Who Protects Patients from Pharmaceutical Drugs and Vaccines?

We have a fairly uniform system of pharmaceutical drug regulation, in force in most countries of the world. The current system was brought in after the Thalidomide tragedy of the 1970’s. Its primary purpose, really its sole purpose, was to protect patients from being harmed by dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. It has two main components.

• First, new drugs are tested by medical science.
• Then, national drug regulators examines the scientific evidence that has been found for the efficacy, and the safety, of the new drug. It is the drug regulator that determines whether the new drug should be approved for public use.

Unfortunately the system does not work (A List of Banned and Withdrawn Drugs).

This is evidenced by the large, and ever growing number of new drugs, brought to the market over the years, having been tested by medical science, and approved as ‘safe’ by the drug regulators, then sold to patients for many years, often decades, only to be withdrawn and banned - because ultimately they have proven to be dangerous, and to have caused serious patient harm.

The main problem with the drug regulation is that during the last 50 years the pharmaceutical industry has taken over control of the entire regulatory process.

• Medical science makes its living testing drugs. The pharmaceutical industry pays them to do so. Yet if any scientist, or any science company, puts up too many obstacles to new drugs entering the market, they know that they will not used any more. So they go either go out of business; or they comply with the interests of the drug companies. So most ‘medical science’ has been bought and paid for - it is controlled by the drug industry.
  

• The Drug Regulatory Process is also largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry; but the pharmaceutical industry has another weapon to ensure that it controls the process. It has created a 'revolving door' which ensures that drug industry personnel move into the regulatory agencies, and that agency personnel in the other direction to lucrative posts in the industry. Drug regulation has one of the most effective ‘revolving door’ policies in operation anywhere.
  

• The government is largely complicit with the process. This has been demonstrated most recently by allowing the approval of the Covid-19 vaccines in double-quick time, and promoting the vaccines for the drug companies. Why? Politicians, and political campaigns, are funded by Big Pharma; and governments want to attract pharmaceutical investments in their country. Most governments now award drug companies with indemnity against any harm pharmaceutical drugs cause - including the harm caused by Covid-19 vaccines. Certainly, governments around the world have shown little interest in making sure that drug regulation protects patients.

• The mainstream media is now also largely funded by large corporate industries, through advertising and mutual directorships of companies - not least the pharmaceutical industry. The Covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated how the mainstream media sings along with the drug companies, and is prepared to censor and exclude any, and all opposition to the pharmaceutical narrative. The mainstream media has still failed to tell the public about the harm that is being caused by the Covid-19 vaccines.
  

This leaves the patient entirely unprotected.

Patients are now at the mercy of pharmaceutical profiteering, supported by governments and the mainstream media who tell us that the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are we are being given are entirely safe, and amazingly effective. 

It is usually only when the levels of patient harm being caused by drugs and vaccines become undeniable that any action is taken.

So what we have now is an industry, a powerful industry, whose products are (i) not properly tested or (ii) regulated, with drugs and vaccines regularly entering the market, causing serious patient harm, without the public being told.

The entire pharmaceutical industry is dishonest, corrupt and fraudulent; and it is supported in this by medical science, national governments, and the mainstream media. The court cases listed here demonstrate that the primary purpose of the drug companies is to make profits. Public safety has never been a major concern for them.

Postscript. What happens when a drug company is faced with an independent safety study?

• Pfizer applied for an Emergency Use Application for its Covid-19 vaccine in India. 
• The regulator asked the company to undertake an independent safety study, to determine if the vaccine was safe, and generated an adequate immune response.
• Pfizer refused to conduct a local safety trial, and instead withdrew its application!

This is how drug regulation should work. India is prepared to protect its citizens, at least in this instance. Why are our governments failing to do so?

 

How safe are Covid-19 Vaccines? What is happening around the world? And what are the official websites telling us?

What is the truth about the Covid-19 vaccines? Whatever the arguments for and against them everyone needs to know whether the vaccines are safe, or whether they can cause serious adverse reactions, and even death. We all have to make an informed decision, based on the evidence made available to us.

The Government, the Conventional Medical Establishment (CHE) and the mainstream media (MSM) are all absolutely certain about this. The vaccines are safe, entirely safe. Everyone should get vaccinated. They speak with one clear and decisive voice. Any information contrary to this advice is 'misinformation', 'fake news', or 'conspiracy theory'. And, we are told, listening to 'anti-vaxxers', or responding to 'vaccine hesitancy', could be serious enough to cost us our life. The vaccines are that crucial!

This official message has been consistent and implacable. Often issues of this importance will lead to discussion, disagreement, and argument. Government will debate with opposition parties; newspapers will examine, investigate, and provide us with their conclusions, which usually vary between paper and paper; television news will interview people with different views. But none of this has happened for over a year now. The seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines, have not been a matter for disagreement. 

I AM AWARE OF THAT A DEBATE IS GOING ON. INDEED I AM PART OF THE DEBATE. But the debate Is going on Out Here - it cannot be heard in Parliament; or within conventional medical circles, or even within the MSM, or so-called 'Free Press'. It is not welcome

THE SAFETY OF COVID-19 VACCINES

Yet there are events happening around the world, and published within official government and health websites that raise serious questions about what we are being told, and suggests that we are not being given the whole, unvarnished truth. Moreover, this official information is not open to challenge. It exists - open to interpretation, yes; challengeable, no! I will focus on two issues.

• Over 20 countries around the world have, at one time or another, suspended one or other of the new Covid-19 vaccines. Denmark has permanently banned two of them (the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines) as a result of the serious adverse reactions suffered by patients. This has been done whilst other countries continue to denied them. This raises important questions. Is it safe for the citizens on one country to take the vaccines, whilst it is unsafe for the citizens of another country to take them?

