The War on Cancer

The 'war on cancer' has been waged over the last 50 years, and more. Switch your television on to see the heart-rending adverts asking for charitable donations to fight the war. Observe the number of people who regularly raise money for cancer charities by walking, or running, or swimming, etc. And this has been going on for as long as I can remember.

According to Wikipedia the 'war on cancer' was officially declared by the USA government in 1971, by President Nixon, alongside a huge pot of money being paid to cancer research. Since then many £$billions has been spent on a cancer cure, mostly via conventional medical research; all aimed at looking for a drug that would stop the cancer epidemic. So what has been the result of these plans and good intentions?

It has been a war that has been lost, decisively. In the 1940s 1 in 20 people got cancer. By the 1970's it was estimated that 1 in 16 people got cancer. So perhaps little wonder why there was a move to find a solution. The Big 'C' had arrived, and it was greatly feared.

In the 1990's, after 20 years of walking, running and swimming, and the many £$millions spent looking for a pharmaceutical breakthrough, the incidence of cancer had risen to 1 in 10 people. A major battle lost? Perhaps more effort was needed, perhaps; we must walk further, run harder, swim longer.

And this is what everyone did. Not only were more people contracting cancer, but cancer had spread. It was no longer a disease of older age. It was now affecting old and young, even children - even infants. So the level of concern rose, and many more £$millions were raised, all to be spent on medical research. 

Today, after 50 years of 'war on cancer' it is estimated that as many as 1 in 3 people can expect to contract cancer.

Yet the race to win 'the war on cancer' continues. Again, as always has been the case with conventional medicine, hope has triumphed over experience. And there has been a failure to ask an important question.

• What has happened over the last 70-100 years that has led to the startling rise of cancer?

Lot's of theories have been put forward, but I find only one of them convincing, not least because there is compelling evidence to support it. The last 70 years has seen a prodigious increase in the amount of pharmaceutical drugs being taken, usually for illnesses unconnected with cancer. All of them have serious side effects, or adverse reactions. Cancer is just one of these side effect observed with most, if not all pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. These drugs include antipsychotics, HRT, Statins, Antibiotics, Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPI's), ACE Inhibitors, and many more.

• Is there any proof for the link between pharmaceutical drugs and the cancer epidemic?
  

The proof is found in conventional medicine's own literature. Just look at the Patient Information Leaflets (PIL) that can be found with all pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. In other words, doctors know that the drugs they give us can lead to us getting cancer, as a 'side effect'. There is no need for 'disinformation', or 'fake news', or 'conspiracy theory'!

So rather than walking, running and swimming to develop even more pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, perhaps it is time to stop declaring warfare on cancer; and instead to declare war on the drugs industry; to stop raising money for them, and to stop taking their drugs.

If we were investing in a medical system that worked 'science' would have found a 'cure' for cancer decades ago. If medical science was competent it would not have taken 70 years to travel backwards towards the ever-increasing cancer epidemic. All technologies that survive usually have to show that they work, that they did not require 70 years to develop them; so we travel in cars; we can fly in planes; we can communicate with each other through the ether; we have supercomputers; and much else. 

If any of these technologies had  required 70 years of investment, and failed to show signs that they worked , they would have been abandoned, long since; they would never have happened.

The same rules do not apply to matters of health. We have been convinced by medical propaganda that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines will work; and even if they don't work now they soon will. So we are prepared to continue with the same, old, unending warfare, the endless quest for a magic pharmaceutical solution - sometime in the distant future.

And this forlorn hopefulness is no more apparent than at the time of writing, with the endless COVID-19 pandemic. Conventional medicine has had no treatment for this coronavirus; they admit that. But medical science promised a vaccine, and has now come up with several. So, we are told, the end is in sight; the war with the virus will soon be won.

Perhaps it will, only time will tell. But the experience of conventional medicine over the decades would suggest that vaccines will not win this war with the virus, just as pharmaceutical medicine has not won the war with cancer; or indeed, any war over any illness or disease, during the last 100 years and more.

All chronic diseases, like cancer, are on a steep rise, towards and even beyond epidemic levels. And they have done so during the time of our developing pre-occupation and obsession with pharmaceutical medicine. There has never been a time when we have taken so many pharmaceutical drugs, or injected so many vaccines into our bloodstreams

There has never been a time when chronic disease has been so rampant. And avoiding cancer may be best achieved through avoiding pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

 

THE ECONOMIC CRISIS. A self-inflicted wound, all resulting from a failed medical system. The secondary cost of conventional medical failure.

The Chancellor announced in the UK Parliament this week (25 November 2020) that "the economic emergency has just begun". This 'economic emergency' has been triggered by the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. Rishi Sunak said the UK now faced the biggest economic decline (the economy has shrunk by over 11% in 2020) for over 300 years (1707 in fact, a crisis caused by exceptional cold weather). And as a result government borrowing has risen to the highest level ever, outside wartime. 

