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initially as 'entirely safe', and 'game changers' in the treatment of this, or that illness, being 'banned' or 'withdrawn' when they were found to cause patient harm.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

Gender Dysphoria, Sexual Orientation and Pharmaceutical Drugs

Gender dysphoria can be an extremely distressing condition for those affected. It can lead to low self-esteem, becoming withdrawn or socially isolated, to depression and anxiety, and personal neglect. It is described by the UK's National Health Service as"

            ".... is a term that describes a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity. This sense of unease or dissatisfaction may be so intense it can lead to depression and anxiety and have a harmful impact on daily life."

It is certainly a relatively new condition. According to Wikipedia, it once had the diagnostic label of "gender identity disorder (GID), but was renamed in 2013 in order to remove the stigma associated with the term 'disorder'.

            "Gender identity disorder first appeared as a diagnosis in 1980, where it appeared under "psychosexual disorders" but the term was used only for the childhood diagnosis. Adolescents and adults received a diagnosis of transsexualism (homosexual, heterosexual, or asexual type)."

 

The controversial debate now happening around the condition makes the situation far worse. It is usually concerned with how trans people should be treated. Should their condition be recognised? Should children be treated for the condition, either to reverse or to confirm or support it? And should trans women be allowed to complete with women in sport? 

 

All these issues should be discussed, but if this is all we discuss the debate about gender dysphoria is both insufficient and inadequate - because it leaves out one crucially important question.

What is the cause? 

The NHS cannot answer this question, stating that "the exact cause of gender dysphoria is unclear". This is the general position of conventional medicine; and as regular readers of this blog, and my "Iatrogenic Disease" E-Book, will know that this statement always makes me suspicious that pharmaceutical drugs might be playing an important causative role.

Wikipedia confirms conventional medicine's 'non-explanation' saying that, "the specific causes of gender dysphoria remain unknown" but then suggests that "genetic factors play a role", and that gender identity "is thought to likely reflect a complex interplay of biological, environmental, and cultural factors". This suggestion succeeds only in making me even more suspicious of the role of drugs!

Gender dysphoria is a new condition and so cannot be genetic! A similar explanation is frequently used for the Autism epidemic, a condition unheard of until the 1940's. So where did these genes come from? Why have they suddenly appeared? Why does conventional medicine not explain?

There may, of course, be other factors at play that has brought trans issues to the fore, such as pollution, radiation, electro-smog, and much else. But what do we know about pharmaceutical drugs to suggest they might play a role? Actually, we know much more than we might imagine!

First, I have written on this subject before, in "Transgender. Sexual Identity. What role are pharmaceutical drugs playing in this? in January 2017 - over 5 years ago. It referenced three articles from the Rxisk website that raised the issue, and spoke specifically about SSRI antidepressants.

            "Given what we know about enduring sexual problems caused by SSRIs, it is reasonable to wonder how a prenatal or childhood exposure would affect a person’s long-term development and functioning. No studies have ever been done to investigate whether children exposed to psychotropic drugs either directly, or during pregnancy, grow up to have an unaffected sexuality."

The information in this blog, and the three references, are worth reading again. What follows is additional information that supports possible links.

For instance, one of my homeopathic colleagues has made a clinical observation that gender dysmorphia can be caused by Risperidone (an antipsychotic drug).

            "It came to my attention that Risperidone can cause gender dysmorphia in some boys. I have several of these cases under my care and I’d never thought to do a Risperidone detox on them up until now. Honestly, our children are being assaulted from so many angles right now that it’s hard to keep up with all the potential threats."

This clinical experience can be certainly be confirmed elsewhere. The drug company Johnson & Johnson was sued in 2012, and settled "out of court", after their antipsychotic drug, Risperidal caused young boys to grow breasts, "some as large as 'D' cup". Five years later, in 2017, the company was sued by over 1,000 men who claimed their antipsychotic drug caused them to grow breasts. These articles demonstrate that Risperidone/Risperidal (it's the same drug) has been promoted for many years, with young boys being specifically targeted.

