HEALTH FREEDOM, PATIENT CHOICE & THE FEAR OF FREEDOM

Mandatory drugging is gaining ground, massively boosted now by the fear that has been generated over the Covid-19 pandemic. So when patients refuse to take a pharmaceutical drug or vaccine (for whatever reason) the conventional medical establishment (aided and abetted by government, and the mainstream media, MSM) wants to force them on us. They know best! We are just foolish!

• Mandatory drugging is the anathema to health freedom and patient choice.
• Enforcing medication represents the ultimate failure of conventional medicine, the inability to convince patients of the value and safety of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

So why is forced medication gaining ground? Why is it happening (mainly) within democracies? Indeed, why do the vast majority of patients quite willingly allow doctors to impose pharmaceutical drugs on them, even when there is known, well documented evidence that they cause patient harm and create illness? And why has mandatory drugging been allowed to gain ground in parts of the world (the USA, UK, Europe, Israel, et al) that can so often heard espousing their commitment to personal freedom and liberty?

Whilst at college I read a book by Erich Fromm, written in 1942, called "The Fear of Freedom". During the time of fascist and communist dictatorship it asked some basic questions about humanity, and its attitude towards freedom.

• does modern man really want freedom?
• or are we intrinsically afraid of it?
• is the fear of freedom the root of the 20th centuries predilection for totalitarianism?

Fromm's argument may provide a clue to why so many people accept conventional medical autocracy, including the long term absence of any serious debate about the almost complete dominance pharmaceutical medicine has within our national medical provision; and more recently, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the acceptance of horrendously damaging government health policies involving social distancing, lockdown, et al, which have led directly to the most serious, indeed disastrous social and economic breakdown. All with hardly a whimper! This is what Fromm said.

        "The rise of democracy, while setting men free, also created a society where man feels isolated from his fellows, where relationships are impersonal and where insecurity replaces a sense of belonging. This sense of isolation drives man to a devotion and submission to all-powerful organization from the state." 

Recently I was reminded of Fromm when I read this piece from the Off-Guardian by Tim Foyle, "On the psychology of the conspiracy denier". Foyle also begins by asking an important question.

• Why is it that intelligent, thoughtful and rationally minded people baulk at the suggestion that sociopaths are conspiring to manipulate and deceive them? 

Foyle continues by making a series of statements, all without too much danger of contradiction; and all of which can be associated with the dominance of the conventional medical establishment, and the threat to health freedom.

• that history catalogues the machinations of liars, thieves, bullies and narcissists and their devastating effects,
• that in modern times evidence of corruption and extraordinary deceptions abound,
• that politicians lie and hide their connections,
• that corporations routinely display utter contempt for moral norms
• that corruption surrounds us.
  

He goes on to talk about "revolving doors between the corporate and political spheres, the lobbying system, corrupt regulators, the media and judiciary mean that wrongdoing is practically never brought to any semblance of genuine justice."

He then reminds us that the the mainstream media (MSM) makes noise about these matters occasionally but never pursues them with true vigour. And that in the intelligence services and law enforcement wrongdoing on a breathtaking scale is commonplace and that, again, justice is never forthcoming. He says that government repeatedly ignores and/or tramples on the rights of the people, and actively abuses and mistreats the people.

Foyle states that none of this is controversial - and he is right. And he asks why most people refuse to acknowledge what is going on - in front of their eyes.

            "Why, against all the evidence, do they sneeringly and contemptuously defend the crumbling illusion that 'the great and good' are up there somewhere, have everything in hand, have only our best interests at heart, and are scrupulous, wise and sincere. The the press serves the people and truth rather than the crooks? That injustice after injustice result from mistakes and oversights, and never from that dread word: conspiracy?

Why indeed! Foyle's analysis is certainly germane to the almost non-existant health debate, notable mainly by its absence. It explains why so many people believe what they are told by the conventional medical establishment; and why apparently 'free' people allow their governments to impose dangerous drugs and vaccine on them. He goes on to ask - where does such an inadvertently destructive impulse originate? And he places it at the very beginning of human experience.

            "The infant places an innate trust in those it finds itself with - a trust which is, for the most part, essentially justified. The infant could not survive otherwise".

            "... the innate impulse to trust the mother never evolves, never encounters and engages with its counterbalance of reason (or mature faith), and remains forever on its 'default' infant setting".

So if the sociopaths are in full control of the pharmaceutical medical establishment, they are in control because we have never learnt to look after ourselves, we have never learnt to live our lives without being told (and preferring to be told) how to live our lives. The medical establishment stresses the importance of drugs and vaccines to our health; and most people go along with this. And as drugs are hugely profitable, pharmaceutical profits have enabled the industry to take complete control of medicine, at each and every level. Moreover, they have been able to subvert governments, and the MSM, who have willingly joined the medical establishment; and now the social media is going the same way.

So is the problem that we are afraid of health freedom? Would we rather be told what to do then to look at what we are being told, question it, and to make an informed choice? Do we prefer to believe that good health comes from a packet of pills, and that immunity from illness and disease comes only from a vaccine?