The suspension and banning of the Covid-19 vaccines is something that can be discussed, debated, and argued about; but the different reactions, the different stances, cannot be denied. And if there is an issue here it is surely one that is important to the personal decision we should all be taking about whether to have, or to refuse the vaccines. If people merely follow Government / CME / MSM advice and get vaccinated without being aware of this debate they are not making an informed choice.

• Official statistics about the reported side effects of the Covid-19 vaccines is another factor. The figures of patient harm are much greater, and more serious than we are being told, indeed, they are on a scale vastly greater than has been admitted by government, the CHE or the MSM. And these are statistics taken from official government/health websites. So they are not misinformation; but it is not information that is being shared widely with the public. Most people are blissfully unaware of what is happening. 

At the time of writing, there have been over 1,000 reported deaths in UK; nearly 4,000 in the USA; and more that 7,500 in the European Union - all these people dying within a few days of receiving the vaccination.

The websites carrying this information, and the sources of their information, are impeccable. As well as death many other serious health conditions have been reported, and so should be linked with the Covid-19 vaccines: it is not just blood clotting. The information is undeniable. Is the importance and seriousness of the information is open to discussion? Yes. Is it of crucial importance to people in making an informed choice about taking the vaccines? Yes. Is it being share with the public? No. But the information is undeniable, and it is evidenced here on these websites.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting#annex-1-vaccine-analysis-print

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-vaccine-injuries-climb-pfizer-seeks-full-approval/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=4d3a5a92-4213-46f8-a5f5-c14b564d90cf 

https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/7766-dead-330218-injuries-european-database-of-adverse-drug-reactions-for-covid-19-vaccines/

Unfortunately few people will bother to research these specialist websites. They will listen to, trust and rely on what the government, doctors, and their mainstream news sources tell them. Why should they do otherwise? They would not provide them with misinformation; would they?

If the adverse reactions have been mentioned at all it is usually heavily discounted, or even denied. Or the people/organisations that provided the information will have been discounted or abused; dismissed as 'anti-vaxxers' peddling harmful misinformation.

Yet there remains another question even more important question. If these important official figures are correct, why is it that we are not being told about them? Why are they being censored?

• Why is the conventional medical system (CHE), which is allegedly committed to the Hippocratic oath of "First, do no harm", allowing vaccines to be rolled out when they are aware (or should be aware) they are causing serious patient harm? Do they not have a duty to inform us?
  
• Why are governments around the world complicit in this, even taking draconian powers over our personal freedoms, undermining our social and emotional lives, destroying so many jobs and livelihoods, in order to ensure that we are vaccinated? They too must know about these official statistics. Do they not have a duty to inform us?
  
• Similarly, why does the mainstream media (MSM) not investigate these matters? Are the statistics correct? How serious are they? Is the medical system protecting us from harm? Is the government telling us the whole truth to its citizens? Do they not have a duty to inform us?
  

Instead, all three do no more than to justify their stance. They are still doing it. The vaccines are safe. Side effects are mild; or it is merely an unfortunate coincidence that patients are getting blood clots, et al, and even dying. And, of course, the “benefits of the vaccines outweigh the disadvantages” - although we are never told what lies at either side of this often-used equation.

So what is the agenda of people who are telling us this? What is the agenda of government, the CHE and the MSM. They are all aware of this, or they should be; but they have never mentioned the large numbers of people who have died of the Covid-19 vaccines, not to mention the other serious side effects. None of the families have been interviewed. None of the medical experts have bothered to tell us about them. And Governments continue to peddle the partial propaganda of the pharmaceutical industry.

MEDICAL SCIENCE

The political, medical, and journalistic agenda is the one set down by conventional medical science. Government is 'following the science'; these are not their policies, policy is informed by science. And science is sacrosanct, it speaks with a single voice, and it tells us that Covid-19 is a serious pandemic, that the only solution to it are the new vaccines, and the vaccines are safe. 

Yet Denmark hears this science too; and comes to a decision different to the decision taken in the UK, the USA, and much of the rest of the world. How can it do this?

Does 'science' speak with one voice, as we have been told now for over a year? Is the science sacrosanct, or does this so-called 'science' have to be interpreted?

It is clear that there is more that one voice, that medical science is not sacrosanct. Medical science is not just a matter of combining two chemical and observing the reaction. It is a complex matter of what data is collected, how it is collected, and how it is interpreted. And the statistics that result are open to many different interpretations. Medical science does not have all the answers, and it is so much under the control of the pharmaceutical industry that the answers it provides cannot be relied upon.

When we can see this, understand it, realise what is happening, is it possible to continue trusting the Government, the CHE, or the MSM? They are not doing their job. The entire conventional medical establishment (which now seems to include national governments, and the MSM) are complicit in the failure to discuss the issues. 

I ask - seriously - would anyone buy a second hand car from these people? 

Health, above all else, is a matter of trust. Would you allow yourself to be injected with any vaccine, or persuaded to take any pharmaceutical drug - unless you were utterly confident that you were being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? But the 'whole truth' is being censored - by a pharmaceutical-led cabal that now includes not only important medical authorities, including drug regulators, and the WHO, but also governments, and the MSM. We are increasingly being controlled, not just about what we do, but what we must think, what we must believe, and what our values should be.

What is the difference between Medical Science and the Real World?

Conventional medical science is usually based on 'Randomised Controlled Trials' (RCT's), often described as by conventional medical practitioners as "the Gold Standard" of scientific investigation. What this means, in essence, is that medical scientists seek to fix two criteria, for example:

• on one side, the condition - obesity or weight loss, 
• on the other side, the medicine(s) used by complementary medicine for the treatment of obesity or weight loss.

The problem with this method is that in real life these two variables cannot be so easily 'fixed'. And when medical science tries to fix them, the method they choose usually has more to do with the outcome they want to achieve than any kind of scientific objectivity. (I have explored the bias of conventional medical science in more detail on this link). 

That's look at an example. BBC News has recently reported that a recent Australian study has found that complementary medicines for weight loss are 'not justified'. The story can be told simply, in the words of the BBC.