The Rxisk link with painkillers has also been supported. In 2018, the Daily Mail ran an article in which a man claimed that painkilling drugs "turned him gay". He claimed that he was "a hot-blooded heterosexual and enjoyed dating women before he started taking Pregabalin (Lyrica), but that "he quickly lost his sexual attraction to women and broke up with his girlfriend of six months when prescribed the drug earlier this year." He said that it was only after he started taking Pregabalin, the painkiller highlighted, that his sexual preferences began to change.

The adverse reactions caused by Pregabalin or Lyrica is outlined in the Drugs.com website, and include both the loss of libido, and breast enlargement. In their advice, doctors are warned that the drug causes 'genitouinary issues', such as urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, impotence, sexual dysfunction, dysmenorrhoea, breast pain, anorgasmia, albuminuria, dysuria, leukorrhoea, menorrhagia, metrorrhagia, amenorrhoea, dysmenorrhea, menorrhagia, metrorrhagia, and much else. 

We do not need to know all the intimate details of these complicated-sounding conditions to reach the conclusion that this painkilling drug can do something to upset our sexual functioning.

There is also some medical studies that link pharmaceutical drugs with sexual orientation. This USA longitudinal study has demonstrated the association, finding that adolescents with a 'minority sexual orientation' (eg., lesbian, gay and bisexual) are more likely to use more substances (including both 'recreational' and prescription drug use) than their heterosexual peers. The study suggested further research they described as 'essential' - for developing interventions that were critically needed to reduce drug use in this population.

This research is dated May 2010, and there has, to my knowledge, been no such research undertaken in the intervening years.

This is typical of the strategy so often adopted by the conventional medical establishment. Whenever there appears to be a problem with pharmaceutical drugs, it is ignored, there is no further investigation, presumably on the basis of not rocking a profitable boat! Even if there are honest medical scientists out there who might want to look further into this they are unlikely to get the funding to do so. 

Denial is an important element of pharmaceutical medicine!

Another study was published two years earlier, April 2008, "Sexual Orientation and Adolescent Substance Use: a meta-analysis and methodological review". The study found that the odds of Lesbian, Gay and Bi-Sexual youth using substances were, on average, 190% higher than for heterosexual youth.

Another study, published in December 2016, "The Connection between Sexual Orientation and Substance Abuse" made similar findings. The substances that were abused included:

• the misuse of prescription opioids,
• the misuse of prescription tranquillisers,
• the misuse of prescription stimulants,
• the misuse of prescription sedatives.

There are many people, aware of changes to their sexual orientation, who have made the link with pharmaceutical drugs. There is even a website, "The Asexual and Visibility and Education Network", a discussion forum, devoted to the sharing of these experiences. It is interesting to read some of the discussion, and the experience so many have had with pharmaceutical drugs, without being entirely confident about making the association.

So to what extent is conventional medical literature aware that pharmaceutical drugs may play a role in our sexuality, including sexual orientation, and perhaps even gender dysphoria? 

It is limited. The UK's NHS website concurs that "certain medicines can sometimes reduce libido", these including:

• medicine for high blood pressure,
• many types of antidepressants,
• medicine for seizures (fits),
• medicines called antipsychotics,
• medicine for prostate cancer,
• hormonal contraception.

Conventional medical literature shows that the evidence is available. It is well know that many pharmaceutical drugs cause erectile problems, with this Medline Plus website providing a very long list of drugs that do so. And there are a plethora of websites that provide similar warnings, for example, "Drugs that affect sexual pleasure and desire", and  "Seven drugs that can wreck your sex life", and a web search will bring up many, many more.

So conventional medicine is aware of the association between pharmaceutical drugs and our sexuality, but uninterested is making any broader, more fundamental connections. It is not willing to admit the possibility that the drugs they use may be the cause of changes in sexual orientation, and gender dysphoria? We may well ask, though, armed with this knowledge, they are still able to claim that their cause is 'unknown'.

Any link could easily be researched. But I suspect that it won't be. The pharmaceutical industry, and their captive organisations (WHO, national drug regulators, conventional medical science, and national health providers around the world) should be telling us, but they don't as it would be against their vested business interests to do so!

So the cause of sexual orientation and gender dysphoria will remain 'unknown' for many years to come. And if we are not prepared to recognise the cause, we will have to watch as society continues to tear itself apart with the consequences.

