The Causes of Ill-Health: Poverty

The distribution of income has always been the basis on which our health, and our access to medical care, has been determined. Wealth and health have always been closely entwined. My local paper recently published an article on poverty, ill-health and longevity as it applied to the town in which I live.

          “People living in areas of high deprivation experience greater health inequalities, including higher rates of premature mortality and poorer health outcomes. They also often face additional challenges such as higher crime rates, greater exposure to narcotics, and lower levels of educational attainment”.

It is widely recognised that poverty is an important cause of ill-health. To put this another, more controversial way, it is the wealthy that cause the ill-health of the poor; because it is the rich and influential who decide how income and wealth are distributed. Let me explain.

The mechanism of poverty creation can be quickly summarised.

First, we should recognise that, at any single moment in time, any organisation has only a finite amount of disposable income/wealth to be distributed between interested parties.

So, if there are 10 people working for an organisation; and the organisation creates 100 units of disposable income/wealth; and each person receives 10 units, there is no inequality. Each person receive 10 units, and there is no affluence, and no poverty; and so an equal access to health services.

But this is rarely what happens. We should not complicate this simple picture with concepts of the ‘worth’ of a person, or what he/she adds to the organisation’s ‘growth potential’, or the ‘value’ any one person might add to an organisation; or even digress into a discussion about the rights and wrongs of income/wealth distribution.

So when the person(s) in control of an organisation decide to take a bigger share, the other 9 will receive less. This is where inequality begins. And it applies at whatever level, or organisation we choose to focus on - to a family, to a company, to a country. Poverty is created by the decisions taken, usually by the powerful, to take a larger share of an organisation’s distributable income.

• So if the boss, or person in charge, or the shareholders, et al, decide to take 20%, the other 9 will each receive a share of wealth under 8 units.

• And if those in control decide to take 40%, the other 9 will receive just over 6.5 units. Then, if the foreman demands more than 6.5 units, the other 8 will receive even less. And so it goes down the chain.

At the end of this process we have created poverty. And we know, it has always been self evident, that poorer people have more ill-health, more disease, and earlier death. And this has always been the case.

Wealth is created by any organisation in two separate ways. First, it charges more than it needs for the product or services it provides. In so doing it contributes to the impoverishment of those who purchase those goods and services at a high price. Second, it pays those people who work to make/provide the products or services as little financial reward as possible.

There has always been inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. Our history demonstrates the very rich have always lived side-by-side with very poor people, and that how income and wealth is determined depends entirely on the decisions and values of those who control the group or organisation in question.

So in Britain the decision maker, or “the boss”, was once the Roman government, and levels of inequality was based on military power. This ability to appropriate the lion's share of wealth then passed to the Angles, the Saxons, and the Viking invaders. Then it moved to Kings, to ‘Royal’ families, and increasingly to the Barons. As land-owning became more important to the creation of wealth it moved to the aristocratic, or landowning classes. With the industrial revolution it moved to the newly-rich industrialists and merchants. Then multinational companies were formed. And now we seem to be subject to a small but powerful numbers of multi-billionaires.

Each ‘boss’, at each stage in history, is able to establish their own rules, and seek to justify the mal-distribution of income and wealth, based on his own self-interest.

Wealth is not just about the ownership of private jets, and yachts. It is about ownership and control of the organisation.

At no time has there ever been an effective mechanism to decide how rich rich people are allowed to become; or how poor poor people can be; or to successfully moderate the difference. Taxation has been tried; but now government’s are telling us that this is not possible, the rich are too important to tax; just as some companies have become to “too important” to fail. We have developed the idea of a ‘minimum wage’ but they have become little more than a safety net to avoid the worst scenarios of impoverishment: they have never been implemented at levels that actually avoids the creation of poverty.

What is clear that it is always the rich, the powerful, the influential who determines the distribution of income and wealth. It follows that they also control our health, and our access to safe and effective medical treatment.

The Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment is now one of the biggest culprits in creating vast wealth, and therefore extreme poverty. This article, for example, describes how “CEOs of BioNTech, Pfizer, J&J and Merck Make List of Highest-Paid Pharma Execs”. And I have recently written about how one Big Pharma company, Eli Lilly, can increase the price of one of its drugs, Mounjaro, by over 170% - overnight.

Drug companies are remarkably successful at creating wealth, and spending that wealth to control the health market.

It needs to be recognised that this has always been the basis on which our health, and access to medical care, has been decided - throughout the world - from time immemorial. And once this is recognised we must accept that it is income and wealth that determines how good, or how bad our health, and our health services are:

• the amount of money we can spend on food, and the nutritional value of that food;

• how much exercise we have;

• the extent to which we can control stress levels in our lives;

• whether we are able to afford the health treatments we are offered;

• and much more.

So the decisions made by the rich and powerful have always had a crucial impact on the health of poorer people. Never was this more so than when, in the 18th century, the enclosure movement began the process of moving people from their (modest but viable) agrarian roots, forcing them from their rural communities into the new towns of the industrial revolution. The “industrial revolution” led to large sections of the population to living in squalid, sub-standard, insanitary homes, working in atrocious conditions, for unimaginably long hours, for poverty wages, and with poor nutrition and diet. None of this was conducive to the good health of working people. As usual the ‘revolution’ benefitted only a small group of the new rich. And it was achieved at the expense of the poverty (and ill-health) of millions of people.

The poverty of the late 18th and 19th centuries, created by the new wealthy industrialists, triggered devastating epidemics of infectious diseases, like cholera, influenza, scarlet fever, smallpox, typhoid, typhus, and yellow fever. The regular epidemics of infectious disease regularly killed many thousands/millions of people.

However, the devastation they caused became a problem, even for the rich. This was not directly the result of people dying in large numbers, but because the workforce on which the new wealth was created was being decimated - and/or recruitment to the national army was being seriously affected.

And so our modern concern with health began.

These epidemic diseases did not affect everyone. Walk around a Victorian graveyard, look at the tombstone inscriptions, and you will see that many people still lived long lives, well into their 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and beyond. These were, of course, the people who could afford to purchase gravestones! They were not the poor, living in sub-standard housing, working in squalid conditions, with a poor diet, etc.

The wealthy people killed in epidemics, usually in small numbers those who succumbed to them as a result of life-styles based on over-indulgence rather than poverty, thereby undermining their immune system, and thus their susceptibility to disease epidemics.

So the concept of providing health care to everyone developed in many of the wealthier countries of the world arose from the need for a healthy workforce, and a strong army.. The regular disruption of epidemics were unwanted. So as the 19th century progressed health philanthropy took hold. So UK politicians, for instance, focused their attention on developing public health reforms, better housing, cleaner water supplies, improved sanitation, increased wages and better nutrition, and universal education. Gradually the health of working people improved, back close to where it was in pre-industrial revolution times. As public health conditions improved fewer people became susceptible to infectious disease epidemics which gradually became fewer, less severe, and less disruptive.

Health insurance schemes in Britain began in the early 1900’s. This meant that money became available to anyone able to offer health services. By this time the cause of epidemics had been linked to newly understood ‘germs’. Pasteur (wrongly, see this link) attributed these germs as the cause of epidemics. And it was not long before the drug industry realised there was money to be made by creating drugs (and later vaccines) to kill these germs. And since then they have done so, making huge profits, and gaining control of health care.

Ultimately in 1948 on the National Health Service (NHS), a service ‘free for all’ regardless of income and wealth. Similarly other countries followed suit, making health care widely available to all in different ways.

The pharmaceutical industry realised that government money was, in effect, a bottomless pit - as long as they could convince patients that they needed their drugs, and that government should be supplying them - regardless of their safety, or their cost. So, from an industry that had hitherto been steeped in failure, it became the most profitable and wealth industry in the world.

