics by our media organisations?</p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Well, I have looked; and the answer is - nothing!</b> </span><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">So how do we patients, or prospective patients, find out about this information? Surely we need to know what these new restrictions, and newly discovered (?) side effects of these antibiotics, are? And perhaps there needs to be some reconsideration of the <i>"antibiotics are safe and effective"</i> narrative the conventional medical establishment has been giving us for the last 70 years.</p><p>So let's delve deeper into the secretive, closed world of pharmaceutical medicine. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/fluoroquinolone-antibiotics-new-restrictions-and-precautions-for-use-due-to-very-rare-reports-of-disabling-and-potentially-long-lasting-or-irreversible-side-effects" target="_blank">What does NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Standards) tell us.</a></p><p><span> </span><i>"The MHRA and CHM have released important safety information regarding
the use of systemic and inhaled fluoroquinolones. For restrictions and
precautions, see Important safety information for all quinolones: <a href="https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drugs/ciprofloxacin/" title="ciprofloxacin">ciprofloxacin</a>, <a href="https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drugs/delafloxacin/" title="delafloxacin">delafloxacin</a>, <a href="https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drugs/levofloxacin/" title="levofloxacin">levofloxacin</a>, <a href="https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drugs/moxifloxacin/" title="moxifloxacin">moxifloxacin</a>, and <a href="https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drugs/ofloxacin/" title="ofloxacin">ofloxacin</a>."</i></p><span> </span><i>"Fluoroquinolone antibiotics: new restrictions and precautions for
use due to very rare reports of disabling and potentially long-lasting
or irreversible side effects.
</i><div class="direction-ltr govuk-width-container" id="wrapper"><main class="specialist-document" id="content" lang="en" role="main"><div class="govuk-grid-row"><div class="govuk-grid-column-two-thirds responsive-top-margin"><div class="gem-c-title govuk-!-margin-top-8 govuk-!-margin-bottom-8">
</div>
</div>
<div class="govuk-grid-column-two-thirds">
<p class="gem-c-lead-paragraph"><i><span> </span>"Disabling, long-lasting or
potentially irreversible adverse reactions affecting musculoskeletal and
nervous systems have been reported very rarely with fluoroquinolone
antibiotics.</i></p><p class="gem-c-lead-paragraph"><i><span> </span>"Fluoroquinolone treatment should be discontinued at the
first signs of a serious adverse reaction, including tendon pain or
inflammation.</i></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="govuk-grid-row">
<div class="metadata-logo-wrapper">
<div class="govuk-grid-column-two-thirds metadata-column">
<div class="gem-c-metadata" data-gem-toggle-module-started="true" data-metadata-module-started="true" data-module="gem-toggle metadata">
<dl class="gem-c-metadata__list" data-gem-track-click-module-started="true" data-module="gem-track-click"><dt class="gem-c-metadata__term">The NICE link goes on with more detailed information about the side effects that are being kept secret from the lay person, plus the instructions to doctors about when NOT to prescribe these antibiotic drugs. It is a frightening read, not just because of what these drugs are now known to cause (after years/decades of prescribing them), but because it is clear that we, you and I, are not going to be told about the harm they are known to cause. Here are just a few of them.</dt><dt class="gem-c-metadata__term"> </dt><dt class="gem-c-metadata__term"><b>Common or very common: </b>Appetite decreased; arthralgia;
asthenia; constipation; diarrhoea; dizziness; dyspnoea; eye discomfort;
eye disorders; fever; fungal infection; gastrointestinal discomfort;
headache; myalgia; nausea; QT interval prolongation; skin reactions;
sleep disorders; taste altered; tinnitus; vision disorders; vomiting</dt></dl><h4>Uncommon:<span style="font-weight: normal;">Altered
smell sensation; anaemia; anxiety; arrhythmias; chest pain; confusion;
cough; depression; drowsiness; dry eye; eosinophilia; eye inflammation;
flatulence; hallucination; hearing impairment; hepatic disorders;
hyperglycaemia; hyperhidrosis; hypersensitivity; hypoglycaemia;
hypotension; leucopenia; muscle weakness; neutropenia; pain;
palpitations; peripheral neuropathy (sometimes irreversible);
pseudomembranous enterocolitis (in adults); renal impairment; seizure;
sensation abnormal; stomatitis; tendon disorders; thrombocytopenia;
tremor; vertigo</span></h4><h4>Rare or very rare: <span style="font-weight: normal;">Agranulocytosis;
angioedema; arthritis; coordination abnormal; gait abnormal; haemolytic
anaemia; idiopathic intracranial hypertension; myasthenia gravis
aggravated; pancreatitis; photosensitivity reaction; polyneuropathy;
psychotic disorder; severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs); suicidal
behaviours; syncope; vasculitis</span></h4><h4>Frequency not known: <span style="font-weight: normal;">Heart
valve incompetence; hypoglycaemic coma; increased risk of aortic
aneurysm (more common in elderly); increased risk of aortic dissection
(more common in elderly); rhabdomyolysis (in adults).</span></h4></div></div></div></div></main></div><p>So the MIMS news is correct. It is not <b>'disinformation'</b>, just information that is not being made available to the average patient who might feel they need to know about these "safe and effective" antibiotic drugs!</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">This is how the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment operates. It purports to provide us with "safe and effective" treatments when we are ill, only to provide us with drugs that make us even sicker. No wonder the NHS is failing!</span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></b><br /></p><p></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-80436621013608818642024-01-12T15:04:00.005+00:002024-01-17T11:26:12.334+00:00Midazolam. Do doctors realise they are killing their patients?<p><b>Many doctor-prescribed pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are known to kill patients. Of this there can be no doubt - it is, after all, admitted and described in conventional medical literature. There is no safe drug, we are told. We are just never told about how 'unsafe' they really are.<br /></b></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Yet doctors continue to prescribe these drugs, regardless of the dangers they represent for their patients. So how big a danger is it?</b></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p style="text-align: left;">A few doctors are known to have killed their patients intentionally. Harold Shipman springs immediately to mind, but in no way is this a common occurrence. The vast majority of deaths caused by pharmaceutical drugs are probably unintentional accidents - although such is the well-known dangers of these drugs they are too often<i> 'accidents waiting to happen'.</i></p><p><b>Patients who are being treated by conventional medicine are playing a game of Russian Roulette.</b> No-one, least of all the prescribing doctor, knows what adverse reactions his/her patient will suffer as a result of taking a drug, or a cocktail of drugs, whether it will be slight or serious, temporary or long-term. But one thing is certain. The pharmaceutical gun is loaded - and every doctor should know full well that it is loaded.</p><p>Midazolam is a benzodiazepine drug, one of the most dangerous categories of all pharmaceutical drugs. There are many <a href="https://www.drugs.com/sfx/midazolam-side-effects.html" target="_blank">known adverse reactions to Midazolam</a>. It is, for instance, just one of the drugs that has a <b>'black box'</b> warning.....</p><p><i><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>"Midazolam has been associated with respiratory depression and respiratory arrest, especially when used for sedation in
non-critical care settings. <b>Use only in settings that can provide for
continuous monitoring of respiratory and cardiac function.</b> The initial
dose and all subsequent doses should always be titrated slowly.