So allow me to remind you of the conclusion to my blog, published over 5 years ago. It remains germane!

            ".... as the evidence of a link between pharmaceutical drugs and sexual identity issues is becoming compelling, the pharmaceutical industry is engaged in a massive cover-up, alongside its friends and allies. (We) are, however, pushing up against very powerful and influential forces, whose power and influence depends upon their continuing and ongoing ability to sell drugs, regardless of the harm they cause to patients, or, as it would seem, even the future of the human race!

 

Post Script May 2024

Sexual orientation, gender identity/dysphoria

* are they caused by vaccination as this survey suggests?

"80% of deviations from traditional norms can be ascribed to vaccination?"

This comes from clinical evidence (25 years/5,000 kids).

Is this true? Please take part in survey.

https://kirschsubstack.com/p/survey-indicates-sexual-orientation?publication_id=548354&post_id=144253484&isFreemail=true&r=130nv6&triedRedirect=true

The Demise of Pharmaceutical Drug Regulation: there is no effective system for protecting patients from drug/vaccine harm

Pharmaceutical Drug Regulation has only one purpose - safeguarding patients from drugs and vaccines that can cause serious harm.

The main problem with drug regulation, around the world, is that it no longer protects patients. The process has been taken over by the pharmaceutical industry.

The origins of the existing system of drug regulation goes back to the Thalidomide tragedy of the 1960's, after which most countries adopted a formal process of drug regulation along similar lines. It was a good, logical process. But 'the regulated' is now in control of 'the regulated' - so the system no longer works.

In the first stage of drug regulation, any new drug and vaccine have to be tested by medical science, and as I have written elsewhere, medical science is funded largely by the drug industry, so is under the financial control of the pharmaceutical industry.  

What this has meant, increasingly, is that new drugs have been approved for use that have caused serious patient harm. 

So there have been a plethora of pharmaceutical drugs, all fully tested by medical science, and approved by drug regulators, that have had to be banned or withdrawn over the years - although only after many years, and following considerable patient harm. Worse, pharmaceutical companies have created new drugs, and marketed them to patients in the full knowledge that they can cause serious patient harm. This is all a matter of record, not debate - follow the blue links to read more.

The pharmaceutical industry, in close alliance with medical science, has a long, largely hidden history of dishonesty, corruption and fraud.

Hence, the importance of the second stage of drug regulation - the reporting system. Many of the drugs and vaccines that are being prescribed to patients today will be harming patients, and so will ultimately be banned or withdrawn. Albeit in hindsight, the reporting system should be protecting patients - but it isn't. The reporting process is, or rather should be, a simple one.

1. A drug or vaccine is prescribed a drug, and it is taken by a patient.
2. The patient experiences a side effect, or adverse drug reaction.
3. The patient should be routinely asked to report “any suspected side effect”. The patient does not have to prove a link between the side effect and the drug - it is sufficient to suspect a link.
4. When informed, the doctor is then legally obliged to report the side effect, or the adverse reaction, to the national drug regulator.
   
5. The drug regulator is then obliged to (i) record all reported side effects and adverse reactions, and (ii) to intervene in the interests of patient safety when they believe that a drug is causing serious harm to patients.

The ignorance and non-compliance surrounding this process is much in evidence. The system breaks down at each and every stage. The result is that several studies have shown that only about 1% of serious adverse drug reactions are ever reported to drug regulators. This is how drug reporting is subverted - in the interests of conventional medicine and the pharmaceutical industry.

• The patient takes the drug, having been told (invariably) that it is both safe and effective. Most patients are not aware of the reporting system, nor are they told about it.
  
• The patient, who does not expect to experience a side effect from a drug that has been declared as being "safe", will often assume that an adverse drug reaction is part of the illness, or even part of the healing process. So for a variety of reasons they do not report it. The doctor is, after all, very busy!
  
• When a patient does report an adverse drug reaction they often face a 'defensive' doctor; it is, after all, the doctor who has prescribed the drug, usually after telling the patient it was entirely safe. And in any case the doctor is busy, and reporting to the drug regulator takes time. So, too often, the patient is often told that it is NOT a drug side effect - and the matter is left unreported.
  