It was fortunate for the pharmaceutical industry that they soon realised they had to keep the ongoing failure of their drugs, and the regular health scandals they produced, from the public (their customers). So they were able to use their huge wealth to ‘make up the rules’ and ‘control the agenda’, even to change the history of health care!

• So politicians were brought on-side by pharmaceutical lobbying, the strongest of all industrial lobbies.

• Conventional medical treatment soon become almost entirely dependent on drug treatment, and increasingly they have not been in a position to question, criticise or investigate the harm caused by the drugs they were using.

• The mainstream media, many of them struggling to survive, was bought into line with drug advertising, etc.

• The compliance of medical ‘science’ was similarly controlled, bought and paid for by pharmaceutical profits.

• And Drug Regulation, set up with the single purpose of protecting patients from dangerous drugs/vaccines, was successfully infiltrated and taken over.

This is how the rich have always operated. They have always oppressed the poor, and made the rules through which society is governed. Over the last century the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment has taken effective control of most of the sources of information patients might have that might inform and protect them from a dangerous medical system. Moreover, decades of extraordinarily successful promotion and propaganda has convinced most people that they depend on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and that they could not survive without them.

This is why the travesty and tragedy of the Covid-19 Pandemic was able to happen - the rich in control, the poor helpless, feeling that they had no option but to conform.

Meanwhile, courtesy of adverse drug/vaccine affects, illness and disease spirals out of control. It is chronic disease that are the new epidemics. Allergy, arthritis, autism, dementia, diabetes, heart/liver/kidney disease, et al, are all now running at epidemic levels, and rising, and all of them, at least in part, courtesy of adverse drug reactions. And we are still scared, almost out of our wits, by the pharmaceutical narrative: about the regular threats of infectious disease, fears generated by a pharmaceutical industry that has no safe or effective treatments for them.

We have been processed to believe that we are all under serious threat - and we that need the pharmaceutical industry to save us.

This is no more or less than rich powerful elites have done throughout the ages. There is an enemy.

We have to defend ourselves from the threat.

The poor must form the army, go to war, and if necessary, die.

Only than will the (wealthy) Establishment be able to prevail!

Health and Politics

Our health is NOT a 'political' issue! 

I have often said this before, not least in recent years when many Americans (particularly) have begun asking on social media whether health care is better under Democratic or Republican regimes. It is not (or it should not be) a party political issue, it should be a matter solely of personal 'patient choice'.

The health treatment we are offered IS a political issue! 

Most countries have a national health system which is largely, or significantly paid for through taxation. So the health treatment we are offered depends on three important political issues, namely:

1. How healthcare is organised
2. How much is spent on it, and 
3. What the money is spent on

These three matters are certainly based on political decisions. In Britain the huge NHS organisation is wholly paid for by government, to the tune of over £200 billion annually. The NHS accounts for a very large proportion of total resources spent on health care. So the British people, and indeed the citizens of most other countries because similar considerations apply, are highly dependent on political decisions made about health care provision.

So how is politics dealing with health services in Britain (and around other countries of the world)? Let's ask the three questions.

1. How healthcare is organised? 

Whenever there are serious problem with NHS health provision the usual political response is to come up with 'solutions' that focus on how the organisation is structured. So, for example, when a new Tory government came into power in 2010 they created a new organisation, NHS England, which took over the control and direction of health care policy. It removed the NHS from direct ministerial control in the Department of Health. Similarly, when a new Labour government took office in 2024, it decided to change the organisational structure of the NHS - this time by closing down NHS England, and returning control of health policy and implementation to Ministers in the Department of Health!

Organisational restructuring has been a regular feature, particularly during times of serious crisis. And the NHS has been in ongoing crisis now for nearly 80 years! So reorganisation, restructuring, has become a regular feature, a veritable NHS Merry-Go-Round, for all this time!

