So you have heard Homeopathy does not work! It is too bad for anyone who believes that.

Whenever I write about the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy in this blog, on social media, or in one of my free E-Books, I often receive one of these routine response.

• Homeopathy does not work.
• Homeopathy is bogus.
  
• Homeopathy is just placebo.
  
• Medical science has proven that it does not work.

These statements are so often made that many people believe them, or have a vested interested in promoting conventional medicine, and as a result, do not use homeopathy for their health care.

My response to people who make these remarks is simple - so much the worse for you! They believe that conventional medical treatment is honest and scientific, and that any other form of treatment cannot work, and cannot be effective. I presume, when they are ill, they will resort to pharmaceutical drug treatment, and all its inherent dangers.

For everyone else, especially those who believe such completely unsupported (and often abusive) statements, is that it is unfortunate, not least when they become sick or unwell. What it means is that they overlook, or refusing to consider a natural medical therapy that is both more effective, and much safer, in treating all forms of illness and disease, than conventional medicine. They are not making an informed decision about their health.

A Health Debate?

Any discussion about health has become a big problem around the world. There is no discussion within the mainstream media (MSM) which has given the floor exclusively to conventional medicine, and the naysayers of natural medicine. One journalist has recently explained the situation he is in, regarding the reporting of health information, blowing away any idea that we have a 'Free Media". The social media is going down the same road, censoring and banning information that is in any way critical of pharmaceutical medicine; or that suggests homeopathy, and other forms of natural medicine, is an alternative way of maintaining our health, and regaining it when we are sick.

The MSM, and the advertising industry, is even constructing rules that deny natural therapists the right to talk about what they do. We must not talk about treating illness and disease; we must not suggest that we can do so successfully; we cannot even provide the public with case examples of successfully treated patients.

George Orwell's 1984 has arrived! And just as with the society Orwell imagined, too many people have not yet realised what is happening to them. We are living in a medical version of Airstrip One. The 'Thought Police' are controlling what we can and cannot hear. Big Brother is the corporate world, representing the interests of Big Pharma. There a lots of 'Winston Smiths', democrats, opposing what is happening, in favour of informed choice in health treatment. Over 1 million people demonstrated recently in London - and event not mentioned by the MSM. But we remain a minority at the moment, there are not enough of us.

Yet as the incidence of chronic disease gets progressively worse, as it has done for decades now; as more people are being harmed by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines; as national health services fail to meet our health needs (and we have to protect health services by losing our freedoms); as we watch conventional medicine's damaging, hopeless and often ridiculous responses to Covid-19; and as we recognise that we are getting progressively sicker the more drugs and vaccines we take, more Winston Smiths' will gradually emerge.

In 20, 50, 100 years time we will be able look back at these times more dispassionately, we will be more able to see what a great disaster the dominance of conventional/pharmaceutical medicine has been to the human race. We will be able to see what a failure this dominant system of medicine has been. We will want to return to the days when people acted on the basis that "an apple a day kept the doctor away". In the meantime we are going to have to fight hard to preserve patient choice, and health freedom.

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.

A "Safe Vaccine" is an Oxymoron. The two words cannot be combined with honesty

Listen to conventional medical 'experts', government spokesmen, politicians, and the mainstream media, and the term "safe vaccine" is routinely trotted out. Yet combining these two words is dishonest, it is an oxymoron (defined by Merriam-Webster as "a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (such as cruel kindness); broadly: something (such as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements").

Of course, putting 'safe' and 'vaccine' together in this constant, repetitive way, is a well known advertising technique; that is, say something often enough and people will believe it. And most people DO believe that there are 'safe vaccines' - regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

Regular readers of this blog will know that there is no such thing as a 'safe vaccine'; there never was, and never has been. Yet here we are, in the middle of a new infectious influenza epidemic, and all we are being told is that the only solution is a 'safe vaccine'. The government is putting £millions into the development of a new vaccine. And not doubt medical science and the pharmaceutical companies are busy ensuring with government gives them immunity from an compensation arising from the patient damage it will almost inevitably cause.

Where is the evidence for this statement? It is in the conventional medical literature, contained within the Patient Information Leaflets (PIL's) that come with each and every vaccine (but are rarely shown to patiewnts. I have written about some of these PIL's, included with the most used and harmful vaccines, before. These are the links.

