Conventional Medical Treatment. Why is there growing dissatisfaction amongst patients?

People have had a love affair with pharmaceutical medicine for many years. We have been led to believe it is the route to good health. The UK's NHS has been a much loved institution since it was first established in 1948, and conventional medicine continues to dominate health provision in health provision all over the world, with constant demands for more funding. 

Yet is public approval now beginning to falter?

The approval of conventional, or pharmaceutical medicine has survived despite escalating levels of chronic disease over the years, and now running at epidemic levels. It has survived despite thousands of pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines, presented initially as 'entirely safe', and 'game changers' in the treatment of this, or that illness, being 'banned' or 'withdrawn' when they were found to cause patient harm. When the drug did not make patients better, regardless of being put on these unsafe drugs for their entire lifetime, pharmaceutical medicine has continued to remain popular.

Yet will conventional medicine survive after its abject failure to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic? Will more people start to realise that our love of affair with conventional medicine has been misplaced, that pharmaceutical medicine is of limited value, and a demonstrable record of failure? 

We have been told since 2020 that government policies on Covid-19 (in most countries of the world) have been based the best 'medical science' available. Yet an increasing number of people can now see that these policies, the policies advocated by conventional medicine, have been a disaster.

• The Virus: the Covid-19 virus was probably engineered in a research laboratory in Wuhan, China, and although this was initially denied, the suggestion is now more widely accepted, and evidence is accumulating.
• Masks: there has never been any science to support the wearing of masks as a protection against Covid-19; yet despite actually being told this in the early days of the pandemic, they were subsequently made compulsory.
• Lockdown: the failure of lockdown policies is demonstrable, as are its negative outcomes - on mental health, on child development and education, on jobs and livelihoods, on the economy, on personal liberty, and much else. Now (after more than two years) these failures are now being discussed.
• The Vaccines: the vaccines have clearly not worked, in the way we were told they would work. They have neither stopped the vaccinated contracting the virus, nor prevented the transmission of the virus. Moreover, the Covid-19 vaccines have caused more serious harm, and death to patients, than any other vaccine in the history of vaccinations.
  

Throughout the Covid-19 saga we have been urged to "save the NHS", as if the pandemic was a greater threat to the institution, and to the pharmaceutical drugs to which it is committed, than to patients! Actually, it probably was! In Britain we were urged to stand on the street, night after night, to applaud NHS staff, alongside rainbow and 'thank-you' signs to illustrate the reason for the applause. 

Now, there is a growing understanding that the fear and panic over the virus was largely induced by conventional medicine (with the unstinting support of government and the mainstream media), that the harm caused by the virus was grossly exaggerated, and that the Covid-19 virus has proven to be no more of a threat to us than any other seasonal influenza outbreak.

The applause often reminded me of the Soviet-styled clapping of political leaders, the engineered worship of a powerful (but a failing and increasingly absurd) political elite.

To an extent the applause was understandable. My issue is not with NHS staff, it is with the medicine to which the NHS is now totally committed. The staff were on the front life, they were responsible for for looking after very sick and dying patients, and the manufactured panic did seem genuine enough to most people at the time.

Yet there are now signs that confidence in conventional medicine is might now be changing. Public satisfaction with the NHS has fallen to the lowest levels for over 25 years. So what has caused the change?

The King's Fund has recently published "Public satisfaction with the NHS and social care in 2021: results from the British Social Attitudes survey". This has shown that overall satisfaction with the NHS fell to 36%, which they described as "an unprecedented 17 percentage point decrease on 2020". This was the lowest level of satisfaction recorded since 1997, when satisfaction was just 34%. More people (41%) were dissatisfied with the NHS than satisfied, and this dissatisfaction was spanned all ages, income groups, sexes and supporters of different political parties.

The reason for dissatisfaction with the NHS did not identify the failure of the medical system.The main reason people gave for being dissatisfied were waiting times for seeing a doctor, and for hospital appointments (65%), staff shortages (46%) and the long-held view that government did not spend enough on the NHS (40%). I suspect that more fundamental but unvoiced concerns have emerged over recent years.