2. How much money is being spent on the NHS? 

The underfunding of the NHS has been another on-going debate throughout each and every year, and every General Election, of NHS history! It has become a symbol of political virility for political parties to claim that it would spend more on the NHS than their opponents. I have written about this ongoing phenomina in 2013, outlining how electoral success has primarily rested on the ability of political party's to convince the electorate that they would spend most on health care.

The result has been spiralling health care costs, with each new government to spend more to overcome the regular and ongoing NHS crises that have developed over the years.

3. What is the money being spent on? 

The problem is that despite regular 're-organisations', and regular (often massive) increases in spending on health care provision, the NHS in Britain (and similarly health care organisations throughout the developed western world), continues to fall into ever repeating, ever deepening crises.

The political failure of health provision has been the abject failure of politicians to ask this important third question. This constitutes the most devastating political failure of the last century. 

If re-organisation does not work; if pouring more and more money into something has little or no effect; and if the situation clearly gets worse over lengthy periods of time, the very first political instinct should be to ask the three questions:

1. What are we investing in?
2. Why are these investments not working?
3. Should we not be investing in something different?

In the 80 year history of the NHS this has not happened. Nor has it happened anywhere else in the 'developed' western world. And what every single citizen, every taxpayer, should now be asking is why are our politicians are failing in the their primary duty: to ask questions, to investigate, to interrogate, to ensure that taxpayers money is being spent wisely, and to positive advantage.

If our armies were being defeated, our military ships sunk; if increasing numbers of people became destitute, dying of starvation on the streets; if our roads were regularly becoming unusable, our railways malfunctioning; if our telephone or television systems broke down; et al; we can be assured that all three of these political questions would be asked, and answers demanded.

In particular, these questions should be asked if alternative solutions were available, but excluded. Why, we should ask, is all our money being spent on one particular health system (pharmaceutical medicine) to the exclusion of alternatives? As far as health care is concerned, natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism, acupuncture, et al., have been effectively excluded from the NHS. They are no longer available to patients, even for to those who would want choose them. Why does 'patient choice' have no place within our NHS? Would the re-introduction of these therapies have more success in preventing the ongoing, ever burgeoning medical crises? Can studies be devised and conducted that might demonstrate whether this is so?

Instead, each year, £billions more are poured into the NHS, and the NHS spends it on the same thing - yet more drug-based medicine. We can all see the outcome for ourselves: one crisis following another, more demands for yet more £billions! This mean more people on more pharmaceutical drugs, and suffering not only from their (clearly demonstrated) ineffectiveness, but from their serious adverse reactions. Which inevitably means increasing levels of drug-induced chronic disease.

So if politicians are refusing to raise the questions, perhaps the electorate (you and me) should start asking politicians the same three questions.

• Why, with all the taxpayer money politicians are spending on our behalf, are we getting progressively sicker?
• Why is almost every chronic disease you might wish to mention now at running epidemic levels, far higher than it was in 1948 when 'free drugs' were first made available on the NHS? And why does chronic disease continue to rise?
• Why is it so hard to get a doctor's appointment? And why are waiting lists, throughout the NHS, so large, and still growing?
• Are pharmaceutical drug/vaccines really as "safe and effective" as we are being told by the pharmaceutical medical establishment? Why do politician never question this claim?
• Are drug/vaccine side effects more serious than doctors admit; and are pharmaceutical drugs, in large measure, part of the cause of chronic disease rising to epidemic levels?
• Why are pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines routinely approved by national drug regulators, only to be heavily restricted, then withdrawn and/or banned because of the patient harm they cause?
• And why have patients been allowed to take drugs and vaccines for many years/decades before they have been banned?

As Shakespeare says, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" but we need to recognise that this 'rottenness' extends throughout Europe, Britain, Canada, the USA - indeed, to wherever pharmaceutical medicine dominates health care provision. 

Why should this be?

The pharmaceutical industry is the only one that politicians, throughout the democratic world, allow to have such a dominant, monopoly position within any of the major services they provide. 