            "The first global review of complementary medicines for weight loss in 16 years suggests their use cannot be justified based on current evidence. Researchers found that while some herbal and dietary supplements resulted in marginal weight loss compared to a placebo, they did not benefit health."

In other words, the medicine's used by complementary, or natural medicine, do not work; yet (it emphasises) people are spending lots of money on them.

To come to this conclusion, the RCT studies that were reviewed would have (i) fixed the medicines, and (ii) the weight loss. They would have tried hard to eliminate all other external factor.

So the over-weight patient takes the medicine; and the study finds he/she does not lose weight.

What this ignores is the consultation, the skills of the therapist, and the 'holistic' nature of natural medical therapies. The RCT's studies might reflect the practice of pharmaceutical medicine (where usually 'the problem', once diagnosed, leads to the prescription of a pharmaceutical drug), but it does not reflect what happens in real life. The consultation, and the ingredients of the conversation between therapist and patient, cannot be eliminated. 

I have treated many overweight or obese patients and the process is much more complex, much more varied than than the selection of a 'medicine'. The consultation would take in account many factors, many 'variables' that medical science, and 'gold standard' RCT's, have to exclude. For example,

• Lifestyle
• Mental health factors
  
• Diet and nutrition
• Exercise

each one, in themselves, very complex, and very individual to the patient. The therapist would seek to clarify these factors, provide advice, and respond to the patient's response to this advice.  

This is what a 'holistic' approach is all about. 

It does not focus on medicines; it focuses on the patient. It takes into consideration a variety of complicated factors. After this, and only after this, does the therapist recommend a 'medicine' that might assist the patient in the process of losing weight. Yet the 'medicine' is only a small part of the treatment, compared to the patient making lifestyle changes in all the factors outlined above.

Homeopathy treats obesity, and can help patients lose weight. This website gives a detailed explanation of how homeopaths set about the task, and the variety of factors they take into account. Yet you will notice that the remedies commonly used with patients come last; and that the choice of remedy has more to do with the patient, the individual, than the condition. Obesity is not a simple, single condition.

This is what holistic medical therapies do. It is not just about 'medicine'. Conventional medicine does NOT do this; certainly it is not done in medical science or via RCT studies. Natural therapy focuses on the individual, in all his/her complexity; it does not impose any 'controls' on what is considered important. It is holistic. It takes everything into account; and only at the very end comes up with medicine.

Conventional medicine fixes the condition (that is, obesity is the same problem with each and every individual), and then fixes the medicine (an 'off-the-shelf' solution to the over-simplified, over-generalised condition).

What this piece of conventional medical 'science' indicates is just confined and restricted conventional  medical science is. It explains why conventional medicine has little or no medical solution to the problem of obesity; and perhaps why, to cover up its inadequacy, it wants to dismiss 'complementary medicine'. It seeks to make the point that it natural medicine is no more effective than pharmaceutical medicine.

And for obesity, any other illness/disease can be substituted - the same general principle applies. 

The successful treatment of any sickness or disease is not simple or straightforward; it cannot be simplified by 'scientic methodology'.

Medical treatment must always be measured in terms of 'patient outcomes' - not medical science. 

Coronavirus COVID-19. Germ Theory and Disease. The difference between a natural health approach & a pharmaceutical approach goes back 150 years

Science is the measure of all things. This is the age of science - it is all-knowing - it is not to be challenged - it has become God. Our government admits that it has no policy on coronavirus COVID-19 - above or beyond the advice given to them by medical science. It is science that drives medical strategy, all policy is driven by it. Government can do nothing without the express permission of these medical experts.

Medical science, of course, is drawn exclusively from within the confines of the pharmaceutical medical establishment. It is the science that has been bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies, and so is intent on promoting the value and importance of drugs and vaccines to our health.

But this particular criticism is not what this blog is about. What needs to be recognised is that governments around the world are reacting to the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with a scientific 'decision' that was taken between 130 to 150 years ago. This 'decision' was calamitous, and in large measure has driven the subsequent emergence of the pharmaceutical industry, its dominance within health provision, and what most people believe 'health' is all about.

Most people will have heard about Louis Pasteur, and his 'germ theory' of illness and disease. Very few people have heard about Antoine Béchamp, a highly respected scientist whose position on 'germs' differed from, and was a rival to Pasteurs. The subsequent 'triumph' of Pasteur's position, although now over 130 years ago, is one of the main reasons for conventional medicine's current reaction to the coronavirus COTID-19 pandemic. So what did the two scientists believe?

Louis Pasteur.

Pasteur's germ theory stated that “specific microscopic organisms are the cause of specific diseases,” a statement few people in the pharmaceutical medical establishment would now disagree. The threat of  'germs' to our health has become an all-pervasive belief, considered to be self-evidently true. It is, we are told, a scientific fact.

The germ theory pre-dated Pasteur, but he popularised the concept, and it gained widespread acceptance in the late 19th century. It reduced the idea of disease to a single, simple interaction between specific microorganisms and a host. It has minimized the role of what is often called 'the environment' in which these germs operate, such as life-style factors and the impact they have on our health. The problem is bacteria, and viruses; it has nothing to do with us, and what we do to our bodies. So Pasteur's theory also freed us from personal and social responsibility for creation of disease. 

Importantly, it also led to the idea, now dominant within conventional medicine, that health provision should be about protecting us from these germs - not least by vaccines.

This is why we are now engaged in a frantic war with coronavirus COVID-19. It is difficult because  we cannot see it. We don't know where it is. And it is difficult to kill. This is why governments around the world are so desperate, thrashing around like headless chickens, developing senseless policies that are not working, and why thousands of people are still dying around the world. 

