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initially as 'entirely safe', and 'game changers' in the treatment of this, or that illness, being 'banned' or 'withdrawn' when they were found to cause patient harm.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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADVERSE EVENTS REPORTED IN PACKAGE INSERTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Five million drug errors kill or seriously harm Britons every year. Be safe. Save the NHS. Insist on Homeopathy.

This is the headline of WDDTY News yesterday (24th June 2020). The article says this has been discovered by "a shocking new report". The problem with this, however, is that shocking as this may be, it is certainly not 'new'. It is the 'every year' of the title that is pertinent here. This is just the latest report (which politicians, government, mainstream media, and the conventional medical establishment will go out of their way to ignore. So what is the latest evidence on an on-going story?

               "Researchers have identified 237 million medication errors that happen every year in England, and 2 percent of these—4.74 million—do serious harm to the patient, and a further 86 million errors are 'clinically significant', say researchers from the University of Manchester. Serious harm ranges from life-threatening adverse reactions to death."

This is NOT shocking. It is routine. It happens every year. Researchers study it year by year and come up with the same conclusion. Yet nothing changes. I wrote this in March 2018, the result of another WDDTY News report. 

               "22,000 people die every year in England as a result of medical errors. How many more die from pharmaceutical drugs that are NOT given in error?"


In this piece I asked whether patient harm is caused by 'drug errors', or by the operation of a system of medicine that is inherently dangerous. And if these are the 'errors' that have been admitted, how much more harm is being caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that go unreported and unrecognised.

So I ask the same questions again!

I also ask about the ongoing silence, the apparent unwillingness of the conventional medical establishment to do anything about it.

The Precautionary Principle?
It is not applied to conventional medicine, who can continue harming patients, year by year, without anything changing to protect patients.

First do no harm?
This is part of the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors sign up to, but which is simply ignored, year by year, by doctors who continue to prescribe the same dangerous pharmaceutical drugs.

               "Around 80% of deaths from the errors are the result of gastrointestinal bleeds from NSAIDs (non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs) such as aspirin and the blood-thinning agent, warfarin."

The research found similar rates of 'error' being reported in the USA, and in other European countries. The problem is, apparently, has even been acknowledged by the World Health Organization (WHO). And it costs the UK'S NHS about £98m a year.

Yet, year by year, nothing is done. In any other industry there would be a major investigation, patients would be warned, and the practices that kill and harm millions of patient would have been banned.

And it's always the same drugs that are found to be causing the harm - NSAIDs; antiplatelet drugs, anti-epilepsy drugs, diabetes drugs; diuretics, inhaled corticosteroids (inhalers); and heart drugs, such as beta blockers.

And this year, next year, and every year, these drugs will continue to seriously harm, and kill patients until in time, more researchers will discover that drug 'errors' are killing and seriously harming patients - in yet another new and shocking report.

The solution will have to be a personal decision, as conventional medicine will not change.
We will ALL have to refuse to take these dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines; we must start saying 'No' to doctors. We have to insist on safe and effective medicine, and look for safer natural therapies, like homeopathy.

Be Safe. Save the NHS. Insist on Homeopathy.

The Politics of Coronavirus. The thin edge of hefty wedge? Mandatory drugging, Health Freedom & Patient Choice

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

These words of Benjamin Franklin need to be heeded. The Coronavirus panic is having serious political consequences which no-one is, at present, knowingly or willingly signing up for. We may think that what is happening in this coronavirus panic arises entirely from the nature of the epidemic itself - but this is not so.

The UK Government's "Coronavirus Act 2020 - has taken draconian powers that at any other time would have been unacceptable. Indeed, as part of the response to coronavirus, many democracies around the world have taken steps to protect public health by imposing a 'State of Emergency' and this has usually resulted in an expansion of central government's executive powers, with severe limitations being placed on individual and public rights and freedoms.

The British political system is unlikely to go totally down this road. Our history of confronting and opposing political tyranny is strong, and any such measures, passing into long term enactment, would be strongly challenged and prevented. The House of Commons has already opposed such powers lasting for two years, which is what the government originally asked for, insisting they they have to be renewed every 3 months. 

But what is happening in terms of health?
The conventional medical establishment (as stated in previous blogs) is panicking. It knows it has no effective treatment; thousands of people have died with doctors powerless; and it has its reputation to defend. We have been told consistently over the last 100 years that conventional medical science was winning the war against disease. So it has been busy creating an atmosphere of panic and hysteria in society generally, with the willing support of its allies in the political and media world. 