• The non-reporting of adverse drug reactions was recognised to be a problem in or around 2008, and consequently patients were given a direct route to the reporting system that does not involve the doctor. However, very few patients know about this, or how and where to do this. When was the last time you remember being told about reporting adverse drug reactions? And so, yet again, it is not done.
• So drug regulators receive reports of only 1% (and probably far less) of adverse drug or vaccine reactions. In other words, the harm that is being caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines is discounted by at least a factor of 100. This enables the drug regulator to tell doctors, and for doctors to tell their patients, that adverse drug reactions are "rare" or "uncommon".
  
• Yet even when a drug or vaccine is known to cause serious adverse reactions, drug regulators rarely intervene quickly. The data is supposed to be evaluated "by a team of medical safety experts", made up of "doctors, pharmaceutics and medical scientists" to identify "previously unknown" safety issues. Yet too regularly, national drug regulators prefer to allow patient harm to happen over a period of several years; until such time, that is, that the issue can no longer be kept from the public view. 
• So reports of adverse drug reactions are always counted, and then published. They have to be, by law. So they appear on obscure government websites; but, too often, little else is done, and the general public is not informed.

One of the most serious problems is that the entire reporting process is conducted by senior members of the conventional medical establishment, who usually have strong links to the pharmaceutical companies. So drug regulators usually have strong vested interests in the success, and the profitability, of drugs and vaccines they are supposed to be regulating.

I wrote a blog in July 2021 that linked this flawed process to the reports of serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines. It outlined the large and growing numbers of patients reporting serious adverse vaccine reactions to the vaccines, and looked in detail at how the UK's drug regulator were discounting the patient harm being caused by the vaccines. No action was being taken to protect patients. Six months on there is still no action. In the UK, 2,000 people have reported to the MHRA that a patient has died shortly after taking one of the vaccines. There is still no action being taken to protect patients. Indeed, the general public is still unaware that this is happening. The government continues to insist that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe. Conventional medicine continues to inject these vaccines into people's arms, into their bloodstream. The mainstream media goes along with this misinformation.

This is a description of a failed system, a system designed to protect patients from harm that does not work. National drug regulators are aware of the data, it is their data; but for some reason the general public is not being informed.

My July 2021 blog has produced considerable criticism from supporters of pharmaceutical medicine, most of whom are disparaging about the drug reporting scheme, even question the veracity and validity of the huge numbers of reported adverse reactions to Covid-19 vaccines. They say....

• reports to not prove prove a link between the adverse reactions and the drug, 
• the reports are fabricated by 'anti-vaxxers' who do not like pharmaceutical medicine,
• the number of reported adverse reactions is small in comparison to the number of people who have been vaccinated,
• that even those who died "would have died anyway",
• or even that reports cannot be true as the 'scientific' testing of the vaccines did not suggest that the vaccines caused this kind of reaction.
  

Such criticism appears to be entirely ignorant of the purpose of drug regulatory agencies. It accepts that reports can be dismissed or discounted without any action being taken to investigate.

Even national drug regulators themselves state on their websites how important it is for patients to report adverse reactions - this taken from the UK's MHRA.

            “Data we gather from the Yellow Card Scheme are vital in our work to protect the public, by ensuring that drugs are used safely.  We need the data in order to continue identifying new side effects and ways in which the risks of recognised side effects can be minimised.  Every report we receive contains potentially useful information - without the reports, we simply would not be able to continue this important work."

        “Side effects reported on Yellow Cards are evaluated, together with additional sources of information such as clinical trial data, medical literature or data from international medicines regulators, to identify previously unknown safety issues. These reports are assessed by a team of medicine safety experts made up of doctors, pharmacists and scientists who study the benefits and risks of medicines. If a new side effect is identified, the safety profile of the medicine in question is carefully looked at, as well as the side effects of other medicines used to treat the same condition. The MHRA assesses the balance of risks and benefits of all medicines at the time of initial licensing and throughout their use in clinical practice..... The MHRA takes action, whenever necessary, to ensure that medicines are used in a way that minimises risk, while maximising patient benefit.”

