Big Business and the use of Social Media Trolls

The Natural News website has recently run an article about Monsanto being caught running a 'troll farm' in order "to smear ..... anyone questioning the fake science behind GMO's". They dislike the safety of their 'Roundup' herbicide being questioned, and apparently, new court documents (arising from 50 lawsuits against the company) have revealed that "... Monsanto has a troop of trolls at its disposal who are paid to scour the internet for those speaking ill of its toxic wares and then counter their warnings with false studies that support their products."

The lawsuits are being taken by people who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma because of their exposure to Roundup, and the Monsanto has hidden the risks of the herbicide. One document is quoted in the material revealed.

               "Monsanto even started the aptly-named ‘Let Nothing Go’ program to leave nothing, not even Facebook comments, unanswered; through a series of third parties, it employs individuals who appear to have no connection to the industry, who in turn post positive comments on news articles and Facebook posts, defending Monsanto, its chemicals, and GMOs." (My emphasis).

It is good that this has been revealed. Perhaps it will lead to a recognition that many large industrial and commercial conglomerates hire trolls in the same way. The pharmaceutical industry certainly does so, and also supports organisations such as 'Sense about Science', the 'Good Thinking Society' to defend their products, and to attack any medical therapy that might compromise their business, their monopoly within most national health services, and their profits. Indeed, much of what the Natural Health article says about Monsanto is applicable to the efforts of Big Pharma.

               "... internal emails showed that the evil firm enlisted staffers to ghost write studies that falsely portray its products as safe, even going so far as to pay experts like scientists to sign their names at the end to lend a false air of authenticity."

Apparently, Monsanto has an entire department devoted to discrediting scientists, and smearing journalists who dare suggest that its products are dangerous, and are causing harm to users. When, in 2015, the World Health Organizstion’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) stated that glyphosate probably causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, one of the firm's executives admitted that it had a whole department devoted to “debunking” legitimate science that made its products look bad!

Eventually, this will discredit the companies, and the industries who engage in such activity. But worse, it will also damage the reputation and credibility of science itself. Many troll organisations, like those I have mentioned above, actually claim to support science!

It indicates that large corporate bodies, that dominate the political and commercial establishments, are aware that their products cause harm to its users, but are prepared to misinform, lie, and deceive to maintain their business and their profits.

And it would appear that the trolls we hear from on social media are on their payroll!

Patient Support Charities. Not all they seem?

Learning that we have contracted a serious illness can be a testing time, a time when we look for support and guidance. This is the basis of the growth of patient support and health charities: if there is a serious illness, there is now almost certainly a health charity that focuses on it. What could be better at such a difficult time?

• People who have gone through similar experiences, to help them cope? 
• What is the best treatment?
• What treatments work? What treatments do not work?

Yet this simple equation is not as easy or as straightforward as it might appear. The Pharmaceutical companies understand their importance, and they have decided that they are a good way of investing money to promote their business interests.

I wrote about the issue in July 2013. There has now been further research into the scale of the problem.

               "Everyone's in the pay of Big Pharma, it seems, as new surveys reveal that doctors and patient advocacy group are getting payouts every year - and the only one in the dark is you, the patient".

This is the conclusion of a WDDTY article (May 2017), which refers to J Gen Intern Med, 2017; doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4012-3, and N Engl J Med, 2017, 376: 880-5. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania analyzed the finances of 104 patient support charities, and found that

• 85% admitted to getting funding from drug companies
• Of the remaining 15%, only 1 group did not receive funding from the health industry - the rest did not reveal their pharmaceutical connections!

The lead researcher, Genevieve Pham-Kanter, of Dexel university, came to this conclusion:

               "Drug companies have long known that even small gifts to physicians can be influential, and research validates the notion that they tend to induce feelings of reciprocity. But the more generous payouts are made to patient advocacy groups. Some receive up to $7.5 million in donations from Big Pharma, and a $1 million donation is not unusual".

WDDTY concluded, quite correctly, this such financial support creates a conflict of interest as many of these group advocate the use of specific drugs, or lobby regulators to get a new drug approved, whilst maintaining the fiction that it is "all for the benefit of the patient".

Of course, it is not for the benefit of patients, it is for the benefit of the drug companies, who do not spend their money unless and until they know it is a good investment! It raises an important question. How much can we trust patient support groups and health charities? The answer must be - not very much at all!

This is not new news. Nor is it news about which the mainstream media is unaware. For instance, BBC News, via the Victoria Derbyshire programme, looked into the activities of one such charity, the Hepatitis C Trust, in March 2017. It stated:

               "A charity that tried to force the NHS to buy more of an expensive hepatitis C treatment received large amounts of money from the drug's manufacturer. The Hepatitis C Trust has taken £200,000 in grant funding from US drugs giant Gilead since 2014. Last year, it unsuccessfully took NHS England to court for restricting access to the medicine on cost grounds."

Of course, the charity denied being influenced by the drugs industry, and said that it had always acted in the interests of patients.

The background to the story began in 2015 when NICE ruled it was cost-effective compared with older medicines, and NHS England set aside an extra £200m a year to pay for the drug, Sovaldi. This drug was manufactured by Gilead. It had a list price of £34,983 for a 12-week course! So the donation the drug company was making to the Hepatitis C Trust was well worth the money! 

And in addition, as far as the public was concerned, the court case had nothing to do with the pharmaceutical industry, who played no part in it. It was that 'mean' NHS, being challenged by a nice, well-intentioned charity, who only had the best interests of their patients at heart!

In such ways does the pharmaceutical industry work to generate its profits!

So what is this drug, Sovaldi. The BBC article, as usual, outlines how effective it is, straight from the drug manufacturer's publicity! It is "95% effective at curing the disease within eight weeks" we are told. If it was as effective as this the £35,000 seems a good deal! It is strange that Hepatitis C still exists, given such effectiveness! So perhaps NICE were aware of the side effects of the drug. They can be found here.

The public are being seriously misinformed about health, and the treatment of health. The conventional medical establishment is certainly not telling us the truth. The mainstream media is not telling us the whole truth. And it would appear that most patient support charities are speaking to us according to the donations they receive from the pharmaceutical industry.

The History of Big Pharma (Video)

There are a variety of videos, now freely available on YouTube, and other platforms., packed full of evidence and information that shows just how Big Pharma are controlling and dominating our society with drugs that are both useless and dangerous, and how they have been establishing their position for many centuries, but particularly in the last 100 years.

This film is excellent. It is called "Toddlers on Amphetamines. The History of Big Pharma and the major players". It is three hours long, so not a video you did into.

I recommend that you find time to look at it. The information informs us about what we face today when we ask for health freedom, for patient choice, and the ability to use safe and effective medical therapies.