But pharmaceutical medicine clearly has a longer-term objective, and the message supporting this is already out here in the open, and it doesn't want to admit that it has lost this one. It is an argument that can, and almost certainly will be used again by doctors. We have all heard the argument in recent weeks, probably many, if not most people have already accepted it. But not many people will yet understand the real potential consequences for health freedom.

Mandatory Vaccination
It is not this coronavirus pandemic itself that will threaten health freedom, but the arguments being made about the transmission of coronavirus - which have been repeated time and time again over recent weeks. The argument goes like this.

1. this viral infection is a threat to health - it can kill thousands
2. we have to protect ourselves and we will ask the conventional health 'experts' to do so
3. they say they have a vaccine which is the only answer; they will say it is safe and effective
4. so doctors will tell us we all need to take the vaccine - to protect ourselves
5. and additionally we all need to take the vaccine to protect other, more vulnerable people

The penultimate point leaves us with a choice - we can choose whether to take the vaccine because we believe it will protect us, or refuse to take it because we have no such confidence in either its safety or effectiveness. The final point , however, undermines this; it removes health freedom; it destroys patient choice. The need for a vaccine is not just to protect ourselves; its purpose is to protect everyone. So we must all have it, whether we want it or not. Otherwise we are putting 'vulnerable' people at risk.

It is a clever argument! It makes two important assumptions. First, that the vaccine is the solution to the problem; that the vaccine will be effective; and that it will be safe. And second, it is not an effective strategy to support and maintain our natural immunity as an alternative strategy.

And it is an argument that has been made so often in recent weeks many people will now believe that it must be correct.

Will the Strategy Work?
The conventional medical establishment is in a state of panic. The government has no policy, relying entirely (it says) on the advice of conventional medical science. The mainstream media is desperately supporting the creation of anxiety, total social and economic lockdown, and refuses to discuss anything else. There is no alternative strategy. And anyone who suggests one is not heard, but discounted and dismissed. The media always finds it difficult to challenge anything their main financial backers want them to say. 

This is not a new strategy but one the pharmaceutical industry has used for decades. For instance, a patient is given a drug, and if (s)he gets better, the drug has worked, so needs to continue taking the drug. If a patient is given a drug and (s)he does not get better it has not worked, so the drug is required in a stronger dose. Either way the drug works!

The same logic will apply to the coronavirus panic. If the epidemic settles down more quickly than feared, government/medical strategy will have worked, and we will all sit back in thankfulness and admiration. If, however, it goes on longer than expected, and kills even more people, the government will be criticised for not applying the policy earlier, or more quickly. Either way the medical strategy stands, unchallenged.

This is how the incompetent pharmaceutical medical system has always managed to convince us that it is successful! Most people believe it is competent, it knows what it is doing, regardless of outcome. Whether the epidemic is more or less lethal than thought, or continues longer than than expected, either way it can claim success.

Mandatory Vaccination
Later this year those of us who believe that conventional medicine, and pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines in particular, is both ineffective and dangerous, will be faced with a dilemma. We might  want to support and maintain our immune system as we understand that this is the only way we have to protect ourselves from 'germs', and keep ourselves healthy. We will not want to be vaccinated - not least because this is antipathetic to natural immunity.

But I predict that we will have government and the mainstream media both singing from the pharmaceutical industry's song sheet, telling us all that it is our duty to be vaccinated. Any idea that our body, well maintained and supported, will offer immunity from bacteria and viruses will be summarily dismissed. Medical science knows best. It cannot be questioned. It cannot be challenged. We must all obey. 1984 has arrived, rather later than Orwell predicted.

We should all be warned.

We are going to have a fight on our hands,

if we want to maintain our health freedom.

Coronavirus COVID-19. The panic and hysteria is going to lead to Mandatory Vaccination. The Nuremberg Code, and the Hippocrtic Oath, tells us why we should resist this.

The panic over the Coronavirus COVID-19 situation begs many unasked and unanswered questions. One of them is the reason for this pandemic being escalated and exaggerated to the extent it has been, leading to such wholescale social fear and panic. Three features of the incessant government, medical and media campaign has been:

• we need to protect ourselves from the virus
• we also need to protect others
• we need a vaccine

The first is sensible, leaving the means of protection entirely a matter for individual choice.
The third is fine, for those of us who believe that vaccines are either effective, or safe.
The second has an ominous ring, with possible future repercussion for health freedom and patient choice.

