Is the Nation Sufficiently Healthy to Recruit an Enlarged Army?

Recent political events surrounding the new Trump administration in the USA have raised issues about the recruitment an enlarged armed forces throughout Europe. Almost inevitably this will ultimately lead to questions about the lack of health and fitness of our young people for military service - and this in turn may raise even more serious questions about the quality of our health services.

A 2024 study from the USA Pentagon, reported on Miltiary.com, showed that 77% of young Americans would fail to qualify for military service - without a waiver being made for being overweight, using drugs or having mental and physical health problems. A similar study in 2017 had showed that 71% of Americans would have been ineligible to serve. So this is not only a huge proportion of the population, it is a problem that is rapidly growing - a 6% increase in 7 years.

This reminded me of the problems Britain experienced during the Boer War (1899-1902), and the period leading to the First World War (1914). Throughout the Boer War, a prolonged and intense conflict in Southern Africa, there were constant concerns about the fitness, strength and suitability of the recruits to the army. Huge numbers of men had volunteered to fight but many were rejected. In 1902 it was estimated that 60% of the male population were physically unfit for military service.

In response, a Committee on Physical Deterioration was set up by the British government. The Fitzroy Report (produced in 1904) described the poor physical condition of army recruits, and recommended an urgent improvement in both living and working conditions, not least those arising from overcrowding, poverty, pollution, and parental neglect. Perhaps these findings should not have been a total surprise. It followed two centuries of extreme social upheaval - the Agrarian and Industrial Revolutions. And the report did lead to important, quite rapid social change.

The latest report from the Pentagon states that "When considering youth disqualified for one reason alone, the most prevalent disqualification rates are overweight (11%), drug and alcohol abuse (8%), and medical/physical health (7%)”. So it is not social conditions that are now causing the problem: it is drugs, including medical drugs, and a health system that is just not working. 

Moreover, the problem of recruitment to the armed forces remains in Britain.

        "The British Army has consistently fallen short of its recruitment targets ... each year since 2010, as highlighted by the recent Ministry of Defence data. The figures reveal a cumulative deficit of 22,350 in the Basic Training Starts (BTS) Targets for British Army ‘Other Ranks’, compared to the total recruitment goal of 119,530 set over the period from 2010 to 2023."

And the reason for the failure to recruit are similar to those found in the USA.

        "The total number of rejections over the last five years was 125,861, with 23,763 Commonwealth applicants turned away due to “lack of vacancies” and 76,187 rejected on medical grounds over the period." 

So over the last 5 years, ‘medical reasons’ have emerged as the foremost reason for the British armed forces to reject those who wish to join. And what we need to remember is that this rejection of 76,187 applicants follows nearly 80 years of a National Health Service, "free at the point of need", and now costing the country over £200 billion annually.

So what does that say about the quality of the medicine provided by our overly-costly NHS?

But then we may never know, as this is not a question our military, our health services, and our government, is ever likely to ask!

Informed Consent to Pharmaceutical Medical Treatment. What information do patients' require?

Informed consent is important in medicine. It is especially important in Conventional (Pharmaceutical) medicine which has a long history of causing patient harm. (Click here for a list of withdrawn and banned medical drugs prescribed by doctors, especially over the last 70 years). Conventional medicine has always emphasised the importance of informed consent. For example, the UK's National Health Service (NHS) states that: 

            "For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision. The meaning of these terms are:
    * voluntary – the decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family;
    * informed – the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead;
    * capacity – the person must be capable of giving consent, which means they understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed decision.”

Yet conventional medicine has a poor record in assuring that the patients have given their "voluntary informed consent" when it comes to the prescription of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Conventional medicine is adept at informing us of the 'benefits' of drugs/vaccines; but they have been less ready to admit to the serious adverse reactions they can cause.

Indeed, in many during the recent Covid-19 pandemic it was clear that conventional medicine was prepared to mandate (force) patients to be vaccinated, without their consent, with vaccines that were (are) by its own admission 'experimental'. Even by the rather 'carefree' standards of pharmaceutical drug testing, were not fully or properly tested.

In December 2023 the USA drug regulator, the FDA, appears to have ditched the concept of voluntary informed consent entirely when it issued a 'final rule' providing an exception from the requirement to obtain informed consent when a clinical investigation poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject, and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety and welfare of human subjects. This is, perhaps, thin edge of a very hefty wedge? Or perhaps, for a fundamentally dishonest industry, it is now trying to find reasons to ignore this principle altogether. Remember, at the time conventional medicine told us that Thalidomide, Vioxx, Avandia, Acomplia, Opioid painkillers, Sodium Valproate, and many others, came with "appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety and welfare of human subjects"! And they killed patients!

Conventional medicine has always been highly secretive about its treatments. Electro-Convulsive Treatment continues to be used on mental health patients (perhaps less now than before) quite regardless of the lack of evidence for its efficacy. But it is the prescription of pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines, and their adverse effects on patients, that most secrecy exists. Remember, "the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead" (my emphasis). The reverse is usually true.

• Often the patient will not be told about 'side effects' at all.
• Or they are told only of minor 'side effects'.
• Or the serious 'side effects' are minimised, discounted, described as "uncommon" or "rare".
• Or, when the patient suffers a side effect, the doctor assures the patient the drug was not the cause.
• Or a patient suffers serious harm, and conventional medicine completely denies any link.

I wrote about informed consent in May 2012. This blog was in response to a report that described, in some detail, the problem of medical paternalism (I am a medical professional - I know best - you should/must take this drug - it is "safe and effective" - and I don't expect to be questioned). The report said that:

            "Doctors are deliberately withholding information about the dangers of some routine screening and clinical procedures - often because they fear patients would then refuse treatment".