An then, when you have watched this video, move on to this one. It is only 3 minutes long! It is a trailer for a film about homeopathy, 'Just One Drop', but in that short time it demonstrates how powerful homeopathy is, and how different it is both in terms of safety and effectiveness, to the medicine we receive from Big Pharma when we go to our conventional doctors, and our conventional hospitals. There is one powerful difference between homeopathy and conventional medicine. 

Honesty!

Click here to play the short video,

'Just one Drop'

Drug Trials in France. Just another part of the mayhem caused by Big Pharma!

A man left brain dead, and then dying. Five other people being treated in hospital in the French city of Rennes, four of whom have serious 'neurological' problems. Concern about the health of the 90 other fit and healthy young people involved. The Paris prosecutor opening an investigation.

Just another mundane event in the life and history of the Big Pharma companies?

The Portuguese drug company, Bial, was apparently testing a cannabis-based painkiller. The drug trial has been 'suspended'.

BBC News tells us that "this is the bitter price of the new medicines we take for granted. Testing such experimental drugs, at the cutting edge of science, can never be completely risk-free." Their analysis goes on, blandly and unquestioningly.

          "The safety and effectiveness of these drugs are rigorously tested in animals." 
          "The risks are low......"
          "This trial has been taking place since July without such major events being reported."
          "It is a high price to pay, but thousands of people do safely take part in similar trials each year."
           "The trial was conducted by Biotrial, a French-based company with an international reputation which has carried out thousands of trials since it was set up in 1989."
          "Before any new medicine can be given to patients, detailed information about how it works and how safe it is must be collected."
          "Clinical trials are the key to getting that data, and without volunteers to take part in the trials, there would be no new treatments for serious diseases ......."

So the BBC's 'analysis', typically, is more about justifying the process of developing conventional medical drugs than seriously questioning what has gone on in this case. I focus on the BBC, but the coverage in most of the mainstream media was similar. Yet as a public service broadcaster they should, surely, know better.

They should be more questioning, do more investigation, and be more critical of what they are told by the drug-dominated, drug obsessed conventional health establishment!

Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines kill millions of people throughout the world every year. Every one of them have gone through this process of testing, but they continue to cause disease and kill patients. Our mainstream media seems oblivious to this - it is, they tell us, a necessary evil - otherwise "there would be no new treatments for serious diseases..."

So most people, most patients, don't ask too many questions. They don't have the information. They just take the pill. Surely, we think, our doctors would not give us anything that is unsafe!

In 2006 at Northwick Park Hospital in London, drug trials almost killed six young volunteers. The drug, TGN 1312 was designed to treat multiple sclerosis, leukaemia and arthritis. The manufacturer, TeGenero, thought the drug would 'subtly retune' the immune system, but instead, it catastrophically turned the immune system against the very body it was supposed to protect, and caused multiple organ failure, and left them battling for their lives for several weeks. One victim had to have several fingers and toes amputated. All six men were told they would be likely to develop cancers or auto-immune diseases as a result of the drug.

At the time this story made headline news, not because drug trials are normally safe, they aren't, but the outcome in this case (and presumably the one in France too) was almost instantaneous. It could not be denied or discounted, the consequences on fit and health young volunteers was so obvious and drastic. The pharmaceutical industry has a long and infamous history of hiding, even destroying trial data that is detrimental to their main interest - selling drugs, regardless of the dangers to our health.

The BBC has told us that the Northwick Park drug, just like the new one in France, had previously been tested on animals, apparently without any "side-effects". So the media has invented no new justification for the devastation caused by Big Pharma drug trials - they are quite happy with the old ones! And this particular one should teach us one other lesson too.

That animal testing is completely worthless, and fails to protect young, fit volunteers, and later, of course, to the millions of patients subjected to the drug.

Yet the pharmaceutical drugs industry has a long history of disastrous, and deeply disturbing drug trials. President Clinton of the USA admitted this on 16th May 1997.

           "The United States government did something that was wrong - deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist".

This refers to the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis experiments that took place between 1932 and 1972. This involved 399 black men, in the late stages of syphilis. The men, illiterate sharecroppers from Alabama, were never told they had the disease, or about its seriousness, but were told they were being treated for 'bad blood'. The sharecroppers were pleased at the prospect of 'free medical care', but the purpose and consequences of the experiment were kept from them in order to ensure their cooperation. Indeed, the doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis. Instead, data was collected from autopsies after they had been deliberately allowed to degenerate and die. 

The purpose of the study, apparently, was to discover how syphilis affected black people, as opposed to white people. It has been estimated that by the end of the experiment 28 men died directly of syphilis, 100 died with related complications, 40 wives had been infected, and 19 children were born with congenital syphilis. 

What the benefits of such an experiment were is difficult to imagine!

Perhaps the drug companies will, one day, tell us! Yet this story gets worse. Apparently, the men were kept from receiving any treatment that might have helped them. When penicillin became available in the 1940s the Tuskegee 'guinea pigs' were denied the medication!

These drug trial were eventually uncovered by the Washington Star in 1972 (at a time when investigative journalism was still possible within the mainstream media). Only then did the government end the experiment. Even so, the drug companies remained unrepentant, claiming the men had been volunteers and were always happy to see the doctors!

For the full story see "Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment" by James H. Jones (New York: Free Press, 1993).

However, the government did not accept the media's comparison of Tuskegee with the appalling Nazi experiments on Jewish victims during World War II. 

Nor has the bad practice surrounding drug trials stopped, with drugs and vaccines notoriously being 'tested' in poor 3rd world countries. The film 'The Constant Gardiner' outlines the kind of activity drug companies get involved in in Africa, and other parts of the world.

So whilst the BBC, and other mainstream news organisations, may not want to focus on what the pharmaceutical drugs companies are doing, and have been doing for many decades, it is important that we should all know - particularly those people who are considering earning some money taking new drugs - and patients who are taking pharmaceutical drugs now.

More and more people are beginning to realise the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, despite the reluctance of the media to tell us. They are causing mayhem to our health. Many diseases are now at epidemic levels - and it is well known that pharmaceutical drugs are known to cause most, if not all of them. This is never admitted by the conventional health establishment, of course. And our doctors don't tell us. The links are never investigated by the BBC, of course, or any other part of the mainstream media. Our politicians don't tell us either, the Big Pharma industry is just too strong, to powerful to stand up to, and call to account.

So it is up to us, as individuals, to realise what is happening to our health, the part played by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and to say, firmly, "No" when offered them - either as a volunteer tester, or as a patient.

After all, it would appear that no one else will look after our safety!

