Pharmaceutical Drugs and Vaccines. Are they safe? Look at the Patient Information Leaflet before you decide

Are pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines safe? Although national and international health bodies tell you they are, doctors will reinforce the message, and the mainstream media will agree with them, without question, the doubts continues. We are reluctant to accept them. So when we are ill, and go to the doctor, should we accept their assurances on the safety of drugs and vaccines?

The message of this blog has always been consistent. Do your own research. Make up your own mind. Make an informed choice, based on the best available evidence.

It is not as difficult to do this research as you might think. Drug companies are obliged to tell us about all known and accepted adverse drug reactions, or side effects - and they do this in Patient Information Leaflets (PIL's) that come with each drug or vaccine. It is important to read them before ever agreeing to take any pharmaceutical drug or vaccine

After all, you would not buy a car, or a washing machine, or anything much else, purely on the say-so of the sales representative who is trying to sell it to you. You would read up about the product, find out about the experience of other people who have bought one, and see if there are better alternatives. You would do your research, and make your own informed choice.

Making an informed choice about a particular vaccine has just become much easier, thanks to the Children's Health Defense CHD) who have produced a webpage, "Nearly 400 Adverse Reactions Listed in Vaccine Package Inserts". This webpage provides direct links to the package inserts for all vaccines licensed for use in the USA (but which is equally relevant to vaccines used all over the world). CHD says this about these package inserts, or PILs.

            "In addition to containing bits of practical information for the clinicians who administer the vaccines, the inserts provide members of the public with one of their only opportunities to learn about a vaccine's contraindications, warnings, precautions and - perhaps most importantly - potential adverse reactions."

             "The inserts communicate the information about adverse reactions in two distinct sections: 'clinical trials experience (Section 6.1) and 'Data from post-marketing experience' from the U.S. or other countries (Section 6.2)."

This is the information every patient needs in order to make up their mind about taking a pharmaceutical drug or vaccine. Remember this is not information that is coming from those of us who have already determined that vaccines are not safe. This is information coming directly from the vaccine manufacturers - information from the conventional medical establishment itself.

In an earlier CHD article, "Read the Fine Print. Vaccine Package Inserts reveal hundreds of medical conditions linked to Vaccines", published in April, 2020, CHD summarized the post-marketing data for over three dozen vaccines given routinely to American infants, children and adolescents.

        "That tally showed that vaccines touted for the prevention of 13 illnesses but have been linked to at least 217 adverse medical outcomes, reported after the vaccines were tested and licensed, including serious infections, autoimmune conditions, life-threatening allergies and death."

CHD's comprehensive survey of vaccines demonstrated several things - from the evidence provided by the pharmaceutical industry itself:

• Every single vaccine on the childhood/adolescent vaccine schedule is responsible for at least one adverse event.
• Vaccines can cause the very illnesses—or adverse consequences of those illnesses—that they are supposed to prevent.
• Vaccines can also cause other serious infections.
• Vaccine adverse events affect numerous body systems, including the immune and nervous systems.  

Remember and note well - this is not MY information, or CHD's information, it is information that the conventional medical establishment is obliged by law to give us - and it completely contradicts the routine assertions of conventional medical authorities that vaccines are safe.

In its latest article, CHD provides direct links to PILs for all DPT, MMR, flu, hepatitis, and all other vaccines types. Patients are not usually shown these vaccine inserts by doctors, but now we don't even need to ask for them, or open the packet! We have access to all we need to know about the vaccines doctors want us to take.

ADVERSE EVENTS REPORTED IN PACKAGE INSERTS

CHD then go further, providing us with details of all the adverse events caused by vaccines listed in the package inserts. This is useful not only for those who are deciding whether to take a vaccine, but for those who have already taken a vaccine, and who might want to link the vaccine with illness and disease they contracted as a direct result. These include all the following:

• Allergy
• Autoimmune disease
• Blood and Lymphatic systems
• Cardiac (heart)
• Congenital
• Death
• Ear and Labyrinth
• Eye
• Gastrointestinal
• General, including Injection Site
• Hepatobiliary / liver
• Immune system
• Infections and infestations
• Investigations
• Metabolic
• Musculoskeletal and connective tissue
• Nervous system
• Psychiatric
• Respiratory, thoracic, mediastinal
• Skin and subcutaneous tissue
• Vascular
• Urogenital

So clearly, on the evidence of conventional medicine's own literature, there is NO area of the human body that vaccines cannot seriously harm.