Yet here we have supporters of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines stating that reports of side effects are questionable, that it is okay for thousands of people to be killed by a vaccine, that there is no need to take action to protect patients.

So, not only have the pharmaceutical establishment taken control of national drug regulators, the whole purpose of drug regulation is being trashed by people who do not support the idea that patient should be safeguarded again drug and vaccine harm. 

And this is why reports of adverse reactions can be ignored, dismissed, discounted. There is no effective system for protecting patients who are harmed by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

Justifying Unsafe Medication. "The Drug is safe. Carry on taking it. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages. If you are harmed it's just a coincidence""

All pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have side effects, most of them have very serious, disease-creating side effects. Even doctors will sometimes admit this! It is a fact confirmed in conventional medical literature. We only have to take a look at the Patient Information Leaflets that accompanies every drug and vaccine to see some of the serious patient harm they can cause.

So how does the conventional medical establishment (CME) justify giving us 'medicines' that cause patient harm, and can make us seriously sick? They have several strategies.

    The CME tells their patients that there is no other treatment (forgetting that natural medical therapies are treating patients diagnosed with every conceivable illness, every day, entirely safely, and usually quite effectively).

    The CME denies that an adverse drug/vaccine reaction has anything to do with the drug/vaccine. "It's just a coincidence", they tell us, "what happened would have happened anyway". This is has been the main CME reaction to the reports that Covid-19 vaccines were causing blood clots.

    The CME say that the drug is "well tolerated". This is an admission that there might be a few slight, non-serious side effects, but they not serious enough for the patient to worry about.

Yet perhaps the most important of all the CME justifications used to encourage patients to take harmful medicine is that "the advantages outweigh the disadvantages".

This phrase enables CME to hide serious and harmful drug/vaccine side effects. It states that they might indeed cause patient harm; but they do so much good it is worth taking the risk. This apparent 'cost-benefit' analysis allows doctors, when they can no longer hide the fact that a drug/vaccine is causing harm, to shift from “the drug is safe” position, to another apparent reason to take the drug.

Yet "the advantages outweigh the disadvantages" is essentially a meaningless phrase, empty words, just another ploy to justify giving patients dangerous medicine.

• Where can we find this calculation? I have never seen one, they are nowhere to be found! It is usually just a bald statement, completely unsubstantiated, without substance, but masquerading as science, and pretending to be fact.
  

• The Advantages. Invariably these are heavily exaggerated, usually taken from when it was first put through medical testing, with hopelessly optimistic projections, and prior to its introduction to real patients.

• The Disadvantages. These are usually heavily discounted. Only between 1% and 10% of side effects are ever reported; so CME is able to claim that even serious side effects are 'uncommon' or 'rare' when in fact they are not.
  

When I first wrote about "the ages of drugs" in 2007. I described the process that every pharmaceutical drug/vaccine has taken during its descent from "wonder drug" (Childhood) to "banned drug" (Old Age). Into the 'advantages' column the CME places all the original, inflated claims from the drug's 'childhood' period. In the 'disadvantages' column is placed the now known adverse drug reactions, seriously under-reported as they are, and always heavily discounted.

It is rather like buying a second hand car, when we are told about its benefits when it was new, but glossing over the years of wear-and-tear it has gone through since then.

This bogus 'cost-benefit analysis' is a deception, designed by the CME to encourage us to continue taking a drug or vaccine known to be harmful, and to hide the too-often obvious fact that conventional medicine has nothing better, nothing safer to offer its patients. 

It has one further advantage. It means the CME does not have to investigate any further into the criticism of the drug/vaccine. "The advantages outweigh the disadvantages" seems to accept the criticism - but without actually doing anything about it, so not taking the issues seriously, ignoring the "first do no harm" principle it purports to follow, and giving the drug/vaccine a few more additional years it invariably does not deserve.

Beware doctors justifying the drugs and vaccines they want you to take!

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.

DRUG REGULATION. Reporting Pharmaceutical Drug Side Effects. Do doctors take their responsibility seriously?

Conventional medicine admits that pharmaceutical drugs can produce serious adverse reactions to our health; in other words, that they can do harm to patients. However, as this blog will demonstrate, doctors usually fail to report serious drug side affects do so with their patients.