Conventional Medical Monopoly and Big Pharma Profiteering

The Competition and Markets Authority, the CMA, described as Britain's competition watchdog, has accused two pharmaceutical drug companies of "excessive and unfair" prices for an anti-epilepsy drug. So given my blog yesterday (5th August 2015) about a monopoly in NHS healthcare provision, another aspect of the consequences of allowing a monopoly comes to the fore.

It costs us.

It costs patients in terms of our health, and it costs taxpayers in our pockets.

Big Pharma's monopoly position within the NHS is, of course, supported by our mainstream media, who are willing not only to publicise their over-hyped claims for their drugs and vaccines, but giving us with the impression that these drugs and vaccines are the route to good health, and that 'there is no alternative' to them.

The monetary cost of conventional drugs and vaccines are excessive, and they have been for a very long time. I recall, some years ago, when a drug company, which was facing huge compensation payments for the damage caused by one of their drugs, stated that these payments were not a problem as they were 'factored in' to the cost of every drug.

That is, drug companies are aware that their drugs will cause damage to patients, that the courts will fine them heavily, but they charge enough for the drugs to pay compensation!

What this means is that pharmaceutical companies can charge whatever they like for their drugs and vaccines. They operate within a monopoly. "There is no alternative"!

Normally, drug companies profit from the patents taken out on their drugs. A patent is a device that ensures that the inventor is guaranteed profit by removing all competition. Usually, the pharmaceutical industry justifies these excessive profits by pointing to the huge costs of developing a new drug or vaccine.

But this is not the case here. Phenytoin was first discovered in 1908!

The drug Phenytoin is currently prescribed to 50,000 people in Britain. It is manufactured by Pfizer, and marketed by Flynn Pharma. The drug, previously called Epanutin, used to cost the NHS £2.3 million per year. In 2013 it cost £50 million.

How did they do it?

The clue is in the sentence above. The name of the drug was changed! This is a popular device used by the pharmaceutical industry. They do it in order to obfuscate, to confuse, to pull the wool over the eyes of both doctors and patients. So, when one of their drugs or vaccines is found to be dangerous, they change the name, and call it something else.

For instance , the drug Thalidomide, perhaps the most infamous drug ever given to unsuspecting patients, is now called Thalomid, and is being prescribed to patients to treat cancer and leprosy.

Yet now, it would appear, when the Big Pharma industry wants to make bumper profits from sick people, they change the name of the drug, in this case from Epanutin to Phenytoin.

Actually, there should have been no such confusion. According to Wikipedia (never an entirely reliable, or unbiased source of information, but adequate in this instance) the drug, first discovered in 1908, was initially known then as Phenytoin. It was called Epanutin later. The name changed back more recently when Pfizer sold the British marketing rates to Flynn Pharmacy. And certainly, the increase in price was known to Wikipedia, if not to the NHS, some time ago.

     "The capsules are still made by Pfizer's Goedecke subsidiary's plant in Freiburg, Germany and they still have Epanutin printed on them. After Pfizer's sale of the UK marketing licence to Flynn Pharma, the price of a 28-pack of 25 mg phenytoin sodium capsules marked Epanutin rose from 66p to £15.74. Capsules of other strengths also went up in price by the same factor - 2384% costing the UK's National Health Service an extra £43 million (about $68.44 million) a year.

So what is the NHS paying for, and what are the consequences for British patients? Well, that is quite another story! Wikipedia tells us that in 2008, the drug was put on the FDA's "Potential Signals of Serious Risks" list! So what are these 'serious risk', for which we are paying so much to acquire? They are many and varied (and these are taken from a Wikipedia list)!

• severe low blood pressure, and abnormal heart rhythms.
• double vision, slurred speech, cerebellar ataxia, tremor.
• status epilepticus on sudden withdrawal.
• atrophy of the cerebellum.
• megaloblastic anaemia, aplastic anaemia, decreased white blood cell count, low platelet count.
• birth defects, 'metal hydantoin syndrome.
• gingival enlargement of the mouth.
• Hypertrichosis, Stevens-John syndrome, purple glove syndrome, rash, exgoliative dematitis, itching, excessing hairiness, coarsening of facial features.
• Lupus.
• Suicidal thoughts and behaviour.
• Decreased bone density and increased bone fractures.

So why have the FDA not acted on these 'serious risks'? 

So why did the NHS not spot that they were being overcharged by 2,384%?

So why do conventional doctors still prescribe such a dangerous, and hugely expensive drug?

So how can pharmaceutical companies continue to get away with profiteering from a drug they know can cause such serious harm to patients?

It is all connected with the monopoly of conventional, drug-based medicine, within the NHS.

It is time that the monopoly is challenged, that alternative therapies, such as homeopathy, are asked by the NHS if they can do better (both in terms of outcomes and cost) than the pharmaceutical industry in treating disease. It is time that the conventional medical monopoly is challenged, and patients are given a proper choice about how their illnesses are treated in future.

Big Pharma drugs cause Dementia, Alzheimers

In the journal American Medical Association, commonly used pharmaceutical drugs, used to treat a variety of illnesses, such as gastrointestinal condition like nausea, vomiting, gastritis, diarrhoea, diverticulitis, and ulcerative colitis; and respiratory disorders such as asthma, bronchitis, and COPD; as well as other conditions, such as cystitis, urethritis, prostatitis, insomnia and dizziness, were linked to higher dementia risk in elderly people.

Even the BBC reported the study today ( 27th January 2015) which, given their usual craven and submissive attitude towards the conventional medical establishment, is quite something. Yet, as usual, they play down the importance of this evidence for all of us.

First, there are many kinds and brands of Anticholinergic drugs, many of them readily on sale 'over-the-counter'. It has been estimated that about 50% of the USA population is taking at least one of these drugs. The figure for the UK is similar. This demonstrates the dangers that these drugs are to our mental health.

This list of anticholinergic drugs has been taken from the Wikipedia website (used here, but not always the best, or most accurate source of health information because of its connections with the conventional medical establishment).

Anti-Muscarinic Drugs. Atropine, Benztropine (Cogentin), Biperiden, Chlorpheniramine (Chlor-Trimeton), Dicyclomine (Dicycloverine), Dimenhydrinate (Dramamine), Diphenhydramine (Benadryl, Sominex, Advil PM, etc.), Doxylamine (Unisom), Glycopyrrolate (Robinul), Hydroxyzine (Atarax, Vistaril), Ipratropium (Atrovent), Orphenadrine, Oxitropium (Oxivent), Oxybutynin (Ditropan, Driptane, Lyrinel XL), Tolterodine (Detrol, Detrusitol), Tiotropium (Spiriva), Trihexyphenidyl, Scopolamine, Solifenacin, Tropicamide.

