Who Protects Patients from Pharmaceutical Drugs and Vaccines?

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

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

Unfortunately the system does not work (A List of Banned and Withdrawn Drugs).

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science, and approved as ‘safe’ by the drug regulators, then sold to patients for many years, often decades, only to be withdrawn and banned - because ultimately they have proven to be dangerous, and to have caused serious patient harm.

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

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

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

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

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

This leaves the patient entirely unprotected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Covid-19 Vaccines. What can we learn from the countries suspending them, and from others content to continue using them?

It's simple! Surely? Either a vaccine is safe or it's not safe. And on the basis of the medical professions principle of "First do no harm" any vaccine that is not safe should not be used by patients, especially when the vaccine has been 'fast-tracked' into our arms.

It has been hard to keep track on which countries have had sufficient doubts about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines, and have suspended their use; and which of these countries have suspended them but been quickly reassured, or pressured into reintroducing them. Certainly these countries have done one or the other.

• Austria
• Bulgaria 
• Cyprus
  
• Estonia
• Latvia
• Luxembourg
• Lithuania
• Romania
• Denmark
• Norway
• Iceland
• The Netherlands
• Ireland
• Italy
  
• Germany
• France
• Italy
• Romania
  
• Slovenia
• Spain
  
• Sweden
• Thailand

Note: Canada joined this list following the writing of this blog.

However, most other countries appear to have no qualms about any of the vaccines. This is not an unusual phenomenon. I have often wondered why it is that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are considered 'safe' in some countries, but suspended or banned in others because they are unsafe. I have pondered on  whether the citizens of some countries are less hardy than those of other countries; but this always seems unlikely.

A more likely explanation is that the history of every pharmaceutical drug and vaccine is a struggle: between a growing awareness of the serious adverse reactions they cause; and the denials of the conventional medical establishment that pharmaceutical drugs can cause patient harm.

For instance, it was reported yesterday (even by BBC News) that one drug, Mediator, banned in 2009 after 33 years of causing serious heart failure, and the death of over 2,000 people, has resulted in a court finding the French drug company guilty of aggravated deceit and involuntary manslaughter. The drug regulator was also fined for failing in its primary duty - to protect the public from dangerous drugs. (This website outlines several other similar histories of banned drugs).

So is this what is happening to the Covid-19 vaccines? Even though it is early in their use, vaccination did not start until the very end of December 2020, there appears to be a growing number of concerns about the vaccines, concerns that are being either ignored, denied or discounted by the conventional medical establishment. This fits into a pattern that I have described before when talking about "the Ages of Drugs". Here are some recent expressions of concern.

The European drug regulator, the EMA, has recently conceded that one vaccine "may" cause blood clots, but still insists that they are "still safe and effective", and countries should continue to use it. Such cases, they say, are 'very rare'. This response fits the time-honoured tradition in conventional medicine - a drug or vaccine is safe - until such time it has proven to be so harmful it cannot be defended any longer.

At the same time there was this EMA pronouncement, that new research from Norway and Germany linked one Covid-19 vaccine with blood clots. So the debate will continue is not resolved by denials.

Indeed, such official assertions will never end the debate. They will perhaps be sufficient for governments and the mainstream media (MSM). But if the past is anything to go by new evidence of patient harm will emerge as time passes, and is perhaps already emerging. 

For example, one scientist has told the USA drug regulator, the FDA, that they are ignoring "clear and present dangers" associated with the Covid-19 vaccines, and warning that many will die needless "if we carelessly and indiscrinately" vaccinate people already infected with the virus. Is this true? We will probably not know for quite some time - as the drug regulator appears to be ignoring any such possibility!

Another headline I have seen recently is that the number of women losing their unborn child after have the Covid-=19 vaccine has increased by 366% in just six weeks. Is this true? I have no idea. This is not a source that I know, and it is likely to be dismissed as 'misinformation', or more likely just ignored, or if this is not possible, denied and/or discounted. But official denials, whether of 'coincidence', or 'the advantages outweighing the disadvantages', will not end the concern.

Then more evidence of vaccine promotion surfaces, and this also impinges on the sceptical mind, suggesting that conventional medicine is looking for bigger markets rather than patients who need safeguarding. Covid-19 vaccine tested on babies even as death toll mounts is one headline. One company, Moderna, has started testing their vaccine on children between the age of 6 months and 11 years - at the time when the USA VAERS reporting system has received 31,079 adverse reaction reports, including 1,551 deaths. And we have been told for the last year and more that Covid-19 virus barely affects children. So why is this being done? More questions that will be asked, and will need an answer.

So will these Covid-19 vaccines be around in 5, 10, or even 33 years? The answer is uncertain, and is likely to remain uncertain. The history of pharmaceutical drugs suggests that there will be increasing evidence that they cause patient harm; and that this evidence will be refuted and denied. So this uncertainty will likely go on for many years to come. 

But if past performance is a good indicator of future performance the evidence against these vaccines will build. Conventional medicine does not apply the precautionary principle, so the vaccines will be used until such time as they can no longer be defended. I hope I am wrong, but believing the official assurances of medical science about drug and vaccine safety is not a safe thing to do.

As in the case of Mediator, people will be assured about the safety of the vaccines; so many more people will accept the vaccines; but it could be decades before the harm they cause is fully accepted by the conventional medical establishment, and action taken.

Since conventional medicine has dominated medical provision it has always been thus!

 

Are the Pharmaceutical Drugs your doctor is prescribing today any safer than the drugs that have already been banned because they were found to be dangerous to patient health?

Are the pharmaceutical drugs your doctor is prescribing today any safer than the drugs that have already been banned as they were a threat to patient safety? The second section of my ebook "The Failure of Conventional Medicine" seeks both to demonstrate and justify that title.

• Chapter five outlines many of the failed pharmaceutical drugs that have been withdrawn or banned over the years - the dangerous drugs of yesterday.
• Chapter six deals with 'the dangerous drugs of today, and highlights the point that the pharmaceutical drugs prescribed today are no safer than yesterday's banned drugs. 

Today I have discovered that the doctors e-magazine, MIMS, publishes a regular list of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have been recently 'deleted', many of them because they have been found to be harmful to patient health.

MIMS was established in 1963, and describes itself as "a multi-channel provider of drug information, medical education and services connecting healthcare communities". It says that it empowers healthcare professionals to "improve patient outcomes by facilitating knowledge exchange and better decision-making". It claims that it has a presence in 13 countries across the Asian Pacific, and has about two million healthcare professional subscribers to its drug and resource portal.

It is one of the 'bibles' used by conventional doctor, informing them about pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines - their uses, their contraindications, their side effects, and much else. So each year MIMS routinely chart and publish information about the drugs that have been deleted.

In 2017 MIMs listed 75 deleted drugs and vaccines! Each one is named, alongside the type of drug it is (or was). There was no indication about whether the drug was banned, withdrawn; they were just 'deleted' perhaps some of them replaced by another drug.

Already in 2018 (that is, first 9 months of the year) MIMS reports that further 96 drugs and vaccines have been deleted.

What this indicates is that the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines doctors are prescribing to us today are no safer than the drugs they were giving us in previous years, and that they continue to cause the same kind of patient harm that led to the withdrawal, banning or deleting of so many old drugs.

Month by month pharmaceutical drugs are being deleted, and let's be clear, the one's that will be deleted next month, and next year, are the same drugs our doctors are prescribing today - to you and me.

What MIMS has demonstrated is that the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines being prescribed today are all likely to be deleted tomorrow, next week, or next month, and that conventional medicine, and the pharmaceutical drugs that dominates it,  cannot be trusted with our health.