Major health policy change is happening in USA. So why do UK citizens know so little about it?

I am following the health debate in the USA with some interest. It is an important one, and I am impressed with what Robert F. Kennedy, Jnr., is seeking to do. It has filled me with hope and optimism that something is happening to tidy up the dishonesty, corruption and fraud that has been such an integral part of pharma-dominated health care over the last 70+ years. (I have written about the dishonesty and failure of pharmaceutical medicine in some detail here.)

However, the insistence on open, honest, transparent medical science; a significant tightening of drug regulation focused on protecting patients; and an over-heated health debate, are being ignored in Britain. I  I have come to realise in recent weeks how little of this health debate is known about (leave alone happening) in Britain.

What is happening in the USA, such an important health debate, is just not being reported here in the UK!

• The UK government is more interested in getting pharmaceutical investment to be concerned about any harm the industry’s vaccines and drugs are causing to patients.

• The NHS, so dominant in health care in the UK, is totally controlled by, and committed to drug-based medicine (the only contact I have with my doctor’s surgery are letters offering me vaccines and drugs, even though I am entirely well).

• And our mainstream media, regardless of how left and right it is, are not interested in reporting, just in case they lose a vital part of their advertising revenue from Big Pharma.

So the on-going, ever deepening epidemic of chronic disease continues. We are getting sicker, and no-one in Britain appears to want to look at the fundamental reason for this. Drugs and vaccines of limited/minimal health value, but the cause of considerable patient harm, continue to be routinely prescribed in never-decreasing amounts, without serious question. And the total cost of the NHS continues to rise without any apparent caution or analysis. The total NHS budget in financial year 2024-5 is £200 billion; and in 2025-6 it is set to rise to £230 billion. A15% rise. And spending on ‘health’ (at least the ‘health’ that comes from pills and vials) continues to be considered a ‘good’ thing by all political parties, both left and right, regardless of the negative outcomes.

• Surely an honest medical science, which genuinely seeks to ascertain drug/vaccine safety is an unarguably good thing?

• Surely a drug regulation system that puts patient safety first must be a priority in any health service?

The people of the USA, in the years to come, will hopefully benefit from Kennedy’s new policies, regardless of how much the pharmaceutical industry is willing to pay its apologists to oppose them.

Unfortunately, British people (through no fault of their own) are not yet aware of the new health policies arising in the USA that will lead to greater protection for patients from adverse drug harm.

The Pharmaceutical Industry needs to be effectively controlled, its influence and power within medicine drastically reduced. But the need for this is not confined to the USA, who are taking the lead. It is needed throughout the world.

Mass killings in the USA. What is the cause? Too many guns? Or too many SSRI Antidepressants? The cause has to proceed the solution.

I write this blog the day after the mass killing incident at the Marjory Stonemason Douglas High School in Florida, USA, when 17 people lost their lives. Already it is suspected that the killer, Nikolas Cruz, was taking prescribed medication, possible SSRI antidepressant drugs.

Such killings are not an uncommon tragedy in the USA. In Britain we hear only of the most serious mass shootings, the one's with the most serious loss of life. Even in America, apparently, they have become so common that not all of them are reported.

The discussion surrounding the incident has, as usual, focused on the gun control laws. Should the government reform them, restrict access to guns. Or uphold the constitutional right of Americans to carry guns for self defence. The focus is not unreasonable - the deaths, after all, are being caused by guns! The gun Cruz used was his gun, his parents made him keep it in a locked gun cabinet, but he had a key.

But is it a sufficient to focus on the gun? Ownership and possession of a gun does not mean that the killer have to use it to kill people.

We hear that Cruz had a troubled past, that he was adopted, and his mother died 3 months earlier of  pneumonia. According to Vaxxter, a family friend has already told a local newspaper, the Sun Sentinel, that Cruz had been on 'medications'.

               “I know she had been having some issues with them ..... He was being a problem. I know he did have some issues and he may have been taking medication. (He) did have some kind of emotional or difficulties.”

Mass shootings have often been linked to pharmaceutical drugs. I wrote about the connection back in 2011 when I first heard evidence linking mass shooters to pharmaceutical drugs, not least to SSRI antidepressant drugs. Since then I have research all the pharmaceutical drugs that are known to cause violence, and these include not only antidepressants, but Antiviral drugs, Benzodiazepine drugs, ADHD drugs, Lariam and Champix (Chantix). As Vaxxter comments:

               "One thing is becoming more and more clear, we need to take a deeper look at what these SSRI medications are doing to our society. We need more awareness and more studies."