In other words, doctors were refusing to give patients information which might help them make an "informed choice", that is, a choice different to the decision of the doctor! The report suggested that patients should ask the following questions before agreeing to take any prescription drugs:

1. How long has the drug been on the market (if less than 2 years ask for an 'older generation' drug)?
2. Can you confirm I am not taking part in a drug trial?
3. Is the drug suitable for my age/gender/condition?
4. Are you using this drug 'off-label' or for the condition for which it was originally licensed?
5. Are there any special warning or 'black-box' alerts for this drug?
6. Can you explain to me the known side-effects and the likelihood of me suffering them?
7. Has the drug been tested among people similar to my own age/gender?
8. Do you know if the drug has been banned from use in other countries? (Note, many drugs which are banned in one country are still sold and prescribed in others).
9. Have you given this drug to other patients? If so, have they reported any adverse reactions?
10. Is the dose you are recommending within the guidelines of the manufacturer for my age/ gender/ condition?
11. Do you know if the new drug will react with other drugs I am currently taking?
12. If I start to suffer from health problems when I take the drug, I shall stop immediately, and come to see you again. Do you agree this is the best course of action?

However, the report went on to question whether the average doctor would be able to answer many of these questions. In other words, it questions how well informed doctors are about the drugs they prescribe, and how reliant they are on inadequate, and partial information from the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical 'science' that it controls.

And then there is the question about whether medical staff are allowed to provide patients with 'negative' information about conventional medical treatment. The Telegraph has recently published a series of articles entitled "The four-step 'playbook' the NHS uses to break whistleblowers" which discuses how  doctors, who raise patient safety concerns, are confronted with systemic bullying and harassment from their managers and colleagues. 

This raises the important question - can doctors who wish to tell patients the whole truth about medical treatment actually allowed to do so?

The Telegraph articles outline how NHS whistleblowers have had their careers ruined whilc trying to raise concern about patient safety. It outlines how over 50 doctors and nurses have raised concerns about patient death, and poor patient care, and how rather than dealing with the problems raised NHS executives seek to undermine them using 4 specific tactics.

1. Investigating the whistleblowers rather than investigating the issues raised.
2. Bullying and Intimidatory tactics against the whistleblowers.
3. Weaponising General Medical Council referrals to silence whistleblowers.
4. Demotion, Disciplinary Action, and Dismissal.
   

Few medical professionals would want to g through this type of persecution? So the assumption must be that most do not go public with the information? So the information that the NHS does not want patient to hear about does not reach the public. And the patient has to make his/her "voluntary informed choice" without this important information.

Does this sound like an open, honest, transparent medical system to you?

Are you undertaking conventional medical treatment, or taking pharmaceutical drugs or vaccines?

Are you being denied information that would help you make an informed choice?

Even patients who were determined to obtain information about the treatment recommended to them. This link describes one woman's battle for medical information. The response she received to her questions show how careful patients must be to protect themselves from pharmaceutical harm; and the extent to which conventional medical authorities will go to ignore, discount and deny important information required by patients who seek to know the full picture about proposed medical treatment.

So 'voluntary informed consent' is not an easy, perhaps closer to impossible for the sceptical patients to elicit - which is perhaps why so many patients are seriously harmed by drugs which were given to make them well. The patient instead suffers serious iatrogenic harm which is then denied or discounted. 

No government, no mainstream news media, will assist you, as they invariably appear to follow the pharmaceutical line. An internet search might provide important information that doctors will otherwise keep secret. But even this is often difficult to find for ordinary, non-medical people to find.

One piece of advice I received when learning to drive a car, many years ago, was to assume that everyone else on the road was an idiot. It was good advice! It has kept me safe.

Similarly, I would advice any patient to assume that any doctor, if not an idiot, will not be prepared, or will not able, or willing, to tell the truth about the medical treatment you are being offered. So scepticism might just help keep you safe from iatrogenic harm!

Post Script

If you agree that informed choice is important in medicine, please have a look at the 'Free Speech for Health' website, and sign their petition.

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

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

Yet is public approval now beginning to falter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Postscript May 2022. 

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

Conspiracy Theory. Disinformation. Fake News. And Medicine?

Conspiracy theory is defined by Britannica as "an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy."

Misinformation is defined by Oxford Reference as "a form of propaganda involving the dissemination of false information with the deliberate intent to deceive or mislead."

 Fake News is simply and very succinctly defined by Reuters International and the University of Oxford as "the news you don't believe".

So when we hear someone, anyone, compounding a theory, an idea, or a concept, that runs counter to the 'dominant' or 'official' view we need to listen carefully before we either believe or dismiss it. This is especially so when it concerns health. We need to ask pertinent questions - to both those who are putting forward the idea, and those who are summarily dismissing it.

• Does the idea make sense to our experience/understanding of what is happening in the world?
• Is the idea well argued, supported and justified with sound evidence?
  
• Who is putting the new idea forward, what are their motives in doing so, and who do they represent? 
• Who is dismissing the idea as a conspiracy theory, disinformation, or fake news?
  
• What do each side have to gain from the acceptance, or the rejection of the idea?

It is always important to remember that just because an idea/concept/theory does not comply with the dominant, or 'official' view, it does not necessarily make it fake news, disinformation, or a conspiracy theory.

Lots of ideas that are routinely dismissed as conspiracy theories/disinformation/fake news, many deservedly so; they sound like nonsense, they make little sense, and they do not begin to meet any of the above criteria. Many can, and should be dismissed as such. Yet before we ever do so we should ensure that we have applied these criteria.

• Just because something is dismissed as "disinformation", "fake news", or "conspiracy theory" does not necessarily mean that it is!