Natural medical therapies, such as homeopathy, have a different view. Therapists tell their patients that we are each responsible for the maintenance of our health; through good diet and nutrition; through adequate exercise; through sensible life-style choices; et al. This is right because it is right! It is the reality of life. 

The problem with this approach to health is that it puts each one of us, individually, in charge of our own health. We are, after all, responsible for making the key decisions about our health. Natural medical therapies are safe and effective. They will help us when we are sick; but ultimately it is the individual who is in charge of his/her own destiny. Sadly,  it would seem that, for too many people, this is just too much responsibility.

BBC News. The subliminal advertising of vaccines, free vaccine promotion, measles scaremongering, and mandatory drugging

The BBC is the most ardent and effective promotors of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

The BBC's promotion of vaccines and measles scaremongering reached new heights of dishonesty and notoriety yesterday (25 April 2019). The story was covered in much of the British mainstream media, but not with the wall-to-wall coverage made possible by the BBC's continual news and current affairs coverage throughout the entire day. It left their editorial guidelines (accuracy, impartiality, not causing harm or offence, fairness, and independence from external interests) in tatters.

The story the BBC told us throughout the day is simple. It is the tale of the powerful Conventional Medical Establishment, including the NHS, medical science, politicians and government. I do not intend here to go into detail of yesterday's BBC's coverage - beyond outlining these highlights (or lowlights) of the case the BBC made.

• There are epidemics of measles occurring around the world
• Measles is a terrible killer disease
• Measles has been controlled by vaccines since the 1960's
• Too many children are now not being vaccinated
• It is unvaccinated children who are now contracting measles
• Parents who don't vaccinate their children are misguided and misinformed
• Vaccines are entirely safe, medical science has proven this
• No child has ever been hurt of damaged by vaccines
• Anti-vaccine websites are largely to blame for low vaccine take-up (and should be shut down)
• The nonsense 'herd immunity' theory was promulgated
• Homeopathy was attacked, several times, without the right to reply
• Vaccines should be made mandatory

Those who put forward these arguments were exclusively a selection of politicians, government spokespersons, senior NHS officials, conventional doctors, and a parent of a child who had allegedly suffered from measles. They all of whom supported the BBC's position.

No-one who might have challenged any of the above arguments or assertions (all highly challengeable) were asked to give their views. Nobody who disagreed with any of the BBC's arguments were interviewed, but they were abused in their absence.

Worse, without any exception, BBC journalists and presenters vehemently supported these arguments, often pushing the people interviewed to express themselves more aggressively. On the early morning Today programme, one spokesperson from NHS England was criticised by Nick Robinson because she contradicted Simon Stephens, CEO of the NHS, who had earlier emphasised how serious the situation was. She did not believe it was quite as serious as he had suggested. Nick Robinson was clearly in total exasperation with this contradictory idea. He was clearly not looking for discussion, and just asked her to give 'her view' about how important vaccination was for children. She complied, and a little later the Secretary of State for Health was asked to comment on this 'difference of view'. He came down firmly on Nick Robinson's side. It was indeed a deadly serious situation, he confirmed.

This is typical BBC journalism. I have commented on the BBC's refusal to take part in a real health debate many times (do a search on 'BBC' above to find all my previous blogs on the BBC's coverage of health issues), and so I no longer expect any objectivity or fairness in their news coverage.

The main point I wish to make here is that the BBC (a public services broadcaster which is not supposed to involve itself in advertising) is providing the pharmaceutical industry with many hours of free and uncritical advertising.

Moreover, it is subliminal advertising. Most people would not have recognised or understood what they were hearing to be advertising, yet it would still have had a strong and powerful influence on peoples views on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

We are used to advertising. We know when a car, or a washing machine, or a washing-up liquid, (or anything else) is being advertised. We can recognise that what we are being told is promotional, part of selling a product. But not in this situation. No-one from any pharmaceutical company had to say a word. The companies who manufacture and profit from the MMR vaccine were not interviewed, and did not have to pay a penny in order to promote it!

This was all done for them, by BBC journalists, by conventional doctors, by the NHS, by government and politicians.

So to many people this was not advertising - at least not as most people know and recognise it! This is not a car maker, or washing machine manufacturer, or a detergent company selling its wares. The promotion was being done by independent people with no obvious connection with drug companies. This was a news story, and there was no obvious promotion of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

These 'independent' people were telling us that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are good, necessary for us all, essential for good health. There were no obvious vested interests - so surely what we are being told must be right. 

Moreover, no-one was arguing against anything that the BBC was saying. Anyone who might have put forward a different view were not interviewed, whilst at the same time, in their absence, their reputation was being routinely undermined!

The primary purpose of this particular day of subliminal advertising soon became obvious. If people could not be persuaded about the rightness of vaccination, if parents continued to refuse to have their children vaccinated, they would have to be forced to do so.

• Mandatory vaccination. 
• Forced medication. 
• The end of any pretence of health freedom, or patient choice 

And perhaps another casualty - any idea that 'press freedom' is alive and well in this country, that indoctrination is a thing of the past, that the public is being properly informed, and that patients have all the information they need to make an informed choice about the medicine they want to use for themselves, or their children.