But I have missed one area, an important area, DEATH, as reported in PILs! There were two separate entries listed under death

•  Death itself; known to be caused by the Gardasil/Gardasil 9, MMR-II, Rotarix, and RotaTeq vaccines.
• and Sudden Infant Death (SIDs, cot death), caused by the Infanrix vaccine.

So, are vaccines safe? How is it that doctors, with this information at hand, can look at us and tell us that vaccines are safe, that they will not do us harm?

However, there are two other things to bear in mind when looking at this information provided by the conventional medical establishment. 

1. The only adverse reactions that find their way into any PILs are those that have been accepted by the conventional medical establishment. There are many, many more that are not listed because doctors continue to deny them, and in the past they have continued to do so until denial is no longer possible.  
2. Adverse drug reactions are known to be seriously under-reported. Several studies have shown that only between 1% and 10% (at the very most) of these are ever reported - because doctors are 'too busy', or refuse or just 'forget' to do so. This is why they are then able to say that particular side effects are "rare", or "uncommon" - not because they are rare and uncommon, but because they are rarely or uncommonly reported by doctors who are obliged by law to do so.
   

So if you want to make an informed choice, you can do no better than to start by looking at the evidence available in these two Children's Health Defense articles.

VACCINE INFORMATION FOR INFORMED CHOICE

          "When men differ, both sides ought equally be heard by the public, for when truth and error have fair play, the former is always an over match for the latter"
                                                                                                                                   Benjamin Franklin

The NHS tells us that all vaccines are safe. Doctors insist we should all be vaccinated, some that vaccination should be made mandatory. The government, and the mainstream media support this position, they all dismiss any ‘anti-vaccine’ information as ‘fake news’, and seek to censor debate on the issue.

Yet despite this many people, at least 10%, refuse to be vaccinated, or allow their children to be vaccinated. Why? So where do they get their information? And is this information really fake news, or news that the powerful pharmaceutical industry does not like?

Everyone should be able to accept, or refuse vaccines on the basis of all the evidence. Informed choice is not more important than in making decisions about our health. We are regularly told about the safety of vaccines. So where is the evidence that vaccines are, or can be harmful? The following links are some of the best sources.

PATIENT INFORMATION LEAFLETS
Nobody should ever accept a vaccine without first reading the patient information leaflet that comes with each one. Most patients are not shown these. The documents include the known and accepted side effects of vaccines. Pharmaceutical companies are obliged to supply this information; but it is worth noting that they do not have to include every known vaccine side effect, just those that have been proven beyond further doubt or question.

VACCINE INJURY AND COMPENSATION SCHEMES
Although conventional medicine says that vaccines are safe, many national governments have set up organisations whose task it is to recompense people who have been injured by these ‘safe’ vaccines.

Vaccine Damage Payment. (https://www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment)
The UK Government has paid out about £73 million to nearly 1000 children and adults, representing 1 in 8 claimants who were a minimum of 60% injured by a vaccine between 1979-2014. These government sponsored schemes have accepted that vaccines can cause a multitude of devastating injuries, including brain damage, seizures, deafness, Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), and even death.

BOOKS THAT OUTLINE THE HARM CAUSED BY VACCINES
There are several books available that deal with the question of vaccine harm, and alternatives to them.

Vaccinations: A Thoughtful Parents Guide:How to Make Safe, Sensible Decisions About the Risks, Benefits and Alternatives

The author, midwife, herbalist, and mother of four, Aviva Jill Romm, examines current research on vaccine safety and efficacy, and offers a sensible, balanced discussion of the pros and cons of each routine childhood vaccination. The book presents the full spectrum of options available to parents: full vaccination on a standardised or individualised schedule, selective vaccination, or no vaccinations at all. The book also suggests ways to strengthen children's immune systems and maintain optimal health and offers herbal and homeopathic remedies for childhood ailments.

Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents & Researchers

This book confirms that there is a large body of scientific evidence confirming numerous vaccine safety deficits that counteract well-publicised benefits. Several studies in this book show that mercury and aluminium in vaccines can cause neurological, immunological and developmental harm. Other studies show that childhood vaccines are associated with an increased risk of cancer, allergies, seizures, bleeding disorders, and type 1 diabetes. The peer-reviewed scientific studies in this book also show that a history of measles and mumps is protective against fatal heart attacks and strokes, that the pertussis vaccine caused virulent vaccine-resistant strains of pertussis to emerge, that chickenpox vaccines reduced cases of chickenpox but increased cases of shingles, that children have an increased risk of requiring emergency care after receiving MMR, and much more.