Anti-Nicotinic Drugs. Bupropion (Zyban, Wellbutrin), Ganglion blockers; Dextromethorphan, (Cough suppressant and ganglion blocker), Doxacurium (Nondeplorizing skeletal muscular relaxant), Hexamethonium, (Ganglion blocker), Mecamylamine, (Ganglion blocker and occasional smoking cessation aid), Tubocurarine, (Nondepolarizing skeletal muscular relaxant).

The Wikipedia article states that the anticholinergic drugs with the greatest effect, and taken frequently by older people, were:

• Anti-depressants such as Amitriptyline, Imipramine and Clomipramine
• Tranquilisers such as Chlorpromazine and Trifluoperazine
• Bladder medication such as Oxybutynin
• Antihistamines such as Chlorphenamine. 

The second reason why they underplay this information is that it has been available to us for a very long time, but the BBC, and the mainstream media generally, have not little or no attention to it before. Do an internet search on 'Anticholinergic drugs' and 'dementia' and you will see that the link has been known for many years, and no-one has bothered to tell us about it before. But this article, in the British Medical Journal (332: 455 – 459) was published in February 2006, nine years ago. It refers to research that says doctors should be aware that anticholinergic drugs can cause confusion, memory loss and disorientation. Karen Ritchie, the author of the article, told Reuters (London) that:

          "A large number of elderly people are taking medications that can mimic early dementia and are likely to be classed as having early dementia. A very large number of people with so-called early dementia have these effects due to drug consumption. The drugs they are taking are very common - they include things like antihistamines”

          "What we showed is that many of the people who are classified in this way have it due to the medication they are taking, and not because they have early Alzheimer's disease".

          "The drugs they are taking are very common they include things like antihistamines"

No wonder there has been an epidemic of Dementia and Alzheiemer's disease in recent decades. It has little to do with 'an ageing population', and much to do with the drugs the conventional medical establishment has been giving us for a very long time, and our media, who have stood passively to one side and allowed them to do so.

So in their article, the BBC still feels able to tell us that "Experts say people should not panic or stop taking their medicines". Who are these experts? They are, of course, the only experts the BBC ever consults over health matters - the very people who have been giving us these drugs over the years, without telling us about these disease-inducing-effects (D.I.E.s), and perhaps reluctant to admit how serious their error has been.

Actually, there appears to be no pharmaceutical drug that is sufficiently safe for us to risk taking.

There appears to be no Big Pharma drug that the conventional medical establishment will every warn us about, until it has done such untold harm that they can no longer continue withholding the truth further.

And, our mainstream media, including the 'public broadcaster' the BBC, seem willing to continue to do nothing that might bring to us the evidence that a variety of illnesses and diseases are being caused by conventional medicine.

Osteoporosis. A disease caused by Conventional Medical Drugs?

Osteoporosis. Description of the disease

Osteoporosis is a disease of the skeletal system when the bones lose density, become brittle and become more prone to fracture. It is the major cause of bone fractures in older people, particularly post-menopausal women. Women are affected by the disease 4 times more than men. The risk of osteoporosis can be reduced by adequate nutrition, especially with calcium and vitamin D, regular weight bearing exercise, and by stopping smoking and avoiding alcohol.

History and facts about the disease

The International Osteoporosis Foundation has provided the following facts about the incidence and impact of this disease.

• Osteoporosis affects an estimated 75 million people in Europe, USA and Japan.
• 30-50% of women and 15-30% of men will suffer a fracture related to osteoporosis in their lifetime.
• Nearly 75% of hip, spine and distal forearm fractures occur among patients 65 years old or over.
• A 10% loss of bone mass in the vertebrae can double the risk of vertebral fractures, and similarly, a 10% loss of bone mass in the hip can result in a 2.5 times greater risk of hip fracture.
• By 2050, the worldwide incidence of hip fracture in men is projected to increase by 310% and 240% in women.
• In white women, the lifetime risk of hip fracture is 1 in 6, compared with a 1 in 9 risk of a diagnosis of breast cancer.
• In women over 45 years of age, osteoporosis accounts for more days spent in hospital than may other diseases, including diabetes, myocardial infarction and breast cancer.
• It is estimated that the lifetime risk of experiencing an osteoporotic fracture in men over the age of 50 is 30%, similar to the lifetime risk of developing prostate cancer.
• Approximately 1.6 million hip fractures occur worldwide each year, by 2050 this number could reach between 4.5 million and 6.3 million.
• Hip fractures cause the most morbidity with reported mortality rates up to 20-24% in the first year after a hip fracture, and greater risk of dying may persist for at least 5 years afterwards. Loss of function and independence among survivors is profound, with 40% unable to walk independently, 60% requiring assistance a year later. Because of these losses, 33% are totally dependent or in a nursing home in the year following a hip fracture.
• Vertebral fractures can lead to back pain, loss of height, deformity, immobility, increased number of bed days, and even reduced pulmonary function. Their impact on quality of life can be profound as a result of loss of self-esteem, distorted body image and depression. Vertebral fractures also significantly impact on activities of daily living.
• The incidence of vertebral fractures increases with age in both sexes. Most studies indicate that the prevalence of vertebral fracture in men is similar to, or even greater than, that seen in women to age 50 or 60 years.

Pharmaceutical Drugs used to treat this disease

Drugs used to treat Osteoporosis have been found to cause more problems for the bones! So paradoxically instead of the drugs improving the condition, they can actually make it worse!

The website Physorg published an article on15 January 2008 "Popular osteoporosis drugs triple risk of bone necrosis" .The article outlined a study undertaken by the University of British Columbia, and Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute that found the most commonly used Osteoporosis drugs almost tripled the risk of developing bone necrosis, a condition that can lead to disfigurement and incapacitating pain. 

The research was described as “the largest study of bone necrosis and bisphosphonates, a class of drugs used by millions of women worldwide to help prevent bone fractures due to osteoporosis”. 

It was also said to be the first study to explore the link between bone necrosis and specific brands of the drug group bisphosphonates, such as Actonel, Didrocal and Fosamax. Researchers apparently found that all three brands had similar outcomes.

The online Journal of Rheumatology published the findings, undertaken following 

“a recent USA FDA alert about bisphosphonates drugs that highlighted the possibility of severe and sometimes incapacitating bone, joint and/or muscle pain in patients taking the drugs”. 

This is perhaps the reason why NHS Choices is extremely coy when it outlines the treatment for Osteoporosis!

          “You may not need or want to take medication to treat osteoporosis. However, you should ensure that you're maintaining sufficient levels of calcium and vitamin D. To achieve this, your healthcare team will ask you about your current diet and may recommend making changes or taking supplements”.