The pharmaceutical industry has regularly faced legal convictions for deception, dishonesty and fraud (Thalidomide, Vioxx, Primodos, Sodium Valproate, Blood Contamination, Opioid scandals, et al), but politicians (plus the mainstream media) consistently fail to investigate whether this is a medical system that can be trusted with huge public funds.

The pharmaceutical industry, like all large industrial interests, lobby politicians. But none do more lobbying, more intensively, with more resources, than the pharmaceutical industry! Is this the source of their political immunity?

All these are serious political questions. So we need to ask our politicians one further question - just how much influence does the industry have on the healthcare policies they support and fund?

Is the Nation Sufficiently Healthy to Recruit an Enlarged Army?

Recent political events surrounding the new Trump administration in the USA have raised issues about the recruitment an enlarged armed forces throughout Europe. Almost inevitably this will ultimately lead to questions about the lack of health and fitness of our young people for military service - and this in turn may raise even more serious questions about the quality of our health services.

A 2024 study from the USA Pentagon, reported on Miltiary.com, showed that 77% of young Americans would fail to qualify for military service - without a waiver being made for being overweight, using drugs or having mental and physical health problems. A similar study in 2017 had showed that 71% of Americans would have been ineligible to serve. So this is not only a huge proportion of the population, it is a problem that is rapidly growing - a 6% increase in 7 years.

This reminded me of the problems Britain experienced during the Boer War (1899-1902), and the period leading to the First World War (1914). Throughout the Boer War, a prolonged and intense conflict in Southern Africa, there were constant concerns about the fitness, strength and suitability of the recruits to the army. Huge numbers of men had volunteered to fight but many were rejected. In 1902 it was estimated that 60% of the male population were physically unfit for military service.

In response, a Committee on Physical Deterioration was set up by the British government. The Fitzroy Report (produced in 1904) described the poor physical condition of army recruits, and recommended an urgent improvement in both living and working conditions, not least those arising from overcrowding, poverty, pollution, and parental neglect. Perhaps these findings should not have been a total surprise. It followed two centuries of extreme social upheaval - the Agrarian and Industrial Revolutions. And the report did lead to important, quite rapid social change.

The latest report from the Pentagon states that "When considering youth disqualified for one reason alone, the most prevalent disqualification rates are overweight (11%), drug and alcohol abuse (8%), and medical/physical health (7%)”. So it is not social conditions that are now causing the problem: it is drugs, including medical drugs, and a health system that is just not working. 

Moreover, the problem of recruitment to the armed forces remains in Britain.

        "The British Army has consistently fallen short of its recruitment targets ... each year since 2010, as highlighted by the recent Ministry of Defence data. The figures reveal a cumulative deficit of 22,350 in the Basic Training Starts (BTS) Targets for British Army ‘Other Ranks’, compared to the total recruitment goal of 119,530 set over the period from 2010 to 2023."

And the reason for the failure to recruit are similar to those found in the USA.

        "The total number of rejections over the last five years was 125,861, with 23,763 Commonwealth applicants turned away due to “lack of vacancies” and 76,187 rejected on medical grounds over the period." 

So over the last 5 years, ‘medical reasons’ have emerged as the foremost reason for the British armed forces to reject those who wish to join. And what we need to remember is that this rejection of 76,187 applicants follows nearly 80 years of a National Health Service, "free at the point of need", and now costing the country over £200 billion annually.

So what does that say about the quality of the medicine provided by our overly-costly NHS?

But then we may never know, as this is not a question our military, our health services, and our government, is ever likely to ask!

The Contaminated Blood Inquiry. Is the focus of the media response misplaced!

We do not learn from our mistakes. History should teach us that scandals, disasters and fiascos are never recognised at the time, or even soon afterwards, but usually take 30-40, or even 50 years after they happen before they are accepted. We don't seem to understand this, even today, following the publication of the Infected Blood inquiry's final report. This is how the Guardian described the contaminated blood scandal.