These are the economic facts, but on a health blog, they will not be expanded upon. This blog is concerned with the cause of this economic emergency. We have not had exceptionally cold weather. We have not had a financial and banking collapse, as in 2008. We have not had a world war. So what has happened?

Well, of course, the COVID-19 pandemic has happened. And in response to this coronavirus, governments around the world, not just in the UK, have closed down the economy. SO THE CAUSE OF THIS ECONOMIC EMERGENCY IS A MEDICAL EMERGENCY.

In response to this medical emergency, governments have implemented disastrous lockdown policies that have destroyed people lives and livelihoods, and the economy. And it is important to emphasise that these policies have been pursued on the advice of conventional medical science. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ECONOMIC EMERGENCY HAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE CONVENTIONAL MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT.

From the beginning the conventional medical establishment has recognised, and admitted, that it has no medical treatment capable of preventing COVID-19, or treating sick patients. Therefore conventional medicine has resorted to draconian public health measures, whose sole purpose is to chase the virus - washing hands, masks, social distancing, test and trace, and lockdown. All these policies have failed dismally. The only hope offered by conventional medicine with regard to the pandemic are the vaccines being rushed through testing and regulatory procedures. My previous blog has indicated that relying on vaccines, in this situation, is the desperate triumph of hope over experience. 

Most countries spend vast sums of money on their healthcare budget. The UK's health budget, like  many others, has risen exponentially over the last 70 years; and especially over the last 20 years. It is spent almost exclusively on one type of medicine - conventional or pharmaceutical medicine. During these years....

• chronic disease, in all its many forms, has increased to epidemic levels.
• much of this increase has been caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.
• pharmaceutical medicine usually has to admit that it has no treatment for these chronic diseases.
  
• the treatment of infectious diseases, like COVID-19, is as ineffectual as it has always been.
• and conventional medicine is killing more and more people every year.

All this inevitably leads to hugely expensive national health service provision as each of these failures leads to increased demands for healthcare provision, more costs, for even more ineffectual treatment, and ever-increasing, out of control, health budget.

Yet, as I have outlined in my E-Book, "The Failure of Conventional Medicine", the secondary costs of our failed medical system are much greater than any national healthcare budget.

THIS COSTLY AND DAMAGING ECONOMIC EMERGENCY REPRESENTS YET ANOTHER HUGE 'SECONDARY COST' - COSTS THAT ARE THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF PHARMACEUTICAL MEDICINE.

And all because caused by the COVID-19 pandemic? A highly infectious, virulent, killer disease? A disease sufficiently serious to justify governments creating an economic emergency of this seriousness? Although this is not a blog that is going to look at this in detail, we do  know this about the virus

• it affects large numbers, most of whom recover and survive,
• it kills people, most of whom have a serious underlying health condition: in other words, they die with it, not of it.
• it has caused few, if any excess deaths in 2020; that is, the same number of people died in 2020 that died in previous years.

These features of COVID-19 just do NOT describe a lethal pandemic. And certainly not a disease that is sufficiently serious to justify the intentional creation of such a financial crisis - one with the potential of destroying millions of lives.

 

The UK government is rightly coming under severe criticism to their handling of this pandemic. This is justified by the incompetent way they have applied public health policy. But critics should remember that the government has been following the policies recommended to them by conventional medical science.

 

And it is the competence of this the medical advice given to government that is at the core of the financial emergency.

 

Perhaps the emergency will trigger more serious consideration of the competence of pharmaceutical medicine, and its inability to treat illness and disease. If this does become one of the outcomes of this pandemic, perhaps some good will come out of it yet. But at the moment, all the government is doing is pouring more and more money into failure - and they are going to get the blame for it.

 

FACT CHECKING - Who controls these organisations? When 'facts' becomes 'false information'

There is a new way of checking whether information on the internet is 'misinformation', or 'fake news', or 'conspiracy theory'. This is through the new 'Fact Checking' organisations.

But who controls these 'fact checking' organisation? Are they independent?

I read this article on the Children’s Health Defense website. Please have a look. It suggests that it is Big Corp, and particularly BigPharma, who is controlling and funding them (which, incidentally, is probably why they can say they are 'non-profit making' organisations).

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/facebooks-fact-check-suppresses-truth-promotes-falsehoods-covid/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c699f754-beff-464d-b758-caf69413f711

So is this information correct? Apparently not. It has been fact checked - and found to be 'false information'.

Go to the top of the webpage, and try to put the link on to Facebook and Twitter. You won't be able to do it. They have censored this information. We are not allowed to know this!

Big Pharma make huge profits; and they spend them wisely

> to control governments, 

> to control national health services,

> to dominate the conventional medical establishment, 

> to control the mainstream media (MSM)

and now, apparently, to control the 'fact checkers.

 

And all this to ensure that we hear only what they want us to hear and know about health and medicine. As Children's Health Defense says:

 

         "Facebook (+ Twitter) and its faux 'fact check' partner have no problem with misinformation, provided that it serves a political agenda for which they desire to manufacture consent."

The truth gets ever harder to find as BigCorp, led by BigPharma, seeks to control us, and what we are allowed to know, about health.