• DPT vaccines 
• MMR vaccines
• HPV vaccines 

Even the influential CDC (Centers for Disease Control) in the USA, deeply inbedded within the pharmaceutical medical establishment, has listed some of the known adverse reactions to vaccination.

Children's Medical Defense has published a brilliant and detailed list reveals hundreds of serious medical conditions that are clearly linked to vaccines - from within these Pil's.

The dangerousness of vaccines is also the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the massive compensation claims regularly and routinely paid to victims of vaccination in many countries over the years.

If vaccines are safe, why are hefty compensation payments being made to people who have been damaged by them?

Yet doctors continue to claim that all vaccines are safe; that medical science is able to develop a new vaccine for COVID-19; that it will be safe, and will be the ultimate solution to the current coronavirus panic.

It is the ultimate triumph 

of hope over experience!

Keeping Healthy Naturally with Safe and Effective Medicine. My 'eureka' moment

Readers of this blog often ask me how I became interested in safe medicine, and why I have dismissed conventional medicine as too dangerous to use. Read about my 'Eureka' moment!

When I developed painful gastric ulcers, now over 40 years ago, I went to my GP. It was the normal, the routine thing to do. We all do it, still. It is what is expected of us. I was in pain, and the first drug I was given did not work at all, beyond some momentary relief. Then I saw a young doctor who gave me a new 'miracle' pharmaceutical drug which he said offered the prospect of a 'wonder' cure. Indeed, the drug did work. In fact it worked 3 times! Each time the ulcers calmed down for a few weeks, but the pain returned again within just a few weeks.

I was offered another course, indeed, it was suggested that I might have to take them on a long-term (life-time) basis. Fortunately, it was then that I discovered that this new 'miracle' drug caused serious 'adverse reactions' - to the heart. So for the first time I began to question what I was doing. All I knew, at the time, was that I did not want to swop a bad stomach for a bad heart!

My choice seemed to be between taking this 'wonder' drug, and risking its side effects, or putting up with pain which, at times, was quite unbearable. My doctor, and the NHS, gave me no advice about any other medical therapies. There was, they said (as they always say), no alternative!

So when I was in a lot of pain someone suggested that I consulted a local homeopath I told her that I did not believe in such things! I was that ignorant! But the pain just got worse, and as I was unwilling to take the drug I eventually went to see him. He questioned me for about an hour, then gave me a remedy. I took it, within a few days I felt better. Within 3 months I was pain-free. And I have remained pain free now for over 30 years, with no need to take a remedy! My stomach was cured, and remains so. And more importantly my heart is good too, I have suffered no side effects from either the remedy, or the drug!

The conventional medical establishment routinely dismiss such an experience as 'anecdotal',  or 'unscientific'. Yet homeopathy has performed these cures for millions of people, safely and effectively, and throughout the world, for the last 220 years, most of whom have found homeopath to be both effective and safe in treating illness. Still, conventional doctors tell us that there is 'no evidence' that homeopathy works! It is nothing more than a placebo effect! Only pharmaceutical drugs have an 'evidence base'.

So for me, and for many others over the years, this event becomes a 'Eureka' moment - initially for two reasons.

1. Conventional medicine does not tell patients the truth
First, I realised that my doctors was not telling me the truth, or at least, not the whole truth. The NHS, and the conventional doctors who treated me, did not tell me about the side effects of their new 'wonder' drug. They allowed me to take it without informing me about the damage it might do to my heart.

Nor did they tell me the whole truth. They did not offer me alternative treatment. They did not provide me with information about alternative treatments, linked to diet and lifestyle changes. They did not mention that there were therapies, such as homeopathy, that might treat my ulcers. And they certainly did not offer me access to homeopathic treatment, or any other form of traditional therapy. I had an ulcer. They gave me a drug. I took the drug. I discovered the side effects of the drug alone. Conventional medicine had told me nothing!

From that day I could no longer accept what doctors, and the conventional medical establishment, have told me. I have always felt the need to ask questions about the safety and effectiveness of the medicine we are routinely offered.