I have heard much cynicism from erstwhile supporters of the NHS about the way Covid-19 was dealt with. There has certainly been a gap between (i) what we were told and (ii) what actually happened. For instance, when the vaccines were about to be introduced, in December 2020, we were told that they would save us, and return us back to normal life by February. Remember? The first single injection would improve the situation. Then we were asked to have a second dose. Then a booster. Then a second booster. And now we are being told that we will need to have boosters every 6 months for the foreseeable future, according to one UK government health agency.

With each injection, take up rates reduced. Fewer people were prepared to take more. This was probably because people realised the the Covid-19 vaccines were causing serious harm to patients. What other reason could there be? Even one manufacturer, Pfizer, knew about the harm their vaccine might cause. The public have not been told about this, by government, by doctors, or by the mainstream media. But when someone is damaged they think twice before getting a second, a third, and a fourth vaccine.

So there is little wonder that people are having increasing doubts about how 'scientific' conventional medicine is, and whether doctors and the NHS can be trusted. A rash of recent articles has outlined the new scepticism. The BMJ recently published an article entitled "The illusion of evidence-based medicine". The Daily Expose published an article entitled "Modern Medicine - a castle built on sand". CHD has published at article entitled "How politics corruption evidence-based medicine". And the Vaccine Reaction has published an article entitled "Trust in CDC waning".

Even the Spectator is moving into these more critical areas. The 'inescapable' conclusion of their article "The NHS is failing" is that when you compare the NHS to other similar health services in similar countries around the world the it does not merit our devotion.

            "While MPs compete to shout the loudest in their support of the UK’s health services (‘save our NHS!’), the British public has fallen out of love with it. More people are now dissatisfied with the NHS than are happy with it. This is true across all ages, income groups, sexes and voters of different political parties. Support for the NHS is now at the lowest level for a quarter of a century."

The Spectator article is written by Tim Knox, former director of the Centre for Policy Studies. He compared the NHS with the health provision in 19 other countries so it is basically a comparison of health service outcomes in other wealthy countries, all of which have a health service which is dominated by conventional/pharmaceutical medicine. It indicates that the NHS compares badly. So, for example, life expectancy in the UK is 17th out of these 19 comparable nations. 

            "Our cancer survival rates are shockingly low. We are the worst for strokes and heart attacks. We are one from bottom for preventing treatable diseases. We are third from bottom for infant mortality."

The article concludes that our health system is less successful than that of other nations, that in all comparisons used, the UK comes bottom of the league tables four times (more than any other country) and is in the bottom 3 nations for 8 out of the 16 measures.

Knox's article also makes the another important point, that the amount of money spent on conventional medicine makes little difference to patient outcomes. He looked at the American insurance based model as a possible alternative for the NHS, but found that although the USA spends considerably more money on conventional medicine than any other nation, patient outcomes were even worse.

            "If there is one country that clearly has a worse system than the UK, it is America. Extraordinarily low life expectancy, vast costs and often poor treatment means that it would be a crazy model to imitate. But that doesn’t mean we should discount an insurance model altogether. Plenty of European and western countries are able to effectively use such a model without the massive health failures we see in the US."

So criticism and dissatisfaction of conventional medical provision may be growing, but not to the point that the underlying cause of the failure of NHS medicine has been identified. 

The NHS is NOT failing because it is failing to use its resources as well as other comparable countries. Or because the insurance system, or some other type of organisational structure might be better that a tax-payer funded NHS service. There is a continued reluctance to identify what really underlies patient dissatisfaction - that the failure is the result of the pharmaceutical medical system that dominates the health service provided by the NHS, and health provision in most other countries.

Yet if patient dissatisfaction is increasing so rapidly it is difficult to see how the NHS can recover from a growing cynicism. Chronic disease, of all types, is on a steep rising trajectory. We are getting sicker, and conventional medicine is not making us better. Indeed, adverse drug reactions are making us more sick year by year. And for several decades now conventional medicine has failed to come up with any new treatments that are likely to overcome the ever-increasing levels of sickness and disease.