For instance, some people call the concept of mad-made climate change a conspiracy theory. Climanate change has become the dominant or official version of what is happening to our weather. Yet many people deny this view - and because they question the dominant view they are usually dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists'. In such a situation we need to examine both sides. What are the vested interests of climate change theorists? What are the vested interests of those who are denying climate change? How sound is the science behind climate change? Is the case for man-made climate change properly argued and evidenced? And above all, is there evidence on the ground of climate change - desertification, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, extreme weather events, extensive forest fires, flash flooding, and the like. You don't need to be a scientist to see what is happening in the world!

When we examine an idea that is being dismissed as a conspiracy theory it's always important to understand that even non-scientists can ask questions, not least when these questions are based on our experience and understanding of the world. Does the dominant view, or the 'conspiracy theory', best explain what we see happening to the world? 

Moreover, when we have asked all these questions we can make up our own mind. We are not slaves either science or governments - both of which can be noted for their arrogance. Indeed, we all have a responsibility to look at the evidence and to make up our minds. Did mankind really got to the moon in the 1960's, or was it all staged and filmed on earth? Did 9/11 really happen, or were the twin towers deliberately blown up? You decide!

Health, Disinformation, Fake News and Conspiracy Theory

So let's consider what has become the most important area of 'conspiracy theory' at this present time - the issue of health, and in particular, what is happening to us in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic. The 'conspirators' amongst us claim a variety of things that are being summarily dismissed by conventional medicine - here are just a few.

• The excessive fear the CME (Conventional Medical Establishment) health campaign has generated about the Covid-19 virus.
• The clear and deliberate exaggeration of the numbers of Covid-19 cases, and Covid-19 deaths over the last 18 months. 
• The ongoing failure of hand washing, social distancing, the wearing of masks, and lockdowns, as effective preventative measures against the virus.
  
• The emotional, social, economic and medical harm brought about by the policy of the CME.
  
• The CME's failure/refusal to advise people about how they can support and strengthen their natural immunity against the virus. 
• The over-emphasis placed on the logistical success of the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out, and the under-emphasis on their abject failure to prevent infection, or hospitalisation, or death. 
• The growing evidence that the Covid-19 vaccines are causing serious adverse reactions, including a growing number of deaths; allied with the failure (refusal) of the government, medical authorities and the MSM to inform the general public about this. 
• The CHE's censorship and punishment of any conventional medical doctor or scientist who opposes or disagrees with the dominant CHE message. 
• And the MSM's ongoing refusal to acknowledge the work of natural medical therapists with their patients both to prevent and treat the condition.

This is all opposed to the 'dominant' CME view. Information about health is largely controlled by pharmaceutical medicine, and the 'science' on which it claims to be based. Pharmaceutical (or conventional) medicine is now so powerful it controls most national health provision in the UK, and in most countries around the world. It dominates most national governments. It has infiltrated and taken over most of the mainstream media (MSM). 

This domination is part of what I usually refer to, in this blog and elsewhere, as the CME. So what is the agenda of the CME? It has told us, persistently, for many years, that it is winning the war against illness and disease; that it is based on medical science, and that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are keeping us healthy. And at the same time it dismisses other natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, acupuncture, herbalism, chiropractor, et al, as 'unscientific'; and so they do not work. 

Anyone who contradicts this dominant CME agenda, for example over the Covid-19 pandemic, and the life-saving importance of the Covid-19 vaccines, is now routinely dismissed as peddling fake news, disinformation. We are conspiracy theorists!

Are they right? Let's apply the rules. First, is the CME winning the battle against illness and disease, as it claims; and more specifically how well is it doing in its battle with the Covid-19 virus?

1. Does the idea make sense of our experience/understanding of what is happening in the world?

The CME is very clearly not winning the war against illness and disease. To determine this we have only to examine the rapidly growing incidence of chronic disease, any chronic disease, to discover that more people are now being affected, more seriously, than ever before. It is undeniable fact that we are facing epidemic levels of allergy, arthritis, autism, cancer, dementia, heart/lung/kidney/liver disease, et al, never before experienced.

And after 18 months the CME's response to Covid-19 is still struggling to make any impact on the virus, even after massive vaccination campaigns. In time, all epidemics subside, even the Black Death, the Great Plague, and Spanish flu, etc. But it will be different this time; it will not be a natural decline - the CME taking credit for it!

Yet to question either of these assumptions is considered to be disinformation, fake news; and anyone doing so is dismissed by government, by official health organisations, and by the MSM, as conspiracy theorists. We are described and dismissed as 'vaccine hesitant', as 'anti-vaxxers'  - but without any attempt to explain or discuss with us what our position is. 

And any mention of this 'disinformation' is now being routinely censored by social media organisations. Why does the CME need censorship to win their argument? It is necessary for the MSM to ensure that most people continue to think and believe it is winning the battle against illness and disease, and the war against Covid-19.

2. Is the idea well argued, and supported and justified with sound evidence?
The CME's treatment of illness and disease, its effectiveness and safety, is never seriously questioned or challenged; and hasn't been for the last 100+ years. Most people get their medical information from two sources, doctors and the MSM, and both usually toe the CME's line. So most people continue to believe the repeated assertions that conventional medicine is both safe and effective. Yet there is precious little evidence to support the claims.

I have argued most of the 'conspiracy' theories in this blog, not least during the Covid19 pandemic. They offer an alternative explanation about what has happened to us, and what can be readily observed in the world. 

• The Covid-19 campaign has generated high levels of fear amongst the general population. 
• The overall mortality rate has not increased significantly during the months of the Covid-19 outbreak, and does not warrant this level of fear.
• Hand washing, social distancing, the wearing of masks, and lockdowns, has neither significantly prevented or reduced the incidence of the disease.
• It harm to our emotional, social, economic and medical lives cannot be denied; and the harm has been caused by CME policies, and will have to be dealt with in the months and years to come.
  
• The CME'has rarely, if ever, advised us about the importance of the immune system in protecting us from the Covid-19 virus, or indeed any other virus.
  