The strategy of conventional medical is to focus on the germ, the bacteria, the virus; and to fight it, to hunt it down, to kill it - almost at any cost. This is why we are being urged

• to spray and disinfect anything that moves, and many things that does not move too,
• to wash our hands, for at least 20 seconds, frequently

This germ-centric view of health also means that we all have to defend and protect ourselves from an invisible enemy, to isolate ourselves from potential carriers of the germ, and to prevent its transmission. We believe that the germ can strike anywhere, at any time, and that it can affect everyone. We do not know who is infected, or who is carrying the germ. So everyone must be considered to be a carier, and it becomes essential for everyone to

• avoid all social contact and maintain social distance,
• wear masks, gloves, gowns in order to protect ourselves from the transmission of the germ,
• impose strict social and economic lockdowns.

And we must do all this even though in doing so we might undermine the social fabric, destroy the national economy, jeopardise our mental health, and lose our jobs. This is all worthwhile - for as long as we believe that germs are so powerful.

This is what Pasteur thought, and what germ-based medicine believes. This is what medical science is at this very moment telling governments, what is forming policy, and why we are being subjected to the nonsense responses to coronavirus COVID-19.

Antoine Béchamp.

Béchamp’s view was quite different, and have been summed up under these eight headings: (with my emphasis).

1. Disease arises from micro-organisms within the cells of the body
2. These intracellular microorganisms normally function to build and assist in the metabolic processes of the body
3. The function of these organisms changes to assist in the disintegration processes of the host organism when that organism dies or is injured, which may be chemical as well as mechanical
4. Microrganisms change their shapes and colours to reflect the medium
5. Every disease is associated with a particular condition
6. Microorganisms become “pathogenic” as the health of the host organism deteriorates. Hence, the condition of the host organism is the primary causal agent
7. Disease is built by unhealthy conditions
8. To prevent disease we have to create health.

               “The microzyma (a term describing minute particles common to all living things) is at the beginning and end of all organization. It is the fundamental anatomical element whereby the cellules, the tissues, the organs, the whole of an organism are constituted".

In brief, Béchamp believed that disease developed within an unhealthy environment, caused by a body that was in an unbalanced state. He taught that disease could not take hold without a pre-existing weakness in the host, that germs did not cause disease, but instead gravitated to weaker, or diseased people. Essentially, germs were scavengers that fed on dead tissue.

As Rudolf Virchow, a contemporary German physician, often known as 'the father of modern pathology', stated 

               “If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat - diseased tissues - rather than causing disease.”

So Béchamp's focus was not invisible germs, it was the weakened hosts on which they preyed. If the body was not in a weakened state the germs would not cause disease. This view continues to be the basis of all natural medical therapies. The centre of medical concern is NOT the germ, it is the host upon which the germ is able to prey. 

Moreover, the host is observable, its state of health known. The focus is moved from the germ to the body's immune system, which is ultimately the best, perhaps the only protection we have from an invasion of germs.

It is noticeable that in the present pandemic there is little mention of the need to support the immune system.

• little mention of the importance of good diet and nutrition,
• the importance to the immune system of vitamin C, and D, and zinc - et al,
• exercise is something we want to do, not something we need to do because it is protective,
• no mention of the harm caused by life-style factors such as smoking, and drinking too much alcohol,
• no mention of natural medical therapists who are treating their patients,
• little mention whatever of the 'underlying health conditions' that are actually killing people,
• absolutely no mention that some of these 'underlying health conditions are actually caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines,
• no mention that the conventional medical experts who are dictating government policy favour 'immunosupressive' treatments' that intentionally undermine our immune system.

Instead, governments, advised by medical science, seems to believe that the only solution to COVID-19 is the development of a vaccine, so it is ploughing £millions$ into the pharmaceutical industry to deliver one. 

Béchamp's view of germs, if he had prevailed, would have led to a different kind of health service, one that was not so desperate to destroy bacteria and viruses, but which focused instead on helping us defend ourselves. We would have a health service that supported the immune system, emphasised its importance, and advised us about all the things we can do - the importance of underlying health, a strong immune system, healthy life-style habits, the role of diet, nutrition, exercise, the use of natural medical therapies like homeopathy, naturopathy, herbal medicine, and many

Although this is now beginning to happen in a few countries, like Cuba and India, they have been heavily criticised for doing so - by the pharmaceutical medical establishment!

The problem with such an approach is, of course, that the pharmaceutical industry would not make £billions$ from vaccine research, and vaccine sales - or getting indemnity from government for the damage all vaccines do to patients.

Wherever conventional medicine is dominant, government policies are not working. The medical experts on whom they rely have no treatment to offer. Hence, the main reason given for the hugely damaging social and economic lockdown is the need to 'protect' health services from the pressure of sick patients!
 
The pharmaceutical industry is a hopeless monopoly whose only role is to oversee the process of patients dying, whilst using its medical 'expertise' to advise the governments on policy. 

• What can we expect of a medical system that kills the cow, and its herd, when it contracts TB, or Food & Mouth? 
• What can we expect of a medical system that responds to bird influenza by killing the entire flock? 
• What can we expect from a medical system that diagnosis a tree with a disease and chops it down? 

Pasteur's triumph over Béchamp was a pyrrhic victory, one that has inflicted a devastating toll on the quality and relevance of health provision. The victor, and his 'science' has directed us to where we are. It is time Béchamp was reinstated. It is his insight that reflects more accurately the world in which we live, and which we are now observing. His reinstatement would transform our thinking about what health is (and what is not), and bring back a vestige on sanity into the operation of our health system.

 

 

For those who wish to know more about Bechamp, and see a discussion on the whole issue of germ theory and 'terrraine', this Facebook site is recommended.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/germtheory.vs.terraintheory

Coronavirus COVID-19 in India & Cuba. Is Homeopathy the answer that the pharmaceutical establishment has to deny?