2. Making sense of ill-health
Second, I began to study homeopathy, informally at first. It was fascinating. Suddenly I began to make sense of the world of health and disease in a way I had never done before. Disease was not something that struck people down, indiscriminately, for no reason. I had gastric ulcers because of my stress-full lifestyle, because of what I was eating, how I was eating it, and because I never took the time to allow my body to relax and recover from the stress I was putting it through.

What my homeopath said made sense. The remedy would help, the ulcers would probably heal, but in the longer-term it was important that I should help myself by changing my lifestyle.

I began to understand the concept of 'susceptibility' and 'pre-disposition' to disease. It explained much, for instance, that whilst medieval plagues killed many thousands of people, not everyone died, many survived. They were not susceptible. Yet sickness and disease was increasing to epidemic proportions all around me. Not everyone was affected, but it was not a question of good or bad luck, people became ill for a reason, just as other people remained well.

It was an amazing moment. The clarity of this new understanding, and the new insights it gave me into health, was empowering. I began to see through the 'battleground' that conventional medicine had created with its toxic drugs and vaccines, their war against the body, and the bacteria and viruses that normally live peacefully alongside us. I began to question the desperate attacks on childhood diseases, the invasive vaccinations, the aggressive drugs that 'fought' this, and 'destroyed' that.

Conventional medicine seemed to believe that it could 'balance' the human body better with its drugs and vaccines than our own internal self-healing mechanisms! What arrogance was this? Did the doctors really know best? Did their drugs and vaccines really provide us with the miraculous answer to disease? So my personal experience helped me recognise the arrogance of the conventional medical establishment.

Through homeopathy I was able to understand the body's relationship with the world in which it lived, microbes and all! I could see how, in contrast to  conventional medicine, homeopathy sought to enhance the body's ability to maintain and regain good health by living peaceably alongside them. It taught me to trust the amazing ability of the human body to protect itself from harm, and to heal itself from whatever dis-ease it suffered.

I began to understand how the medical warfare that conventional medicine engaged in with the human body, to get it to comply with the 'norms' they had of it, was not only doomed to failure - it was both unnecessary and positively harmful to our health. So not only did I reject pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, I began to understand why they were so obviously wrong, harmful, so self-evidently counter-productive to health. I began to examine what was happening to the health of people within my family, amongst my friends and work colleagues, and I did so not through the eyes of conventional medicine, but through my new understanding. Those who were taking drugs, or being vaccinated, seem to be sicker than those who did not take them.

For instance,when I managed a group of residential homes, I saw older people taking a cocktail of pharmaceutical drugs, and not getting better, but progressively more sick. Worse, older residents on some pharmaceutical drugs seemed to lose their interest and involvement in life, in the world around them. So many of them lost not only their physical health, but their mind too. They became forgetful, confused, then demented. And then they died.

Of course, doctors put all this down to old age. Conventional medicine always does when it fails to treat disease successfully. But I was convinced that the pharmaceutical drugs they were taking were playing an important part in their decline and death.

So my world changed. What had seemed normal and acceptable was no longer so. What I had been told was effective was clearly not effective. What I thought was safe was not safe. It was happening all around me. Sick people, given pharmaceutical drugs to make them better, became sicker. And my alternative ideas on health, and ill-health, seemed to fit and explain much better than conventional medicine what was happening to our health. I was beginning to make sense of the world.

So, in a nutshell, this experience is the basis of this blog. We need to ask questions of our doctors (and our homeopaths) and see who seems to be interpreting the world, and what is happening to our health, more accurately. And who had treatments that actually worked!

They harm us with their drugs, we pay compensation, and then raise more money for them!

If vaccines are safe, why has the US government paid out $3 BILLION to vaccine-injured families? This is the question asked by Natural News, an internet portal that focuses on natural health. It is hated by skeptics, medical fundamentalists, who love medical science, no matter how corrupt it proves to be, and hate anything that are alternative to the promotion of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. They will hate this Natural News article on vaccine damage. Indeed, they will have hated it since March 2015, when it was first published.

That was over two-and-a-half years ago! During that time have you heard an answer from the pharmaceutical industry, or from governments around the world? Has the mainstream media picked up the story in order to verify the truth or otherwise of the story?

Of course not! Instead, governments and mainstream media has been reinforcing the message of the pharmaceutical industry - all vaccines are entirely safe - they are effective - we should all be vaccinated against almost any illness - and if anyone refuses to be vaccinated they should be forced into accepting it.