• Even with the emphasis placed on the logistical success of the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out, the CME remains reluctant to allow vaccinated people to resume their lives; and vaccinated people continue to contract the virus, they are being hospitalised, and are still dying. 
• The Covid-19 vaccines themselves are now causing serious adverse reactions, and the number of reported deaths are increase every week. Yet neither government, the CME authorities, or the MSM have mentioned this to the general public. It can be found in official data; but we are not being told about it.
  
• The MSM is involved heavily in censorship. They put forward the government/CME position exclusively; and anyone who disagrees are not given a platform.
  
• The CME is disciplining and punishing any conventional medical doctor or scientist who disagrees with their dominant message. 
• And the MSM continues to neglect, and refuses to acknowledge the work being done by natural medical therapists with their patients.

3. Who is putting the idea forward, what are their motives, and who do they represent? 

One of the problems with the medical 'conspiracy theorists', those who do not comply with the dominant medical explanation of the Covid-19 pandemic, is that there are very few organisations sufficiently strong to get its message across. Nor is there any significant co-ordination between them. Indeed, about the only thing that unites the so-called 'conspiracy theorists' is their genuine concern about the harm that the CME is causing by it's response to the virus - to the economy, to our mental health, to social life, to children's education, and to personal freedoms and liberty. 

 

So it is difficult to see any major vested interest that is backing this 'disinformation' campaign!

 

4. Who is dismissing the idea as a conspiracy theory?

Clearly, the CME is currently dominant in health care provision. The pharmaceutical industry ,which leads and controls the CME, is immensely rich, powerful and influential. It has used its position to control national governments, most medical provision, and the mainstream media - indeed, most of the sources of information that the public can use to inform itself about health, illness, disease, and medical treatment. And it is now seeking to extend its control to the information that can be put on social media outlets.

 

So those claiming the existence of "a conspiracy" are back by powerful and influential vested interests. It is understandable that the CME wishes to maintain its dominant position. It has a lot to lose and a lot to protect. It is losing its battle with illness and disease, and is desperate to attack and condemn anyone and everyone who is not 'on message', or who speaks against them.

So the health 'conspiracy theorists' are facing an enormously powerful vested interest, whose very credibility is under threat by its ongoing failure to treat illness and disease successfully, the chronic disease that its drugs and vaccines have cause over the last 70-80 years.

5. What do the two sides have to gain from the acceptance, or the rejection of the idea?

There is only one side of this dispute that can point to any "gains" from the routine dismissal of the dominant message of the CME. It is the CME. Rather than responding to the criticism they condemn it as a 'conspiracy'. Rather than discussing the issues they deny that there are any issues.

It is becoming palpably clear that the "disinformation" is coming from just one side of this health argument. Consider just a few aspects of the so-called 'conspiracy theory':

• the "fake news" is that Covid-19 has been a major health crisis; the correct news is that average mortality rates have not increased significantly during this so-called pandemic.
• the "fake news" is that the Covid-19 vaccines are effective and safe, and will enable social life to return to normal
• the information that demonstrates the vaccines are ineffective and harm comes from the data published by the government and conventional medical authorities
• the failure to provide that information to the general public is 'disinformation' of the very highest order.

In brief, those who are being accused being "conspiracy theorists" are the people who are more accurately describing what is happening, and what can be seen to be going on in the world. Indeed, it is a more convincing explanation than that given by CME's dominant message. It is the government who is providing "disinformation". The MSM are the purveyors of "fake news". It is the CME who represents the "conspiracy theorist".

What is a Safe Medicine? Seeking Conventional Medicine's concept of safety

The Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) is telling us all, through national governments, conventional doctors, national and international medical organisations, and the mainstream media (MSM) that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe, entirely safe, usually without any reservation or caveat.

At the same time there are a number of internet websites that are reporting serious adverse reactions, including deaths, which have been attributed to these same vaccines. Indeed, reports of vaccine harm are commonplace on the internet - here are just two of these.

501 Deaths + 10,748 other injuries reported to official CDC 'Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System' (VAERS).

This website has attempted to keep an ongoing record of all reports of serious adverse reactions to these vaccines.

So what is becoming increasingly clear is that these two narratives about the safety of Covid-19 vaccines are mutually inconsistent - they cannot both be true!

The central question is how the Conventional Medical Establishment (ConMed) can continue to make their unreserved claims that Covid-19 vaccines are safe refuting these reports. Do they know about these worldwide reports of patient harm? Are they ignoring them deliberately? Surely, if such reports are untrue, the CME would be refuting them?

Regular readers of this blog will know that there is a credibility gap between the efficacy claims of pharmaceutical medicine, and its actual performance. CME has always made claims about the safety of its drugs and vaccines, and their value for patient health. So the claims about Covid-19 vaccine safety, and their tenuous connection with reality, is not new. It is a well-used, well-rehearsed CME strategy. 

Proxy Advertising

In the advertising industry it is well known that if people/customers are told, frequently enough, that a product is effective and safe it will be believed, and the product will sell. So in order to sell drugs and vaccines it is important that drug companies state that they are safe. So, of course, they do. And every sector of society under the control of the CME, including national governments, world and national health agencies, and the mainstream media (MSM), fully support these assertion. 

Indeed, all the CME does more than merely support the pharmaceutical industry. They provide the advertising for the drug companies. When was the last time you heard the MSM being critical of a drug or vaccine? When was the last time you heard a spokesman from a drug company defending the safety of a drug or vaccine? The pharmaceutical industry is being provided with not only free advertising, but more credible promotion from a supposedly 'independent' source.

If a washing machine manufacturer told us their washing machines were safe and effective we might all say - "well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" We would be sceptical, we would check, we would compare. And we would also assume that if the claims being made were untrue we would be warned about it, by government agencies, consumer groups, the MSM, and the like.