With waiting lists now at their highest ever levels, over 6 million people; and with projections that this could get far worse (as many as 14 million people suggested here) the cynicism is unlikely to improve.

Even the mainstream media is feeling obliged to publish details of this growing dissatisfaction with the NHS. What this means is that it will not be long before more and more people realise that it is conventional or pharmaceutical medicine that is failing. It is not funding, or the organisational structure, or the efficient use of resources. Then the rising dissatisfaction will be redirected, and is likely to increase even more. 

In the next few years we are heading rapidly towards medical chaos and breakdown.

 

Postscript May 2022. 

Patient satisfactions with doctors hits record low as face-to-face consultations become the exception.

Is Conventional Medicine a Criminal Enterprise?

Is conventional medicine, dominated as it is by the pharmaceutical industry, a criminal enterprise? The common feature of every criminal enterprise is that it profits from illicit and illegal activities that harm other people - and is this not exactly what the pharmaceutical industry does?

There have been a number of recent examples of this 'criminal activity' in recent weeks (the trigger for this log), and regularly over the years, all demonstrating that drug companies not only do great harm to people, they do so knowingly, they do not play by the rules and regulations set up for them, and that they do everything possible to prevent discovery and prosecution.

Regular readers of this blog will understand well that the pharmaceutical industry, with its drugs and vaccines, harms patients, cause disease and death. The industry underplays the harm it does by calling the harm 'side effects', or 'adverse drug reactions'. In fact, pharmaceutical are actually the cause of  disease and death. Some research demonstrating this was reported in the Mail Online. It involved 380,000 elderly patients, and showed that antidepressant drugs do more harm than good, and actually increase the risk of death by 33%!

"Warning for those on antidepressants: The commonly prescribed drugs raise the risk of an early death by 33%".

Most conventional drug and vaccine treatments have been subject to similar research findings over the years, but little or nothing ever happens. It is important to understand why.

Successful criminal enterprises become very wealthy, and they seek to use their money to subvert the systems that have been established to control them. The pharmaceutical drug companies to this. They use their wealth to purchase the medical 'science' that conducts drug trials, and the drug regulatory systems set up to oversee them. This science is supposed to ensure that no drug or vaccine is marketed that is dangerous or harmful to patients. But drug companies have used their wealth to effectively takeover medical science, and the drug regulatory systems around the world. Hence, we have this recent news from France.

France to prosecute its drug regulator and Servier in scandal over diabetes drug
France’s drug regulator, and one of its leading drug companies, Servier, will stand trial as legal persons over the marketing of the anti-diabetes and weight loss drug, benfluorex (marketed in France as Mediator). This drug killed between 500 and 2300 people before being pulled from the market in 2009.

Most important and influential health organisations, whose word is supposed to be impartial, but putting the interests of patients at the centre of health care, have been infiltrated and bribed into corruption by the drug companies. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) is one such organisation, and another piece of recent news highlights what is happening.

On 18th September 2017, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his team outlined various criminal acts committed by employees and consultants of CDC, "whose questionable ethics and scientific fraud have resulted in untrustworthy vaccine safety science". His report highlights massive corruption and 'criminal misconduct' within the organisation, designed to hide the truth about drug and vaccine treatments, and in effect, to help pharmaceutical companies to continue to profit by harming patients.

The Mafia have always used similar tactics. They hide their criminal activities by using their wealth and power to undermine and subvert potential opposition, and any attempt to control their activities.

Certainly the pharmaceutical companies are prepared to spend unimaginable amounts of money to control potential opposition. They control politicians and governments. They infiltrate and dominate national health service provision throughout the world. They fund (and therefore control) medical science, and drug regulatory agencies to ensure that they always come up with the 'correct' outcomes! They invest heavily in mainstream media organisations - to an extent that they can no longer report on conventional medical harm and corruption, and still survive economically.