• Conventional medicine says that coronovirus COVID-19 is a new virus, they are dealing with the unknown, and they have limited knowledge about it,
• The pharmaceutical industry admits it has no treatment, beyond hand washing, social isolation and testing (none of which constitutes treatment),
• Medical science is being paid £$ billions to develop a vaccine, which (we are told by doctors) is ultimately the only answer to the pandemic.

So, is this all there is? Certainly this is all conventional medicine has to offer.

Yet perhaps there is something else going on in the world that conventional medicine can learn and benefit from. After all, conventional medicine always prides itself as being based on medical science. And science always seeks to learn and develop their understanding of what is going on by observing the world.

The answer is yes, there is something that can be observed. But medical science is choosing to ignore it. Indeed, it has been ignoring it now for the best part of the last century, and particularly during the last 20 years. Let's look at what is happening in two countries, India and Cuba.

India
A Microsoft News article (16th April 2020) asked the question "Why does India have so few coronavirus Covid-19 cases and deaths?" As it states,

               "India is four times more populous than the US, but has just 2% the number of cases and only 1.5% of the number of Covid-19 deaths. How has the country, whose per capita income is just a tenth of the US, avoided being flattened by the pandemic?"

Four possible explanations are offered. It might be that the epidemic has started late; that its lockdown has been successful; that it is doing more testing; and that India might have 'protective characteristics' against the virus. Each explanation is systematically rejected in the article, so it fails to answer the question it posed. But as MSN (like most mainstream media platforms) is part and parcel of the conventional medical establishment, it misses one important, and very obvious explanation.

INDIA USES HOMEOPATHY

This fact fails to get even a cursory mention in the MSN article. In India it is estimated that about 100 million people are totally dependent on homeopathic treatment. In the very early stages of the epidemic, the Indian government, and its health agency, AYUSH, announced that it was using a simple, inexpensive homeopathic remedy as preventative to the virus. And it was roundly condemned for doing so by the conventional medical establishment. I mentioned this in a blog written in early March.

Now, at the time of writing, 6 weeks later, this is conveniently ignored. Whilst in the USA 34,641 people have died, representing 105 people per million population; and in Britain 14,476 people have died, representing 215 people per million population; in India just 452 people have died, representing just 0.3 deaths per million population.

• The conventional medical establishment will, of course, trot out all the arguments why such numbers are not relevant, cannot be trusted, and should be dismissed.
• They will not look seriously at the figures to examine, study and test whether homeopathy has played a role - and whether it might be able to play a role in the advanced 'western' world, with its sophisticated, scientifically based medical system.

Cuba
An article (7th April 2020) in the Miami Herald (just across the Caribbean from Cuba) makes a statement: "Cuba promotes homeopathy as an effective ‘weapon’ against the coronavirus". 

               "As scientists around the world speed up clinical trials to find a cure or vaccine for the coronavirus, the Cuban government will begin distributing a homeopathic remedy to the elderly and other vulnerable people to “prevent” the spread of the disease, a top health official said. Dr. Francisco Durán, national director of Epidemiology at the Ministry of Public Health, said in a press conference on Sunday that “sublingual drops” of the compound PrevengHo-Vir “prevent different diseases such as influenza, the common cold, dengue, and emerging viral infections such as this one.”

Homeopathy became popular in Cuba in the 1990's when it could not afford the prohibitively expensive pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines it was using at the time, and so tried homeopathy instead. In particular, it began to treat its annual leptospirosis epidemic, which regularly each year killed hundreds of people. I have blogged about this before, in March 2010, February 2011, May 2011, and December 2016.

Homeopathic treatment for leptospirosis proved to be remarkably successful, and has been used ever since. The Cuban Regulatory Authority, CECMED, said that it had approved a homeopathic remedy to combat the coronavirus COVID-19 epidemic “as an alternative for the prevention of influenza, flu, dengue, and emerging viral infections.” It confirmed that it had previously approved similar homeopathy remedies as a preventative for dengue and cholera, and cited a 2009 World Health Organization resolution, presented by China, that recognizes homeopathy as a component of traditional medicine.

The Miami Herald is presumably a small, local publication which, like all USA mainstream media publications, is controlled by, and part of the pharmaceutical medical establishment. So perhaps quite naturally the rest of its article casts doubt on the use of homeopathy, utilising the usual mantras.

• there is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy,
• the 'controversial' principle of 'like curing like',
• the FDA has not approved any homeopathic remedy for any medical use,
• the National Institutes of Health caution that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific health condition,
• it quotes local people, clearly opposed to homeopathy - but fails to quote anyone who is in favour.

Cuban statistics provide a picture similar to India. It has registered just 27 deaths, which represents just 2 in every million people.

So in both India and Cuba a decision has been taken to use homeopathic treatment both to prevent and treat coronavirus COVID-19. The response of the pharmaceutical medical establishment, and its scion, medical science, has been to ignore this completely, and where possible to attack it. The result of their non-observation has ensured that their myopic faith in pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines has not been shaken. It demonstrates that conventional medicine has no interest in finding solutions to this pandemic outside their domain, they have taken a decision not to investigate further, they refuse to test the hypothesis that homeopathy might be a viable and useful alternative to having no treatment whatsoever. They make no suggestion that that 'misinformation' coming from India and Cuba might be tested by setting up randomised controlled studies.

Which means, essentially, that conventional medicine, dominated as it is by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, is not interested in any kind of medical treatment outside the confines of their own self interest. As I mentioned in a previous blog, our 'scientific' medical system prefers that people die rather than admit that another medical therapy has better, more effective, and considerably less expensive  medical treatment for this epidemic.

It is, after all, an admission that would do irreparable harm to the future of immensely rich and powerful industrial interests.

Addendum 29th April 2020
Facebook Censorship
Homeopathy Plus updated the work being done with homeopathy in India. The article can be found here.

https://homeopathyplus.com/video-indian-police-use-homeopathy/

It is worth reading for its content - but also to indicate that Facebook is censoring this kind of evidence, and that it is in the hands of, and under the control, of the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment

The importance of our Microbiome. It keeps us healthy.