• We need to wash our hands - to safeguard others.
• We need to maintain social distance - in order to safeguard others.
• We need to lockdown families, and the entire economy - in order to safeguard others.

Most people have accepted all three concepts, quite willingly. And given the obvious inability of conventional medicine to provide people with any hope of prevention, treatment, or assistance in speedy recover from the virus, this is perhaps understandable.

But what happens when there is a vaccine, perhaps in a few months time? How much pressure will be placed on everyone to go along with the second concept - we must all get vaccinated - in order to protect the vulnerable? Those of us who know the evidence, and understand that vaccines are neither effective or safe, will be expected to take the vaccine? So will it be made mandatory? Will there be and issue of 'health passports", with ongoing restrictions placed on those who refuse the vaccine?

This feature of the coronavirus campaign, the need to protect the weak and vulnerable, is a Trojan horse. People who do not want the vaccine will be pressurised into taking it. To refuse the vaccine will be described as 'selfish'. Patient choice will end. Health freedom will become a thing of the past.

The decision to take a vaccine is akin to playing a game of Russian roulette. Will you, or will you not die; suffer paralysis, or brain damage, and all the other known 'side effects' of vaccines that have been outline by the USA's CDC (Centers for Disease Control), even though it is deeply inbedded within the pharmaceutical medical establishment. Read this long, horrendous list yourself - and decide if YOU want YOUR government to force YOU to take it.

Each new vaccine is a medical experiment. Conventional medicine does not know who will be harmed of who wil be able to cope. It will be the same as other conventional medical experiment that have gone so wrong - the thousands of drugs and vaccines that have been withdrawn and/or banned when doctors can no longer pretend that they were either effective, or safe.

If anyone doubts this they should look at the Patient Information Leaflets that come with each and every vaccine. They make horrific reading.

Moreover, the new 'coronavirus vaccines' that are being rushed into being. Even the inadequate 'safeguards' that medical science, and drug regulatory agencies provide, all of which have proven in the past not to be no safeguards at all, have been abandoned. So any new vaccine will be an experiment on a huge scale, akin perhaps to the Swine Flu vaccine that was developed during a similar influenza panic in 2009. The result of that vaccine was that the British government had to pay compensation of over £60 million to patients who suffered brain damage. And, of course, we were all told this vaccine was 'safe' too!

THE NUREMBERG CODE
The ten points of the Nuremberg code were given in the section of the verdict entitled "Permissible Medical Experiments”. They are as follows:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

The Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) that come with all vaccines is the official literature of the pharmaceutical medical establishment. They show that ALL vaccines are unsafe, that each and every vaccine can give rise to serious adverse health reactions. Although this 'official' evidence is routinely denied, or at least discounted by the conventional medical establishment, by most political parties, and certainly by the mainstream media, these PILs are an official record of vaccine dangers.

And in addition, the dangerousness of vaccines is demonstrated by the compensation payments that regularly and routinely have to be made to the victims of vaccination.

So vaccination programme continue to be an 'experiment', and so should come under the Nuremberg code. Many people, including myself, are not prepared to be part of this experiment; and an increasing number of people are becoming impervious to the oft-repeated claims by conventional medical spokespeople that vaccines are ‘safe’. It may be the message they want us to hear. But vaccine outcomes consistently contradicts this.

If there is a risk with any medication, the Nuremberg Code should apply. If vaccination is imposed upon any individual, or their children, against their will, it constitutes a crime against human rights, and civil rights too. The 10th point is particularly important. If a vaccine’s PIL can state that death is one of the side effects (as several do) it is a demonstrable crime that medical scientists decide to continue with the vaccine 'experiment' at all.

There is also the matter of the Hippocratic Oath, which makes a very specific demand on all doctors. First do no harm. 

This is a statement of principle that cannot, under any stretch of the imagination, apply to the widespread use of vaccines, and certainly not when there is a threat of the mandatory enforcement of vaccination.

Patient Choice. What if a Visit to the Doctor went like this?

When we are sick today, a visit to the doctor always ends in the same way. The doctor listens to our problems. We are asked questions by the doctor. We undertake some tests suggested by the doctor. The doctor diagnoses what is wrong, and writes a prescription for pharmaceutical drugs.