I have little in common with the rabid 'right' in the USA. But they have, at least, identified the problem, the enormous infiltration by the pharmaceutical industry at a medical, media and political level. Recently, the Bolen Report have been focusing on the extent of medical interference in the medical process in America. In his report on "Big Pharma’s Influence in Congress" Bolen describes and identifies the enormous amount of money being employed by the pharmaceutical industry to support its agenda. Although I have little time for his particular political stance, his analysis does show that elected politicians, who are supposed to represent the interests of their electorate, have been subverted to an extent that they speak only for the interests of the conventional medical establishment. Criminal enterprises always seek to protect themselves at a political and governmental level, and the pharmaceutical companies have been enormously successful in doing so.

I have written on some of the major examples of fraud and corruption perpetrated by the pharmaceutical industry. Looking at these historical examples, and more recent ones, there can be only one conclusion. Conventional medicine will go to any lengths to promote their business, not only creating disease and killing patients, but also their attempts to hide the truth from the public.

If a creature looks like a duck, walks like a duck, behaves like a duck, it is most likely to be a duck!

The pharmaceutical industry looks like a criminal enterprise because it harms patients with its drugs and vaccines, and profits enormously by doing so. It uses its enormous wealth to infiltrate, dominate and control potential resistance and opposition. It subverts public institutions, established to control their activities. And it does all this in order to carry on its business unhindered. Frequently, these activities are found to be illegal and corrupt. They are found guilty, and pay the fines in many cases that remain unreported and unknown. At the same time, it uses its influence in the organisations and institutions it controls, to parade itself as public spirited, whilst keeping the harm it causes away from public attention.

So for all these reasons, there is no doubt, in my mind, that the pharmaceutical industry represents a criminal enterprise. It is time we all stood up to say "enough"!

Chronic illness and disease is running at epidemic levels, in great part caused by harm cause by the so-called 'side effects' of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. It is time to bring our politicians, our governments, medical science, drug regulation, the mainstream (especially public service) media to task.

We all need to be protected from the pharmaceutical industry.

Conventional Medicine. Useless Treatment?

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has published an article that discussed the issue of 'useless' conventional medical treatment. It is called "Choosing Wisely in the UK: the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges’ initiative to reduce the harms of too much medicine". BMJ 2015;350:h2308. Reading the article it appears that it is not just the effectiveness it is discussing, but also the cost and value of the treatment, and its dangers. The conclusion, however, is that we are being offered too much of it.

The Independent newspaper commented that "dozens of common medical treatments and procedures routinely given to patients by doctors are effectively pointless", and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC) were quoted as saying that "scores of treatments which can be given to patients for various ailments ranging from grazes to cancer frequently do little more or the same as doing nothing at all, while also potentially incurring side effects". It states that the NHS is spending £2 billion on "useless or harmful treatment".

The Guardian newspaper provides the same information, only with a slightly different slant, that makes it into a rationing and resources issue.

               "In a move that has roused fears that it will lead to the widespread rationing of NHS care, the body representing the UK’s 250,000 doctors is seeking to ensure that patients no longer undergo treatment that is unlikely to work, may harm them and wastes valuable resources".

The BMJ report is about the cost-effectiveness of conventional health. It warns that the NHS will not be able to cope with growing demand for healthcare unless 'over-treatment' is banished. The Guardian comments how the structure of the NHS leads to this over-treatment.

               "The NHS’s “tariff” system of paying hospitals for treatment incentivises them to undertake medical activity, as does the Quality Outcomes Framework system under which GPs are rewarded for, for example, treating high cholesterol or high blood pressure".

All this comes at a time when the NHS, and the conventional medicine that dominates this, is once again in deep crisis, as it has been every winter since its inauguration. Of course, the media are seeking to put a gloss on the failure of conventional medicine. It isn't that pharmaceutical-led medicine is failing, or that the NHS is virtually bankrupt, it is that patients are expecting too much, and doctors are 'overtreating' us by giving us treatments we do not need, or which do not work. As the BMJ paper says, the NHS needs to 'choose wisely'.

The BMJ paper comes to some interesting conclusions, all expressed in terms that are as uncritical to conventional medical treatment as possible.

• Doctors should provide patients with resources that increase their understanding about potential harms of interventions and help them accept that doing nothing can often be the best approach.

This is, of course, a statement about the value of what conventional medicine has to offer, and the safety of its treatment.