Vaccine Side Effects. (http://www.vaccine-side-effects.com/)
This is a freely downloadable E-Book. It seeks to balance the risks of vaccine side effects against the risks of common childhood illnesses, and help you feel confident about making the right decision for the health of your child. It provides some simple facts that will stop you being pushed into a decision before you are ready to decide for yourself. The book explains why much of the advice provided by independent health officials on the benefits of vaccines is false, outdated and makes no scientific sense. And it provides clear, simple and logical facts to help you discuss one of the most important decisions for the long term health of your child

PERSONAL STORIES OF VACCINE HARM
Vaccine damage is not a statistical problem. Each case of vaccine harm represents a personal and family tragedy. The following websites include the testimony of many people who have suffered vaccine damage.

Vaccine Injury UK (http://vaccineinjury.uk/category/witnessing-vaccine-injury/vaccine-injury-stories)
This website outlines lots of compelling personal stories about how they, or their children, have suffered from vaccine damage.

Vaccine Injury Info (https://www.vaccineinjury.info/)
Formerly a German website, written by a homeopath, the core of which are literally hundreds of reports of vaccine damage by individual sufferers, or their parents.

PATIENT SUPPORT GROUPS
There are several websites that have been set up by concerned people, many of whom have suffered from vaccine injury, their sole objective to provide information, and help other people reach their decision about vaccination.

Arnica (https://www.arnica.org.uk/)
The Arnica Network was formed in 2007 by parents concerned about the vaccination program and interested in the role of natural health, and natural immunity in disease. Within 5 few years, 75 Arnica groups were started nationwide, reflecting the strong interest in natural immunity and the need for like-minded friendship groups and support systems when making such choices for our families.

Jabs (Justice, Awareness & Basic Support). (http://www.jabs.org.uk/)
JABS, as a self-help group, neither recommends nor advises against vaccinations but we aim to promote understanding about immunisations and offer basic support to any parent whose child has a health problem after vaccination. We want comprehensive information for all parents to make an informed decision on the benefits and risks of vaccination. JABS supports free choice and full information on the real risks of vaccination and childhood diseases.

European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance (https://www.efvv.eu/)
This is an alliance of member organisations, and individual members, from 25 European countries. It consists of consumer groups and pro-choice groups whose members in turn include medical professionals and scientists. Their combined memberships exceed 100,000. They call on all Europeans to stand together in a demand for a united vaccination policy based on freedom of choice and informed consent. They believe that mandatory vaccination is not only a serious risk but a violation of human rights and dignity. They demand transparency and caution as well as recognition and concern for the many vaccine-injured in Europe and beyond.

SCIENTIFIC STUDIES & RESEARCH  INDICATING THE VACCINES ARE UNSAFE
There are many medical research papers that have shown that vaccines are unsafe. These are rarely publicised, largely ignored by conventional medicine and the mainstream media, but access to them can be gained through these websites.

Med Science Research (https://medscienceresearch.com/)
An online library of medical papers relating to vaccination. It states that there are thousands of scientific studies in the medical literature on the dangers of vaccines, and provides access to them.

Vaccination Information Portal (https://vaccination-information-portal.com/)
This website offers what they describe as “reliable, balanced information for parents”. It includes 223 scientific studies looking into the harm caused by vaccines, and evidence about how vaccines have caused autoimmune disease.

STRIVE. Student & Teacher Initiative for Vaccine Education. (https://striveuk.webs.com/)
This is a research group run by and for students and teachers. It was founded to provide and promote evidence-based information about vaccinations. They report on a constantly updated resource of scientific opinion, studies, reports and documentaries, that will empower students to make responsible and educated decisions about their healthcare.

WEBSITES THAT DISCUSS VACCINE SAFETY & EXPOSE VACCINE DANGERS
These are general websites that seek to discover the truth about vaccine damage, and who seek to expose the misinformation and cover-up that conventional medical establishment engages in .