I have looked, listened and watched the mainstream media to hear of any recognition of this link between drugs and mass killings, without success. The focus remains on guns.

So what happens in a country does have rigorous gun control laws? In Britain there are not so many shootings, very few in fact. But the problem, instead, is knives and stabbings. How many of the young people involved in this violence are taking pharmaceutical drugs? Perhaps USA citizens will not be surprised that we don't know, because we don't look into it, our focus is on preventing young people getting access to knives!

The problem is that if we don't identify the CAUSES of violence, all the causes of violence, then the problem of violence can never be reduced, leave along resolved.

If it is guns, or knives, we can introduce some measure of control. If pharmaceutical drugs are to blame nothing will be done as the problem is never raised, never considered, never investigated. If it is drugs, and we don't recognise it, all we can do is to wait until the next depressed youngster is given antidepressants, and wait until he decides to kill someone - whether with a gun or a knife!

Postscript 20th February 2018
This latest School Shooting atrocity was also undertaken by young man who was on pharmaceutical drugs. The gun killed the 17 victims; the trigger was pulled by the 'side effects' the conventional medicine.

Postscript 7th May 2018
A new study from Clemson University, published in the Journal of Child and Family Studies, 2018; doi: 10.1007/s10826-018-1096-2, has found that one-third of school mass shooters were taking psychiatric drugs, and that one-third were diagnosed with a mental disorder and were taking psychiatric drugs such as antidepressants.

What have corrupt USA Admirals have in common with the mayhem caused by the pharmaceutical industry

This morning, amidst all the trifling news of political scandal being reported in the mainstream media, I turned over to RT (Russia Today) news. They were dealing with the 'Fat Leonard' corruption scandal. I was amazed as this was not a new story but something that has been going on for months. Why did I now know about it? But then, I thought, why do 99% of people not know about the ongoing corruption associated with the pharmaceutical industry? It is censored news which is not reported in our 'free' news media. What we are allowed to know depends on what the Establishment wants us to know.

I searched the internet in order to find out who was reporting the story. "USA", "Admirals" produced an article from RT, and little else. I noted that the scandal was called the "Fat Leonard" scandal, so another search. To my surprise, Wikipedia had a page, and apparently the scandal dates back to 2010. It said that the Washington Post called the scandal "perhaps the worst national-security breach of its kind to hit the Navy since the end of the Cold War." This referred to an article published in 2016, "The man who seduced the 7th fleet". The search showed that in the UK the Daily Mail had reported on the scandal recently, and the Guardian some months ago. But most information available came from non-mainstream news websites.

As Wikipedia outlines, at the heart of the scandal was Leonard Glenn Francis, known as "Fat Leonard" for his 350-pound weight. Apparently he had provided thousands of dollars in cash, travel expenses, luxury items, and prostitutes to a large number of US uniformed officers. In return they gave him classified material about the movements of US ships and submarines, confidential contracting information, and information about active law enforcement investigations his company. The, Francis "exploited the intelligence for illicit profit, brazenly ordering his moles to redirect aircraft carriers to ports he controlled in Southeast Asia so he could more easily bilk the Navy for fuel, tugboats, barges, food, water and sewage removal." Wikipedia stated that in 2013, 31 people have been criminally charged in connection with the Fat Leonard. The RT feature today declared that the scandal now involved 60 admirals, and hundreds of officers within the US Seventh Fleet.

Is this not a news story that deserves more public attention and examination - the most powerful navy in the world caught up in bribery and corruption at the highest levels? Perhaps I should have known about it, but then, ask the next 100 people you meet what they know about it, and find out how many of them are aware of the story!

At the same time, ask them whether they know about the harm pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines cause to millions of patients every year, and discover how many people know about this.

• Ask the next 100 people you meet who have had a vaccination, or have vaccinated their children, and discover how many know about their dangerous side effects.
• Ask the next 100 people you meet who take Statin drugs whether they are aware of their side effects.
• Ask the next 100 people you meet who have taken Antibiotic drugs whether they are aware of their side effects.
• Ask the next 100 people you meet who is suffering from a serious illness or disease if they are aware that conventional medical drugs could have caused their condition.