Bisphosphonate drugs are the most commonly used medications used to treat osteoporosis. The DIEs of this treatment have been outlined above, yet they were approved, and continue to be approved by Drug Regulators throughout the world. They are used both for the prevention and treatment of the disease. They include the following:

• Actonel (risedronate)
• Boniva (ibandronate)
• Fosamax (alendronate)
• Reclast (zoledronic acid)

Other side effects for bisphosphonates taken orally include gastrointestinal problems such as difficulty swallowing, inflammation of the esophagus, and stomach ulcers.

Side effects for bisphosphonates taken intravenously include flu-like symptoms, fever, pain in muscles or joints, and headache.

Other drugs used by the Conventional Medical Establishment to treat osteoporosis include:

• Evista (raloxifene), which belongs to a class of drugs called selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs).
• Miacalcin and Fortical (Calcitonin), a hormonal drug.
• Forteo (teriparatide), another hormonal treatment which has a ‘black box’ warning from the FDA as it can increase the risk of developing osteosarcoma, a rare but serious cancer. 
• Estrogen/Hormone Therapy (ET/HT). This treatment is is often known as estrogen therapy. It can increase a woman’s risk of developing cancer of the uterine lining (endometrial cancer), breast cancer, blood clots and heart attacks. Other side effects include vaginal bleeding, breast tenderness, mood disturbances, blood clots in the veins, and gallbladder disease.

Pharmaceutical Drugs that may have caused this disease

So what are the causes of the enormous rise in the incidence of Osteoporis? Several factors are usually mentioned in relation to osteoporosis. For instance, it has been shown to have a large genetic component; and body weight in infancy has also been associated. Physical inactivity and a sedentary lifestyle, smoking, high alcohol intake are also frequently mentioned. 

Yet all these factors have not changed fundamentally over the decades that have seen the increasing incidence of the disease, certainly not enough to explain the increase. 

As usual, the evidence that pharmaceutical drugs have played a role is rarely mentioned. The International Osteoporosis Foundation provides a long list of conventional medical drugs drugs contribute to osteoporosis by causing bone loss. This is what they say, followed by the list of medicines implicated.

“Some medicines can be harmful to your bones, even if you need to take them for another condition. Bone loss is usually greater if you take the medication in high doses or for a long time.

• Aluminum-containing antacids
• Antiseizure medicines (only some) such as Dilantin® or Phenobarbital
• Aromatase inhibitors such as Arimidex®, Aromasin® and Femara®
• Cancer chemotherapeutic drugs
• Cyclosporine A and FK506 (Tacrolimus)
• Gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) such as Lupron® and Zoladex®
• Heparin
• Lithium
• Medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception (Depo-Provera®)
• Methotrexate
• Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) such as Nexium®, Prevacid® and Prilosec® 
• Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as Lexapro®, Prozac® and Zoloft®
• Steroids (glucocorticoids) such as cortisone and prednisone
• Tamoxifen® (premenopausal use)
• Thiazolidinediones such as Actos® and Avandia®
• Thyroid hormones in excess

Note: This list may not include all medicines that may cause bone loss.

Yet perhaps there are three types of Big Pharma drug are the worst culprits. The first is Proton Pump inhibiting drugs, such as Nexium, Prilosec, Prevacid, Tagamet, Zantec, Pepcid, which can reduce the absorption of calcium from the stomach. Long-term use (a year or more) of these drugs can increase the risk of hip fracture by up to 60%.

Then there is Steroid, or Corticosteroid drugs. It has been estimated that between 30-50% of patients on long-term Corticosteroid drugs will experience fractures, with a 2-fold increased risk of hip fracture in women, and 2.6-fold increase in men. Yet Steroid drugs are regularly prescribed for a variety of conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, Crohn’s disease, lupus and allergies. They are often prescribed to relieve inflammation. They are also used along with other medicines to treat cancer and autoimmune conditions and to support organ transplants.

Yet perhaps the biggest culprit in the rise of Osteoporosis is conventional medicine’s meddling with our hormones, and in particular, the hormones of women. Large numbers of women were, until relatively recently, prescribed hormonal treatments (HRT), particularly for menopausal symptoms. Add to these numbers the huge number of women who have taken the contraceptive pill over the last 50-60 years, the it become undeniably that conventional medical drugs have played, and continue to play, a large role in the disruption of normal hormonal balances within our bodies, and thus in the rise of Osteoporosis. Perhaps it is little wonder that Osteoporosis mainly affects older women, who have suffered most of the abuse caused by these drugs.

Cancer? Bad luck? Or dangerous drugs?

It's all over the mainstream media! The BBC Today programme heralded the news to me this morning as I awoke! Read the BBC version of this wonderful new 'scientific' evidence here.

Cancer is just bad luck!

The research was published in the journal 'Science' and this is part of the abstract...

These results suggest that only a third of the variation in cancer risk among tissues is attributable to environmental factors or inherited predispositions. The majority is due to “bad luck,” that is, random mutations arising during DNA replication in normal, noncancerous stem cells. This is important not only for understanding the disease but also for designing strategies to limit the mortality it causes.

And it is important for us to understand this rather than understand one of the major causes in the epidemic rise of all kinds of cancers during recent times.

Pharmaceutical drugs!

For anyone who relies on the BBC, or the mainstream media for health information, or who believe that their doctors and the NHS would tell them if were true, that might come as something of a surprise! It would be unbelievable. Big Pharma drugs that cause cancer? Surely not!

The idea that the drugs our doctors and the NHS give us, and which our mainstream media never questions, should cause cancer should not really be such a surprise. any scientists now believe that our DNA is the basis of the genetic code that gives orders to all cells, and that cancer can be caused by chemicals, radiation, and viruses these cells come into contact with. There can be little doubt that many of these 'chemicals' and much of this 'radiation' have been introduced to our bodies via conventional medical drugs. And it is well known that many ConMed drugs cause cancer.

HRT
Hormone Replacement Therapy is perhaps the best known. HRT was once prescribed for many millions of women throughout the developed world for menopausal symptoms until it was proven, without reasonable doubt, that it caused both breast and uterine cancer. And remember, HRT is still not banned despite this, and is still prescribed to some women, quite regardless of the risks.

Tamoxifen
Many women are given drugs for the treatment of breast cancer, particularly Tamoxifen, without being told about the evidence that the drug is known to be carcinogenic, and indeed that it causes a much more virulent form of breast cancer.

          "Many of the drugs used to treat breast cancer today are probable or known cancer-causing agents. Tamoxifen, for instance, is classified by the World Health Organization as a "human carcinogen"...

It is also known to cause uterine cancer too. (International Journal of Gynaecological Cancer 2007).

Statin Drugs
Cholesterol-lowering drugs, notably Statins, are also implicated in causing cancer. The Journal of the American Medical Association (3 January1996) warned that these drugs can cause cancer in rodents.