With the pharmaceutical industry, and its drugs and vaccines, this is just not happening.

The Credibility of Medical Science

Allegedly, the proof of the safety of pharmaceutical medicine is medical science. We are told all the time - conventional medicine works because it is based on science. The safety of Covid-19 vaccines are based on the scientific testing programmes to which they have been subjected, rushed maybe, but scientific, and therefore unchallengeable. Just mention the word - "science" - and it must be true - it cannot be questioned, leave alone challenged!

I have argued many times that medical science has become a scion of the pharmaceutical industry, part of the CME, a 'science' that has been bought and paid for, to deliver what its paymaster wants it to deliver - not least of which is that scientific testing has shown a drug, or a vaccine to be safe.

Drug Regulation and Medical Science - why conventional medicine is not scientific

The Credibility of Doctors

Doctors have become one of the most respected of all professions. Gone is the 19th century idea that "an apple a day keeps the doctor away", even though a fruit-rich diet would certainly have had more impact on Covid-19 than any treatment conventional medicine has had available to treat it! Doctors are the experts we see at our surgeries, they are paraded on our television night-after-night, their task to reassure us that a particular pharmaceutical drug or vaccine is safe. They are used by the CME to reinforce the safety message, in a variety of ways.

• The drug/vaccine has been proven to be "entirely safe" for patients. The drug/vaccine is "well tolerated" by patients.
  

Yet this routine reassurance is usually contradicted by the Patient Information Leaflet, which legally has to accompany each drug, and outline all the known adverse reactions the drug or vaccine is known to produce. In other words, what doctors tell us is invariably contradicted by CME's own medical literature.

• If the safety message is challenged, conventional medicine's spokespersons will usually tell us that the benefits of the drug/vaccine outweighs any possible dangers.
  

Suddenly, patient harm is admitted; but instantly discounted. The drug/vaccine is so effective we should not be concerned about the side effects. Who makes this judgement? Who does the 'cost/benefit' analysis? The CME, specifically medical science, of course. Where is it published? Nowhere. It is merely an assertion. This washing machine is safe - because we are telling you it is safe.

The effects of the 'safety' message

Doctors are expected to reassure their patients, just as washing machine salesmen are supposed to reassure their customers. It is safe, there is no need for concern, just don't worry. Listen to what you are being told. In medicine this safety message can, and often does, have consequences far beyond just taking the pill. 

    a) the patient suffers an adverse reaction to the drug/vaccine, but as (s)he had been assured by the doctor it was "entirely safe", it could not possibly have been a side effect. So the patient will often not bother to report the side effect to the doctor. The harm goes unrecognised, either by patient or doctor.

    b) A patient takes a drug/vaccine - and suffers an adverse reaction - and does report it to the doctor. Clearly the complain will cause some embarrassment. to the doctor. "You told me it was safe, you did not warn me it might do this". So the doctor finds it difficult to accept, or just won't accept, that his/her patient has been damaged by a prescribed drug/vaccine. So perhaps it wasn't really a side effect. Perhaps it was just coincidence, or part of the initial illness, nothing to do with the drug/vaccine. So the side effect is not reported, an easier position for the doctor to assume.

So the patient is reassured, it wasn't the drug, it must have been something else. How unfortunate, what bad luck!

Reporting Side Effects

Studies have regularly shown that less that 1% of drug/vaccine side effects are ever reported to drug regulators. It is the national drug regulator who examine reports of side effects, and in face of this under-reporting they can come to the conclusion that the drug/vaccine only affects a very small number of people, especially when compared to the number of people who have received the drug/vaccine. 

So the drug regulator publishes the side effects they have received, as they are legally required to do, but they can 'legitimately' describe them as 'uncommon' or 'rare'.

So in terms of the cost-benefit analysis, the benefits of the drug/vaccine, over-emphasised by a compliant medical science, are not outweighed by the disadvantages, the adverse reactions, which are under-emphasised by the reporting system.

So playing the game of Russian Roulette with adverse drug/vaccine reactions suddenly becomes more acceptable - to both the CME and the patient.

There is a vicious circularity about this situation. A drug/vaccine is safe; and because it is proclaimed as being safe its safety is never seriously questioned or investigated.

CME - don't break ranks - or else

 The CME is powerful, but at its centre is the PME, the pharmaceutical drug companies that generate huge profits (it is by far the most profitable industry in the world) which are spent on controlling the different constituent parts of the CME.

Doctors owe their status and position to the ongoing success of the CME. To break ranks is taboo, and results in the severest of punishments. Medical staff who act as 'whistleblowers', anyone who questions the safety of pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines, is putting himself/herself in professional jeopardy. Dr Andrew Wakefield is perhaps the most notable case in recent years, when he questioned the safety of a vaccine, and had his mainstream medical career destroyed as a direct result.

In any Establishments members expected to close ranks, especially in adversity. This is why the secrecy and lack of transparency within Britain's National Health Service (NHS) has been regularly criticised when it has tried to cover up medical errors, bad practice, and is asked to explain the harm done to its patients. 

At the very heart of this medical secrecy are issues of patient safety, and the safety of the treatments they have been given. 

The routine denial of patient harm has become endemic within the NHS because of the need to defend the safety of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, the very backbone of conventional medical treatment.

But breaking ranks is not reserved for medical staff, it also applies to constituent parts of the CME most people would not think of being part of the CME.

National Governments

The CME needs government backing because they are vitally influential in providing health services to their populations. So they fund politicians and political campaigns. They lobby parliaments. They make huge investments within economies that depend on them. And in return CME expects to receive political support for their medical treatments. Many national governments have become as beholden to the future of the CME as any doctor.

The MSM

The mainstream media is also vitally important to the CME. The MSM controls what the public are told about health, and what they know and understand about medical treatment.