            "The scandal has been described as the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS. People treated by the NHS in the UK between the 1970s and 1990s were exposed to tainted blood through transfusions, including during complications in childbirth, or, in the case of haemophiliacs, given contaminated “factor VIII” blood products imported from the US".

I wrote about this scandal here in 2017, in "The Contaminated Blood Scandal. The worst cover-up in NHS history". It certainly has been a cover-up of massive proportions, one that has lasted for over 50 years after the issues were first known.

And now, hiding (as yet unannounced and unrecognised) in the background, is yet another scandal in the making - the Covid-19 vaccine scandal. This has concerned a mass vaccination campaign using a largely untested, and therefore experimental vaccines). And I predict that this scandal might also take another 30, 40 or 50 years before it is fully recognised by the UK's health and political establishments.

This 30+ year gap from 'event' to 'recognition/apology' is not restricted to conventional medicine. The Hillsborough tragedy, the Bloody Sunday massacre, and the Post Office scandal, are all demonstration of this laggardly timescale; and but there are many others. Nor will these scandals be the last; there will no doubt be many others to come!

Yet it is within the confines of the conventional medical establishment that most of these scandals happen. I wrote about several of these medical scandals in Chapter 9, "Medical Errors" in my "The Failure of Conventional Medicine" e-book. And if we are ever going to learn, it is important to understand what is going on, and why these decades-long time-delays are allowed to happen - time and time again.

There are influential people and powerful organisations implicated in each and every one of these scandals. They invariably, inevitably hold control the information about the situation within their sphere; within industry, within the conventional medical establishment, within government, and/or within the mainstream media. They are people with reputations to defend, and personal wealth to protect. And corporations or institutions with profitability at stake. When it is realised that there is a problem, they defend themselves, vigorously, through many tried and tested strategies:

• initially they ignore the situation (on the basis that it is best not to discuss the situation in case it attracts unnecessary or unwanted publicity),
• then they obfuscate (it is best that people are confused, or over-whelmed, rather than certain that something 'bad' has happened),
  
• they go into denial, they cover-up (they play for time, defending themselves with arguments like "there is no evidence", or the "correlation is not causality", et al,
  
• they discount the importance of the situation (there may be a slight problem, but only a few people people were 'involved; it's not a serious issue), and they excuse themselves by saying that the benefits of what happened far outweighed the risks.
  

These factors were all in evidence in previous scandals; Thalidomide, Vioxx, Opioid, Primodos, Sodium Valproate, were all defended using these strategies. The infected blood scandal was no different, just the latest example of a medical scandal that took decades before the truth was recognised, and the cover-up revealed.

I suggest that the Covid-19 vaccine scandal is at the very earliest stage of this process. Literally millions of people, around the world, have reported serious adverse vaccine reactions to national drug regulators, and they have not been recognised, investigated or acted upon. There is growing realisation by doctors and others within the Conventional Medical Establishment that there is a serious problem (stemming from the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration), and when the patient harm issues have been raised in Parliament, by a handful of MP's, they have spoken to an almost empty chamber, and received only an obfuscatory response from a government minister. The voluminous reports of serious patient harm from the Covid-19 vaccines are said to be greater than any other vaccine for the last 70 years. There have been 'excess deaths' each and every month for the last 3 years (since the vaccine roll-out), and questions about  links with the Covid-19 vaccines have usually been ignored, or denied. All these suggestions and allegations meet with institutional ridicule and denial, a refusal to investigate further, and the determination to continue with the Covid vaccination campaign.

Any similarities here with the contaminated blood scandal in the 1970's and 1980's? An industry not prepared to abandon a profitable vaccine? A health system unwilling to admit that it has caused serious patient harm? A government that does not want to compensate and pay damages to damaged patients?

The problem is that we might have to wait 30 years to find out! We are in the early stages during which the victims do not receive recognition, sympathy, support or compensation. They are the 'ordinary' people, with limited resources; they are not 'experts', and they find it difficult to penetrate 'the system' which insists there is no problem; and they certainly don't have the funds to take the issue to a court of law. 