Our human bodies live alongside bacteria and microbes. They can be found living in every part of the human body. It's been estimated that there are over 1 trillion living with us, especially in our gastrointestinal track. Here these micro-organisms are known as the microbiome, and their importance in the regulation of our digestive system is now increasingly realised. We now know that they protect us from illness and disease-causing, and they help us to develop a strong immune system.

Yet in conventional medical circles, whenever bacteria and viruses are mentioned, they are associated with disease. They cause disease. They are not considered to be our friends and allies. Conventional medicine has long believed this to be so, since the days of Pasteur, and over the years powerful pharmaceutical drugs (antibiotic and antiviral drugs) have been developed to wage war on them. The intention is kill them.

Until fairly recently medical science had a limited sense of the importance of the microbiome. It is only now beginning to appreciate its role in human health. The billions of bacteria not only share the human body, but play a crucial part in the way it functions.

Moreover, the human microbiome is now thought to be closely linked to an individual's genetic footprint, to play a role in the determination of our DNA, our predisposition to pathogens, our hereditary traits, our body type, and much more. And it is thought that up to 90% of all human illnesses are intimately linked to the content of the microbiome.

So medical science is at last looking at how the health of the microbiome is best maintained, and what factors promote and compromise its health. Unfortunately it is hindered in how close it can investigate this. It can look at the importance of lifestyle factors, especially our diet, what we eat and don't eat because this plays an important role in maintaining our gut bacteria. It can look at exercise, on smoking and other lifestyle factors

Yet medical science will not be able to focus on the impact that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have on the microbiome.

Conventional medicine have hitherto assumed that germs are unhealthy! During the last 70 years, in particular, it has developed and prescribed pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have literally declared open warfare on germs. Antibiotic drugs kill bacteria. Antiviral drugs kill viruses. And this warfare goes beyond medicine. We use antibacterial soaps and shampoos. Our kitchens are full of chemicals whose task is to kill germs. Pesticides and herbicides wage war on almost everything, finding its way into the air we breath, and the food we eat.

Yet the fact is that we have to live in co-opeation with bacteria and viruses. After decades trying to destroy them, indiscriminately, because conventional medicine believed they caused disease medical science is beginning to understand their importance.

Nor is it just antibiotics and antivirals that have been the culprits. Most drugs are taken by mouth and so pass directly to the stomach. Painkillers, mouthwashes, antacids, and laxatives and many other drugs, all of them toxic, have the ability to kill and disrupt our micro biome.

Pharmaceutical drugs can overwhelm our immune system, our natural defence against illness and disease. Now it is being recognised that a variety of diseases, including many diseases whose incidence is rapidly expanding, are being associated with an unhealthy gut.

     * Autism. It has been known since Andrew Wakefield first discovered in the 1990's that the microbiome in autistic children differs from normal, health children.
     * Alzheimers Disease. the magazine, What Doctors Don't Tell Use (WDDTY August 2018) outlines how problems with the gut may contribute to dementia
     * Auto-Immune Disease, in all its many forms, is now thought to arise from intestinal bacteria which can influence inflammatory immune reactions that start in the gut.
     * Diabetes is now thought to be brought about by a "notable change" in gut bacteria.
     * Obesity can be caused by an unhealthy micro biome as it is unable to reduce the accumulation of fat and inflammation.
     * Mental Health. Questions are even being raised that some mental health conditions are caused, or worsened, by an unhealthy gut. WDDTY August 2018 also outlines how an unhealthy microbiome can contribute to depression and anxiety.

My website, the "Disease Inducing Effects" of Drugs and Vaccines (DIE's), lists the pharmaceutical drugs that are known to cause specific illnesses and diseases. The new recognition of the importance of the microbiome probably supplies us with one of the 'working mechanisms' for the damage they do to patients - that they alter and damage the micro biome leading to ill-health.

Medical science will have a problem with this. It has been intimately involved in the testing and approval of pharmaceutical drugs that is doing damage to our microbiome.  So whilst they may tell us to stop smoking, to get more exercise, and to eat more sensibly, they will struggle to acknowledge the damage being done by the drugs and vaccines they have approved.

Criticising pharmaceutical drugs is to criticise themselves!

My DIE's website demonstrates that conventional medicine consistently fails to recognise the importance of pharmaceutical drugs in causing disease. The fact that they cause disease is admitted, not least in the doctor's 'bibles', the British National Formulary and MIMS. But it is rarely admitted when speaking to patients about what has caused their illness.

So if pharmaceutical companies are ruining our microbiome, if they are making us sick, what is their response likely to be?
               * Will they warn us about the dangers of taking their drugs?
               * Will they develop drugs that do less damage to gut health?

The answer is that they will do neither. Reduced drug sales is contrary to their business plan! The pharmaceutical industry causes illness and disease with the drugs and vaccines (they call them side effects), then they produce more drugs for the patients they have made sick in the first place. It is a time-honoured strategy routinely adopted, and the conventional medical establishment will plan to do so again in this situation.

Medical science is already responding. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society's journal published in March 2015 an article entitled "Drug metabolism: manipulating the microbiome; understanding how symbiotic bacteria that help maintain health interact with medicines is an emerging field of research". So patients can look out for yet more drug developments. For instance, have a look at this website, which proudly states that medical scientists now recognise that a compromised gut leads to a variety of conditions "ranging from allergies to anxiety to cancer", although it does not recognise the responsibility of pharmaceutical drugs in compromising it in the first place! What they are interested in doing is developing new drugs.

               "They are increasingly interested in drugging (the microbiomes) constituents. Two teams of US scientists have already tested those drugs in mice, and pharmaceutical companies are paying close attention. The hope is that by delivering drugs to the microbiome, researchers will be able to treat or prevent some of our most intractable diseases."

Medical science is clever! They know how to out-think and out-perform the body's own defence system!