Midazolam injection should not be administered by rapid injection in the
neonatal population as severe hypotension and seizures have been reported." </i>(My emphasis)<i>.</i><br /></p><p>Some of the known adverse reactions include aggressiveness, anxiety, confusion, decreased awareness or responsiveness, loss of bladder or bowel control, loss of consciousness, memory loss, seizures, severe sleepiness, trouble concentrating, sleeping, breathing, and much else - including death although this is not mentioned here.<br /></p><p><b>One question/allegation that was made during the Covid-19 pandemic was that Midazolam was being used as a euthanasia drug for the sickest patients. </b></p><p>This link suggests that <a href="https://dailyexpose.uk/2021/08/02/nhs-staff-ordered-to-overdose-patients-with-midazolam-for-covid19/" target="_blank">Midazolam was used to overdose and end the lives of those patients with Covid-19</a>, the deaths to be passed off as Covid-19. </p><p>This link says that <a href="https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/midazolam-the-scandal-that-cannot-be-ignored/" target="_blank">Midazolam was used intentionally for euthanasia</a>. It was only the independent media article that carried the story: the Sun published it in June 2020, stating that <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12100515/care-homes-accused-sedatives-coronavirus-die-quickly/" target="_blank">Care homes were accused of using powerful sedatives to make coronavirus victims die more quickly</a>. </p><p>The Daily Mail stated that <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8514081/Number-prescriptions-drug-midazolam-doubled-height-pandemic.html" target="_blank">the use of the drug doubled during the height of the pandemic</a>.<br /><br />It was clear in 2020 that the conventional medical establishment had no treatment for the Covid-19 virus, and at times seemed desperate that they had no vaccine to deal with it, and had nothing to offer Covid patients. Instead they used 'treatments' known to be little better than useless - hand-washing, face masks, social distancing, lockdown, test and trace. But did conventional medicine go further? Was there a policy of euthanasia for the older, more severely sick patient?</p><p>I make no such accusation as I have no evidence to support it. But the accusation <b>has</b> been made. And as usual all is quiet, there has been little or no response from the conventional medical establishment (who might perhaps have wanted to defend itself from the accusation. </p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">The silence just makes me wonder - why?</span></b><br /></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-8601840830661582722024-01-12T14:21:00.002+00:002024-01-12T14:21:56.562+00:00The Sad Lament of an Anti-Vaxxer<p>I read this on Facebook on 15 August 2023. The author, Richard Moskowitz, MD, has given me permission to republish it here. It provides a full explanation and justification for everyone who wishes to be an "anti-vaxxer, or as I prefer to say, to remain "vaccine free".<br /><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">An Anti-Vaxxer’s Sad Lament</span><br /></b></p><p>Those of you who know me or are familiar with my work know that I’ve been questioning the scientific basis of vaccinations for over forty years,(1), and that my concerns about them go beyond the side effects of this or that vaccine to the nature of the vaccination process per se. In short, I am that rare case of an honest-to-God “anti-vaxxer,” unlike the vast majority of those unjustly stigmatized with that label, such as the parents of vaccine-injured children, whose only mistake was to have done exactly what they were told, and suffered the devastating consequences of it: “ex-vaxxers” would be a more appropriate term for them.<br /><br />While I’ve always felt for them and advocated for their cause, my problem with vaccines goes beyond the moral and political duty of redressing the harm that they suffered, to the issue of scientific truth, based on 50+ years of experience as a family doctor, and amply supported by articles in the medical literature, albeit largely unread and ignored. (2). <br /><br />I am far from claiming that what I’ve come to believe about them is the complete and final truth; but I do think such views deserve serious consideration, rather than the ridicule and censorship that they commonly receive. So I will begin by summarizing my findings here.<br /><br />The idea of vaccinating sounds attractive, as a way of preventing large populations from coming down with and suffering from acute infectious diseases, especially the most serious ones like smallpox, diphtheria, and polio, which have killed or maimed so many people who came down with them. <br /><br />But vaccines are now so numerous and widely used, even for the common diseases of childhood, that we seldom remember or think to compare how they act with the natural process of coming down with and recovering from the natural diseases, which are acute phenomena of relatively short duration, involving fever and a collaborative effort of various immune mechanisms, and culminating in the expulsion of the offending foreign organism from the body. This result cannot be achieved by any one of these mechanisms operating independently of the others. <br /></p><p>The natural immunity that results from it is specific, in the familiar sense of protecting the patient against future outbreaks of the same disease, just as vaccines claim to do. Less obvious but even more important is its non-specific effect, priming the immune system to respond acutely, vigorously, and in concerted fashion to whatever other infections we are exposed to in the future. <br /><br />That wouldn’t seem like that big of a deal, except for research that few doctors or patients are aware of, showing that those who come down with and recover from measles, mumps, chickenpox, influenza, and other common acute diseases of childhood are much less likely to develop chronic, autoimmune diseases and cancer later in life than those who are merely vaccinated against them. (3) <br /><br />If true, that tells us that vaccinating is not the way to develop a healthy immune system; and we’re much better off learning how to get sick than vaccinating everybody against everything simply because we have the technical know-how to do so. <br /><br />In contrast, whatever good vaccines may accomplish depends on one thing only, producing specific antibodies in significant quantities over long periods of time, bypassing if not dysregulating all the other collaborative mechanisms. It thus necessarily falls far short of duplicating the natural immunity that good health depends on. <br /><br />When a vaccine is injected intramuscularly, there is a brief inflammatory reaction at the injection site, but no local sensitization of the nasopharynx and its epithelium, no co-ordinated mobilization of phagocytes, cytokines, and serum complement, no overt illness, and thus, above all, no reliable mechanism or pathway for getting rid of it. After 14 days or so, yes, there are likely to be measurable titers of specific antibodies in the blood; and, yes, the recipients of many though not all vaccines will be somewhat less likely to come down with the corresponding acute disease, at least in the near future, than they were before. <br /><br />But without the acute illness, there is no concerted activation of the cellular system, no priming of the immune mechanism as a whole, no improvement in the general health, no encrypted memory of the infection, and again, no means of expelling the invading viruses, bacteria, or bioengineered fragments derived from them.<br /><br />Where the vaccine actually goes, how it persuades the antibody-producing cells to continue doing their work over extended periods of time, as it was designed to do, and what price we have to pay for these antibodies and the partial, temporary semblance of immunity that they provide, are questions that it seems we're not supposed to ask, can expect haughty contempt or righteous indignation if we do, and haven't been convincingly answered in any way that helps the public to understand.<br /><br />What continues to haunt me about the vaccination process is the obvious fact that, unlike the diseases it is supposed to prevent, vaccination is and must be a chronic phenomenon, in that its intended result of achieving continuous antibody synthesis for months and years afterward would seem to require that either the vaccine substance itself or at the information that it conveys remain active inside the body for at least that long. <br /><br />It’s worth asking how such long-term carrier states might be achieved, and what effect they might have on the health of vaccine recipients; but for now I’ll just add that it’s dangerously misleading, if not the exact opposite of the truth, to claim that vaccines render us immune to acute diseases, if in fact they merely drive the invading organisms or toxic derivatives of them deep into our vital organs and cause us to harbor them chronically if not permanently instead.</p><p>My reluctance to vaccinate originated with a gut feeling that I couldn’t explain, while the hypothesis formulated above was the logical conclusion of a sabbatical year of visiting the immunology that I was never taught in med school. But it didn’t really come alive for me until I began seeing a lot of chronically sick children in my practice.4 <br /><br />With so many vaccines being given, several of them even simultaneously at the same visit, it was practically impossible to identify a specific vaccine or component as the culprit, as doctors are trained to do; and it didn’t immediately occur to me to think about the vaccination process itself. There are a lot of reasons why that link was difficult to see even when I looked for it.<br /><br />What started me thinking about it was seeing so many kids given vaccines on the approved schedule who were reacting non-specifically to them, by developing a more intense or prolonged version of whatever chronic diseases they were already bothered by. What still threw me off, even then, was that they all reacted in a characteristic manner that was peculiar to them, no matter which vaccine was given, which disease they had, or how severely they suffered from it. <br /></p><p>Eventually I discovered that any vaccine would do, and that several different ones would have the same effect for that child, while the diseases involved ran the whole gamut of pediatric practice, might also attack the unvaccinated, and be brought on by environmental toxins and pollutants as well. <br /> <br />Another source of confusion was simply that chronic diseases tend to wax and wane idiosyncratically, not on any preformed or regular schedule. The only way to see the causal role of vaccines was to treat the children with herbs, acupuncture, or homeopathy until they recovered and were essentially symptom-free for several months. <br /><br />Then and only then, consistently enough to be the rule, their old disease pattern would recur promptly and dramatically after their next vaccination, whatever it was, such that its causal role became obvious to the parents and anyone else paying attention. Suppressing the main symptoms with pharmaceutical drugs didn’t clean the slate sufficiently to achieve that clarity.<br /><br />With the specific effects of each individual vaccine thus essentially hidden, and doctors distracted from considering the generic effect of the vaccination process, they readily fall into line with the industry’s agenda of piling on as many vaccines as we see fit. <br /><br />Yet investigating the safety of vaccinating against everything, of the process itself, would require nothing more elaborate than comparing the all-cause morbidity and mortality, the overall rate of death and chronic disease, in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. The public surely deserves to be told, if only to discredit nay-sayers like me, why our nation, which yields to none in its professed commitment to science, has never seen fit to undertake such an obvious study, even though if not precisely because it could resolve the issue once and for all. <br /><br />To summarize, then, my clinical experience strongly suggests that all vaccines, whatever benefits may be ascribed to them, are regularly and significantly implicated in initiating, exacerbating, and reactivating the innumerable chronic diseases of our time. If that much is true, it follows as night from day that subjecting whole populations to repeated doses of more and more of them, with no end in sight, is adding continuously and exponentially to the crushing burden of chronic diseases that we already bear, not as rare coincidences, aberrations, or side effects, but as a built-in feature of their design.<br /><br />Gripped by the urgency of that realization, and unnerved by our obstinate inability and unwillingness to recognize it, I began combing through the scientific literature, and uncovered a substantial body of reputable, published research along the same lines, (5), studies ignored by most practising physicians, because they directly contradict what we are authoritatively taught, fondly believe, and seldom bother to question. <br /><br />Since well before the COVID, thinking it a scientific and moral issue of vital importance, I began emailing leading progressive legislators, pointing out that simply ending the mandates would significantly improve the health of the nation; but not one ever acknowledged even receiving them. During the 2016 Presidential election season, the drug companies launched a campaign to convince the blue states to eliminate their philosophical and personal-belief exemptions from the vaccines they were requiring, especially measles, because of a few modest outbreaks of the disease that belied the CDC’s claim to have eliminated it from the country. <br /><br />I reached out to Bernie Sanders, because he’d been railing against the greed and corruption of the drug industry for decades; but his office never wrote back, and in one campaign speech after another he echoed the official CDC line, blaming the unvaccinated for spreading the disease, and thus putting their fellow-citizens at risk. (6) Similar attempts to inform Liz Warren, AOC, and a few others also failed, leaving me to own up to the fact that vaccination had become essentially a sacred cow, beyond question or doubt, for the public at large. Nor could I blame them entirely, since their only mistake was having trusted the medical profession and the CDC to tell us the truth about matters of health that they presumably understand better than anyone. <br /><br />By 2019, as the outbreaks continued, editorials in the New York Times and other mainstream media were openly castigating “anti-vaxxers,” (7) with Congressman Adam Schiff, an avowed champion of civil rights, explicitly ordering Facebook and Google to suppress all content questioning the vaccine mandates as “disinformation,” and thus violating the First Amendment in the name of a public health emergency that he was doing his level best to create, with every righteous intention, to be sure. (8)<br /><br />With the COVID pandemic in 2020, the censorship looked to become permanent, as the economy and almost all daily activities were locked down, against the advice of leading epidemiologists. (9) In 2021, when the vaccines finally became available, the whole population was threatened with loss of jobs and forbidden to travel for refusing them, as the unvaccinated were blamed once again for spreading the virus, even though the vaccine was later admitted to be ineffective in preventing it. (10). Meanwhile, Biden had become President, and the Democrats, abandoning their concern for civil rights in the teeth of the emergency, enforced the mandate more strictly than the Republicans, and did everything possible to discredit the “anti-vaxxers” who resisted or even doubted the need for it, and to silence or punish those who dared to question its safety or tried to publicize its adverse effects. <br /><br />In addition to the growing number of doctors who began speaking out against these policies, a number of actors, writers, and politicians, mostly conservative Republicans and libertarians who detested the Biden Administration and government interventions of any kind, were raising their voices as well.