After the Thalidomide tragedy of the 1960's, a comprehensive system of drug regulation was introduced, designed to stop patients being harmed by drugs. It is still in operation today; or at least it should be. (To read a critique of drug regulation, as it exists throughout the world, click here). An important part of the regulatory process was the reporting of side effects to the drug regulator.

In addition, this blog has regularly referred to several studies that have demonstrated that only between 1% and 10% of drug side effects (at best) are ever properly reported.

My recent experience of two NHS patients, both of whom I know well, have demonstrated that the process of drug regulation, and in particular the reporting of drug side effects, is not working. And it is not working because conventional doctors are not using the reporting system, but actively ignoring it.

This situation raises serious questions about whether patients can make an informed choice, about health freedom and patient choice, and the honesty of conventional medicine.

• All adverse drug reactions, or 'side effects' as they are euphemistically called, are supposed to be reported by doctors, not as a matter of personal judgement, but as a matter of routine.
• And doctors are supposed, if not obliged, to tell their patients of the known and suspected side effects of the drugs they prescribe.
  

TP. The first patient is a woman in her late 80's. Only a year ago I commented on her health; that she was so well for her age, fit and fully active, and on no medication (except for eye drops taken for her long-term glaucoma). I linked these two facts together, as I always do; people who do not take pharmaceutical drugs remain healthier for longer. 

Then TP went to see her doctor as she was worried (she is an inveterate worrier) about her high blood pressure. She was given drugs, and her health has deteriorated seriously since that time.

Her doctor gave her Amlodipine for the high blood pressure. This drug has a long list of side effects; but her doctor did not tell her about these; and TP did not read the Patient Information Leaflet (PIL). So few people ever do - they assume that their doctor will not give them drugs that will do harm. So when, over the next few months, TP began to complain of slow and irregular heartbeat, fatigue, joint and muscle pain, loss of appetite, nausea, swelling of ankles and feet, difficult urination, dizziness, anxiety, depression, and loss of memory, I suggested that these were not the result of old age, or high blood pressure (as she assumed, and other people told her) but were adverse drug reactions to Amlodipine.

This is not a popular diagnosis! Certainly, when this possibility was mentioned her doctor did nothing; even though she is supposed to know about adverse reactions, and to report them when potential side effects are reported by a patient. And TP herself did nothing; on the basis that her doctor would not give her anything that would cause such problems.

So the situation continued. TP's health declined until she was admitted to hospital, where she stayed for 3 days. When she was discharged the drug regime had changed. She had been taken off Amlodipine, but now she was taking 3 drugs, Bisoprolol, Losartan, and Eliquis. Again, hospital staff did not tell her about the side effects of the new drugs, and she did not did bother to read the PILs which came with them. For 2-3 weeks she seemed to be much better; relief was expressed that the hospital had sorted out her medication, which was now working properly. 

But gradually she became unwell again, with many of the old side effects returning, and a few new ones. The worst of these was increasing short-term memory loss and confusion. Her friends were now worried that she was suffering from dementia, after all, she was in her late 80's now.

I pointed out, in vain, that all the 3 drugs she was now taking were known to cause 'confusion'. It was a 'side effect' clearly stated on each of the PILs. 

But obviously (sic) a hospital specialist would surely not put her on drugs that might harm her. So she continued taking them, and her confusion got worse, quite quickly. TP's doctor was informed, and also asked whether the 3 drugs might be the cause of her confusion. This suggestion seemed to make little difference; the drugs were not stopped, even temporarily. Yet if her drugs were causing confusion the problem could be treated simply, and probably resolved, by taking her off the drugs!

But conventional medicine is loathe to admit that pharmaceutical drugs can cause serious illness and disease, even when their literature tells them that it does. So instead she was sent for a blood test. And her doctor informed her that she would be given a dementia test. 

"First, do no harm" does not appear to be something that is alive and well within conventional medical practice.