It would have been difficult for the CME is control the Covid-19 agenda without both the support of governments, and the MSM. Remember, it had no treatment, and no prevention to offer patients: yet the competence of conventional medicine has never been seriously questioned. 

Hand washing, masks, social distancing, lockdown have had devastating effects on our emotional, social, recreational and economic lives; but the adequacy and relevance of these policies have never been seriously examined or challenged, nor the immense harm it has done, and is doing to our emotional, social and economic life. 

The CME agenda for Covid-19 did not include any reference to natural immunity. The importance of the immune system has rarely been mentioned, and natural medical therapies have been totally excluded from any discussion.

None of this would have been possible had it not been for the compliant silence of both government and the MSM.

Yet the control of government and MSM has one further major benefit for the CME. Medical claims (perhaps more accurately called lies?) about the safety of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are further safeguarded. They are all safe because there is no-one left to tell us they are not safe.

Claims of Medical Safety

Government and MSM compliance to the pharmaceutical medical agenda reinforces the message about the safety of drugs and vaccines. Doctors and other medical staff are able to tell us they are "entirely safe" because they know they will never be challenged about the veracity of such claims. Doctors can parade these views directly with the MSM, and the main journalistic response is usually "that really is good news, thanks for reassuring us". Just as James Bond has a license to kill, doctors have a license to lie about the safety of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. There is no questioning, no investigation into what they actually mean by 'safe' and 'safety'.

And just as in the doctor-patient relationship, the government-citizen and MSM-public relationship has, as a result, become a hostage to fortune. 

• Government and MSM have repeatedly said that Covid vaccines would be our salvation; in much the same ways they have heralded each new 'wonder drug', or 'miracle cure', as something that would soon "win conventional medicine's war" against disease.
  
• Both have welcomed the arrival of Covid-19 vaccines as "good news, the best possible news", without reservation, without question or restraint; just as they have welcomed new conventional treatments that would "transform our experience" of a particular disease.
• At the same time both have ignored any issue that has been vaguely critical of conventional medicine; that pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines cause serious adverse reactions; the fraudulent activities of medical science; the prosecution of drug companies for serious criminal offences; et al.
• And they have even dutifully attacked the opposition, natural medical therapies, and removed them from any significant role within the NHS.
  

So how can they now admit that there are real safety issues with pharmaceutical medicine when they have supported and praised all their treatments over the decades? 

In order to do so they would have to admit they had been wrong? They had both failed to ask relevant questions. They had failed to investigate the claims of the CME. Their politics were corrupt. Their journalism incompetent. For decades, both had misled the people to whom they had both a duty of care, and a responsibility to inform and protect.

Safe is what we tell you is safe!

So the concept of safety within convention medicine is very different to the kind of safety most people would recognise as 'safe'. Crossing a motorway on foot might be described as 'safe' in the context of the concept of medical safety! You are safe because we would get away with it much of the time, but not all the time. In much the same way conventional medicine can say their drugs and vaccines are safe. 

• The CME might know they cause serious adverse reactions, that they harm patients. It is, after all, in the medical literature, available to doctors, governments and the MSM. But the CME won't openly and transparently admit to it; and there is no-one to tell patients unless the patients look for themselves.
• Government agencies might regularly pay out large sums of money for those patients who have been able to prove they have been harmed by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines; but responsibility for the damage caused is not formally recognised, and certainly not connected or compared with the CME's 'vaccines are safe' mantra.
  

First do no harm

Since Hippocrates, in 4th century bce Greece, this principle is supposed to underlie all medical practice.  The CME is certainly aware of the the principle, but its concept of safety allows it to deny it is causing harm to patients. So the CME is in trouble; and the more people who recognise that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines cause harm, the more trouble it will be in. This is why reports of patient harm caused by its new Covid-19 vaccines are so important to ignore, discount and deny.

The future of pharmaceutical medicine depends on its ability 

to maintain its concept of medical safety.

 

DIE's. The Disease Inducing Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs and Vaccines

For a broader, more direct insight into how pharmaceutical drug and vaccine treatment causes patient harm (and are therefore not safe by any normal definition of safety) this E-Book links the drugs and vaccines that are known to be associated with a wide variety of illnesses and diseases.

Coronavirus. COVID-19. Does Natural Medicine have an alternative?

No-one can be in any doubt about the message we are hearing about coronavirus, COVID-19. It is loud, clear, and insistent. This is a killer disease. It threatens everyone. We must all wash our hands. We must self-isolate. We must support the NHS. National governments around the world have determined that they must put our entire way of life, and our economy at risk.

So is there no alternative to the coronavirus panic? What about the natural medical community? Does it have anything to offer? According to the conventional medical establishment, and its political allies in government and the mainstream media, there is no such alternative. TINA rules. We must do what we are told, quite regardless of the personal, social or economic consequences.

Nor is there much chance that anyone who is part of the pharmaceutical medical establishment will want to know about any such alternative. They will fight against it, vigorously, for two reasons.

• First, they know that beyond 'washing your hands' and ventilators, their treatment cupboard is bare. 
• Second, they would not want anyone to know that there is another way of looking at infections, and the threat they represent - it might undermine their monopoly with mainstream health services.

Yet this does not mean there is no alternative! So let me try to trace what strategy might have been put in place - had natural medicine a voice, any voice, any role within the pharmaceutical-dominated mainstream national health systems around the world. Let me muster as much arrogance as I can, and try to speak not only for homeopathy, but for naturopathy, herbalism, acupuncture, and so many more natural therapies.

Natural Medicine and the Immune System
Any natural health strategy would be built on our body's immune system. It is what makes natural medicine different to conventional medicine. This is not only our best defence against infections, it is something pharmaceutical medicine routinely ignores, and on occasions actually tries to undermine.