</p><p>One of the leading dissidents was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who carries on the name and legacy of his still prominent family, especially his uncle, a beloved former President, and his father, who was also assassinated while running for President himself. <br /><br />A successful environmental lawyer who won major judgments against polluters and the government agencies colluding with them, this younger Kennedy also created and led a nonprofit public-interest group, Children’s Health Defense, which publicizes current health issues, including how the drug industry deceives the public about vaccines, and ends up controlling the government agencies meant to regulate them.11 In short, he sounded like a classic New Deal Democrat, championing many of the same values that led me to study and write about this issue in the first place. <br /><br />For all of these reasons, he became a hero to me and so many others, for taking on these powerful interests and exposing them with passion and eloquence, not least for doing so as a Democrat, at a time when most mainstream Democrats and party leaders were either clueless about the dangers of vaccines, reluctant to speak out against them, or committed to the pro-vaccine agenda now prevailing because their GOP opponents had begun to attack it, largely on libertarian grounds. <br /><br />In the run-up to the 2024 Presidential election, when he announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination, RFK Jr. soon attracted a huge following from among the growing multitudes harmed by vaccines, or disenchanted with the censorship and emergency measures imposed under the pandemic. In particular, for the minority of liberal and progressive Democrats like myself who felt the same way, he seemed like our only hope of bringing the vaccine issue into the mainstream of political discourse, as the signature and indeed winning issue for the left that I’ve always thought it was, and now more than ever. <br /> <br />But even at this early stage in the campaign, with the Democratic Convention still a year away, it is already clear that he cannot possibly win the nomination, because the party leadership and their activists at the state and district level are firmly committed to defeating him by any means necessary, so that there is no realistic possibility that he will succeed in bringing the vaccine issue front and center before the electorate and the general public at this time. If that is true, then the only possible result of his candidacy going forward will be to dissuade the 20% of normally Democratic voters who now support him from voting for Biden, the presumptive nominee, and thus quite possibly help to re-elect Trump, who has explicitly and for once truthfully pledged to end our already frail democratic experiment once and for all. <br /><br />Preventing that result, at once too horrible to contemplate yet suddenly within reach, must take precedence over the vanishingly unlikely prospect that Kennedy will be allowed to represent the party, when it refuses even to give him the same Secret Service protection it has always allowed its sworn enemies. It saddens me to have to say this, since it will also mean weakening and burying yet again the cause that I’ve spent the last forty years trying to publicize. </p><p>So this is my plea to RFK Jr., which I can only hope he’ll take to heart: <br /><br />* Please arrange a private meeting with Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders, and announce your intention to suspend your candidacy for the sake of party unity against Trump. <br />* Please ask them to give serious attention to your work at Children’s Health Defense, exposing the malfeasance of the vaccine manufacturers in corrupting the CDC and other government agencies that were created to regulate and restrain them. <br />* Please promise to be a loyal Democrat, to work hard to help re-elect Biden or the party nominee, whoever it turns out to be.<br />* And this is my plea to President Biden and the Democratic Party leaders, which I hope they will heed as well:<br />* Please listen carefully to what RFK Jr. and various doctors and scientists have to say about the dangers of vaccines and the successful tactics of the CDC and other agencies to keep them hidden from the public.<br />* Please appoint him to the Platform Committee, to make use of his research and expertise about vaccines and public health to help formulate party policy about these important issues.<br /><br />Thank you.<br /> Respectfully submitted,<br /> Richard Moskowitz, M. D.<br /><br />1. Moskowitz, R., “The Case against Immunizations,” Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 76:7, March 1983.<br />2. Moskowitz, Vaccines: a Reappraisal, Skyhorse, New York, 2017, Chapters 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, passim.<br />3. Cf., for example, Albonico, H., et al., “Febrile Infectious Childhood Diseases in the History of Cancer Patients and Matched Controls,” Medical Hypotheses 51:315, 1998.<br />4. Moskowitz, 2017, op. cit., Chapter 4, pp. 57-69.<br />5. Vide supra, note 1.<br />6. Pollack, H., “All Our Politicians Should Join to End the Dangerous Anti-Vaccination Madness,” Washington Post, February 4, 2015.<br />7. “How to Inoculate against Anti-Vaxxers,” Editorial, New York Times, January 20, 2019.<br />8. Rodrigo, C., “Schiff Calls out Facebook, Google over Anti-Vaccination Information,” The Hill, February 14, 2019.<br />9. Cf., for example, “Perspectives on the Pandemic: a Conversation with Dr. Knut Wittkowski,” The Press and the Public Project, thepressandthepublic.com, April 2, 2020; Prof. David Katz, “Is Our Fight against Coronavirus Worse than the Disease?,” New York Times, March 20, 2020; and Michael Osterholm, M.D., “Facing COVID-19 Reality: a National Lockdown Is No Cure,” Washington Post, March 21, 2020.<br />10. Cf. President Biden, the White House, September 9, 2021: “This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated . . . ,” vs. Rochelle Walensky, M.D., CNN Interview with Wolf Blitzer, You Tube, August 8, 2021. <br />11. Cf., for example, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., “Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: a Win-Win for Big Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination,” childrenshealthdefense.org, April 9, 2020.<br /><br /></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-2351224219950402842024-01-09T16:02:00.002+00:002024-01-09T16:02:18.033+00:00The Vaccine Injured Need Support (just like former Post Office staff)<p>People who suffer from <b>vaccine injury</b> need support. The conventional medical establishment appears to have a number of ways of dealing with these people and the harm they have suffered. The first is to ignore it. The second is the deny it. The third is to tell the patient that they are suffering from another condition, quite unrelated to the vaccines; and finally that there is nothing that they can do about it.</p><p>It takes considerable insight and critical thinking for the injured patient even to recognise that they are experiencing the result of the vaccine. After all, we have been told, ad infinitum, that vaccines are both "safe and effective". Never has this been more of a problem than the 3-years following the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out. Patients around the world have reported an enormous number of Covid-19 vaccine injuries to drug regulators. The task of drug regulators is to protect patients from harmful drugs and vaccines, so such reports should have lead to an appropriate response. Indeed, the Covid-19 vaccines have had more reports of patient harm than all other vaccines given to us since the turn of the century. </p><p>Yet in typical style they have all been ignored and denied. Whatever the problem, it is not the vaccines! After all, they are still being recommended to uy; and they have even found their way into the vaccination schedule in many countries.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">The voice of the vaccine injured patient is being studiously ignored!</span></b><br /></p><p>However, the good news is that support groups are arising. I discovered one of them this morning. It is called <b><a href="https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100090673391940" target="_blank">"The Friends of the UK CV Family"</a></b>, who describe themselves as <i>"a friendly, UK-based support and advocacy group"</i>. It goes on to say that <i>"If you are Covid vaccine injured or bereaved, or supporting someone that is, please email us at </i><span class="x193iq5w xeuugli x13faqbe x1vvkbs xlh3980 xvmahel x1n0sxbx x1lliihq x1s928wv xhkezso x1gmr53x x1cpjm7i x1fgarty x1943h6x xudqn12 x3x7a5m x6prxxf xvq8zen xo1l8bm xzsf02u x1yc453h" dir="auto"><i>enquiries@ukcvfamily.org</i>. </span>I recommend that you do so. (And for anyone living elsewhere in the world, sister organisations have been set up). Should anyone wish to know more about what they are doing, and what they are about, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/danjgregory/videos/331075519854274" target="_blank">please look at this (rather long, but brilliant) interview with one of the founding members of the group</a>.</p><p>The need for such support and advocacy groups has been demonstrated in recent days by the UK's Post Office scandal, where the managers of local Post Offices around the UK have had their lives destroyed by their large and powerful employer. Most of these people lost their life savings, their jobs and reputations, and some were prosecuted and imprisoned. A few committed suicide. All accusations for which they were not guilty. <b>They all thought, for many years, that they were alone, that they were only person so accused. They were told so.</b> It took them many years to realise that this was not so; but only when they got together did they realise that over 1,000 people (the number is still unclear) had been involved in this human tragedy. </p><p>But once together, and after many years of struggle, they have been able to get to the truth. And now that the public is aware of what happened, the role of the Post Office is being investigated, and the UK Government (that owns the Post Office) has now had to agree a massive compensation scheme.<br /></p><p>The Covid-19 vaccine scandal is similar in many respects. Their lives have been devastated. They think they suffer alone. They believe that the vaccines were "safe and effective". Many of those harmed by the Covid-19 vaccines still believe that their suffering has nothing to do with the vaccine, not least because conventional medics are still either ignoring, denying their distress; or blaming it on the virus rather than the vaccine. </p><p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100090673391940" target="_blank">The Friends of the UK CV Family has only been in operation for a few months but at the time of writing it already has nearly 3,000 followers</a>. If the number of patients who reported vaccine injury to the UK's Drug Regulator is considered, this number is likely to grow rapidly - until such time that Conventional Medicine, the Government, the mainstream media, and even the powerful pharmaceutical establishment, will no longer be able to ignore it.</p><p>The Covid-19 vaccines have been an unmitigated disaster which thus far has gone unrecognised. If individuals believe that "it is only them" nothing will be done. The pharmaceutical industry is desperate to prevent more people realising the harm caused by their vaccines. So is the government, who have given the drug companies immunity against vaccine damage. And Covid-19 vaccines are still being recommended to us - by the drug companies, by conventional medicine, by government, and by the mainstream media. The Friends of the UK CV Family, as it grows, will be able to resist this; and as it expands, the mainstream media, conventional medical authorities, and the government, will no longer be able to continue ignoring the situation, or support medical denial.</p><p>So the battle has commenced. If people were asked today what eradicated <b><a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-myths-of-conventional-medical.html" target="_blank">Smallpox</a></b>, what conquered <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-myths-of-conventional-medical.html" target="_blank"><b>Polio</b></a> and <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-myths-of-conventional-medical.html" target="_blank"><b>Measles</b></a>, most would point to vaccination. Vaccination has had not such effect, as these three links demonstrate. The question now is this - what will most people believe, in 20 years time? Will another myth be generated? Will people think that the vaccine eradicated Covid-19? <b><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></b></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Everyone who has suffered from any of the Covid-19 vaccines have a duty to ensure that this is not so. Join the Friends!