That is how our dominant, monopolistic, pharmaceutical-led medical system works today. We are sick. And we get pharmaceutical medical treatment - whether we like it or not! There is no health freedom.

So what would happen if our health services were operated on the principle of Health Freedom? What if Patient Choice held sway within conventional medicine. What if the concept of "no decision about me without me" was put into operation. What would a visit to the doctor be like then?

Probably much the same, at least to begin with.

• The doctor will listen to our problems. 
• ask us questions. 
• perhaps undertake some tests. 
• then the doctor will diagnose what is wrong. 

But then the doctor will provide us with information about the choices we have - we would be asked about our treatment preferences.

So let's suppose we have some sort of pain, perhaps lower back pain, or fibromyalgia, or rheumatoid arthritis, or osteoarthritis.

• The doctor will probably do what (s)he does now - offer us painkilling drugs; but now we will be shown the Patient Information Leaflet, which includes information about known drug side effects, and (s)he will explain how painkillers only dampen pain for a short time, a palliative response to the pain that will not be effective in treating our illness.

• Patient Choice. The doctor will then reach for several leaflets outlining other forms of treatment, perhaps dietary and nutritional advice, physiotherapy, osteopathy, chiropractor, naturopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, Alexander technique, yoga, and many others.

• Informed Choice. We would then be asked to read the leaflets. The leaflets would be written by health professionals who are qualified in their particular therapy. On this basis we would decide which treatment we would prefer to use.

• No decision about me without me. Alongside the doctor we would then make our decision. We would have the option of working directly with the doctor with pharmaceutical medicine. Or we would ask for, and the doctor would refer us on to a naturopath, a homeopath, an acupuncturist, et al., for a course of treatment of our choice for a defined periods of time.

• Patient Outcome Assessment. At the end of an agreed period of treatment we would return to the doctor, tell him how we are, and in particular whether our pain was worse, the same, or improved. 
• On the basis of this, alongside the doctor, we would fill in a form to assess the outcome of the treatment.
• The form would then be submitted for analysis, along with millions of others, to assess the outcome of the treatment for the patient. 
• Comparative outcomes of the different treatment therapies for similar conditions would then be calculated.
• Treatment outcomes would then become part of the information provided to us at every stage of our treatment.

• Further Treatment. The outcome of the discussion would be a decision about further treatment, whether to continue with the treatment for another period, or to try another kind of medical therapy. And the process would begin again.

We have freedom of choice in most other spheres of life

- so why not in medicine too?

Health Freedom and Patient Choice. The fightback begins in USA - at last?

Jon Rappoport is reporting (14 February 2020) that the fightback against mandatory drugs is starting in the USA, that those in favour of health freedom and patient choice are beginning to get their voice heard. Vaccine revolution in one State of the union) indicates that the state is South Dakota, who are proposing new state legislation. He provides these quotations from the legislation.

               "No pubic or non-public post secondary education institutions may mandate any immunizations for school entry. A public or private post secondary education institution may request any student to submit medical records. No educational institution may use coercive means to require immunization"

                "The bill would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor for 'any education institution, medical provider, or person to compel another to submit to immunization' according to the bill text."

               "No child entering public or non-public school, or a public or non-public early childhood program in this state, may be required to receive any immunization or medical procedure for enrollment or entry. The Department of Health may recommend any immunization for school entry but may not require them. No school may use any coercive means to require immunization."

And perhaps most important of all, the underlying principle of the bill.

               “Every person has the inalienable right to bodily integrity, free from any threat or compulsion that the person accepts any medical intervention, including immunization. No person may be discriminated against for refusal to accept an unwanted medical intervention, including immunization.”

Health freedom is an inalienable right. Dr Benjamin Rush, a signatory of the USA's Declaration of Independence, and a committed believer in, and supporter of human rights, made this prediction about health freedom in 1776.

          "Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution the time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to doctors and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic."

When most of the other 49 states are falling over each other to legislate for mandatory drugging, South Dakota are bucking the trend. It is good to know that they, at least, are standing up for the 250 year principles of the founding fathers.

In 2010, the US drug regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) felt able to make this damnable statement.

“There is no generalized right to bodily and physical health”. 

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they! Drug regulators around the world are controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, they have become part of the conventional medical establishment. And for the last 10 years the seemingly all-powerful drug cartel has been leading the worldwide move towards mandating vaccination, forcing them on people who want nothing to do with them.