Exubera
This 'safe' drug, used for Diabetes, was approved in 2006, and withdrawn in 2007 because it was found to dramatically increase the chances of lung cancer. In clinical trials, carried out by the drug company, six of the 4,740 patients taking Exubera developed lung cancer compared to just one out of 4,292 people who were not taking the drug.  After the trial finished, another Exubera patient also developed lung cancer. (Source:  FDA website)

Omeprazole (Philosec)
This heartburn drug has been found to cause abnormal cell growth and stomach tumors in rats, although it appears that no one is certain (yet) whether it does the same for humans!

Spironolactone (Aldactazide, Aldactone)
This is a blood pressure medicine, also prescribed for hormonal imbalances and facial hair growth in women, is also know to cause tumors in rats.

Elidel cream and Protopic ointment
These topical skin treatments, used for ezcema, are now associated with lymphoma and skin cancer. The FDA has warned against using them in children under age 2, and has admitted that the long-term safety of of these ointments are "unknown".

There are many, many more pharmaceutical drugs, currently being prescribed to patients, that are known to cause cancer. These few examples are just the tip of a very large iceberg. There is little doubt that Conventional Medicine plays a large role in the epidemic levels of all types of cancers. Indeed, the rise and rise of cancer in recent decades mirrors very closely the rise and rise in the consumption of Pharmaceutical Drugs. This is NOT a coincidence.

But the Conventional Medical Establishment would prefer that we did not know that their drugs were a known cause of cancer. They prefer us to think that it is just 'Bad Luck'! 

Advance Notice of a new E-Book - DIEs

The year 2015 will see me engaged in a massive project to demonstrate how most, if not all chronic illness and disease, can be caused by the conventional drug we are being given to treat more minor conditions.

I call this the 'disease-inducing-effects' or DIEs of pharmaceutical drugs

The purpose of this new ebook will be to demonstrate that the many modern epidemics of chronic disease and illness are not merely the result of 'bad luck', as this study suggests. They are the result of misadventure - the disastrous misadventure associated with the Conventional Medical Establishment during the last 100 years and more.

Vaccines Don't Cause Autism (?). Listen, you fools (!)

Vaccines don't cause Autism!

VACCINES DON'T CAUSE AUTISM!

Are you listening? How many more times must you all be told by the Conventional Medical Establishment?

Just listen, and be told! JUST LISTEN, AND BE TOLD!

Doctor's tell us they are safe. The NHS tells us. The government urges us to protect ourselves by accepting vaccines. Our mainstream media stays silent and regularly lets us know about the promotion campaigns of the Pharmaceutical companies (Big Pharma).

Yet still, despite all this, these parents keep telling us that their previously 'normal' children became victims to Autism, and other diseases, after they had a vaccination. See here, fore example.

http://www.nextworldhealthtv.com/videos/vaccination/how-cnn-caused-a-vaccine-story-it-tried-to-crush-to-instead-go-viral-.html

There are so many of these personal testimonies, so many such family tragedies. Many, many more are not known about, because parents accept what they have been told.

Vaccines do not cause Autism. VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM.

So the fact that the epidemic rise in Autism over the last 40-50 years, a condition unknown until the 1940's, 1950's, closely  mirrors the rise and rise of vaccines during the same period, is just coincidence, 'bad luck', and misfortune.

Autism just happens. There is no cause. And conventional medicine has no cure either!

And if vaccines are the cause of epidemic Autism, the Conventional Medical Establishment, would surely not hide it from us? And if they did, our Media would investigate it - surely?

Autism, the MMR Vaccine, and Media Censorship

The Conventional Medical Establishment has been lying about the link between the MMR Vaccine and the epidemic rise of Autism, and has been doing so for at least 10 years. What is now clear is that there is a link. And the evidence has been suppressed. A major fraud has been perpetrated on the public throughout the world.

• The news is all over the internet
• Yet the news is no-where to be seen in the conventional, mainstream media!

I am not going to repeat the news here. Basically, a leading scientist Dr William Thompson, working within the CDC (US Centers for Diseasse Control and Prevention) has revealed that the organisation suppressed evidence of the connection between the MMR vaccine and Autism, and instead published 'scientific' evidence that there was no such link. This is what he said.

          “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.” In other words, it confirmed the serious omission highlighted by Hooker.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, the rest of the statement reads like something written by lawyers on behalf of a man afraid of professional reprisals. 

The details of this revelation can be read elsewhere, and here are just a few of the reports that have appeared on the internet during the last 2 weeks (since 27th August 2014).

• “Statement of William W. Thompson, Ph.D., Regarding the 2004 Article Examining the Possibility of a Relationship Between MMR Vaccine and Autism” August 27, 2014 Press Release
• Agency hides data that reveals that the MMR vaccines causes Autism
• Whistleblowing CDC senior scientist goes public as new evidence is suppressed
• CDC scientific fraud: an update on Dr. Poul Thorsen who authored fraudulent study 'disproving' vaccine-autism connection and stole millions of dollars
• Moms of autistic, vaccine-damaged children mount wave of online protest against CDC research fraud.
• CDC Scientist Apology to Andrew Wakefield About MMR Causing Autism – Journalist Celia Farber Interviewed On Breaking This Story – Robert Scott Bell Radio Show

And there are, of course, many many more such articles, all discussing the enormity of this massive cover-up by the conventional medical establishment, led of course by the powerful Big Pharma corporations.

The mainstream conventional media that is ignoring this huge story includes the BBC news service. Unlike other news services the BBC is not owned and controlled by Big Corp. Nor is it dependent on the advertising of Big Pharma, and related industries. The BBC is a public broadcaster, paid for by licence payers, who are also, incidentally, patients of the National Health Service (NHS). Therefore, its culpability is censoring this information is more serious.

The BBC hase a duty and a responsibility to report health matters, especially when a vaccine, given to the vast majority of our young children, is causing Autism, and destroying the lives of thousands of children and families.

And their failure to report on this matter (some two weeks after the revelation, at the time of writing), indicates that the BBC are not only implicated in the cover-up, but are, at least in part, responsible for the thousands of children who have contracted Autism, via the MMR vaccine, during the last 10 years. Their silence seems to indicate that:

• fabricating medical research evidence is not a news event worthy of reporting.
• a major vaccine that has been given to our children since the early 1970's, and which is causing a major life-long health issue for increasing numbers of children, is not a news event worthy of reporting.
• the anger of parents, whose children have been diagnosed with Autism, is not a news event worthy of reporting.
• the BBC's ongoing and continuous libel against Dr Andrew Wakefield, is not something the BBC feels obliged to offer an apology.

And so the enormity of the cover-up by the BBC, and the rest of the mainstream media, goes on!

What should we do about it?  We must ask the BBC one important question. 