On the other side of the fence they face people in positions of great power and influence, backed by powerful institutions. These are rich and powerful people, in extremis, who stick together. They present as a united front to protect themselves, to sing from the same song sheet. Corporate directors, senior government officials, and the mainstream media control the agenda, the information is (and is not) made available to the public.

Indeed, with health scandals in particular, one notable feature of these scandals is that no action is taken to correct the fault. The infected blood products continue to be sold; the opioid drugs are still marketed; Sodium Valproate continues to be prescribed; and even the infamous Thalidomide drug is still being used, today! These sales continue until such time that the scandal becomes bigger, when sales begin to fall, or the hitherto toothless, incompetent drug regulator bans it; or the drug company 'withdraws' it because it has become "uncommercial". One of the Covid-19 vaccines, the AstraZeneca vaccine, has suffered this fate - withdrawn for 'commercial reason' even though  it was never approved in some countries (the USA), was banned in about 12 European countries, and 'withdrawn' from the UK. The 'commercial' reason was that no-one wanted the vaccine because of 'suspicions' that they caused serious patient harm!

Another common thread that runs through most, if not all, these medical scandals is that drug/vaccine/treatment involved usually started life as a "wonder drug", a "game changer" that would transform the treatment of one disease or another. However, each one has moved from being loudly heralded "a miracle cure" to be quietly being dropped as a killer drug.

And then we are led to believe that such a thing has never happened before! 

Even at the very end of medical scandals, as with the 'contaminated blood scandal', the issue is usually discounted as being a 'one-off' issue, a single, isolated and terrible medical 'mistake' that must not be allowed to happen again. Also, they are presented as situations that would not be allowed to happen, not now, because things have changed, medicine has moved on. So, the defective, disease-inducing blood scandal product becomes "the worse disaster in the history of the NHS" - the implication being that something as bad as this has never happened before. And of course the Inquiry will insure that no such thing will never happen again in future!

So usually no-one is ever held to account for the scandal. This is the main purpose of the long drawn out history of obstruction and delay. If resolution can be delayed for 30, 40, or 50 years on, the people involved will either be dead, or too old; their scandal-driven profits already spent, or no longer available. The pharmaceutical industry will have re-organised, the old, often defunct drug companies will no longer be around to question, or prosecute. The politicians and civil servants involved with the scandal will have moved on, or died. Even some of the documentation might have been 'lost'. 

So it is the current government (that is, tax payers) who foots the compensation/damages bill, especially when drug companies have been given immunity from prosecution.

Conventional medicine is inherently secretive. This is because it relies heavily on pharmaceutical drug treatments, all of which are known to have serious side effects that can cause serious patient harm. This is at the heart of what makes the NHS defensive in all its dealing with the public. This is why conventional medicine does not, perhaps cannot, function openly, transparently, or honestly.

So there will be more health scandals, and with all the evidence available at this point it seems safe to predict that the Covid-19 vaccines, which are already suspected to have caused so much serious patient harm (heart conditions, cancer, damage to the immune system, to mental health, et al), will eventually grab our attention. But not, perhaps, for another 30 or 40 years!

So how can we identify a scandal 30 to 40 years earlier? I have a couple of tips.

• Watch for a new 'medical breakthrough', the promotion of a new 'ground beating' medical treatment by both government, and the mainstream media,
  
• Listen to who is speaking, and what they are saying. (i) the voice of the 'common' people who claim they have been harmed, but who remain largely unheard, or beaten back, and (ii) the denials and obfuscations of the medical and political establishments.

If these conditions apply then we just might have another medical scandal to witness - if we live long enough to see it unravel!

 

Note: When it was first published, Blogger removed this post. It was part of the Media's censorship campaign again the idea that pharmaceutical medicine was anything but "safe and effective". It has since been republished!