God Bless South Dakota

CBD OIL. Why does pharmaceutical medicine not want to know? Whatever happened to Patient Choice?

Medical cannabis, CBD oil, or cannabidiol, based on cannabis or marijuana, is controversial.

In the UK there are an increasing number of parents who are demanding access CBD oil through the NHS. A gruop of parents today (5 February 2020) have travelled to Westminster to lobby MP's, demanding free medical cannabis prescriptions for their children. Cannabidiol is very expensive, and the conventional medical establishment does not appear too keen on granting anyone access to it, certainly not the UK's Department of Health, and the NHS.

The makers of Cannabidiol claim that it is non-psychoactive (it doesn't act like cannabis), and make many marketing claims for CBD oil.

• it is claimed to be the answer to many illnesses, including chronic pain, diabetes, depression, anxiety, epilepsy, seizures, and autism.
• over 50% of patients using can stop taking pharmaceutical drugs.
• that it has been clinically proven in treating a wide range of health benefits
• it can regulate mood patterns and sleep cycles
• it can mitigates inflammatory response
• improve cognitive performance

So what is the row about? Why is there such disagreement? If parents want it for their children; and it has such sweeping benefits why is it not being offered to them, free on the NHS? Is it the expense? Pharmaceutical drugs which are equally expensive can be obtained on the NHS. Or is the problem that CDB oil is effective and might reduce demand for pharmaceutical drugs? The drug companies would not welcome this.

Medical cannabis was made legal in he UK in 2018, yet many parents are spending more than £1000 per month on buying it for their child. The campaigners visiting Westminster are mainly parents of severely epileptic or autistic children who have decided to take legal action to challenge the NHS's refusal or failure to prescribe it. Very few people obtain a prescription for medical cannabis, a few children and adults with rare and severe forms of epilepsy, some who have serious side effects from chemotherapy, and some people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

The NHS defends this stance in a number of ways.

• There are concerns about the safety of medical cannabis (although there are no concerns about the pharmaceutical drugs currently being prescribed). 
• There has been inadequate scientific trials (the testimony of parents who have used it and found it to be transformational is not sufficient). 
• Medical cannabis is not required when there are pharmaceutical alternatives (and parents can have as many of these drugs as they need, even if parents say they do not work).
• The fact that prescribing CBD oil might damage sales of the pharmaceutical drugs currently being used is, of course, denied.

I am not entering into a discussion about any of these political/financial/medical arguments. I would rather the NHS, and these campaigning parents, discovered the advantages of (i) not using pharmaceutical medicine, and particular childhood vaccines, which have most likely caused the problems of epilepsy and autism in the first place, and (ii) the benefits of homeopathy, and other natural therapies, which would offer safer, more effective, and less expensive solutions.

However, the issue surrounding medical cannabis clearly demonstrates another important issue: Health Freedom and Patient Choice.

The Conservative government came to power in 2010 advocating patient choice. Remember the White Paper - "no decision about me without me". Whatever happened to that? It was never publicly reversed, just left on a shelf to be forgotten, to gather dust! The pharmaceutical companies certainly did not like it; perhaps they thought too many people would not want to take their drugs and vaccines. And perhaps the drug companies were too powerful for the weak, irresolute conservative politicians.

At the same time there was also a pilot policy to develop direct payments to patients: personal health budgets. This was a system where sick people (or their parents) could receive a lump sum payment from the NHS which they could then allocate to the treatment of their choice. Whatever happened to that? Perhaps the drug companies thought too many people might opt for treatment that did not include their highly profitable drugs and vaccines.

So, 10 years on, patient choice has not advanced. It has been reversed. Politicians are no longer talking about patient choice. Indeed, they are more likely to be heard advocating mandatory drugging and vaccination policies. And this is the case even though 'patient choice' and 'personal health budgets' would resolve the problem.

So whatever the rights and wrongs of medical cannabis the current row is informative. It is still the conventional medical establishment that decides who can have what treatment. The patient can either accept their decision, do without, or bankrupt themselves by paying for it themselves.

Patients have absolutely no rights in health care.

 There is no health freedom.  

"All decisions about me without me". 

The doctor knows best. His decision is final.

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)

Conventional medicine discovers that pharmaceutical drugs are addictive, that they are over-prescribed to millions of patients, and that doctors have nothing better to offer

Public Health England (PHE) has discovered that some pharmaceutical drugs have been 'over-prescribed' resulting in millions of patients becoming addicted to them. The review it conducted found that half of the patients using these drugs had been taking them for 12 months or more.