The fact is that our mainstream news media does not tell us the truth. At least, it does not tell us the whole truth! We may believe (because we have always been told) that our press and news media are 'free', and can investigate and report on any matter of public importance. This is part of our democracy, an integral part of our personal freedoms. It takes governments to task. It exposes crime and corruption wherever it happens. And so on......

But of course, it does no such thing, and certainly not all of it. We can all recognise, and can look back at news reporting in time of war (WW1, WW2, Vietnam, et al) when the full enormity of the death and destruction occurring were intentionally kept from the public. It would not have been in the public interest for us to know at the time, we are told. But this does not happen in peacetime.

Yet it does. As far as the 'Fat Leonard' scandal is concerned it is not in the wider public interest for us to be too aware of the corruption that exists within powerful military forces, which are protecting the free world! If we knew this, to the full extent that it exists, would have dreadful implications for our government! So people in the corridors of power mingle with people in the corridors of information to determine what we are allowed to know, and how much we are allowed to know.

Similarly, with the Pharmaceutical industry. The public should not be told about the harm and disease caused by drugs and vaccines because it is these things that keep us healthy. For instance, if we all knew that childhood vaccines have been instrumental in causing the Autism epidemic over recent decades people would refuse to vaccinate their children. This would have dreadful consequences for the main funder of mainstream news organisations. So people in the corridors of the drugs industry mingle with people in the corridors of information to determine what we are allowed to know, and how much we are allowed to know.

This is how important news, across the entire spectrum, is censored. There is news that is too sensitive, has too many implications, for the Establishment to want to divulge. Although individuals wrong-doing can be investigated and pursued (they are just bad, corrupt people with evil intentions), pursuing rich and influential institutions is much more difficult. They are vital components to our life, and our society. Or so they believe!

Homeopathy in the USA. A sign of the weakness of conventional medicine?

The United States and America is where the threat to health freedom, and patient choice, is at its most extreme. In every state the conventional medical establishment is seeking to make vaccination mandatory, taking away the choice of patients.

Yet the people of the USA are great users of other medical therapies, not the least of which is homeopathy.

An important survey has recently been conducted into the usage of homeopathic medicines in the USA, and published in the most respected public health journal in the USA, 'The American Journal of Public Health'. The survey authors are from Harvard’s School of Public Health and the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, a Harvard Medical School affiliated hospital, and Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH, has kindly outlined some of the more salient facts arising from the survey:

• The survey noted that homeopathic studies “suggest potential public health benefits such as reductions in unnecessary antibiotic usage, reductions in costs to treat certain respiratory diseases, improvements in peri-menopausal depression, improved health outcomes in chronically ill individuals. And the control of a Leptospirosis epidemic in Cuba.”
• The survey analyzed data from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey for the prevalence and patterns of usage of homeopathic medicines among U.S. adults in relation to other complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) use.
• Two-thirds of homeopathy users ranked homeopathy as one of their top three CIM therapies.
• Homeopathy users who saw a professional homeopath were significantly more likely to feel that homeopathy was “very important in maintaining health and well-being” and that it helped their health condition “a great deal” than were homeopathy users who did not see a professional homeopath.
• Previous governmental surveys in 2002 and 2007 found that homeopathy was used by 1.7% and 1.8% of American adults respectively. This new survey found that in 2012 the usage of homeopathy had grew approximately 15% to 2.1% of U.S. adults.
• The usage of homeopathic medicines in the U.S. are considerably lower than in other Western countries, such as Italy (8.2%) and Germany (14.8%).
• The survey, like dozens before it, have found that people who were more educated were more likely to use homeopathic medicines than people who were less educated.
• The most common conditions for which people sought homeopathic treatment were respiratory and ear-nose-and-throat complaints as well as musculoskeletal pain syndromes.
• The researchers concluded that “because of potential public health benefits associated with the use of homeopathy, further research on this modality and targeted studies of users are warranted”.

The study abstract can be found here.

Perhaps the growing popularity of homeopathy, alongside the growing resistance to conventional, drug and vaccine based medicine, is the primary reason for the insidious movement towards mandatory medication in the USA. The pharmaceutical industry is beginning to realise that more and more people see their drugs and vaccines as ineffective and harmful, whilst at the same time, growing numbers of people are looking for safer medical therapies. For the drug companies this combination is a threat to their business, their profits, their influence with national health care systems.

Forcing people to have their drugs and vaccines has become a survival mechanism!

Pharmaceutical companies may see this flexing of muscle as a sign of strength and vigour. Actually, it is a sign of weakness and incipient decline.