<br /></span></b></p><p><br /></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-3899731338642607752023-12-21T12:36:00.000+00:002023-12-21T12:36:05.602+00:00Veoza: Another Wonder Drug: this time for the Menopause<p>Pharmaceutical medicine regularly heralds medical breakthroughs, almost on a weekly basis. The latest drug to get this treatment is <i><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67747479" target="_blank">"a new type of non-hormonal menopause treatment for hot flushes, and night sweats"</a></i>. Indeed, this kind of reporting of wonder drugs can be repetitive, even monotonous. Inevitably the story is always the same. This weeks new "wonder drug" is, according to BBC News:</p><p> <i><span> </span>"The daily pill, Veoza - or fezolinetant"</i> which <i>"works on the brain's temperature-control centre to alleviate the symptoms".</i><br /></p><p>The report is typical, and follows the same routine pattern.<br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The drug will be a "game changer" in the treatment of some particular disease.</li><li>The disease is then described, usually in its most extreme awfulness; in this case <i><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67747479" target="_blank">"up to 80% of women going through the menopause experiences hot flushes and night sweats although not all will want to take medication for it".</a></i> <br /></li><li>The drug is entirely "safe and effective" (although known adverse drug reactions are usually ignored, and if not ignored, heavily discounted in these promotional reports).</li><li>The reports are carried by mainstream news media; so for the news consumer this is just another news story, not pharmaceutical drug advertising, promotion, or indeed propaganda. So it must be true!<br /></li></ul>The outcome is also always the same. The new 'wonder drug' is rarely (never?) heard of again. And the disease survives and continues, unabated. <b>I have written about a variety of these drugs in previous years, pharmaceutical drugs which I have listed as a footnote below.</b> See if you can find one that you have ever heard about!<p>Where do these 'wonder drug' reports come from? It is clear that all the mainstream media do is <b>to replicate a news release from the drug company</b>. How can we know this? Because the news story is usually carried by all mains news outlets, the wording is identical, and the same people have (apparently) been interviewed. This news story on Veoza, for instance, has been carried not only by the BBC, but by <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/2023-12-18/game-changing-drug-to-treat-hot-flushes-approved-for-uk-use" target="_blank">ITV News</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/18/veoza-fezolinetant-menopause-drug-hot-flushes-wins-uk-approval" target="_blank">the Guardian</a>, and <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/health/breakthrough-menopause-drug-targets-key-31697571" target="_blank">the Mirror</a>, alongside many others. Little attempt has been made to change the wording, or to question the information.<br /></p><p>For the Pharmaceutical Industry this is subliminal advertising at it most effective, <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/04/msm-advertising-and-promotional-arm-of.html" target="_blank">as I described here in 2021</a>. The drug companies pay not a penny for the promotion, beyond writing and distributing the news release. Yet patients, in this case women passing through the menopause, see it and want to get access to the drug. Why shouldn't they? The drug is a 'game changer'. And it must be safe because no serious side effects have been mentioned! <a href="https://www.drugs.com/sfx/veozah-side-effects.html" target="_blank">(WARNING: the side effects of Veoza are mentioned here in this link)</a>. So it is unabashed advertising and promotion; but without the honesty that is usually expected from advertisers<br /></p><p>But with Veoza, and this particular 'wonder drug' promotion, there is another objective. The drug has been approved by the MHRA (the UK's drug regulator) but it has not been recommended to be prescribed, free of charge, by the NHS. This will require another review, by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). So by subliminally promoting the drug in this way now, women will want it, and thereby will put pressure on NICE for approve its use within the NHS. </p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>All good promotion and propaganda for the drug companies!</b><br /></span></p><div class="ssrcss-19w8cxh-ComponentWrapper-HeadlineComponentWrapper egtrm1f0" data-component="subheadline-block" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; border: 0px none; color: #141414; font-family: ReithSans, Helvetica, Arial, freesans, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: inherit; margin: 2.5rem 0px 1.5rem; max-width: 36.25rem; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><b><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />Footnote: A selection of Pharmaceutical Drugs Previously Marketed as "Wonder Drugs", free of charge, by the Mainstream Media</b>.</div><div class="ssrcss-19w8cxh-ComponentWrapper-HeadlineComponentWrapper egtrm1f0" data-component="subheadline-block" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; border: 0px none; color: #141414; font-family: ReithSans, Helvetica, Arial, freesans, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: inherit; margin: 2.5rem 0px 1.5rem; max-width: 36.25rem; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Acomplia<br />https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2018/03/accomplice-what-happens-to-all-wonder.html</span></div><div class="ssrcss-19w8cxh-ComponentWrapper-HeadlineComponentWrapper egtrm1f0" data-component="subheadline-block" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; border: 0px none; color: #141414; font-family: ReithSans, Helvetica, Arial, freesans, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: inherit; margin: 2.5rem 0px 1.5rem; max-width: 36.25rem; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lecanemab<br />https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2022/12/alzheimers-drug-lecanemab-hailed-as.html</span></div><div class="ssrcss-19w8cxh-ComponentWrapper-HeadlineComponentWrapper egtrm1f0" data-component="subheadline-block" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; border: 0px none; color: #141414; font-family: ReithSans, Helvetica, Arial, freesans, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: inherit; margin: 2.5rem 0px 1.5rem; max-width: 36.25rem; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Canakinumab<br />https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2017/08/canakinumab-new-wonder-drug-promoted-by.html</span></div><div class="ssrcss-19w8cxh-ComponentWrapper-HeadlineComponentWrapper egtrm1f0" data-component="subheadline-block" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; border: 0px none; color: #141414; font-family: ReithSans, Helvetica, Arial, freesans, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: inherit; margin: 2.5rem 0px 1.5rem; max-width: 36.25rem; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Nivolumab<br />https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2016/10/new-wonder-drug-for-cancer-or-is-it.html</span></div><div class="ssrcss-19w8cxh-ComponentWrapper-HeadlineComponentWrapper egtrm1f0" data-component="subheadline-block" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; border: 0px none; color: #141414; font-family: ReithSans, Helvetica, Arial, freesans, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: inherit; margin: 2.5rem 0px 1.5rem; max-width: 36.25rem; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Aducanumab<br />https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2019/10/alzheimers-disease-new-wonder-drug-for.html</span></div><div class="ssrcss-19w8cxh-ComponentWrapper-HeadlineComponentWrapper egtrm1f0" data-component="subheadline-block" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; border: 0px none; color: #141414; font-family: ReithSans, Helvetica, Arial, freesans, sans-serif; font-feature-settings: inherit; font-kerning: inherit; font-optical-sizing: inherit; font-size: 16px; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: normal; font-variant-alternates: inherit; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-east-asian: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-variation-settings: inherit; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: inherit; margin: 2.5rem 0px 1.5rem; max-width: 36.25rem; orphans: 2; padding: 0px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Semaglutide<br />https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2020/09/diabetes-and-semaglutide-conventional.html<br /></span><br /></div><p></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-7055518729909729442023-08-31T10:58:00.007+01:002023-08-31T14:53:33.776+01:00How Strong is your Baby's Immune System?<p><b>This is a question that all prospective and new parents need to ask, as a matter of some urgency. Yet it is a question not asked nearly enough, and too often the answers focus on the importance of vaccine immunity.</b><br /></p><p>The strategy for maintaining and strengthening our natural immunity as children and adults is well known, particularly by those whose understanding is not dominated by the <i>“only vaccines will protect us”</i> ideology of the pharmaceutical medical establishment.</p><p><b><a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-immune-system-supporting.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: medium;">It is a strategy that focuses on diet, exercise, and life-style choices - and the avoidance of pharmaceutical drugs, which I have written about here. Click here for more details about this strategy.</span></a><span style="font-size: medium;"> <br /></span></b></p><p>Maintaining and strengthening natural immunity is important throughout our lives, so I would recommend that every new and prospective parent learns about the important principles to which this blog referred. <b>But I am aware that this blog did not deal with the immune system of babies and infants</b>. It should have done as it is slightly different, not least because a baby's immune system is not fully developed when they are born, and for a few months afterwards.<br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>In the Womb</b></span></p><p>The foetus, especially during the last 3 months of pregnancy, is protected by the mother’s antibodies through the placenta, and this protection continues through to when the baby is born. During birth, the baby picks up the mother's antibodies during its passage through the birth canal. The importance of natural birth has become more apparent in recent years. Babies born vaginally have different gut bacteria (their microbiome) than those delivered by caesarean. It has been discovered that vaginally born babies obtain most of their gut bacteria from their mother, caesarean babies have more bacteria associated with the hospital. This suggests that vaginal birth gives babies a better natural immunity, although whether this persists into later health is not known.<br /></p><p><b>However, it is important to note that the effectiveness of this protection from the mother depends on the mother’s own level of immunity.</b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Immediately after the Birth</b></span></p><p>After birth, the mother passes more antibodies to the baby from the colostrum, and then during breast feeding. Breast feeding, for as long as possible, is one of the best ways of protecting the child from infections. Breast milk contains the proteins, fats, sugars that help build and strengthen the baby’s immune system. </p><p>So when a mother comes into contact with an infection, again depending on the strength of her natural immunity, she will make antibodies to help her fight it, and these are then passed on to the baby through the milk.</p><p>It is important to stress the importance of breast feeding because in (too many) parts of the conventional medical establishment, especially in certain periods of the recent past, the vital part breast milk plays in developing a baby's immunity has been heavily discounted. </p><p><b>Formula milk is just NOT an adequate substitute.</b> Nutritionally it might be an acceptable alternative where it is necessary, but it does little or nothing to strengthen the child's immune system.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Infant</span></b> <br /></p><p>As the child becomes more self functioning, and the immunity received from the mother declines after just a few months, they will start to make their own antibodies. As they come across infections, children will increasingly rely on their own natural immune system.</p><p>Yet a baby's immunity is a delicate matter, and there are some important things that can be done to protect them further - all similar to the things we should continue throughout our lives.</p><p>1. A healthy diet; with lots of fruit and vegetables; the avoidance of processed foods, including processed baby foods; and don’t ‘treat’ them with (too many) sugary drinks and sweets. Read up more on diet and nutrition from natural medical websites, or consult with a local natural health practitioner or nutritionist.</p><p>2. Good sleep is important, as this enables the child to refresh and recharge. A tired baby is more vulnerable to infection.</p><p>3. Keep the child active and stimulated, both their minds and their bodies. Exercise is always good for us, regardless of age; and physical and mental fitness is an important part maintaining and strengthening a healthy immune system.</p><p>4. Reduce levels of stress wherever possible; for instance, make sure that the baby knows that he/she is loved, and is being protected.</p><p>5. <b>Avoid pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines</b>. In particular, don’t believe the vaccine propaganda we all get, ad nauseam, from the conventional medical establishment. If in doubt, read the patient information leaflets that will outline the adverse reactions of the vaccine, if only some of them - the one’s accepted by the drug regulators. For example, you will not find anything about autism; or about allergies; two of the biggest dangers of vaccination. </p><p>And antibiotic drugs are equally to blame for the decline in our children’s health - largely because they disrupt the stomach’s microbiome, the bacteria, fungi, viruses, and other microbes that naturally live inside us, and fulfil an important role in our immune systems, enable the proper digestion of food, and produce the energy and vitality that helps us stay healthy.</p><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">I hope this gives you some idea of the things you can do to help your baby stay healthy; but a word of warning; point 5 above is very important indeed - but you will rarely hear about it from anyone within the conventional medical establishment, including the mainstream media.</span><br /></b><br /></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-12211217251261798102023-07-18T15:59:00.001+01:002023-07-18T15:59:15.558+01:00Donanemab: Another Wonder Drug. So many heralded! But what happens to them?<p>Donanemab is the latest of a long list of so-called "Wonder Drug" to be announced by the mainstream media. This one, we are told, is <i>"a turning point in the fight against dementia"</i>.</p><div class="ssrcss-11r1m41-RichTextComponentWrapper ep2nwvo0" data-component="text-block"><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00"><b class="ssrcss-hmf8ql-BoldText e5tfeyi3">The entire media, and the dementia health charities, use the same wording. Donanemab is being hailed as a turning point in the fight
