Pregabalin has killed at least 131 patients in the last two years in the UK alone. But Britain's drug regulator states it will take no action. So who is protecting us?

The Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) routinely prescribes dangerous drugs to its patients. They cause illness, disease, and death - but little or nothing is ever done to protect us from them.

Pregabalin is an anti-epileptic or anti-convulsant drug which has recently returned to my attention in two Pulse articles. The first article, published on 20th August 2021, was entitled "Northern Ireland GP's told to stop initiating pregablin for neuropathic pain amid deaths rise".

        "According to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, there were 77 drug-related deaths involving pregabalin in 2019 - appearing in 40% of all drug-related deaths recorded that year - rising from 54 in 2018."

A routine report? Surely, this was the CME doing what it should be always do, something most people assume it usual does - to protect patients from pharmaceutical drugs that cause them harm.

The second article, published on 27th September 2021, was entitled "MHRA (the UK's drug regulator) has no plans to curb pregabalin prescribing by GP's".

    "The drug was removed from the country’s formulary as the preferred option for the treatment of neuropathic pain but GPs will still be able to prescribe pregabalin where they deem it to be ‘clinically appropriate’. Now the MHRA has confirmed to Pulse that it has no plans to limit prescribing of gabapentinoids, including pregabalin and gabapentin."

So this was the CME doing what it normally does: very little, or nothing at all, to protect patients from pharmaceutical drugs, even though the CME admits that the drug killed 77 patients last year, and 54 patients the year before.

This is not a unique situation. It has happened to all pharmaceutical drugs over the years, dangerous, but banned only after years, sometimes decades, of patient harm. This is why we cannot, and should not, ever be assured that the drugs doctors prescribe today are safe.

I have written about Pregabalin before. In April 2020 I wrote an article that reported a similar situation,  "Health, Safety & Pharmaceutical Drugs. Pregabalin/Lyrica causes death each and every year - but doctors can continue prescribing it! So this is not a new problem that the CME does not know about!

Further back, in June 1917, I wrote "The NHS, Pfizer and Lyrica. Corporate Profit and Patient Harm", in which I described pregabalin (or Lyrica as it was then known) as "a nasty little drug, with lots of nasty side effects", including infection, ataxia, blurred vision, constipation, diplopia, dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, headache, peripheral edema, tremor, weight gain, visual field loss, accidental injury, xerostomia, abnormal gait, abnormality in thinking, amnesia, arthralgia, asthenia, cognitive dysfunction, confusion (dementia), edema, neuropathy, sinusitis, speech disturbance, vertigo, visual disturbance, myasthenia, and amblyopia.  

At this time, death was not listed amongst its "side effects". Nor is it still! Note that "death" is still not listed as a "side effect" on the Drugs.com website, a website that is supposed to provide doctors and patients with a complete list of side effects for every pharmaceutical drug.

The simple moral we can take from this simple tale is simply this.....

• ANY PATIENT WHO AGREES TO TAKE A DOCTOR-PRESCRIBED DRUG SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT THE DRUG WILL BE SAFE, THAT IT WILL NOT CAUSE THEM HARM!

• NONE OF US CAN BE ASSURED THAT OUR DOCTORS ARE SUPPORTED BY A STRUCTURE THAT PROTECTS PATIENTS FROM HARMFUL PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND VACCINES!
  

So we all need to be aware of how the CME operates, and avoid all of them.

 

PHARMACEUTICAL MEDICINE. Just how dangerous is it to our health? And why is a flu outbreak in China causing panic?

There have been many attempts to calculate how many deaths are caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. It is a a difficult calculation, not least because when offering a cause of death in post mortems few doctors will want to admit that drugs (s)he or colleagues have administered are the cause of death. Most, therefore, are under-estimates about the dangers of conventional medicine.

The Pharma Death Clock website has tried to estimate the harm that is being caused to patient by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines since 2000. It is a frighting read.

• Iatrogenic deaths - 15,733,539 people
• Hospital errors resulting in death - 8,830,770 people
• Death caused by adverse drug reactions - 2,127,413 people

And these figures, plus many, many more on this website, are just for the USA! It calculates that worldwide Superbugs (caused by antibiotic drugs) have alone caused 14,048,956 deaths. In Britain it calculates that chemotherapy drugs have killed 301,049 people!

So perhaps the headline news today (21 January 2020), that the British NHS faces a huge clinical negligence legal fees bill should not come as a great surprise - and certainly not to regular readers of this blog. The figures quoted in the news releases reflects the horrendous dangers of pharmaceutical medicine.