               "Today there are crude ways to medicate the microbiome. Antibiotics kill bacteria broadly; probiotics add additional bacteria in. The gut drugs under development, on the other hand, are precisely targeted and nonlethal. They don’t aim to change the number of microbes, but rather their behavior."

The article goes on to describe their cleverness, how Dr. Stanley Hazen, a physician and researcher at the Cleveland Clinic, has decided to try to disrupt our microbiome, how they have searched for molecules that "would block choline receptors of microbes".

So our body does not know what it is doing, but not to worry, medical science does, and it will correct it for us! The article goes on to explain how another scientist is targeting gut microbes for a different purpose - to prevent the nausea caused by chemotherapy drugs. Again, one drug causes a problem, and another drug is designed to deal with the problem. His logic is similar.

               “You’re not killing the bacteria. You’re just telling the bacteria, ‘You can’t eat this.”

The latter scientist is apparently researching ways to minimise the side effects of other drugs, like Ibuprofen, which is known to cause intestinal ulcers. The article describes the interest and excitement of many pharmaceutical companies with the prospect of developing promising new drugs for treating gut diseases such as irritable bowel syndrome, diabetes and central nervous system disorders.

Conventional medicine has not plans to stop meddling with our bodies, 

regardless of the effects it might have on our health

The BBC, the reporting of Medical Science, MMR and Autism

     "We, who are not scientists, are entitled to have opinions, so we are entitled to express them. So the BBC, and any other news organisations, are OBLIGED, not just entitled, to present them."

This is a quote from John Humphrys on the Today Programme, BBC radio, on 12th September 2017. He was interviewing Steve Jones, Emeritus Professor of Human Genetics at University College, who had reviewed the way the BBC reported science. Scientists, he said, were once 'God-like figures' who were not questioned by journalists. Now, so the argument went, they are questioned, and doubted, often in a hostile manner. Several examples were given about how, why and when science should be questioned.

• Nuclear power, in the 1950's. We were told that the first nuclear plants were producing electricity, but we were not told that the main reason for their existence was to produce nuclear bombs.
• John Gummer, a Tory minister, who tried to persuade us that beef was safe to eat, and gave his daughter a beef-burger to prove it.
• Andrew Wakefield and the MMR controversy. The Smith/Humphrys verdict was that this was "not scientific" and led the many parents refusing to vaccinate their children, "a complete disaster", a "car crash" of science reporting!
• The Tobacco industry, which denied for many years the connection between smoking, lung cancer and health.
• The current debate on climate change with climate change deniers.

It was at this point that Humphrys asked the (very legitimate) question about whether we can always trust science, and he made the point that has been quoted above. Read it again, and take it in, completely!

We can all have opinions - and news organisations like the BBC are OBLIGED (not just entitled) to report it. Otherwise, Humphrys stated, "there is no debate".

The Health Debate

Well, there is undoubtedly no debate about health issues, nor has there been for at least the last 20 years! Indeed, the BBC have refused to engage in a debate about health since the time of the Wakefield controversy! I wrote seven blogs on the non-existed health debate back in 2012, and since then the situation has not changed. The mainstream media refuses to discuss important health issues that are constantly being ranged, but are not heard.

So, as usual, Wakefield was dismissed out of hand by both Smith an Humphrys. As a result of the controversy people refused to vaccinate their children, and the implication (as always) was that vaccinations are good! Autism was mentioned, Smith commenting that 'autism was just being talked about at that time'. 

Yes, indeed it was. And during the intervening years, autism has grown to epidemic proportions. 

So if Wakefield was wrong (and Humphys is quite entitled to his opinion) what has caused this epidemic of autism. Conventional (sometimes called scientific) medicine still does not know apparently. This is what NHS Choices says.

               "The exact cause of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is currently unknown. It's a complex condition and may occur as a result of genetic predisposition (a natural tendency), environmental or unknown factors."

So the science of Smith and Humphrys has condemned one explanation for autism, but is still quite unable to supply another. Genetic predisposition? Autism was unknown before the 1940's, so where did these genes suddenly appear from? A natural tendency? Is this really the best that medical science can come up with?

So, Mr Humphrys, I disagree. And, as you say, I have a right to my opinion. Actually, I am far from  alone in having this opinion. Nor do I think that vaccinations are a good thing, as I do not believe in injecting myself (or anyone else) with poisons like mercury, aluminium, and other noxious subjects. So are the BBC is obliged to know about these opinions? If so, why are our opinions never aired on the BBC, or any other mainstream media source?

• I can understand that conventional medicine might not want to admit the link between vaccines are autism (and ADHD, Allergies, and Alzheimers, and much else). But I cannot understand why the mainstream media, including the BBC, refuse to put forward and question the views of anti-vaxers.

• I can understand that the commercial media does not want to 'bite the hand that feeds them', the pharmaceutical companies are massive advertisers on which media companies have become almost completely dependent. But the BBC?

So, Mr Humphys, just as you said, when someone's opinions are ignored there is no debate. One side, medical science, is reported, ad nauseam - new miracle drugs, wonder cures, life changing breakthroughs in treatment. But anyone concerned about the impact of toxic pharmaceutical drugs are vaccines are never heard, and conventional medical spokesmen are never asked why, despite these regular breakthroughs, autism, and most other chronic diseases (cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and many, many more) are now running at epidemic levels. 

• When will journalists have the courage to ask what I want them to ask - when, with all the money are resources being poured into conventional medicine, can we expect a decline in the incidence of disease? 
• And more important, are the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines we are regularly told are so good for us causing these disease epidemics through their so-called 'side effects' and 'adverse reactions?

More specifically, when will the mainstream media inform us about medical events that demonstrate that we are dealing with a deeply fraudulent medical system? For instance, when will it be reported that the scientist who led the medical research that 'proved' there was no link between MMR and Autism has actually admitted that he destroyed important data that would have proven the link? 