against Alzheimer's disease. This follows a global trial, published in the health journal JAMA, that <i>"confirms it slows cognitive
decline"</i> by 35%.</b></p></div></div><div class="ssrcss-11r1m41-RichTextComponentWrapper ep2nwvo0" data-component="text-block"><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00">But behind this 'good news' are the usual caveats</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00">It does not cure all dementias, only Alzheimer's disease.</li><li class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00">It is not a cure, even for Alzheimer's - it is claimed only that it slows the progress of the disease.</li><li class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00">It costs £20,000 per patient per year.</li><li class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00">It works best when Alzheimer's is diagnosed early, much earlier than most people are diagnosed<br /></li><li class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00">It has not been approved by drug regulators yet.</li><li class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00">The drug is known to have severe adverse reactions (mentioned in some, but not all news reports), including brain swelling; plus 3 people died as a result of dangerous swelling in the brain.<br /></li><li class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00">The drug is made by Eli Lilly; but we are not told who paid for the trials.<br /></li></ul><p>Do you remember the drug lecanemab. This made headlines around the world in December 2022, less than 8 months ago. I wrote about it here, <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2022/12/alzheimers-drug-lecanemab-hailed-as.html" target="_blank">"Alzheimers drug lecanemab hailed as momentous breakthrough in the treatment of dementia"</a>. What happened to it?<br /></p><b><span style="font-size: large;">Lecanemab, was <a class="ssrcss-k17ofw-InlineLink e1no5rhv0" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59699907">rejected by the European drug regulator</a> over both safety concerns, and a lack of any firm evidence that the drug was effective for patients. </span></b><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00">Do have a read! You will get a strong feeling of deja vu - with the same optimistic headlines are being repeated, time and time again. So how will Donanemab get on? Watch this page!</p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00">But it will probably do little better than the other so called "wonder drugs" that have been heralded during the last 50 years and more! <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2019/09/new-pharmaceutical-drugs-new-medical.html" target="_blank">I have written about this, here, in September 2019, in a blog entitled "New Pharmaceutical Drugs, New Medical Breakthroughs. New Wonder Drugs. New Miracle Treatments. No Benefits".</a><br /></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00">So these "good news" stories happen on a regular basis, and usually end up in the same way - failure. The stories raise people's hope that pharmaceutical medicine will eventually cure us of illness and disease. It has never done so yet. They bring hope, only for hope to be dashed, usually very quickly.</p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00">About 15 years ago, I wrote a blog entitled <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-ages-of-conventional-medical-drugs.html" target="_blank">"the Ages of Conventional Medical Drugs"</a>, taking them through their usual journey of birth, childhood, adulthood, old age and death. It was first written in my E-Book, <a href="http://s-scrutton.co.uk/Failure_ConMed/introduction.html" target="_blank">"The Failure of Conventional Medicine"</a>. </p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">The only thing that has happened since then is that these stages now seem to pass very much more quickly than they used to!<br /></span></b></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00"><br /></p><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1"><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00"><br /></p></div></div></div></div><p></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-38274344053011765792023-02-10T15:46:00.004+00:002023-02-10T15:46:56.169+00:00Ignoring the main cause of disease: Cancer<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>"Together we will beat cancer"</b></span></p><p>This is the very successful, long-time slogan of <a href="https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/our-organisation/our-strategy-to-beat-cancer" target="_blank">Cancer Research UK</a>, a charity that has been in operation for over 120 years, and just one of hundreds of health charities around the world. It's website says.<br /></p><p><i><span> </span><span> </span>"Cancer is relentless. But so are we. Whether you fundraise, pledge to
leave a gift in your will or donate. Every part supports life-saving
research. Play your part and together we will beat cancer."</i></p><p>And many millions of people have played their part - organising events, making donations, getting sponsored for swimming, walking running, cycling, et al. The charity has raised £trillions in this way. Their strategy, they say, is to focus on making discoveries, driving progress, and bringing hope to those affected by cancer.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">So how successful has this strategy been? </span><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>The problem is that, despite all this charitable effort, by Cancer Research UK and others, is that cancer levels have continued to increase to epidemic levels, particularly during the last 100 years.</b></p><p>And in a recent report, Cancer Research UK has told us, clearly and unequivocally, that the cancer epidemic will continue to grow.<br /></p><div class="primary-cli cli cli-text"><p><span> </span><span> </span><i>"The number of people in the UK who will be diagnosed with cancer will increase by a third by 2040, according to new figures.</i></p></div><div class="primary-cli cli cli-text"><p><i><span> </span><span> </span>"This
will take the number of new cases every year to more than half a
million, rising from 384,000 per year now to 506,000 in 2040.</i></p></div><div class="primary-cli cli cli-text"><p>The chief executive states that <i>“today’s
analysis provides a stark reminder of the challenges the NHS in England
is set to face in years to come. Cancer
patients are already facing unacceptably long waits for diagnosis and
treatment, and staff in cancer services are working very hard”. </i></p><p>The charities chief clinician stated that <i>"the NHS risks being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of new cancer diagnoses”
unless the government takes action”.</i></p><p><b>So why have these charitable efforts to "beat cancer" been such a clear and obvious failure? My submission is that one of the main reasons for this failure is that one of the main causes of cancer is being totally ignored - pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. </b><br /></p></div><p>Over time I have read many articles that outline "the causes of cancer", many describing the causes of cancer under the headings (i) toxins, (ii) infections, and (iii) biological factors. According to the medical research company American Medical Research, toxins are responsible for 70-75% of cases, infections about 20-25%, whilst genetics cause less that 5%.</p><p>Obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, lack of exercise, an unhealthy diet, air pollution, the ageing process, ultraviolet and ionising radiation, and viral and bacterial infection, are all regular mentioned. <br /></p><p><span class="Style222" style="line-height: 12px;">Obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption,</span><span class="Style222" style="line-height: 12px;"> l</span><span class="Style222" style="line-height: 12px;">ack of exercise, a</span><span class="Style222" style="line-height: 12px;">n unhealthy diet, a</span><span class="Style222" style="line-height: 12px;">ir pollution, t</span><span class="Style222" style="line-height: 12px;">he ageing process, </span>u<span class="Style221" style="line-height: 16px;">ltraviolet and ionising radiation, and viral and bacterial infections are all usually mentioned on these lists.</span><span class="Style222" style="line-height: 12px;"> </span></p><p></p><p class="para15"><b>Yet when it comes to toxic chemicals, or carcinogens, pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are rarely mentioned. Iatrogenic causes of cancer, or anything concerned with conventional medicine, are ignored!<br /></b></p><p class="para15">Yet there is ample evidence to identify iatrogenic causes, particularly pharmaceutical drugs, as a major cause of cancer? So if Cancer Research UK cannot accurately identify a major cause of cancer, how can they expect to overcome it, and find treatment that can successfully treat it? </p><p class="para15"><a href="http://s-scrutton.co.uk/DIEs/illness-a-c/cancer.html" target="_blank">The evidence that implicates pharmaceutical drugs is overwhelming, and I have written about this in more detail here</a>. The list of drugs known to cause cancer is a long one; and all the evidence is contained within conventional medical literature itself. So Cancer Research UK should be fully aware of the association between the following drugs and cancer. They are all widely prescribed by doctors, and have been for decades.<br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>antidepressants,</li><li>antipsychotics,</li><li>benzodiazepines, and other hypnotic drugs,</li><li>amphetamines, and other stimulant drugs,</li><li>anticonvulsant drugs,</li><li>HRT (Hormone Replacement)</li><li>the Contraceptive Pill,</li><li>statins,</li><li>antibiotics,</li><li>proton pump inhibitors,</li><li>ACE inhibitors,</li><li><a href="http://s-scrutton.co.uk/DIEs/illness-a-c/cancer.html" target="_blank">and many, many others, outlined here</a>.<br /></li></ul><div><p>Cancer can also be caused by many other treatments provided by conventional medicine, including some creams, breast implants, X-ray and scanning technology.</p><p>There is strong circumstantial evidence too. Cancer has grown to
epidemic levels, and continues to grow, and it does so alongside the massive growth
in the consumption of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines over the last 100
years.</p><p>So why does Cancer Research UK ignore one of the main causes of cancer? Why do they never mention it? In fairness they are not the only charity that does not do so. Most other medical charities and patient support groups do likewise when they deal with the illness/disease on which they focus.</p><p><a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2013/07/health-charities-and-patient-support.html" target="_blank">The problem is that Cancer Research UK, and most other medical charities and patient support groups, are now dominated and controlled by pharmaceutical interests.<br /></a></p><p>And Big Pharma has no interest in pointing a finger at themselves. They do not want the safety of their drugs and vaccines assessed. They are happy to look at anything else; but everything else is probably a less significant cause of cancer.<br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>There will be, and can be, no diminution in the incidence of cancer as long as there is no recognition of one of the main causes of cancer - for which there is an easy and obvious cure: avoid taking the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines known to cause it!</b></span></p><p><br /></p></div>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-64663765822094457752022-12-15T14:23:00.005+00:002022-12-15T14:23:58.561+00:00Fergus Walsh. BBC Medical Editor? Or Big Pharma Salesman?<p>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!<br /></p><p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-63906892" target="_blank">Newborns to get rapid genetic disease diagnosis</a> (2022) <br /></p><p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-63247997" target="_blank">BioNTech: could Covid vaccine technology crack cancer? </a>(2022).</p><p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0dkr31l" target="_blank">Alzheimer's drug hailed as 'breakthrough'.</a> (2022).<br /></p><p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59331903" target="_blank">Take-at-home treatment for spinal muscular atrophy</a> (2021).<br /></p><p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53096736" target="_blank">How breakthrough coronavirus drug dexamethasone was found</a> (2020).</p><p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53426367" target="_blank">Coronavirus: encouraging results in vaccines trials</a> (2020).</p><p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47226987" target="_blank">Gene therapy first to 'halt' most common cause of blindness</a> (2019). <br /></p><p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-35262020" target="_blank">Breakthrough treatment for MS patient</a> (2016).</p><p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36439260" target="_blank">Gene editing technique could transform future</a> (2016)<br /></p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7735696.stm" target="_blank">Windpipe Transplant Breakthrough</a> (2008)<br /></p><p>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. </p><p>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.<br /></p><p>This does not matter because Walsh's pieces also have another characteristic. <b>They are never followed up. The 'good news' story is about the future. It is never about today. And tomorrow never seems to happen!</b></p><p>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. <b>He has been less successful in telling us about the outcomes of the drugs he had promoted. </b>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.</p>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.<p>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.