SL. The second patient is a man in his late 40's. SL is not someone who supports conventional medicine, he has been a user of homeopathy for most of his life. However, following an sport-related accident, which led to headaches, and difficulty finding words, he was given an MRI scan which, to everyone's surprise, discovered a sizeable tumour on his brain. He was sent for another, more detailed MRI scan; but this time he was to have an injection - to improve the quality of the scanned image. SL told me that he asked the doctors what the injection was, but they were reluctant to tell him. Eventually, at his insistence, he was told it was Gadobutrol (Gadovist). He insisted on having the box, and the PIL that came with the drug, so that his homeopath could have a look at it. This is how the PIL describes the side effects of Gadivist - click here to read the PIL for yourself.

"The most serious side effects (which have been fatal or life-threatening in some cases) are:

• heart stops beating (cardiac arrest) and severe allergy-like (anaphylactoid) reactions (including stop of breathing and shock).

 

In addition for the following side effects life-threatening or fatal outcomes have been observed in some cases:

• shortness of breath (dyspnoea), loss of consciousness, severe allergy-like reaction, severe decrease of blood pressure may lead to collapse, stop of breathing, fluid in the lungs, swelling of mouth and throat and low blood pressure."

Thousands of people, throughout the world, have MRI scans, every day; and it seems likely that most of them, the vast majority, either do not bother to ask about either the side effects of the scan, or this drug; do not read the PIL; and are not told about its dangers by doctors.

The Gadovist PIL went on to describe a multitude of other known (and officially accepted) adverse reactions caused by the drug, although as usual they are always heavily discounted.

• "Like all medicines, this medicine can cause side effects, although not everybody gets them".
• "In rare cases".
• "Uncommon".

Yes, they many indeed be uncommon and rare....

• if very few side effects are reported by doctors; 
• if known side effects are routinely kept from patients by their doctors; 
• if , when side effects are mentioned, they are accepted or properly reported by doctors; 
• if patients are not told, and discouraged from finding out about drug side effects;
  
• and not encouraged to report them when they experience them.

Both these cases demonstrates that all is not well with drug regulation, the system designed to keep patients safe, and free from the harm pharmaceutical drugs are known to cause. Moreover, they suggest that it is the doctors, the people who are supposed to administer the system, who are largely to blame.

If these two cases are typical of what is going on within conventional medicine, and my experience is they are, then drug regulation is not happening, it is being circumvented and ignored. 

This means that patients are routinely at risk of harm. Informed patient choice and health freedom cannot exist without full and freely available information. And it would appear that this is not provided - unless patients (like SL) actually demand it.

 

DANGEROUS DRUGS? It's not just the harm they cause to our health: beware the fact that doctors don't tell us about them!

The problem with pharmaceutical drugs is not only that they cause serious harm to our health; it's the fact that doctors do not tell us about them; and frequently deny it.

I recently answered a question on the Quora forum from someone who was taking the harmful side effects of the ADHD drug, Adderall. This was my answer - an answer that is relevant to ANYONE and EVERYONE who is taking ANY pharmaceutical drug.

          "Your question is what concerns me about conventional medicine generally, not just for yourself, but for other people who allow doctors to prescribe dangerous and harmful pharmaceutical drugs for any illness. It’s not just that drugs like Adderall are prescribed to patients; much more serious is that patients are NOT told about the harm they can cause. The dangers of pharmaceutical drugs are well known; but so often conventional doctors do not tell their patients about it; they discount them as ‘side effects’; they are not up-front about the ‘permanent effects’ of taking them."

I provided a link that outlined some of the side effects of Adderall, Adderall Side Effects: Common, Severe, Long Term - Drugs.com, but then emphasised that although some were listed  as ‘rare’ or ‘uncommon’, their rarity was down to the fact that most doctors routinely and consistently fail to report drug side effects to the regulatory authorities.

This is (one of) the many reasons why there is so much chronic illness around now; chronic disease epidemics have largely been the result of the trust we have placed, and continue to place, on conventional medicine, and our doctors. 

We have been doing this now for 70–100 years - and EVERY chronic disease you might care to mention is now at running at epidemic levels. Plus there are now so many 'new' and ‘rare’ diseases that have no conventional medical explanation, but likely conventional medical causes. So I ended with a plea, which I repeat here - for everyone.