Vaccine Awareness (http://vaccineriskawareness.com/)
V.A.N provides fully sourced information about vaccinations to enable parents to make a fully informed choice about their child’s vaccinations. Their aim is to support the right of every parent to give informed consent, or informed refusal, by providing all the information available. It is intended both for parents who do not want to vaccinate, and parents of vaccine damaged children,

Learn the Risk (https://www.learntherisk.org/)
Learn The Risk is a non-profit organisation in the USA whose objective is to educate people worldwide on the dangers of pharmaceutical products, including vaccines and unnecessary medical treatments, “that are literally killing us”.

Child Health Safety (https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/)
This is a British website that aims to provide reliable information on child health safety for parents who want to know about whether they should vaccinate and other health related information. It provides links to important information to assist parents cut through the often misleading, exaggerated and incorrect information given by governments and health officials.  Child Health Safety seeks to publish detailed information often not available elsewhere on issues of vaccination and child health safety.

Child Health Defense (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/)
The website of Robert F. Kennedy (Jr), whose stated aim is to provide reliable information on child health safety for parents who want to know about whether they should vaccinate, and other health related information. It provides links to information which may assist parents cut through the often misleading, exaggerated and incorrect information given by governments and health officials. Its mission statement is to end the epidemic of children’s chronic health conditions by working aggressively to eliminate harmful exposures, hold those responsible accountable, and establish safeguards so this never happens again.

Danger of Vaccines (http://dangersofvaccines.com/about-us/)
This website is written by two parents whose children were damaged by vaccines. Their stated mission is to inform the public about the many dangers of vaccines, presenting information and evidence that shows vaccines are dangerous and sometime even deadly.

Informed Consent Action Network (https://www.icandecide.org/)
Their mission statement states that “you are the authority over your health choices and those of your children. In a medical world manipulated by advertising and financial interests, true information is hard to find, and often harder to understand”. Their stated goal is to put the power of scientifically researched health information into our hands and to be bold and transparent in doing so, thereby enabling your medical decisions to come from tangible understanding, not medical coercion. They campaign for parents’ rights, to protect children, and to support science-based inquiry.

Whale (http://whale.to/vaccines.html)
This website offers access to a huge amount of material that covers every imaginable vaccine, including vaccines that have been withdrawn over the years, usually after they were found to be unsafe.

Vaxxed TV Channel (https://www.youtube.com/vaxxed)
When you get tired of reading all this information, this website provides access to a multitude of videos about vaccines, and the damage they are known to cause.

AUTISM AND THE MMR VACCINE
Put Children First (http://putchildrenfirst.org/index2.html)
This is a book on history of vaccines. Put Children First was founded by parents to let the world know that the Centers For Disease Control (CDC), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services in the USA, is covering-up the relationship between a near-tripling of vaccinations for our children in the 1990s, and the epidemic of autism and other neuro-developmental disorders that began at exactly the same time.

THE HPV VACCINE (GARDASIL, CERVARIX)
HPV vaccines are now given to young girls to prevent cervical cancer. It probably has one of the worst safety records of all vaccines, and in its relatively short history, has a record of destroying the lives of fit and healthy young children.

Time for Action. (http://timeforaction.org.uk/)
 Time for Action is a campaign group run by UK families for UK families, whose daughters have all experienced serious, life changing health problems following HPV vaccination.

Come Look. (http://comelook.org/index.html)
This Irish website carries information relevant to the government's attempt to administer the Gardasil vaccine to 12 year old schoolgirls. They state it is not their intention to challenge the manufacturer's claims of actual vaccine efficacy, instead focusing on discussing the safety assurances of the vaccine who advocate its use in mass vaccination.

S.A.N.E VAX (HPV). (https://sanevax.org/)
This website describes itself as the ‘First International HPV Vaccine Information Clearing House”. Their mission is to promote only Safe, Affordable, Necessary & Effective vaccines and vaccination practices through education and information. They say they believe in science-based medicine, and that their primary goal is to provide the information necessary to make informed decisions regarding health and well-being.

DOCTORS WHO DO NOT THINK VACCINES ARE SAFE
Although most doctors conform to the official line, there are some doctors, and doctor’s organisations, who speak out.

Physicians for Informed Consent. (https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/about/)
Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) delivers data on infectious diseases and vaccines, and unites doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals, attorneys, and families who support voluntary vaccination.