• Patients should be encouraged to ask questions such as, “Do I really need this test or procedure? What are the risks? Are there simpler safer options? What happens if I do nothing?”

Patients have never been encouraged by conventional medicine to ask questions, or to seek safer treatments. If they were to do this, and patients become aware of the limited, even spurious benefits of conventional treatment, and the availability of homeopathy, and other traditional medicines, it would have serious implications for the dominance of drug based medicine. 

• Medical schools should ensure that students develop a good understanding of risk alongside critical evaluation of the literature and transparent communication. Students should be taught about overuse of tests and interventions. Organisations responsible for postgraduate and continuing medical education should ensure that practising doctors receive the same education.

This indicates that the key staff of the conventional medical establishment are currently working from the premise that drug-dominated medicine is good for us, that we will be healthier if only we used more of it, quite regardless of outcome, quite regardless of cost, and quite regardless of the harm it causes to patients.

• Commissioners should consider a different payment incentive for doctors and hospitals.

This suggests that not only are medical staff not taught about the overuse of conventional medical treatments, they are given the profit-driven incentives to use and overuse more of it.

The failure of the medical system we have increasingly relied up during the last 70 years lurks beneath the issues raised in this BMJ article. Conventional medicine has always faced three significant issues or disadvantages.

• It is the most expensive of all medical therapies (and it is now causing the bankruptcy of national health services throughout the world).
• It is the most dangerous of all medical therapies (and it is now causing epidemics of chronic disease in areas of the world where it dominates medical services).
• It is the most ineffective of all medical therapies (which leads to populations becoming sicker, and unable to cope with patients demand for treatment).

So it is not just that 85% of conventional medical treatments are 'useless' (probably an underestimate) it is that what it offers is too ineffective, too dangerous, and too expensive. Radical as this MBJ articles might seem, there is a need for a much more fundamental re-think of how health care is delivered to patients.

There is an urgent need to recognise that conventional medicine is failing, and that homeopathy, and other traditional therapies have to be embraced.

Conventional Drugs and Vaccines. The problem is a lack of honesty and transparency

Most people accept conventional drugs and vaccines because they believe them to effective for the purpose they are being taken, and also safe. By and large patients believe them to be safe because each drug, and each vaccine, has gone through a process that has found them to be effective and safe. The logic, for most patients, is simple:

          "We are not medically trained, so we trust what our doctors tell us. We trust them because they are assisted and guided by the NHS. And in turn, the NHS is funded by the Department of Health, and the Government. 

          "Surely, we reason, this is assurance enough that the medication we are given by our GP is both effective and safe".

We are further assured that conventional drugs and vaccines go through a process of testing and monitoring which is designed to ensure that they are suitable for us. In the main, it is on this basis that we, as patients, give our consent to conventional medical treatment.

Yet is this trust well placed? Is the conventional medical establishment one that can be trusted with our health, and our lives? Can we rely on it to protect us from dangerous drugs and vaccines?

Or has the conventional medical establishment placed itself entirely in the hands of the big, profitable and highly influential drug companies? Have financial and economic interests perverted conventional health care, and removed the central focus from patient safety to the viability of Big Pharma?

Lucija Tomljenovic, in her paper, "The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?" certainly suggests that our trust is misplaced. In summary, the transcripts of the JCVI/DH meetings from the period from 1983 to 2010 appear to show that:

• Instead of reacting appropriately by re-examining existing vaccination policies when safety concerns over specific vaccines were identified by their own investigations, the JCVI either a) took no action, b) skewed or selectively removed unfavourable safety data from public reports and c) made intensive efforts to reassure both the public and the authorities in the safety of respective vaccines;

• Significantly restricted contraindication to vaccination criteria in order to increase vaccination rates despite outstanding and unresolved safety issues;

• On multiple occasions requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to their data sheets, when these were in conflict with JCVI’s official advices on immunisations; 

• Persistently relied on methodologically dubious studies, while dismissing independent research, to promote vaccine policies; 

• Persistently and categorically downplayed safety concerns while over-inflating vaccine benefits; 