If the story was not true the pharmaceutical industry would have sued Natural News, and anyone else peddling such an anti-pharmaceutical message. They have not done so. So is the story true! What is the story? It can be summarised in four points.

• The conventional medical establishment, supported by government, and passively accepted  by the mainstream media, tells us regularly that vaccinations, in all their forms, are safe and effective.
• The USA government has indemnified the pharmaceutical industry from any responsibility for their vaccines causing injury and damage (which, of course, they don't cause anyway) by setting up the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).
• VAERS, sometimes called the Vaccine Court, has examined the negative effects of vaccination (which of course never happens) and has awarded $3 billion to vaccines damaged families (which of course do not exist) in less than 30 years.
• There has been an ongoing failure, by governments and the pharmaceutical industry, to answer the question about why so much money has been paid to vaccine damaged families when these vaccines are effective and entirely safe. There has been a similar failure by the mainstream media to investigate this rather important paradox.

So what is the purpose of the VAERS system? Simply, it is the USA government indemnifying pharmaceutical companies for the vaccine damage cause to patients. 

What does this mean? It means it is the government, rather than the pharmaceutical industry, that pays out compensation to vaccine damaged families. It means that whilst the drug companies cause the vaccine damage, they do not have to take responsibility for that damage. So they profit from selling vaccines, and then leave it to the government to pay out vast amounts of compensation.

Where does the government get its money? VAERS pays vaccine damaged families with public money, the money they raise in tax, from taxpayers. So it is taxpayers who have to foot the bill for something that the rich and powerful pharmaceutical industry should be responsible.

Who are these taxpayers? You and me! Including those amongst us who have had the misfortune to suffer from vaccine damage. In other words, vaccine damaged families are paying themselves for the harm they have suffered through vaccination!

A brilliant business model - should it be replicated elsewhere?

This is a brilliant business model that other industries may want to replicate for itself. Faulty and dangerous goods, of and and every description, could flood the marketplace, causing absolute mayhem, but with the industry having to bear any of the consequences. Of course, the industry would have to be sufficient powerful, sufficiently rich to ensure that politicians and the mainstream media are kept in line, so that the public does not get to hear about it. But it is surely something worth pursuing!

Just think of the benefits. A manufacturer can produce a product without paying too much attention to its efficiency and safety. When the product causes damage and harm to consumers they can call on the government to indemnify them against legal action, and paying financial compensation. And the additional profits this produces can be skilfully used to ensure that the mainstream media does not tell anyone about it. What is there to lose?

So think about the benefits to your industry. You will be able to tell everyone about your products, about their safety and effectiveness, regardless of whether it is true or not. So, hearing nothing to the contrary, we will all want to buy whatever it is that you produce. Indeed, if your product advertising is sufficiently successful, if people can be convinced of the value of what you are selling, you can provide consumers with yet another incentive. You can set up charitable organisations that will raise more money for you, to enable you to do more research and development into your product.

There will be significant costs involved, but all these can come from the amazing profits that can be made from this model of production and marketing.

• Politicians will have to be kept on-side, with sizeable contributions to their campaign funds, thereby tying them into your business model. No doubt other personal incentives may be necessary from time to time.
• Governments will have to be kept on-side, with promises of investment in the national economy, and even threats of moving investments out of the country, and similar 'positive' incentives too, as and when required.
• The mainstream media will have to be kept on-side, by delivering large advertising budgets that maintain their viability, and exchanging directors to work on each other's boards will also be helpful.
• Supporting charities will have to be kept on side, with large donations to the cause, paid on the basis that they say positive things about your products, and ensuring they are run by people who are sympathetic to your business.

Once you have all this in place, any industry can thrive, even with ineffective and unsafe products, even when they damage families, and ruin the lives of millions. Why on earth have you not thought about such a business opportunity before? Why has the pharmaceutical industry been the only one to adopt this brilliant business plan? It's all beyond me.

Statin drugs are safe! No, they are unsafe! Does Medical Science know?

Are Statin drugs safe?

Patients are given drugs by their doctors because they are told by medical science that the drugs are safe. Experience, particularly over the last 70 years, but actually over the last 200 years, has demonstrated that medical science has got it wrong, most of the time.