Our immune system is specifically designed to fight bacterial and viral infections, and it will usually do so if we look after it properly, and support it whenever necessary.

General Advice
There has been nothing particularly wrong with the general advice given to us by conventional medicine establishment during the last 2-3 months - just a bit limited. We should all wash our hands. But there is so much more that should have been done to encourage people to support and maintain their natural immunity:

• good diet and nutrition, including the value of vitamins C and D,
• freedom from unnecessary stress and anxiety, 
• a sensible exercise regime, and good levels of general fitness. 

Natural therapies, in their many forms, always outlined how this is best done. Therapists would have described how we can all help to support our immune system. Every natural therapy would most certainly have stressed that 'natural' immunity was more important to our resistance to this coronavirus, or any other infection, than any pharmaceutical drug or vaccine.

An Infection Incident
Once there was an infection incident like the coronavirus outbreak, natural therapies would have placed even more emphasis on this general advice. Indeed, they have been doing so with their patients. If you have missed the message it is because it has been given no coverage by government, the conventional medicine, or the mainstream media. Their voice has been entirely censored. The wall-to-wall coverage of the pandemic has been monopolised by one system of medicine - that does not value the immune system is quite the same way.

All natural medicine stresses the importance of the immune system, and its message would have been to encourage everyone to improve their diet, to enhance their vitamin levels, to exercise, and keep fit. And this would, of course, have been done in addition to washing their hands!

In addition, each of the natural therapies, such as homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture and herbalism, would have been offering their remedies and treatments to anyone who wanted them, or who needed to boost their natural immunity against the infection.

Two things would have arisen by a campaign to boast our natural immunity:

• it would have helped to prevent the number of people who contracted the virus,
• and it would have ensured the virus, if contracted, was in a mild form.

Protection Strategy
The panic that now surrounds COVID-19 has been generated by a medical system, dominated as it is by the drug industry, that has no effective protection or treatment against this, or any other viral or bacterial infection - beyond vaccines of highly questionable effectiveness and safety. As a result, the reaction to the panic has been to place most people in self-isolation, or quarantine.

This would not have been necessary for a medical system that had any level of confidence in its treatment.

Even the media is telling us that COVID-19 is killing very few people who do not have an 'underling health problem'. Natural medicine would have been able to look at this fact, coldly and rationally, and recognise that the virus was not as 'deadly' as we are being told, that the vast majority of people who were dying were actually dying of the  'underlying health conditions', with the infection an added complication.

If natural medicine was in the ascendant it would not have been necessary to place everyone into lock-down - a large proportion of the population would not have been seen to be vulnerable, or in need of special protection measures and self isolation.

Society would not have had to be closed down as it has been. The economy would not have to be placed in jeopardy. This would have had two consequences that would have enable us to take a quite different approach to COVID-19.

• Those who do not have 'underlying health problems' would have benefited from a supported immune system. They would have been allowed to continue working, contributing to the economy, and playing a part in maintaining normal social and economic life. Some of these people would, indeed, catch the virus. But with natural medicine there would have been an element of confidence in the bodies of fit and healthy individuals to either resist the infection, or recover from it. It would have had treatment that would limit the impact of the infection. I have discussed the homeopathic treatment of influenza here (and coronavirus is flu) and compared it with conventional medical treatment.

• Those people who did have 'underlying health problems', and so were more at risk of the infection, would have gone into self-isolation. In addition, these people would be offered the same advice about supporting their immune system, and where necessary receive treatments from homeopaths, herbalists, naturopaths and others. Ultimately, and where necessary, there would be the option of hospitalisation and ventilators.

Avoiding social and economic closure
The closing down of social and economic activity is a direct consequence of our almost total reliance on pharmaceutical medicine, which wants us to believe that immunity comes from a bottle of pills (even when it does not have any pills to offer), or a vaccination.

It does not.

The alternative strategy offered by natural medicine would have meant that only people with 'underlying health conditions' would have to take special care, including self-isolation and quarantine, et al. Otherwise, society would have continued normally.The size of the problem would have been instantly and massively reduced. The closing down of social and economic life would not have been necessary, with all the problems this is going to cause in future months - after this pandemic inevitably closes down.

The fit population, with a fully functioning immune system, could carry on with their normal lives, and help support the support of the most vulnerable.

The role of pharmaceutical medicine is causing the panic
And perhaps another lesson might have been learnt. Many people with 'underlying health problems' will have an opportunity to understand using pharmaceutical drug treatments (for a variety of illnesses and diseases), some of them quite intentionally, have actually undermined their immune systems. If there is anyone reading this who has any doubt about this you only have to look at what conventional medicine does with its 'immuno-suppressant' drugs. Anyone who takes these drugs, whose immune system is suppressed, is more susceptible to infection, including coronavirus COVID-19.

Treatment Options
What are the treatments that are offered by natural medicine? Homeopaths, for example, have been looking at the symptoms of this COVID-19 infection very closely since the earliest days of the outbreak, and a number of remedies have been identified that are known to treat the symptoms. They include Arsenicum Album, Bryonia, Gelsenium and Eupatorium. These, and other remedies, have been used successfully by homeopaths to treat flu-like illnesses (and COVID-19 is a flu-like illness) for a very long time.

The clinical evidence for their effectiveness of these remedies is huge, and a matter of public record. I have listed about 10 studies that vouch for this effectiveness in my "Why Homeopathy?"

Other natural therapies have done the same, and they would have been able to offer these treatments to patients in the same way, providing patients with an alternative, a choice, the opportunity not to panic.

Why our Pharmacewutical Medicine, and our NHS, always needs more money

I want to do a journey today
but my car won’t work...

There are lots of sick people 

who just want to get better

Perhaps my car needs more
petrol in order to go properly ...