• Promoted and elaborated a plan for introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety into the routine paediatric schedule, on the assumption that the licenses would eventually be granted; 

• Actively discouraged research on vaccine safety issues; 

• Deliberately took advantage of parents’ trust and lack of relevant knowledge on vaccinations in order to promote a scientifically unsupported immunisation program which could put certain children at risk of severe long-term neurological damage; 

Notably, all of these actions appear to violate the JCVI’s own Code of Practice 

http:// www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@ab/documents/digitalasset/ dh_115363.pdf

But this should come as no surprise, as drug after drug, vaccine after vaccine, passes through testing, through drug regulation, as medication that is safe and effective. Then, in time, each of these drugs and vaccines are found to be not only unsafe, but ineffective.

Why this consistent failure?

Why this ongoing acceptance of consistent failure

Time after time, drug companies are taken to court, and fined heavily for not testing drugs properly, for not releasing key drug information, for the harm and damage drugs have caused patients. And each time the fine is paid, and the drug companies continue 'business as normal', and we are either not told about it, or we assume it is a one-off error.

There is something rotten within the Conventional Medical Edifice. 

The rot is harming and killing us. 

And we have to begin to demand more honesty, and more transparency.

And we have to insist on safer medicine.

The Impending Demise of Pharmaceutical, Drug-based Conventional Medicine?

Is the end is in sight for the Pharmaceutical  drug companies, and for the drug-based medicine they lead. Perhaps it won’t happen today, next week or even next month. But the beginnings of its decline are already apparent, and the seeds of its ultimate destruction have already been self-sown, and seedlings are beginning to appear.

For those who believed, and still believe, that pharmaceutical drugs would help us 'conquer' disease this may come as a surprise. For those kept in the dark by the failure of the mainstream media to tell us about the failures of pharmaceutical drugs, and the disease and death they cause, this might seem an alarming claim.

For those who know how it controls and dominates the Conventional Medical Establishment, and in particular, the NHS in Britain, its failure might appear to be just an impossible or unlikely dream.

The contribution of drugs and vaccines to health has alway been based more on Optimism and Hope than Performance. Its performance has always been at best modest - largely ineffective, always dangerous to health and life, and ridiculously expensive too.

Big Pharma has always claimed to be based on 'science', and to a limited extent, it has been, and still is. But no matter how much it may know about illness and disease, it has never understood either the nature of health, or the process of retaining, maintaining, and regaining it. 

Conventional Medicine, throughout the centuries, has never discovered the secret of effective, and certainly not safe medical intervention. 

Its former techniques - bleeding, leaching, blistering; its drugs like Calomel and Mercury/Arsenic based drugs, are now recognised to be almost laughably false. Now, in a society dominated by the ‘drug culture’, Conventional medicine is even further away than ever it has been in getting good outcomes from its treatments.

So, although the Conventional Medical Establishment may appear to be powerful and strong (indeed, within the NHS they have almost a monopoly position) their dominance is based upon the enormous wealth, power and influence the pharmaceutical industry built up during the mid- to late 20th Century. Its ability to buy control of politicians, governments, and the media has been the result. But the basis of this power is now quickly dissapating - rotting away in front of us. So what is the problem? And how does the problem manifest itself?

     * Big Pharma has always been able to make remarkable claims about the efficacy of its drugs, and get these claims published. Unfortunately, there is a limit to the time people will continue to believe in the discovery of 'Wonder Drugs' that will transform our health. There is growing cynicism when some of the formerly proclaimed 'Wonder Drugs' are wihdrawn  after they proved to be useless, or dangerous, or both.

     * The drugs that have earnt so much money for Big Pharma are either moving out of patent, or they have been banned or withdrawn, which means that Big Pharma companies are no longer able to make the huge profits that has underpinned their control of the health market place.

     * Big Pharma has been quite unable to discover new ‘Super Drugs’. The supply of ‘Magic Bullets’ has dried up. Indeed, many of the 'new' drugs, produced and marketed as being much better than the old drugs, are proving to be even more dangerous, and less effective than their failed predecessors.