Why are you failing to report this important news?

And this is what I am asking everyone to do, right now if possible. Write to BBC News, and ask them this question. If necessary, make a complaint to the BBC about their censorship of important medical news. The simplest way of doing this is to use this link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20039682

From this page you can either make a comment, and if you wish refer to this blog, asking why this news has not been published, why it has effectively been censored. And you can also go quickly to the complaints page too, if this is necessary.

Moreover, the BBC is currently renegotiating its Charter, so it is certainly appropriate to write to your MP, asking them to question why the BBC, and indeed the NHS Establishment, and the Government, have not seen fit to comment on these events.

The Diabetes Epidemic. What the Media does not tell us!

Given that BBC News are reporting that the current epidemic of Diabetes threatens to bankrupt the NHS, here is what the BBC, and the rest of the mainstream media, is steadfastly refusing to tell you! Lots of Big Pharma drugs cause diabetes!

The BBC reported (28th September 2006) that the number of people diagnosed with diabetes has increased by over 100,000 in the previous year, and that its prevalence had jumped from 3.3% to 3.6%, or from 1,766,000 to over 1,890,999 in just one year. These figures were taken from the Government's Information Centre. 

In the same article, Douglas Smallwood (Diabetes UK) said that 

      "up to 750,000 people have diabetes and are not aware of it. This means that thousands of people are going about their daily lives unaware they have a condition that reduces their life expectancy".

Another BBC News report, 16th March 2007, said that the number of under-fives with diabetes had increased 5-fold, and affected one child in every 1,000 in 2004. The number of under-15's with diabetes had almost doubled during the study, which focused on 2.6 million people in the Oxford region between 1985 and 2004. The charity Diabetes UK said that the trend applied to the whole of the UK, as other studies had revealed similar rises. Professor Polly Bingley, who led the study, said the rate of childhood diabetes was increasing all over Europe , particularly in the very young. She said that these increases were too steep to be put down to genetic factors alone, and blamed 'changes in our environment', 'being exposed to something new', or 'reduced exposure to something that was previously controlling our immune responses'.

The problem is now getting so big, it is 'threatening to overwhelm the NHS' (The Independent, and other papers, 24th February 2009). This article said that the number of people newly diagnosed with diabetes has more than doubled (from 83,000 in 2006, to 167,000 in 2008, and that more than 2.2 million people in Britain now suffer from the adult-onset type of the disease.

Although diet and lifestyle factors are an important contributory factor in this epidemic, NHS-ConMed drugs are also implicated. WDDTY March 2007 (reporting the Lancet 2007; 369:201-7) said that "it's been suspected for nearly 50 years that antihypertensive drugs provoke diabetes because they lower a patient's glucose tolerance levels". But a definitive statement has been hard to come by as many patients with raised blood pressure are simply more likely to develop diabetes in any event. But it says that researchers from Rush Medical College in Chicago arrived at these conclusion after re-examining 22 clinical trials involving more than 143,000 patients who did not have diabetes when they started taking an antihypertensive drug to control their blood pressure.

In a story published in the New York Times (17 December 2006), Yahoo News (17 December 17 2006) and Consumer Affairs (18 December 2006) evidence had been obtained by an attorney representing patients in a lawsuit suggested that Eli Lilly covered up concerns about its schizophrenia drug Zyprexa. Although the company denies this, the documents suggest that the company withheld important information about the drug's links to obesity and increased blood sugar levels for the 10 years it was being marketed. The drug is implicated in causing diabetes.

The British Heart Foundation Statistics website, in 2010 outlined the following statistics:

    * Over 4% of men, and 3% of women in England have been diagnosed with diabetes.

     *The estimate that there are just under 1.9 million adults with diagnosed diabetes in the USA.

     * It says that the Health Survey for England found that not all diabetes is diagnosed, and that 3% of men, and 0.7% of women aged 35 and over have undiagnosed diabetes. As a result, they estimate that around 2.5 million adults in the UK have diabetes.

     * In 2001, just under 7,000 deaths due to diabetes were officially recorded in the UK. This, they say, is likely to be a huge underestimate because other diseases caused by diabetes (such as cardiovascular disease) are normally given as the cause of death.

      * They say a better estimate is found in the World Health Organization's 'Global Burden of Disease Project'  (Murray CJL, Lopex A (1996) The Global Burden of Disease. WHO: Geneva) which suggests that in countries like the UK there are about five times as many deaths indirectly attributable to diabetes as directly attributable. This would mean that there are about 35,000 deaths a year in the UK attributable to diabetes - or about 1 in 20 of all deaths.

So what has caused the epidemic of diabetes? No doubt there are many factors, including diet and obesity. But Conventional Medical drugs are also implicated, including Beta Blocker drugs, and diuretics.

When will our news media begin putting the spotlight on pharmaceutical drugs? They know that they cause 'side effects'. So why do they not investigate when the 'medicines' we are being given to make us healthy are actually causing these epidemics of chronic disease?

For more information about diabetes and pharmaceutical drugs, click on this link.

BBC News highlights its own inadequacies in health reporting. Statin Drugs.

The mainstream media does not report the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs, and this includes BBC News, a public service broadcaster that has repeatedly refuses to inform its viewers and listeners of the harm Big Pharma drugs can cause.

It was therefore a surprise to hear this morning (11th June 2014) that the Today programme reported that certain senior doctors have asked NICE to re-look at its advice to prescribe Statin drugs to healthy people. Perhaps they did not realise that they were giving an opportunity for these doctors to state that Statin drugs cause serious adverse reactions, including kidney and liver damage, muscle damage, and diabetes (dementia was not mentioned).

The BBC, and most of the mainstream media, have never reported these disease-causing-effects of Statin drugs before - and the question needs to be asked - Why not?

(Incidentally, the 'epidemic' rise of diabetes was featured by the Today programme the previous day, 10th June 2014. No connection was made to this, or the fact that many conventional drugs are known to cause diabetes).

What astute listeners would  have realised is that BBC News have never announced these adverse reactions, and have always been happy to parrot the conventional medical establishment's view that these drugs were 'entirely safe', and that 'everyone should take them'.

The report also demonstrated that NICE make their recommendations without access to all the evidence known to Big Pharma companies about the adverse reactions of drugs. 

John Humphries seemed genuinely surprised about this 'revelation'. Perhaps we should ask where he has been during the last ten years and more!

It also seemed to come as a surprise that NICE was dominated by people who had close links with Big Pharma companies.

For a moment I thought that the BBC had changed their policy on health issues - a sudden conversion to open and honest and impartial reporting. However, it is more likely that they stumbled on this evidence. Whether they pursue such concerns in future remains to be seen. But by past performance, they will continue to believe everything the conventional medical establishment tells them, and assume that the only people who know anything about health are conventionally trained doctors.