The NHS needs more money

 in order to make sick people well

Trouble is, when I put more petrol

in the car it still doesn’t go anywhere 

Trouble is, when NHS gets more money

it still doesn't make people well

So let’s put more petrol in the car

So let’s give the NHS more money

... but we are still not moving anywhere

but patients are still not getting better

We need more petrol, 
if we want to start journey

We need more money as even

more patients are getting sick

We had better re-arrange 
the car's engine

We had better re-organise 

how the NHS is managed

We still cannot go, 

we need more petrol

People are getting sicker

they are queuing at the door now

We are getting nowhere fast

There is actually more sickness now 

than at any time in the past

We obviously need more petrol, 

problem is we haven't got enough

We obviously need more money

the problem is we are under-resourced

If we put enough petrol in 

it is bound to work - eventually

If we keep ploughing money into the NHS

it is bound to work - eventually

More Petrol?

Oh! Yes please,what else can we do?

More Drugs &Vaccines, perhaps

Oh! Yes please, of course

Thank you very much

Pharmaceutical Medicine. It's death throes within the NHS. Perhaps Patient Choice and Homeopathy can help?

Pharmaceutical medicine within the British NHS is in it's death throes. Only patient choice, and the reintroduction of homeopathy, and other natural therapies, is likely to save it.

• Sick patients cannot get timely access to treatment anywhere in the system
• Hospital beds are full, with some sick patients laying on trolleys in corridors
• Accident & Emergency (A&E) waiting times are getting ever longer
• In most areas it is getting more difficult to get a doctors appointment
• Doctors are in short supply, many retiring early, and/or reducing their working hours because of the stress involved in the jobs
• Nurses are getting scarcer too, overworked and underpaid (nurses in Northern Ireland are on strike today)
• The routine annual winter NHS crisis is already worse this year than it was last year
• There appears to be a flu epidemic of massive proportions on the near horizon, with admissions to hospital rising by more than 40% just this week alone
• The newly elected Conservative government is making promises about huge increases in funding for the  NHS, and the recruitment of thousands more doctors and nurses (without apparently too much idea about from where they might emerge)

Anyone who has not read this blog before might be scratching their head and asking why this should be, or otherwise accepting the usual excuses - about us getting older, and the chronic under-funding over the last 10 years.

• This is all nonsense. This is the failure of an entire medical system - pharmaceutical medicine, based as it is on drugs and vaccines - which through their (largely denied) 'side effects' and 'adverse reactions' are making us increasingly sick.

• So to spend more money on more drugs and vaccines; and more doctors to dispense them; and more nurses to cope with patients who suffer not only from an illness, but from the side effects of drug treatment, do not get well but are being made sicker. This is NOT a solution.

So can I offer a solution? Offer every waiting, suffering patient - 'patient choice' - a choice of medical therapies.

Go the the people who are queuing at the GP surgeries, at hospitals, at A&E, and make them an offer - an appointment with a local homeopath, or osteopath, or naturopath, or herbalist, et al.

The NHS (dominated and controlled as it is by pharmaceutical interests) will most certainly complain that these natural therapies do not work (and other nonsense). And some patients will not want to take up the offer - which in terms of patient choice and health freedom is fine.

But many patients will welcome the opportunity to remove themselves from the queues, and to receive treatment.

The therapists are out here. Many will be able, happy, even glad to take on additional patients. For the NHS it will not only shorten the queues, it will take the pressure off doctors, nurses, and other staff. For the therapist it will be an opportunity to demonstrate how successful they can be in tackling serious illness and disease. For patients it will open their minds to new medical therapies that can be used for sickness that is not, or cannot be successfully treated with pharmaceutical medicine.

This would be a win-win situation for everyone

(with the possible exception of the pharmaceutical industry)

Are Older People responsible for Conventional Medicine's continual health crisis? Or is Conventional Medicine responsible for the sickness of Older People?

"The Elderly suffering from medicines overload"

 This is the headline of an article published by the GP e-magazine, Pulse, on 5th November 2019.The article itself reports a House of Lords committee, which found that elderly patients are being put at risk of being 'poisoned' by their medicines because not enough research has been done on the best doses to give older patients, not enough is known about harmful drug interactions.

This is not new news. It has been happening for decades. It was happening when I managed a group of residential homes for older people in Northamptonsire - in the late 1970's. I wrote about it in last year, in a blog "It's us older people who are ruining the NHS! We should all be ashamed of ourselves for being so sick!

               "The NHS is in crisis. It always needs more resources.And when asked why it cannot manage, why every part of the NHS is failing to cope with patient demand, we are told that it is because of an ageing population. So, all you old people, it is YOU who are to blame! Or are we?

Or are we indeed? My conclusion in that 2018 article was simple and straightforward.

                "Older age has much to recommend it - as long as you stay away from conventional medicine!"

The House of Lords is not pulling punches. It might still call pharmaceutical drugs 'medicine' (which implies that they make us better) but the actually describe them as 'poisons' which is more accurate.

Aging Care has come to a similar conclusion in their article, 'Medical Over-treatment can have dire consequences for seniors'.

The Institute for Healthcare Improvement comes to a similar conclusion in "The hidden drug problem of older adults; medication overload".

And any web search will bring up a host of articles, some going back decades, identifying health issues with older people that are related to pharmaceutical drugs.

So what will conventional medicine do about this new House of Lords committee report? They will do nothing! Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that harm are all conventional medicine has to offer, so what else can they do, other than ignore it. Shelving reports like this is what conventional medicine has been doing for years.

But fear not! There will be other reports, in the years to come, that will point out the same thing - drugs harm older people, and make them sick. The problem is that these will be ignored too, until such time as we ALL begin to realise that 

• pharmaceutical drugs are not 'medicines' - they are poisons
• it's not about 'over-treatment' - its about treatment
• and the problem is no 'hidden' - it is out here in the open