     * In recent years, Big Pharma has been prosecuted frequently in the USA for the corrupt and fraudulent way it has tested and marketed some of its drugs, and for the damage and death these drugs have caused to patients. Government has stepped in to shield Big Pharma from the consequences of selling dangerous drugs - but this damage-limitation has its own limitations.

     * Ultimately, all this 'bad' news for ConMed is difficult to keep from the public, even with the mainstream Media, dominated by the likes of the BBC News and the Guardian, who in recent years have become so slavishly, and cravenly the servants of the Big Pharma, and ConMed Establishments.

     * Despite this Media silence, and increasing number of people are now reluctant to take drugs, and more are just refusing to take them. They would rather suffer! Indeed, even doctors and nurses are proving to be resistant to taking Big Pharma drugs and vaccines - refusing them whilst at the same time giving them to us.

What this means is that the profitability of the drug industry is now much reduced, and reducing rapidly. As the patents on older drugs end, and there are no replacements, and as resistance to drug-based medicine (including antibiotics) increases, they are finding that their income, and their profits are being reduced - drastically.

This reduced profitability is already leading to a serious contraction within the industry. This is happening in Britain, with some high profile closures of industrial plant, and research facilities, and it is happening throughout the world. 

And inevitably, alongside this contraction, will come a reduction in the industrial, commercial and financial power of the Big Pharma companies, and the ConMed Establishment that is dependent upon it.

The Hold over Government

There will be a reduction in the political influence of Big Pharma. As their investment decreases, so does their power to influence Governments. "Sell our drugs, or else we will invest elsewhere" is powerful only to the extent of their investment, or investment plans. With each closure of industrial and research unit, the threat of losing jobs becomes less. 

And as this influence begins to fade, Governments will be able to make more rational decisions about health, and how patients are best treated. They will, in other words, be more open to alternative medical therapies, to non-drug options, for maintenance of health, and the treatment of disease.

Increased Public Awareness

The mainstream media are finding it increasingly difficult to 'ignore' what is happening to our health. As a society we are getting sicker - and we get sicker in line with the amount of pharmaceutical drugs we consume. The ascendence and dominance of Big Pharma and its drug-led medicine has run parallel to unprecedented and epidemic levels of disease. 

It is likely that the Media has already suffered through their one-eyed approach to health, their uncritical support of Big Pharma, and their connivance with increasing levels of disease, and increasing numbers of people dying from the very medicine they have been given. Why should people continue to read in the Media what they know to be untrue? 

If the Media is incapable of telling us the truth about health, if it refuses to take part in the Health Debate, whether for their commercial, or whatever other reason, why should we believe that they tell the truth about anything else?

So there is growing awareness, amongst a growing proportion of the population, through blogs like this, that the ConMed Establishment, and the Big Pharma drugs industry in particular, has been compromising our health. They will realise, increasingtly, that we have been lied to. The movement, which is now quite apparent, of people looking for more effective, safer, and less expensive medical therapies, will continue to increase.

There will be a 'tippling point', and that tipping point will probably come more quickly than anyone can imagine at present time, given the wealth and influence of Big Pharma, and its almost monopoly position within the NHS.

There will, however, be one further, and quite major problem to overcome. This has to do with the people who are either part of, or submissive to, the ConMed Establishment, the people who have been selling us the false 'dream' of drug-based medicine over the last 60 years and more. When will these people be willing to admit that they have been wrong for all these decades?

• How long will it take for ConMed practitioners, from NHS Bureaucrats, to Consultants, to GPs, to admit their failures, and their culpability for the damage patients have suffered from what they have given us?
• When will politicians be willing to admit that their subservience to the ConMed Establishment, the reasons for it, and their almost total failure to protect their constituents (us) from dangers and damage caused of drug-based medicine?
• When will the mainstream Media, particularly organisations like the Guardian and BBC News, admit that they have been biased, unbalanced, dishonest, and even inept in their reporting of health matters.

There is certainly a limit to how long the Conventional Medical Establishment, national governments, and the mainstream Media can continue to defend the indefensible! And there are already signs that this time is approaching.