• £4.3 billion in legal fees to settle outstanding claims of clinical 'negligence'
• that every year the NHS receives over 10,000 new claims for compensation
• that the total cost of outstanding compensation claims is now £83 billion (against a total annual NHS budget of £129 billion)

Medical errors. Are they bankrupting the British NHS?

Yet the analysis of this 'problem' is never accurate. We are not witnessing here something that can be dismissed as 'errors' or 'negligence'. We are witnessing the consequence of an inherently dangerous form of medicine, conventional medicine, pharmaceutical medicine, that now dominates national health services around the world.

Nor does the problem end of patient death. In a series of blogs I have written over the last year it has become clear that doctors, the front-line face of this dangerous medical practise, can no longer afford to pay their own medical insurance premiums.

• SO WHAT SORT OF MEDICINE IS THIS?
• IT IS A MEDICINE THAT SEEKS TO DEFLECT ATTENTION AWAY FROM ITS DANGEROUS AND LETHAL OUTCOMES TO PATIENTS

The other main health news hitting the headlines recently concerns the 'new Chinese influenza virus' which has affected, to date, about 200 people in the Chinese town of Wuhan, and killed a total of 4 people. This is a problem considered to be sufficiently serious that medical authorities in Australia, Singapore, Hong Cong, Taiwan and Japan have already "stepped up screening of air passengers from Wuhan". It is likely that this panic will continue to escalate around the world.

Yet these same medical authorities do not panic about the numbers of people who are being routinely harmed, and killed by pharmaceutical medicine's 'negligence' each and every year!

These are the medical authorities who support a form of medicine' that makes us sick, causes epidemic levels of chronic disease, and kills millions of patients, and whose only response to the havoc it generates is to demand more and more money from governments around the world.

We need to start demanding answers. Why is the death of 4 people in China a matter of concern when the iatrogenic death of 15,733,539 people in the USA not? Why is a influenza outbreak a matter of panic when homeopathy is a safe, effective and inexpensive means of preventing, and treating flu?

40 DEATHS LINKED TO CHILD VACCINES. Also suspected to have left 2 children with brain injuries PLUS 1,500 other neurological reactions

               "40 deaths linked to child vaccines over seven years".

               "Childhood vaccinations are suspected to have left two children with brain injuries and caused 1,500 other neurological reactions. These include 11 cases of inflammation of the brain, 13 cases of epilepsy, and a coma."

This information comes from The Times, once one the most respected British newspapers, relied upon by the Establishment, presumably because it could be relied upon to be an honest and trustworthy source of news. Indeed, the article says that the data itself came from a reputable source within the conventional medical establishment, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA), following a request by The Sunday Times under the Freedom of Information Act. So what might emanate from this information?

• How will this affect the attitude of conventional medicine towards 'anti-vaxxers', like myself, who are being heavily criticised for doubting the safety of vaccines?
• How will it affect NHS doctors, who routinely inform their patients that vaccines are safe, and regularly pressurise us to get vaccinated, and to vaccinate our children?

Perhaps doctors haven't caught up with this information yet. Perhaps those who attack anti-vaxxers haven't heard about this information. Perhaps now, at last, the mainstream media will begin to recognise that there IS a need properly and openly, to discuss vaccine safety.

The problem with such hope and expectation is that this information comes from a Times article of 24th October 2010!

The same information was published here, and here by WDDTY, on this blog, on this 'Vaccine Risk Awareness' website, so the information was well publicised at the time.

• Yet nothing has happened.
• We are still being told that vaccines are safe.
• No mention is made of this information when telling us that vaccines are safe.
• Those who say that vaccines are not safe are dismissed as anti-vaxxers, a danger to public health!

So let's go back even further, to 13th February 2006, and an article in the Telegraph, "Secret report reveals 18 child deaths following vaccinations". This reported that

               "Eighteen babies and toddlers have died following childhood vaccinations in just four years, a secret Government report reveals. Four deaths have been linked to suspected adverse reactions to the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) triple jab, according to documents prepared for the Government's expert advisers on immunisation." (My emphasis).

• Yet nothing has happened.
• We are still being told that vaccines are safe.
• No mention is made of this information when telling us that vaccines are safe.
• Those who say that vaccines are not safe are dismissed as anti-vaxxers, a danger to public health!

Going back to 2006 reminds me that conventional medicine always blames all this 'anti-vaccine' stuff on Dr Andrew Wakefield. These reports, 'secret' as one may have been, have absolutely nothing to do with him!

So what has changed? Have the vaccines changed? Have they not caused further damage to patients since 2006, or 2010?