Dr Jayne Donegan. (http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/)
GP & Homoeopath, with a special interest in vaccination. Dr Donegan is currently the only doctor in the UK whose opinion on vaccination has been tested in extensive UK legal proceedings (GMC 2007) and found to be valid, based on sound research and peer reviewed medical literature ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Vaccination Decision. (http://vaccinedecision.info/)
The website of Dr Brian Boyd, the stated purpose of which is to provide information that can help make decisions about vaccines. Additional information is provided to help parents give their child the best opportunity to develop a healthy immune system, which should be the primary objective in this healthcare decision.

WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF VACCINE DAMAGE?
Conventional medicine, when not denying that vaccine can cause serious damage to health, claim that such damage is ‘rare’.

Obviously the rarity of this damage is off little assistance to those who become one of the ‘rare exceptions’ to the claimed safety of vaccines.

Yet how rare is vaccine damage? Conventional medicine assesses rarity through the number of reported cases of vaccine damage set against the number of people who are vaccinated. Yet studies show that only between 1% and 10% of drug side effects are ever reported, or recorded. This means that vaccine damage is between 10 times, and 100 times less rare than is admitted.

Reporting vaccine damage might even be lower than this, as doctors have been so busy trying to convince us that vaccines are safe, they can often be found denying that ill-health following vaccination has anything to do with the vaccine.

VACCINES AND INFORMED CHOICE
The decision to vaccinate, or not to vaccinate, should be based on the best information available to us. Conventional medicine will continue to claim that vaccines are safe, indeed essential to our health. The information contained within all the links referred to in this article suggests that this is not so.

Indeed, evidence that vaccines can cause harm can be found within conventional medical literature, for instance, in the Patient Information Leaflets, mentioned above.

Everyone should be able to accept, or refuse vaccines on the basis of ALL the evidence. Informed choice is never more important than in making decisions about our health. So it is not possible to make an informed decision on vaccines unless the evidence of vaccine harm is also fully considered, alongside the claims made by conventional medicine that they are safe.

Mandatory Vaccination (DPT, MMR HPV). If the Patient Information Leafets outline their serious side effects, can they be considered to be 'safe'? And should these side effects not be mentioned when doctors tell us they are safe?

I hope that you have been following my communication with the British Department of Health about mandatory vaccination, and the safety of vaccines as evidenced in each of the Patient Information Leaflets. If not, you can look at these two blogs.

Mandatory Vaccination. A letter to my MP, the Department of Health, and the Secretary of State, Matthew Hancock

Mandatory Vaccination. An obfuscatory response from the UK's Department of Health.

Arising from this obfuscatory response, I have now written the Department of Health another letter, repeating more succinctly the main question I am asking - about what the British government thinks I should be allowed to tell you about the safety of the MMR, DPT and HPV vaccines. This is the letter.

Dear Secretary of State
Further to my recent letter, and subsequent to your response, I can confirm that I am opposed to mandatory medicine because I do not believe that the MMR, DPT or HPV vaccines are safe.

I am aware that the Department of Health believes these vaccines are safe, and I understand, from your previous correspondence, that you consider anyone who says otherwise to be "deliberately spreading myths about vaccination for personal gain" and that the department "takes this very seriously".

This being so, and after reading the Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) that come with each of these vaccines, outlining their side effects, I need to ask these questions.

1. Which of the side effects, listed on each of the PIL documents, am I (or anyone else) allowed to mention without being accused by the Department as “deliberately spreading myths about vaccination”?
2. Does the Department of Health consider that the listed side effects on each of these vaccines make the vaccine ‘safe’, and that when the public is told that the vaccines are ‘safe’, these reported side effects should not be mentioned?

These PILs are, after all, official documents produced by the conventional medical establishment for patient information; but I am aware that not many parents read these documents, and no mention of them is ever made about them by spokespersons of the Department of Health, or then NHS, when speaking to the mainstream media.

I look forward to your response to these questions.

I will, of course, let you know the response to these questions as soon as I have received it. 

So carry on watching this space!

Patients are 'confused' when told about the side effects of pharmaceutical drugs!

A new study has found that only 37% of the public trust evidence from medical research. This means that two-thirds do not, and prefer to trust the experiences of friends and family! This was reported in the Academy of Medical Sciences website on 19th June 2017, and reports on "the significant difficulties patients and some healthcare professionals face in using evidence from research to judge the benefits and harms of medicines". It calls for "concerted action to improve the information patients receive".