</p><p>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. </p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>It might be accurate to say that Walsh is one of their most successful salesmen.<br /></b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;">For more information about the harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs, and the failure of conventional medicine, go to these links.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://s-scrutton.co.uk/DIEs/iatrogenic-disease-dies/drugs-cause-disease.html" target="_blank">Iatrogenic Disease. The Disease Inducing Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs and Vaccines.<br /></a></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://s-scrutton.co.uk/Failure_ConMed/introduction.html" target="_blank">The Failure of Conventional Medicine</a>.</span><br /></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-40817842903959792862022-12-08T14:39:00.001+00:002022-12-08T14:39:20.136+00:00A Christmas Turkey? The impact of the veterinary 'treatment' of Bird Flu!<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span>If you are having difficulty buying a turkey this Christmas you might want to ask a simple, but important question.</span></b><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #2b00fe;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Why do we cull flocks of birds who have a simple infection?</b></span></span><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">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.......<br /><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>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’?</b><br /></span><br />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.<br /><br /><b>Avian or Bird Flu:</b> 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.<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>Foot and Mouth:</b> where herds of cattle are routinely slaughtered, considered unfit for human consumption, and buried and burnt in mass graves.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>TB</b>: 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 <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2013/06/culling-badgers-and-tb.html" target="_blank">(although there is little or no evidence for this)</a>.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2020/08/veterinary-medicine-monopoly-occupation.html" target="_blank">I wrote more about the 'medical' practice of killing here in 2020.</a><br /><br /><b>First, do no harm!</b> 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'?</p><b>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?</b><p style="text-align: left;"><br />What sort of medicine would even think about doing such a thing?<br /><span> </span>* A medical system that has no alternative, no effective treatment (as otherwise they would surely use it)?<br /><span> </span>* A medicine that has little or no understanding of natural immunity, and so does not include it in the treatment strategy?<br /><span> </span>* A medicine that is allowed to discount the real costs of its ‘treatment’<br /><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> - to the birds<br /><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> - to the cost of food (even during a period of super-inflation)<br /><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span> - where the cost is charged is made only against taxpayers!<br /><br /><b>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.<br /></b><br />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.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><span> </span>* a costly fear campaign, based in the fact the conventional medicine has no safe or effective treatment,<br /><span> </span>* hygiene is considered the first essential response in order to kill the infection,<br /><span> </span>* lockdown, keeping flocks indoor, in conditions that are both unnatural and unhealthy for the patient, <span> </span>* then introducing treatments, however dubious; and if they do not work, or if they kill the patient, blame the infection rather than the treatment.<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">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. </p><p style="text-align: left;">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, <b>have all been caused by the medically driven policies used to deal with the virus - NOT THE VIRUS ITSELF.</b><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">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.<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">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.<br /><br /><b>So the only living creatures that get a worse deal that humans when faced with an infection are birds and animals.</b> 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!</p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>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!</b></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"> </p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-62797648077512635152022-12-08T13:41:00.005+00:002022-12-08T13:43:34.015+00:00The Myths of Conventional Medical Success. The Covid-19 Pandemic - the history is being written NOW<p>Around <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #555555; display: inline; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">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</span></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #555555; display: inline; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">. Africa has had fewer vaccinations, fewer cases, fewer hospitalizations, and a lower death rates. <br /></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #555555; display: inline; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">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.</span></span></span> </p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Where there has been mass vaccination, there has been a pandemic!</li><li>Where there has been no mass vaccination, the 'pandemic' has not happened!</li></ul><p>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 <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-myths-of-conventional-medical.html" target="_blank">smallpox</a>, about <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-myths-of-conventional-medical.html" target="_blank">polio</a>, and about <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-myths-of-conventional-medical.html" target="_blank">measles</a>. </p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>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.<br /></b></span></p><p></p><p>Since writing these three blogs I have discovered another book on the subject, <a href="https://archive.org/details/the-poisoned-needle-suppressed-facts-about-vaccination-by-eleanor-mc-bean-1957/page/n175/mode/1up" target="_blank"><b>"The Poisoned Needle: Suppressed Facts about Vaccination"</b></a>. 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 <b>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</b>. 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.</p><p>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.</p><p><b>Yet the same message comes across as is happening now with Covid-19. </b></p><p><b><span> </span>* The vaccines were exacerbating the problem.</b></p><p><b><span> </span>* 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.</b></p><p>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. </p><p><b>Indeed, they made all these outcomes far worse.</b></p><p>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.</p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span> </span>So what will the outcome be? </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span> </span>Who will write the history of the Covid-19 pandemic? </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span> </span>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? </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Or will pharmaceutical propaganda be able to persuade future generations that the vaccines saved us? <br /></b></span></p><p>This Medscape article (part of the conventional medical establishment), entitled <a href="https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/972739?uac=181491MR&faf=1&sso=true&impID=4225479&src=mkm_ret_220507_mscpmrk_covid-ous_int#vp_3" target="_blank">"Opposition to vaccines has a long history"</a> states that opposition to vaccine started in the 1860's, against the smallpox disease.<i></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>"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."</span></span></i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">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<br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">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. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>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.</b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">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.</span></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>It is our task to ensure they are not successful.</b></span><br /></span></span></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-34849224220759858122022-12-01T13:28:00.001+00:002022-12-01T13:28:46.718+00:00Alzheimers Drug Lecanemab Hailed as Momentous Breakthrough in Treatment of Dementia<p>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? </p><p>Headlines in all the mainstream national media yesterday (30th November 2022) certainly suggests that it is. The Alzheimer's Society has described Lecanemab as <i>"momentous"</i>. </p><p>Yet is it really "good news"? Let's look more closely into what we are being told.</p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span> </span>1. Lecanemab slows down the destruction of the brain by up to one-quarter.<span> </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span> </span>2. Lecanemab ends decades of failure in the development of effective drug treatment for Alzheimer's.</p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span> </span>3. Lecanemab could be the first of many more, improved Alzheimer's therapies in the years to come.<br /></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> </p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">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.</p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>However, there are many reasons for caution about this "breakthrough" - if not for downright cynicism!</b></span><br /></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">* <b>Early Onset</b>. 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.<br /></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">* <b>Early Diagnosis</b>. 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.</p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">* <b>The future promise</b>. 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.<br /></p><div class="ssrcss-7uxr49-RichTextContainer e5tfeyi1" style="border: 0px none; color: #141414; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">* <b>Beta Amyloid</b>. 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 <b>the cause</b> Alzheimer's, but merely <b>a symptom</b> resulting from the disease.</p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"><br /></span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space">* <b>Delaying the Onset of the Disease</b>. 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 <b>2 years</b> to progress to 'moderate' or 'advanced' dementia, and drug will extend this period to just <b>2.5 years</b>.</span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"><br /></span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space">* <b>Adverse Reactions</b>. 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.<br /></span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space">* <b>Treatment</b>. 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. <br /> </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space">* <b>Expensive</b>. We are also told that the drug will be <i>"extremely expensive"</i>, thus adding to the rapidly growing costs of conventional medical treatment, and the parlous state of NHS finances.</span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"><br /></span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><b><span class="Apple-converted-space">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!<br /></span></b></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space">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. </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space">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 <b>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!</b></span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"><b></b> </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space">This would be possible. Conventional medical literature is able to point us to where this breakthrough might come. <b>It already knows that large numbers of pharmaceutical drugs can cause symptoms such as confusion, memory loss, amnesia, disorientation.</b> These drug side effects are something that the conventional medical establishment are fully aware - but keeps absolutely silent about.</span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"></span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"><a href="http://s-scrutton.co.uk/DIEs/illness-d-m/dementia.html" target="_blank"><b>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.<br /></b></a> </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space">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. </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space">The conventional medical establishment would rather ignore the evidence - AND COME UP WITH YET ANOTHER DRUG TO COVER UP THE HARM CAUSED TO PATIENTS.<br /></span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"><b>So Lecanemab is likely to be yet another dead-end drug</b>. 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.</span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"><a href="http://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2019/10/alzheimers-disease-new-wonder-drug-for.html" target="_blank">Remember - this is not the first time that new 'wonder' drugs have been advertised by conventional medicine, through the mainstream media.</a> This link made similar claims for a drug called aducanumab! </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"><br /></span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"><a href="http://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2015/07/solanezumab-new-miracle-drug-for.html" target="_blank">And here is another from 2015 - a drug called solanezumab.</a></span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space">And there have been many more, like these, going back over a decade.</span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">April 2007. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6606315.stm">"Scientists 'reverse' memory loss"</a>.<br />