Readers of this blog will not be too surprised about this. But the medical director of PHE was surprised, according to a BBC article, "Too many hooked on prescription drugs" which also appeared to be surprised at these findings. Their article was based on one by MIMS.

The conventional medical establishment, of which both PHE and BBC News belong, should not be surprised. They have been pushing pharmaceutical drugs for years, decades in fact, as positive, beneficial life changing treatments - without expressing, or even asking about whether there were concern about their side effects and their safety.

It is little wonder that patient are demanding this harmful drugs, that politicians are falling over themselves to spend more and more on them. Few people know any differently.

Even this BBC article continued to emphasise the importance of these addictive drugs, "they have many vital clinical uses and can make a huge difference to peoples quality of life" we are told! It's just that these doctors have prescribed them for too long, or longer than 'clinically appropriate', that the drugs would either have stopped working, or the risks outweighed the benefits. So it's the fault of the doctors, not the drugs.

So what are these 'useful' life-enhancing drugs that are so 'vitally important' to our health, but so misguidedly used?

Antidepressant Drugs. Now prescribed to 7.3 million patients - in England alone - in 2017-18.

Opioid Painkillers. Prescribed to 5.6 million patients.

Gabapentinoids (used to treat epilepsy, anxiety, and nerve pain). Prescribed to 1.5 million patients.

Benzodiazepine Drugs (prescribed for anxiety). Still prescribed to 1.4 million people.

Z-Drugs (or sleeping pills). Prescribed to 1 million people.

All these drugs have been causing patient harm for decades, and the conventional medical establishment continues to prescribe them - and apparently, over-prescribing them - to the detriment of patient health. Why?

Well, Professor Helen Stokes-Lampart, of the Royal College of GP's might have presented an answer to this question, perhaps in error. She is quoted (in the BBC article) as saying that doctors do not like prescribing drugs on a long-term basis, but were sometimes left with no choice.

               "What it indicates is the severe lack of alternatives".

Indeed it is! Conventional medicine has no pharmaceutical drugs that work effectively, or are safe. Antidepressants, Opioids, Gabapentinoids, Benzodiazepines and Z-drugs are the best they have. So what else can doctors do when faced with a patient? As I said in a previous blog, in 2016, the medicine cupboard is bare. All that is left is dangerous drugs that harm patients. Doctors have nothing else to offer their patients. Its pharmaceutical drugs that harm, or nothing. And it is difficult for doctors to admit that they have no effective treatment when their patients are sitting in front of them.

Indeed, the dilemma for doctors is underlined by the fact that doctors are quite willing to prescribe these addictive and lethal to children. WDDTY reported on a JAMA study in August 2019 that doctors are prescribing opioids to 60% of children who have a tonsillectomy. Would they do this - if they had an effective or safe alternative?

This is why conventional medicine is failing, and failing rapidly. The problem is very few people realise it. And no-one is prepared to say, even to admit that it is failing.

The medical director of PHE, Professor Paul Cosford, said that he wanted to make sure that patients are helped to access 'alternative treatments'. He does not mention what these alternative treatments are, but clearly they are not pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines - there are none - the medicine cupboard is bare!

So could it be alternative medicine? Natural medical therapies? Homeopathy? Naturopathy? Osteopathy? Acupuncture? He does not say.

But then it is most unlikely that this is what he is talking about. PHE, no doubt with the approval and connivance of Professor Paul Cosford, is even now trying to stop patients having access to natural medicine, and especially homeopathy. There is no evidence that they work, he says. And the NHS decided some two years ago that even the paltry amounts of money spent on these therapies is to be reduced - or preferably stopped altogether!

So PHE is faced with a dilemma. They have placed all their eggs in one cupboard. They have created a drugs monoopoly within the NHS monopoly. And the result is that millions of patients are now suffering, as PH have now (belatedly) discovered. And in pursuit of this pharmaceutical monopoly they have jettisoned any and all viable alternative medical therapies that might have come to their assistance.

So what are patients to do? Their only choice is to seek real, effective, safe alternatives for themselves, outside the NHS. Homeopathy has alternatives to antidepressant, opioid, gabapentinoid, benzodiazepine and Z drugs. The NHS (as sure as hell) does not want them.

But millions of damaged patients most certainly do!