OR HAS THIS EVIDENCE JUST BEEN CONVENIENTLY IGNORED 

BY THE CONVENTIONAL MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT .....

• ignored in the interests of the future profitability of the pharmaceutical industry?
• ignored to safeguard the reputation of the conventional medical profession?
• and all achieved with the willing connivance of politicians, governments, the conventional medical profession, and the mainstream media?

Hospitals. They don't want us to know how lethal drugs are!

Rather than focusing on finding proper answers for bereaved families, NHS hospitals are ’covering up’ failings in how conventional medicine investigates the death of patients.

A CQC review of how hospitals probe deaths, ordered by the health secretary after complaints against Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, found not a single hospital is doing this properly. The review, which looked at 12 NHS trusts, also found that grieving relatives were treated without kindness, respect or honesty.

Families said they were left with the impression that the NHS spent more time on cover ups than on saving lives, the report said. Professor Sir Mike Richards, chief inspector of hospitals, said: 

               "Families and carers are not always properly involved in the investigations process or treated with the respect they deserve."

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has produced what The Telegraph (13 December 2016) says is a "landmark report" in which the NHS stands accused of 'covering up' failings behind patient deaths. The report warned that not a single hospital is properly probing deaths which warrant investigation, and that too many families who sought the truth about the deaths of their loved ones were given a “toxic drip feed” of information in their search for justice. The Telegraph article goes on to outline the CQC's findings, which I will not deal with her, except that there conclusion was as follows:

               "They said they were left with the impression that the NHS spent more time on cover ups than on saving lives."

The concern of the CQC was that families were not treated with care and respect, and that if proper investigations were not conducted no learning would take place, and future fatalities would not be prevented. These are, of course, serious matters. The Telegraph report this comment by Professor Dame Sue Bailey, Chairman of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.

               "This landmark review reveals in stark detail what many in healthcare have suspected for a long time. Put simply, we have consistently failed and continue to fail too many of the families of those who die whilst in our care.”

My concern is rather different. We must remember that we are dealing with a medical system whose drugs and vaccines are known to cause serious illness, disease and death. The conventional medical establishment, over the decades, has consistently underplayed the seriousness of the so-called 'side effects' of its treatment. For instance it is generally recognised that only about 10% of drug and vaccine side effects are ever reported, which means, in effect, that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are at least 10 times more dangerous than we are told by doctors. What this report has found is that when death does happen, the health authorities are not willing, or able, or sufficiently open, or prepared to be honest, to investigate them properly.

Why? Yes, as the report says, it is a cover up! Yes, it might be as Sue Bailey suggests, that healthcare has suspected this for a long time! But is there something more?

Perhaps doctors are not willing to look too deeply into some deaths because of what it might uncover about the lethal 'side effects' of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and their role in prescribing them.

The CQC review was ordered after a scandal at Southern Health trust, when it was found that hundreds of unexplained deaths had never been probed. That was only uncovered after a long campaign by Dr Sara Ryan, whose teenage son Connor Sparrowhawk, died in the bath following an epileptic seizure in 2013. Were drugs involved in this case? Was this the reason that the conventional medical authorities were reluctant to investigate? Was this why the family found that information about the events leading up to the death were only released bit by bit, after a battle?

Anticonvulsant drugs are known to cause suicide, attempted suicide, and violent death. Was this young man taking anticonvulsants? I don't know. However, this study, one of many that have investigated this particular 'side effect', concluded that

               "... this exploratory analysis suggests that the use of (the anti epilepsy drugs studied) may be associated with an increased risk of suicidal acts or violent deaths."

I have been aware for some time that when doctors write death certificates they rarely mention that the person who has died was taking pharmaceutical drugs, even when those drugs were known to cause the reason given for death. My previous blog, "Iatrogenic Death - are doctors now the biggest cause of death?" mentions two such cases. One was a woman who fell, and died from a brain haemorrhage, who was taking Warfarin. Another was a woman who died from Alzheimers Disease, who had annual flu vaccinations, and regularly took PPI drugs - both associated with dementia. I have written about this latter case in my blog "Alzheimers Disease and the Flu Vaccine".

The result is that neither of these deaths were associated with the drugs and vaccines they were taking. How many times does this happen? We are probably talking about millions of deaths, every year, throughout the world, that were officially attributed to diseases that were themselves caused by pharmaceutical drugs.

Conventional medicine, dominated as it is by pharmaceutical drugs, appears to find openness and transparency extremely difficult. Perhaps from their professional point of view this is understandable. Honesty would only demonstrate conclusively how lethal conventional medicine is. But it is certainly not understandable, nor acceptable, from a patient point of view.