June 2008. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7447680.stm">"Dual action Alzhemer's drug hope"</a>.<br />
July 2008. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7530810.stm">"Praise for new Alzheimer's drug"</a>.<br />
July 2008. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7525115.stm">"Alzheimer's drug 'halts' decline</a>.<br />
May 2009. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8033422.stm">"Drug Trials 'reverse' Alzheimers"</a>.</p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><b><span class="Apple-converted-space"><br /></span></b></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><b><span class="Apple-converted-space">Postscript<br /></span></b></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space">The fate of other, previously heralded "Wonder Drugs" for other illnesses.<br /></span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space">Just a selection! Can you spot any that have actually worked?<br /></span></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-converted-space"><b> </b></span> </p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2018/03/accomplice-what-happens-to-all-wonder.html" target="_blank">Acomplia. What happens to all the 'Wonder Drugs' and 'Miracle Cures' of conventional medicine? </a></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> </p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2016/10/new-wonder-drug-for-cancer-or-is-it.html" target="_blank">New Wonder Drug for Cancer (or is it really that good?)</a></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> </p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2017/08/canakinumab-new-wonder-drug-promoted-by.html" target="_blank">Canakinumab. A New Wonder Drug! Promoted by the mainstream media</a></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> </p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2018/03/multiple-sclerosis-another-miracle-cure.html" target="_blank">Multiple Sclerosis. Another miracle cure? Or another dangerous blind alley? </a></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> </p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">AND SO IT CONTINUES................<br /></p><p class="ssrcss-1q0x1qg-Paragraph eq5iqo00" style="border: 0px none; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"> </p>
<div class="post-header">
<div class="post-header-line-1"></div>
</div>
<b></b></div><p></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-31460206608945438562022-05-11T16:07:00.004+01:002022-05-11T16:24:42.339+01:00Partygate and Beergate. The stupidity of enforcing autocratic laws and Covid-19 rules and the prosecution of those who created and defended the stupidity!<p><b>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.</b></p><p>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. <b> </b></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>He then broke his own rules, apparently on numerous occasions</b>. <b> </b></li><li><b>And then lied to Parliament about his law-breaking</b>.</li><li>Party Gate had emerged! <br /></li></ul><p>Sir Keir Starmer, as Leader of the Opposition, did not construct or impose the Covid-19 lockdown rules, but he regularly criticised the government <b>for not imposing them more strictly for longer</b>. 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.</p><p><b>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.<br /></b></p><p>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.<br /></p><p>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.</p><p><b>Yet it is important to remember that neither of these politicians was actually responsible for these autocratic laws, or the senseless Covid-19 rules</b>. 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. <b>It was the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME)</b> that ruled!<br /></p><p>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.</p><p>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. </p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>What we should be doing now is to ask all our politicians (in every country of the world):</b></span></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Why did you fail to question the medical science from whom you sought advice?</b></span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Why did you so meekly support autocratic laws, and nonsensical rules?</b></span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Why have you not recognised that conventional/pharmaceutical medicine is failing?</b></span></li><li style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Why have you not learnt that vaccines have never worked? </b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></li></ul><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>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?</b></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-83797584027184421232022-05-11T15:31:00.002+01:002022-05-11T15:31:22.124+01:00Autism rate rises to 1 in 44 children in USA. And we are still told the cause is 'unknown'<p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">At the end of 2021, the CDC announced that autism rates in the USA had risen to <b>1 in 44 children</b>. They published <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">an analysis of 2018 data from nearly a dozen USA states confirming that the autism rate for 8 year old children had risen from <b>1 in 54</b> in 2016, from <b>1 in 150</b> in 2000, whilst in the 1990's prevalence estimates ranged from <b>1 in 2,500</b> to <b>1 in 1,000</b>. 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: <br /></span></span></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/aur.2628" target="_blank"><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><i>“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.”</i></a></span></span></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">In July 2020 I wrote a blog on the subject of autism, referring specifically to<a href="In July 2020 I wrote a blog on the subject of autism, referring specifically to 157 research papers that supported the Vaccine-Autism link" target="_blank"> 157 research papers that supported the Vaccine-Autism link.</a> I put a link to this webpage on my Facebook page, who quickly tagged this as <b>"False rating on content shared by Safe Medicine Homeopathy' and that it's been reviewed by Science Feedback.</b> 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 <i>'misleading content'</i>, stating:</span></span></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><i>"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."</i></span></span></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>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.</b><br /></span></span></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">So autism is an epidemic, and year by year it is getting worse! And the CME is doing everything it can to deny that <a href="http://s-scrutton.co.uk/DIEs/illness-a-c/autism.html" target="_blank">the drugs and vaccines listed here</a> have anything to do with it, and to stop us getting to know.</p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><a href="http://mainevaxchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/VaccineAutismStudies.pdf" target="_blank">So do the 157 research papers exist? </a></p><p style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">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.</p><p>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, <a href="https://jbhandley.substack.com/p/there-is-no-autism-epidemic-a-pernicious?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo2NTUzNTk1NCwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDU5NTU5NTYsIl8iOiJORDlmSiIsImlhdCI6MTY0OTMzOTk4NywiZXhwIjoxNjQ5MzQzNTg3LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNjI1NjkxIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.O6GY7SRkqnTGixSEsHvDcSgAzedIdSQwLrQN5Kd1bBk&=&s=r" target="_blank">"There is no Autism epidemic - a pernicious rumour"</a>.</p><p>I too have dealt with it too, in my <a href="http://s-scrutton.co.uk/DIEs/illness-a-c/autism.html" target="_blank">"Iatrogenic Disease"</a> and <a href="http://s-scrutton.co.uk/Why_Homeopathy/illnesses-a-b/autism.html" target="_blank">"Why Homeopath?"</a> e-books. This is what I said in the former.</p><p> </p><p class="para15"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span class="Style16" style="line-height: 16px;">"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:</span></span></p><p class="Style9" style="font-size: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"></span></p><p class="para15"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span class="Style56" style="line-height: 15px;"> </span><i><span class="Style24" style="line-height: 16px;">'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.'</span></i></span></p><p class="para15"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span class="Style16" style="line-height: 16px;">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. </span></span></p><p class="para15"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span class="Style16" style="line-height: 16px;">It does say that 'certain medications'
are a possible trigger, and does mentions <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2022/04/sodium-valproate-demise-of-another.html" target="_blank">Sodium Valproate (a pharmaceutical drug used to treat epilepsy during pregnancy, and known to cause other birth defects</a>).</span></span></p><p class="para15"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span class="Style16" style="line-height: 16px;">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.</span><span><i><span class="Style16" style="line-height: 16px;"> </span></i></span></span></p><p class="para15"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span><i><span class="Style16" style="line-height: 16px;"><span> </span>'</span><span class="Style24" style="line-height: 16px;">In
the past, a number of things were linked to ASD, but <b>extensive research
has found no evidence</b> to suggest that any of these contribute to the
condition.' </span></i><span class="Style24" style="line-height: 16px;">(My emphasis).<br /></span></span></span></p><p class="para15"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span><span class="Style16" style="line-height: 16px;">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.</span></span></span></p><p class="para15"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span><span class="Style24" style="line-height: 16px;"><span> </span>'<i>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.'</i></span></span></span></p><p class="para15"></p><p class="para15"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span><span class="Style16" style="line-height: 16px;">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.</span><span style="line-height: 16px;"><span><span> </span><span> </span></span></span></span></span></p><p class="para15"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span><span class="linkStyle_32" style="line-height: 16px;"> <a class="linkStyle_32" href="https://www.wddty.com/news/2020/03/cdc-fails-to-provide-scientific-proof-that-vaccines-dont-cause-autism.html">'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 </a></span><span class="linkStyle_122" style="line-height: 16px;"><a class="linkStyle_122" href="https://www.wddty.com/news/2020/03/cdc-fails-to-provide-scientific-proof-that-vaccines-dont-cause-autism.html">not</a></span><span class="linkStyle_32" style="line-height: 16px;"><a class="linkStyle_32" href="https://www.wddty.com/news/2020/03/cdc-fails-to-provide-scientific-proof-that-vaccines-dont-cause-autism.html">
cause autism, conceding that reassurances to parents that childhood
vaccines don't cause autism was not based on any scientific evidence.</a>"</span></span></span></p><p class="para15"> </p><p class="para15">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.<br /></p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2019/08/conventional-medicine-chronic-disease.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Complete denial is a position the CME adopts when other chronic diseases, like those mentioned here, becomes epidemic.<br /></b></span></a></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>We don't know what causes it, but it definitely isn't us! </b></span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>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. </b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><b>So the Autism epidemic is likely only to get progressively worse!</b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><div><br /></div>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-92166426356478360322022-05-05T10:32:00.001+01:002022-05-05T10:32:16.615+01:00Covid-19 Vaccines. Increased Illness and Death since their introduction. Misinformation? Cause for concern? Or a matter for the attention of conventional medical authorities?<p>The increase in illness and death since the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out has been widely publicised in the <b>non</b>-mainstream media in recent months. <br /></p><p><b>Is it true? <br /></b></p><p>The mainstream media, alongside governments and the conventional medical establishment either do not mention this, or dismiss such reports as "fake news" or "misinformation".</p><p><b>Yet is it misinformation? And is calling such reports 'misinformation' a sufficient response?<br /></b></p><p>At the centre of this 'disinformation' campaign has been the Daily Expose, and here are just four links to some of their recent claims.<span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/04/30/study-covid-vaccines-increase-risk-miscarriage-1517percent/" target="_blank">Covid-19 Vaccines increase risk of miscarriage by 1518%</a></span></p><p><a href="https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/05/02/study-covid-vaccines-increase-risk-stroke-11361percent/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: medium;">Covid-19 Vaccines: study shows they have increased risk of stroke by 11361% </span></a></p><p><a href="https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/05/01/death-rates-are-higher-after-mass-vaccinations/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: medium;">Death rates are higher after mass vaccinations</span></a></p><p><a href="https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/04/30/study-covid-vaccines-risk-death-4800percent/" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: medium;">Covid-19 increase risk of death by 4800% </span><br /></a></p><p>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.