Please, please read about these so-called drug ‘side effects’, and do so BEFORE you start taking them. Take the information seriously; don't rely on the reassurance of doctors; make an informed decision about whether you wish to risk adverse drug reactions.

And then, begin to do what so many other people are now doing - look at natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, naturopathy, osteopathy, chiropractor, acupuncture, et al, for safer and more effective medical treatment.

Pharmaceutical Medicine. How effective are doctor-prescribed drugs and vaccines? How long should you continue taking drugs?

Just how effective are pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that our doctors prescribe to us? Almost every week we hear about some new drug that is a 'miracle' cure for some illness; and currently we are all waiting for the pharmaceutical industry to deliver a vaccine that will be the answer (the only possible answer) to the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. 

We have all been programmed to believe that conventional medicine has all the answers to illness and disease - but does it?

There has been a meta-analysis (June 2019), a comprehensive review of randomized clinical trials published in three of the main medical journals. It revealed a total of 396 'medical reversals'. 

A medical reversal is described as a medical practice that is found to be "no better than a prior, or lesser standard of care", a 'low level' medical practice that is "either ineffective or that cost more than other options but only offer similar effectiveness". Conventional medicine seems to use these meaningless terms or phrases in order to ensure that most people don't understand what they are talking about. Well, let's put it more simply.

What this meta-research has shown, yet again, is that most conventional or pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are of little value. They are ineffective. They don't work.

• This is why, year by year, more people get sick, take pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, but they do not get better. 
• Instead, more patients are prescribed these useless drugs, on the basis that they have to be taken for a lifetime. In other words - they just do not work.
  
• This is why, year by year, the NHS (and conventional medical organisations around the world) cannot cope with the rising levels of illness and disease, always need more money, and routinely complain about the 'lack of resources'.
  

 I wrote about the over-hyping of drug effectiveness, and the consequences, in my E-Book, 'The Failure of Conventional Medicine'. I reproduce part of this here.

            "The conventional medical establishment regularly overstate the claims they make about drug and vaccine safety and effectiveness, particularly when a new drug or vaccine is about to be marketed and taken by patients. The drug companies have a financial interest in doing so. We are told, regularly, that some new treatment will transform the lives of people suffering from this illness, or that disease.

            "Yet the reality is that most drug tests reveal something much more modest. For instance, drug testing may have indicated that a drug will give a 25% reduction in symptoms for about 20% of people suffering from a disease. What this means is that 75% of the symptoms will remain for 20% of sufferers, and 100% of the symptoms will remain for the remaining 80% of sufferers!

            "Rarely, if ever, has a pharmaceutical drug merited the iconoclastic headlines that regularly appear in our mainstream media, which inform us that they are 'miracle cures', or ‘magic bullets’, that will free mankind from the ravages of some illness or disease. The mainstream media is always ready, if not eager to submit the propaganda of pharmaceutical companies to us, usually without question or demure. They meekly cooperate in the pharmaceutical industry's effort to persuade us about the magical qualities of every new drug or vaccine, and they hide anything that might suggest they might be ineffective or unsafe.

            "The result is that many sick people, suffering from incurable diseases, wait patiently and expectantly for medical science to come up with a cure before they die.After all, this is what we have all been led to believe, scientific medicine will eventually conquer disease. Sadly, most people have been, and will continue to wait in vain for a future that never arrives!

            "A more sober and realistic experience suggests pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are rarely as effective as claimed, and in time most of them are soon found to be ineffective, unsafe or dangerous. And sometimes quite lethal. Perhaps they are as safe as the drug testing and drug regulatory regimes throughout the world can make them - but as will be seen this not very safe at all.  

So if you are one of the many, many patients who have been ill for a long time, when nothing your are prescribed makes you better, when you get sicker week by week, when you are on drugs which have serious side effects, you need to discover natural medical therapies. They are all more effective - and certainly safer. 

Why Homeopathy? is my E-Book that looks at specific illnesses and diseases, and compares conventional and homeopathic treatment of them. You will be surprised at the number of illnesses conventional medicine openly admits it has no effective treatment. This is why more and more people are switching from pharmaceutical medicine - particularly in the longer term it just does not work! It is ineffective.

Just how long would you consider using a car, or a washing machine, that did not work?