I have asked the BBC about this, and blogged about it in 2016. They told me that it was not newsworthy! Fraudulent medical science, not newsworthy? A medical system in denial about a serious link between disease and vaccines, not newsworthy? It would appear that it is okay for the BBC to report favourably on medical science, but any unfavourable news is to be censored! 

So, Mr Humphrys, there is, indeed, no debate. My opinions, and the opinions of an ever-growing proportion of the public, are not being heard. You might says that we are 'entitled' to know about opinions contrary to science. But it would appear that the BBC does not feel 'obliged' to tell us about them. And in the meantime, the rates of Autism continue to rise.

Health. Why anecdotes should take preference to medical science

Most conventional medical treatments start with medical science.

• They are developed and tested in a laboratory.
• Testing shows that they have some beneficial affect on the human body, for some reason.
• Each treatment is further tested for its effectiveness and safety.
• Only after this is the treatment made available to the public.

The history of most pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and most conventional medical treatments, is one in which medical science is paramount. It is what conventional medicine calls their 'evidence base'. Anecdotal evidence, usually comes from patients, is not treated seriously, certainly not seriously enough, with conventional medicine wearing this denial almost as a badge of honour.

Okay, medical science is deeply, fundamentally flawed. It does not do what it is supposed to do, largely because rich and powerful pharmaceutical companies have lost touch with anything resembling ethical standards, and can make sure that the medical science it buys produces results that favours company profitability rather than patient safety.

Yet there is another reason to begin to look more favourably on ANECDOTES, why they should take over from MEDICAL SCIENCE.

It is when patients start medical treatment that anecdotal evidence comes into the picture. Patients begin to notice that all is not right, that something is wrong, or is going wrong, and that the treatment might be the cause.

• Many patients do not mention it, they lack confidence to challenge doctors, who they believe know best. 
• Some patients mention it but are assured by their doctor that it is not the treatment - it is something else, that there are so many other factors that could be causing the problem. What have you been eating recently? Have you been feeling stressed? 
• Perhaps you ought to take this treatment too, to deal with the new symptoms you are experiencing!

None of this is recorded, of course. It is just anecdotal. Results from the laboratory, in controlled conditions, have informed us that this does not happen with this treatment. Medical science has said that the treatment is both effective and safe. And this is what the conventional medical establishment stands by! They know best! After all, the patient is just a patient, they are not scientists, or doctors - what does he/she know anyway?

So these patient report are discounted, they are just anecdotes, unscientific, unproven connections. So they are not recorded on the 'yellow card' reporting system, the drug regulator is not bothered with such stuff. This, of course, leads to further denials (what the patients is experiencing is not recognised as a side effect because no-one has reported it)! They don’t count. Indeed, they should not count when set against the rigours of medical science.

In recent months, they have even been dismissed as ‘nocebo', that is, patients have heard about side effects, so they just think they are getting this reaction. But they aren’t. Patients are just imagining it.

So years pass by. But during this time there are more and more such anecdotes. Indeed, they become more serious, in fact too serious to be dismissed, even by the conventional medical establishment! So patient anecdotes begin to be recorded. Denial will usually continue - they are ‘rare’; and after all, we are told, all treatment has to have some side effects! But now they are noted; and when they continue to come in, warnings to doctors are issued - be careful. Don't use the treatment with these patients, or in these circumstances. But don't stop the treatment, it is so important for the patient!

But then it all becomes too serious. The anecdotes reach a level, and a seriousness, that can no longer be discounted or ignored, the evidence can no longer be denied or dismissed. There are just too many, and they are too serious. So the conventional medical establishment has to develop a different strategy - finding some quiet way to ditch the treatment. Not too much publicity, please! We may have been causing these problems for decades, we might not have taken them seriously, and we might have caused millions of patients serious harm... But we don't want anyone to know about this. Here, we have this new treatment, get rid of the old, bring in the new, after all, there has not been time, yet, for these new treatments to be fully experienced and assessed. So we can assume they are safe!

So why should anecdotes take over from medical science?

Well, anecdotes come from patients, real people, who are suffering real experiences, in real life. They may not be medical scientists. They may not be feeling these adverse affects in a controlled, laboratory settings. But they do know how they feel. And they do know when they started to feel that way. And they can assess what part the new treatment has played.

Yet in conventional medicine patients do not really count! What do they know? Doctors have been trained for many years. And conventional treatment are all 'scientifically' tried and tested! Medical science is science! It has to be right.

Science has become arrogant. They are right, they think they know everything, that what they say is unchallengeable, there should be no argument. What they know is scientific, so there should be no argument about it.

And there is no science more arrogant as medical science; nor any science that is so powerfully backed. Forget that it is paid for by pharmaceutical companies, who’s main aim is to make money, lots of money. So medical testing is not done, or it is done inadequately; or test results are misinterpreted; or ‘negative’ results are not reported at all; or safety factors are ignored or discounted; and the benefits of treatments can be routinely exaggerated.

It is important to note that no other industry functions on this basis. If a customer reports that a car, or a dish washer, or a television, or anything else, might be dangerous, it is immediately treated as a 'health and safety issue', and action is quickly taken to protect the consumer. Often the product is suspended, even withdrawn, until its safety is confirmed. The 'fail safe' principle is applied.

But for some reason the precautionary principle is not applied to conventional medicine, or in the regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

Instead, conventional medicine seems to be more about 'patient beware' than health and safety. If patients believe that a drug, or vaccine, or some other form of treatment might be harmful, they are ignored. Even if a side effect is reported, the treatment is not suspended, and is never withdrawn, until it is proven to be safe. Usually, such prevarication (or negligence) can take years, even decades. In the meantime, millions of patients can be harmed, or even killed by a treatment, but the treatment continues to be used until proven, without reasonable doubt, that it is too dangerous.

     This is why medical science has failed patients.

     This is why anecdote is important, and needs to be given more prominence in medicine.