<br /></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>So is this all about statistics? - "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"?<br /></b></span></p><p>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. </p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>It could be disinformation, like governments, medical authorities, and the mainstream media tell us.</li><li>It could be the application of an inaccurate or misguided statistical analysis. </li><li>Or it could be the truth. </li></ul><p>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.</p><p><b>I don't believe we should do this. Instead, I recommend using certain other criteria to ascertain the truth.</b></p><p>First, we should "follow the money". Who gains from, what are the vested interests behind, both sides of this argument? </p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>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. </li><li>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.</li></ul><p><b>So let's examine the 'disinformation' response in more detail. Why is it disinformation? Why should it be summarily dismissed? </b></p><p>And it is when I ask these questions that I become sceptical of the 'misinformation responses of the conventional medical establishment - it is <b>not</b> 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.<br /></p><p>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'. </p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Is the data being used incorrect or inaccurate?</li><li>And if so, why? <br /></li><li>Is the statistical analysis being use to reach these conclusions flawed? </li><li>And if so, why? <br /></li><li><b>Or do we just have to believe that it is "misinformation" because we are told it is misinformation!</b></li></ul><p>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.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Disinformation!</b></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-18722701016129434042022-05-04T11:12:00.000+01:002022-05-04T11:12:00.521+01:00Singulair. How long does it take Pharmaceutical Medicine to identify and take action against a dangerous drug?<p>I have written this blog many times! Same words, same arguments, just another pharmaceutical drug! The story goes like this:<br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>a drug is approved by drug regulators as 'safe' and 'effective',</li><li>thereafter it is prescribed to 1,000's of patients, who suffer harm because it is not safe,</li><li>the drug regulators know but do nothing, they permit doctors to continue prescribing it,</li><li>the patients are not told about the harm the drug causes, and more patients are harmed,<br /></li><li>only after many years, often many decades, is action taken against the drug to protect patients.</li></ul><p>This story has be repeated time and time again during the past 70 years. The latest is the allergy/asthma drug, <b>Singulair (montelukast)</b> is not unique, just another drug in a long line of drugs to slowly progress to withdrawal, or a ban. Here are the facts.</p><p><a href=" https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/98/020829s000_SingulairTOC.cfm" target="_blank">Singulair was first approved 1998</a>. 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.<br /></p><p><a href="https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=80686" target="_blank">Singulair obtained further approval as treatment for "exercise induced asthma" in 2008</a>. So presumably drug regulators still considered the drug to be <b>"safe"</b> and <b>"effective"</b>.</p><p>However, Singulair has been known to cause very serious adverse health reactions for a very long time, <a href="https://www.drugs.com/sfx/singulair-side-effects.html" target="_blank">as outlined in this Drugs.com website</a>. The 'side effects' listed here show just how dangerous this drug is - a drug that is still approved by drug regulators around the world.<br /></p><p>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.<br /></p><p><span face="-apple-system, "system-ui", "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #595959; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">It was not until March 2020 that <a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-requires-boxed-warning-about-serious-mental-health-side-effects-asthma-and-allergy-drug" target="_blank">the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added a 'black box' warning</a>, the agency’s strongest label warning, for <b>"serious mental health side effects"</b>.</span></p><span face="-apple-system, "system-ui", "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #595959; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">This means that patients have been allowed by the conventional medical establishment to take Singulair for <b>over 20 years</b> 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.</span><p><b><span face="-apple-system, "system-ui", "Segoe UI", Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #595959; display: inline; float: none; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">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.<br /></span></b></p><p><a href="https://www.drugwatch.com/singulair/lawsuits/?lead_attribution=Email&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=may_2022_newsletter&utm_content=inline " target="_blank">So now lawsuits have been filed in USA</a>.</p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #595959; display: inline !important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>"... plaintiffs, including the parents of children who suffered psychiatric disorders after taking Singulair, are filing lawsuits that accuse<span> Merck</span></span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: #595959; display: inline !important; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span> </span>of designing a defective drug, negligence and failure to warn about the risk of mental problems."</span></span></span></p><p>As I have said many times before, the implications of this situation are important for us all to consider.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>No-one can assume, at any time, that any prescribed pharmaceutical drug, or any vaccine, is safe.<br /></b></span></p><p>I will no doubt be writing this blog again, many times in the future! <b>Same words, same arguments, another pharmaceutical drug!</b></p><p><br /></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4155421424596088152.post-63250702319017884362022-04-29T13:56:00.004+01:002022-05-16T14:37:42.602+01:00Conventional Medical Treatment. Why is there growing dissatisfaction amongst patients?<p>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. </p><p><b>Yet is public approval now beginning to falter?</b></p><p>The approval of conventional, or pharmaceutical medicine has survived <a href="http://s-scrutton.co.uk/Failure_ConMed/medical-failure-demonstrated/9-epidemics-of-disease.html" target="_blank">despite escalating levels of chronic disease over the years, and now running at epidemic levels</a>. It has survived <a href="http://s-scrutton.co.uk/Failure_ConMed/medical-failure-demonstrated/6-banned-drugs.html" target="_blank">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</a>. 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.</p><p>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? </p><p>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.</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>The Virus</b>: 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.</li><li><b>Masks</b>: 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.</li><li><b>Lockdown:</b> 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.</li><li><b>The Vaccines:</b> 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.<br /></li></ul><p>Throughout the Covid-19 saga we have been urged to <b>"save the NHS"</b>, 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. </p><p>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.</p><p><b>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.</b></p><p></p><p>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 <b>were</b> on the
front life, they <b>were</b> responsible for for looking after very sick and dying
patients, and the manufactured panic did seem genuine enough to most people
at the time.</p><b></b><p></p><b>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?<br /></b><p>The King's Fund has recently published <a href="https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/public-satisfaction-nhs-social-care-2021" target="_blank">"Public satisfaction with the NHS and social care in 2021: results from the British Social Attitudes survey"</a>. This has shown that o<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">verall satisfaction with the NHS fell to 36%, which they described as <i>"an unprecedented 17 percentage point decrease on 2020"</i>. 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</span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"> was spanned all ages, income groups, sexes and supporters of different political parties.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">The reason for dissatisfaction with the NHS did not identify the failure of the medical system.</span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">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.<br /></span></span></p><p></p><p>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, <a href="https://safe-medicine.blogspot.com/2021/10/we-will-be-all-free-by-february.html" target="_blank">we were told that they would save us, and return us back to normal life by February. Remember?</a> 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 <a href="https://dailysceptic.org/2022/03/29/vaccine-boosters-needed-every-six-months-for-the-foreseeable-future-says-u-k-government-health-agency/" target="_blank">we will need to have boosters every 6 months for the foreseeable future</a>, according to one UK government health agency.</p><p>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? <a href="https://www.midlandscbd.com/articles/newly-released-pfizer-documents-reveal-covid-jab-dangers" target="_blank">Even one manufacturer, Pfizer, knew about the harm their vaccine might cause</a>. 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.<br /></p><p>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 <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o702" target="_blank">"The illusion of evidence-based medicine"</a>. The Daily Expose published an article entitled <a href="https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/03/31/modern-medicine-a-castle-built-on-sand/" target="_blank">"Modern Medicine - a castle built on sand"</a>. CHD has published at article entitled <a href="https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/politics-corrupted-evidence-based-medicine/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=4776dc24-2ef9-479a-9b4b-16eeed4239c6" target="_blank">"How politics corruption evidence-based medicine"</a>. And the Vaccine Reaction has published an article entitled <a href="https://thevaccinereaction.org/2022/04/public-trust-in-the-cdc-waning/" target="_blank">"Trust in CDC waning"</a>.</p><p>Even the Spectator is moving into these more critical areas. The 'inescapable' conclusion of their article <a href="https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-nhs-is-failing-us-all" target="_blank">"The NHS is failing"</a> 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.</p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><i>"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."</i></span></span></span></p><p>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, <span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">life expectancy in the UK is 17th out of these 19 comparable nations. </span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><i><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>"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."</i> </span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">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.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">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.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"><span> </span><span face="minion-pro, serif" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span> </span><span> </span><i>"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."</i></span></span><i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; display: inline; float: none; font-variant-caps: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-decoration-color: initial; text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-thickness: initial; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"></span></span></span></i></p><p>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. </p><p>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 - <b>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</b>.</p><p>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, <a href="http://s-scrutton.co.uk/DIEs/iatrogenic-disease-dies/drugs-cause-disease.html" target="_blank">adverse drug reactions are making us more sick year by year</a>. 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.</p><p><b>With waiting lists now at their highest ever levels, over 6 million people; and with projections that this could get far worse <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58132538" target="_blank">(as many as 14 million people suggested here)</a> the cynicism is unlikely to improve.</b><br /></p><p>Even <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10757053/NHS-near-bottom-world-healthcare-league-table-UK-risks-sick-man-world.html" target="_blank">the mainstream media is feeling obliged to publish details of this growing dissatisfaction with the NHS</a>. 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. </p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>In the next few years we are heading rapidly towards medical chaos and breakdown.</b></span></p><p><b> </b></p><p><b>Postscript May 2022</b>. </p><p><a href="https://dailysceptic.org/2022/05/11/patient-satisfaction-with-doctors-hits-record-low-as-face-to-face-consultations-become-the-exception/" target="_blank">Patient satisfactions with doctors hits record low as face-to-face consultations become the exception. </a><b><br /></b></p><p><br /></p>Steven Scruttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07586527068970842573noreply@blogger.com