The confusion faced by patients needs to be unwrapped a little in order to understand what is happening. Although the news media refuses to tell patients about the serious side effects of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, drug companies are obliged to provide a 'patient information leaflet' with each prescription, and these PILS contain the known (or rather the accepted) side effects of the drug. The study was instigated following public debate about the benefits and harms of treatments such as statins, hormone replacement therapy and Tamiflu. The debate (quiet as it has been in most of the news media) has apparently led patients to reject these treatments, which is, of course, a problem for the conventional medical establishment!

The AMS study calls for "a range of actions including significant improvements to patient information leaflets, better use of medical appointments and a bigger role for NHS Choices as the ‘go to’ source of trusted information online for patients and carers, as well as healthcare professionals".

In other words, the information patients are being given is becoming a problem. It is creating doubt in the mind of patients, who are beginning to question the value, effectiveness and safety of what doctors are offering them! The study's leader. Professor Sir John Tooke, FMedSci, is reported as saying:

               “It is startling to hear that only about a third of the public trust medical research, and that patients are struggling to make sense of the information they receive from their doctor, the TV, the internet and their friends and family about medicines."

Clearly, information is a bad thing when it comes to patients understanding more about the side effects of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines! Making an 'informed choice' is not what is required by the conventional medical establishment! Our doctors know best.

               “With our ageing population and ever more sophisticated treatments being made available, we need to act now to give patients clearer and more useful information about the medicines they take.”

PILS were described as being ‘impenetrable’ and ‘unreadable’ (which they are) and the report calls for substantial changes to the leaflets at a national and EU level.

               "The report calls on the European Commission and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to work with national regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies and patients to reform patient information leaflets to give a clearer and more balanced summary of both the potential benefits and harms of medicines. At present, patient information leaflets detail all of the possible side effects but are particularly poor at outlining the potential benefits of treatments, hindering informed decisions about medicines.  

What we seem to be facing here, amidst the 'clearer' and 'more balanced' information', is an attempt to prevent patients being 'confused' by censoring our access to negative information! These are the same arguments used for mandatory vaccinations in other parts of the world, the USA, Italy, Australia and elsewhere. The doctor knows best. As far as patients are concerned, a little information is a dangerous thing! The role of the doctor is to give us drugs on the basis of their understanding of their value to our health. Our role is to take them, and anything that contributes to us making our own decision is not to be tolerated. Nothing about "No decision about me without me" here!

The AMS study decries "the ever-increasing volume of information available online", recommending that the NHS Choices website should be built into "a trusted ‘go to’ source of online information for patients and health professionals, providing clear, accurate, up-to-date, evidence-based information about medicines". Any cursory examination of this official website (as I have undertaken in my website, "Why Homeopath?", which compares conventional and homeopathic treatment of a variety of illnesses, will demonstrate the NHS Choices does not always give an honest account of drug side effects, and rarely a full account of their known dangers!

The agenda of the AMS study was made clear with this statement - it is the rehabilitation of discredited treatments such statins, HRT, and Tamiflu.

               "Implementing the changes recommended in the report could help avoid future confusion about the benefits and harms of medicines, such as arose in the past around statins to prevent cardiovascular disease, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) to treat the symptoms of the menopause and Tamiflu to treat flu."

The dangers of these drug treatments have been well documented, and I have written about them many times in this blog. Do a search on each at the top of the page. Instead, we are provide with the usual propaganda.

               "... for example, questions raised about the risk-benefit balance for statins was associated with a greater number of people stopping treatment causing an estimated 2,000 excess cardiovascular disease events, such as heart attacks and strokes, over the next ten years in the UK.

Not a word about the side effects of Statin drugs, and the damage and disease that they are now known to cause! The problem is that the conventional medical establishment is losing control of the health debate. It might have bought-off any significant criticism by the press. The BBC covered this story this morning, uncritically. But what 'friends' and 'relatives' are tell patients is that the drugs and vaccines doctors are giving us are neither effective or safe.

Note on the Academy of Medical Sciences.
Who, or what is the AMS? This is what the Green Med Info website has discovered.

               "The AMS is a self-proclaimed “independent body in the UK representing the diversity of medical science” who, according to their website, is funded by GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Roche".

So let's not be too confused about who the AMS speak for!