Patients are badly served by the BBC, and by the mainstream media generally. This is one of the main reasons for this, and similar blogs - to inform people about the dangers of conventional medicine - to inform people that the NHS, NICE, the MHRC, et al, are part of a monopoly that is causing harm to our health.

The End of Conventional Medicine

The end of conventional medicine is getting ever closer. The time is rapidly coming when the conventional drugs and vaccines that we have all become used to, and considered for so long to be ‘life saving’, will no longer be available. They will all have been deemed ineffective, or just too dangerous.

So have you decided yet what you will do when your doctor tells you that all his/her drugs are not fit for purpose, that they are too dangerous to our health, that their medicine cupboard is bare?

Painkillers.

I have already blogged about doctors who are asking what painkillers than can use for patients with chronic pain, because all the one’s they use, and have been using for years, are becoming too dangerous to prescribe. Click this link to see how doctors are now discussing what they can do for patients who are experiencing significant pain.

Antibiotics

The World Health Organisation (WHO) have been telling us for some time that these drugs are reaching the end of their useful life, and that no new ones are in the pipeline. Margaret Chan, Director General of the World Health Organisation (WHO), admitted recently that antibiotics have been so over-used that they are now almost completely useless against 'super strains' of bacterial infection. Superbugs are the result, and conventional medicine has no answer to these.

The same warning have come from Sally Davies, the UK's Chief Medical Officer, who said:

“... the rise in antibiotic-resistant diseases could trigger a national emergency comparable to a catastrophic terrorist attack, pandemic flu or major coastal flooding."

When such stalwarts of the Conventional Medical Establishment (who usually stick together, and deny such problems when they are raised) begin to announce these imminent disasters we can all be assured that something is going disastrously wrong with the drug-based medicine, that has dominated health care for the last century and more. 

So what does this mean - for anyone who is not already searching for safer, and more effective medical treatment?

It means, in effect, that operations now considered as ‘routine’ will become impossible to carry out, and minor cuts and grazes will become potentially life-threatening. 

Infections are becoming immune to antibiotics. And antibiotics have, in any case, nurtured a whole array of new ‘superbugs’ which are already resistant to them. 

And it is worth noting that no new antibiotic has been developed for 50 years, and there are non in the pipeline. 

It would appear that drug companies are not interested in developing new antibiotics. Big Pharma have calculated that they make more money by developing new drugs for diseases that are now reaching epidemic proportions - like drugs for diabetes, for cancer, for heart disease, for dementia and for lowering cholesterol.

Drug companies, after all, are in the business for making money. Making us better has never been their priority!

That is why they are always keen to hide from us, from patients particularly, the potentially lethal “side-effects” of their drugs and vaccines. David Healy, Professor in Psychological Medicine at the Cardiff University School of Medicine, has commented on this, and the fact that drug companies often simply refuse to publish the full science that (supposedly) supports their use, both in terms of safety and effectiveness.

And drug regulators, as we too often see, are doing little about this situation. Set up to protect patients from dangerous drugs, they appear to be more intent on protecting the Big Pharma from losing profitable drugs. 

For example, one patient in the US was recently awarded $9 billion compensation after he developed bladder cancer from taking the diabetes drug, Actos. Apparently, the drug company knew about the link between this diabetes drug and bladder cancer, but had withheld the information from patients, and indeed, from doctors too. In the interests of sales and profits, they expect patients to add cancer to diabetes to their list of diseases.

France has banned Actos as it causes bladder cancer. Does this mean that French people are more susceptible to the drug than people in the rest of the world? No! It means that other drug regulators apparently do not care that the drug causes bladder cancer!

And the mainstream media companies, whose job it is to tell us about such things, do likewise. This is because our ‘Free’ Press, and even public service broadcasters, like the BBC, are not telling us about what is happening within the conventional medical system, or what their treatments are doing to our health:

• even when, as in this case, the evidence comes out through the public courts
• even when a drug company is found guilty of deceit
• even when they are fined a massive amount of money. 

And our media certainly does not investigate the issues when they do arise (or cannot be hidden). All they do is to invite conventional medical ‘experts’ to pour balm of the problem, and to tell us that we do not have to worry, that all is well.

So, the Media is failing to tell us that conventional medicine is failing. As a result, the imminence of it’s downfall is likely to be an immense surprise for most people.

In short, we all going to need to come up with alternatives to conventional drugs and vaccines. The reason is not just that the drugs and vaccines we now rely on have been proven to be either ineffective, or too dangerous to use. It is because there are alternatives available, and these alternatives are both safer, and more effective. The result is a public that is not well informed. 

• They are not asked, by doctors, by the NHS, by drug regulators, by the media, by government, to question the adverse reactions of drugs and vaccines, and whether they wish to put themselves at risk by taking them. 
• Too many people are outside the privileged few who know about safer, scientifically proven, natural cures and preventative treatments that will protect from disease, and treat it successful.
• To many people simply taking the drugs and vaccines, and succumb to chronic disease; becoming a statistic in the epidemic rise of diseases like ADHD, Cancer, Autism, Alzheimers, Diabetes, Heart Disease, et al.

And have you noticed that the Big Pharma industry is being ‘re-organised’? Pfizer has been proposing to take over AstraZemica? Other drug companies are busy exchanging parts of their business in order to ‘focus’ on a particular area of health care. 

Does this mean an expansion of a successful business? No, we are watching the travails of a declining, contracting industry, an industry whose drugs and vaccines are failing, and have been failing for decades. And an industry which has no safe or effective drugs or vaccines to take their place. 

When Big Pharma lose their industrial and financial muscle (which at the moment is considerable), they lose their ability to bribe our doctors, to infiltrate drug regulation agencies, to control the mainstream media, and to hold our governments to ransom. 

Then, and only then, Big Pharma will become a part of our past, and we will look back at the latter half of the 20th Century, and the first part of the 21st Century, and wonder why we were so foolish as to go down this rather unsuccessful and dangerous aberration in health care, that significantly harmed humanity. 

Yet today, the demise of conventional medicine is going to come as a shock to many people. Soon we will all have to look for alternative medical therapies. When we do, we will all discover just how dangerous our commitment to conventional drugs and vaccines has been, especially over the last 50-60 years of ‘free’ NHS medicine. 

We will have to learn quickly that we must no longer place our trust and confidence in medicine that fights against the natural immunity of our body, but find therapies that seek to support it.

Ultimately, placing our reliance on our natural immunity, and medical therapies that supports it, is the only path to living our lives in a healthy manner, free from the chronic disease epidemics that now dominate health care, and has been the major outcome of the conventional, drug-vaccine based healthcare of the last 50-60 years.