So what about Statin drugs? Are the safe? Let's look at what medical science is telling us about drugs that vast numbers of people (6 million in the UK alone) are now taking to lower cholesterol levels, and prevent heart disease. In particular, let's look at two articles published recently by 'The Telegraph' newspaper.

"A third of adults should take statins, new research suggests", is the headline to its article dated 8th September 2016. This takes the line patients have been given for the last 30 years and more.

               "The number of people taking statins should double, according to the author of a landmark report which has found that the drug's side effects have been exaggerated and the treatment prevents 80,000 heart attacks a year. The study, which looked at 30 years of evidence, today declares the cholesterol-reducing drug safe and says that the reported side effects have "inappropriately dissuaded" people from taking them."

In the article, Professor Rory Collins stated that the review showed “the numbers of people who avoid heart attacks and strokes by taking statin therapy are very much larger than the numbers who have side-effects with it”. He went on to talk about the "misleading claims" about the side effects "that inappropriately dissuade people from taking statin therapy despite the proven benefits.” The study estimated that the drugs helped to prevent 80,000 major cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks or strokes, every year.

On 25th November 2016, The Telegraph published another article, "Lancet study on statins was 'fundamentally flawed', critics say". It said that a group of doctors, including Harvard statin expert Dr John Abramson, Sir Richard Thompson, former president of the Royal College of Physicians, and Professor Sherif Sultan, president of the International Society for Vascular Surgery. had attacked the Lancet study on the basis that some of the data behind the trials had not been published, while some claims about the impact of the drugs on cholesterol were based on forecasts. The lead author, Dr Aseem Malhotra is quoted as saying:

               “Decades of misinformation on cholesterol and the gross exaggeration of statin benefits with downplaying of side effects has likely led to the overmedication of millions of people across the world.  The lack of transparency in the prescription of statins is just one symptom of a broken system of healthcare where finance based medicine has trumped independent evidence and what is most important for patients.”

The same Telegraph article then outlined the response to Mahotra's findings! It stated that Professor Sir Nilesh Samani, medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said:

               “This paper combines data and opinion that risks confusing patients about the benefits and safety of their statins.

Yes, patients have every right to be confused, who have to decide whether to take them or not. So, too, do doctors, who have to decide whether to prescribe them, or not!

Medical science is giving no guidance. If 'science' is meant to be definitive, if the randomised controlled tests (RCT's), much beloved by the conventional medical establishment is supposed to provide certainty, it has completely failed. Indeed, medical science has always failed - it approved pharmaceutical drugs as safe and effective. Then, decades later, discovers that they are neither safe nor effective.

My position on Statins has not changed, and it has been outlined elsewhere. The side effects of Statin drugs make them unacceptable, something all patients should avoid at all costs.

               Statin Drugs. Now doctors, are they still 'entirely safe'?
               Statin Drugs (in 'Why Homeopathy?')
               Statins. From 'wonder' drug to 'killer' drug?

Yet the point of this blog is not that the risks of Statins make them too toxic to be acceptable, but is that medical science itself cannot agree about just how dangerous they are to our health!

Proponents of conventional medicine always claim that what they do is based on science, that their drug and vaccine have an 'evidence base'. But whose science? On what evidence base? The two Telegraph articles highlights the confusion that applies not just to Statin drugs, but to every other pharmaceutical drug and vaccine. Medical scientists do not agree about how safe they are, or how dangerous they are.

The only certainty is that the conventional medical establishment will continue to prescribe the drugs and vaccines to us. They may be largely ineffective. They may be dangerous. But patients will continue to be given them until such time as it is conclusively proven that they are ineffective and dangerous. Many patients will contract the 'side effects' that are really diseases. Many patients will die.

The precautionary principle is not applied to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Patients are expected to continue taking them regardless of the diseases and the deaths they might cause. Only when 'medical science' is completely convinced will it act to safeguard patients.

Thomas Jefferson and Medical Tyranny

Given that the homeopathy denialists are determined to attack our safe and effective therapy at every opportunity, and the Conventional Medical Establishment seems intent on forcing their vaccines and drugs on us, these words by Thomas Jefferson are as true, if not truer today than when he spoke them.

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."