See also this article on the 'integrity' of Fact Checkers and fact checking.

Immunity Passports: the desperation of fact checkers

Coronavirus COVID-19. The vaccines are arriving. So where are we now? And in what direction are we travelling?

So we now have 3 COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, and now Oxford) awaiting approval by Drug Regulators around the world. Yet is this not the first mystery about how this situation is being presented to us? Surely there's a 4th? The Russian vaccine? But this vaccine is not receiving one mention from our mainstream media (MSM). I wonder why? Perhaps I will return to this rather strange omission later in this blog.

So the future is being made very clear to us, quite definitively clear in fact. The vaccines will save the world, save us all, from the dreadful coronavirus pandemic. They will enable us to return to our normal lives by Easter 2021.

So where are we now? And in what direction are we travelling. There is every reason for our future being marked out in this way.

• First, conventional medicine has invested everything in these vaccines. It had no treatment when the virus first appeared. It has watched on as thousands have died, unable to offer anything beyond care and compassion for them. So there is absolutely doubt that all 3 (4?) vaccines will be approved by the regulatory authorities around the world. Considerable sums of money have been spent on their development. Moreover, each of the vaccines are now being manufactured, even before approval has been given to any of them. And wealthy governments of the most wealthy countries have already bought millions of doses, at vast expense.

• Second, we (the public) are waiting anxiously for them. Government, medical authorities, and the MSN have been studiously prepared us to expect the vaccines over the last 10 months. We have been told that they are the only answer to the pandemic; they will save us from death: and save the world from an horrific fate.
  

• Third, the direction of travel has already been mapped out - for the months to come. As long as sufficient of us (the public) are vaccinated these 3 (4?) new vaccines will ensure that we will all be able to return to normal life; indeed, they are the only way we will ever be able to return to normal life.

Moreover, all this is self-evidently true, for two reasons. 

(i) The vaccines will work, they will be effective; and we all know this because all vaccines are effective, and they have saved us from deadly diseases before - have they not? 

(ii) The vaccines will be safe, they will not harm us; and we all know this because medical experts regularly assure us that all vaccines are entirely safe! So what could possibly go wrong?

Perhaps the only possible problem might be that vaccines are neither effective nor safe.  

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have written about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines now for over 10 years. By using the search facility at the top of this page, and typing in 'vaccine safety', and/or 'vaccine effectiveness', or even just 'vaccines', the reader will be able to see what I have previously written. Moreover, and perhaps more alarmingly, you will see that my stance on vaccines does not rely on 'disinformation', 'fake news' or 'conspiracy theory', but has been largely based on three sources of information.

    (i) conventional medical literature, most notably the Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) that comes with each vaccine; 

    (ii) individual and family reports that have stated that they have been harmed by vaccines; and that prior to vaccination they were fit and healthy;

    (iii) government compensation agencies who have paid out £$millions to those harmed by vaccines who have been able to prove that it was a vaccine, and not something else, that had harmed them.

So my concern about the new COVID-19 vaccines is based on one of my usual presumptions; namely that the best predictor of future performance is past performance. And on this basis the world is almost certainly not going to be saved by the new vaccines. Instead, quite a different scenario is more likely to present itself during the coming months.

1. The Drug Regulators

All the new vaccines will certainly be approved. The Drug Regulators will agree with the pharmaceutical companies that (i) the vaccines are safe and effective; and (ii) that the public will not be harmed by them. This will happen because it is what has always happened! The commercial interests of the pharmaceutical industry has usually been sufficient reason for drug approval, as drug regulatory agencies are run by people with close professional and financial links with the pharmaceutical companies. So although they are tasked by the law to place the safety of patients, first and foremost, they rarely do so, and only when the evidence of patient harm caused by a drug or vaccine has become undeniable.

2. The Public Response

The majority of the public have been primed to accept the wall-to-wall propaganda of the MSM during recent months - that vaccines are the only solution of the pandemic. Most people will accept the assurances of their doctors, supported by the medical experts and government spokesmen by the MSM, that the new vaccines are safe and effective. Any evidence to the contrary has been, and will be censored, and most people will never hear such evidence. It is, we are assured, all disinformation, fake news, conspiracy theory. It can be ignored.

3. Vaccine Effectiveness

So the vaccine will be given to millions of people around the world, and (if past performance is indicative) it will have a marginal or limited impact on COVID-19. Some vaccinated people will still contract the virus; but the reason for this will be denied or discounted; it was a bad batch of vaccine; it was caused by those who refused to be vaccinated; or not enough people will have been vaccinated to reach 'herd immunity' levels; and the like.

4. Reports of Vaccine Damage

After a short time, reports of vaccine damage will emerge. The conventional medical establishment will deny and discount this too, in the same time honoured way they have always done in the past. The MSM will not report them. And anyone who does hear about vaccine harm will be told, as they are always told:

• drug regulators have declared the vaccines to be safe; so they are safe; medical science has said so; the harm must have been caused by something else. 
• Each report is 'anecdotal', it is not scientific.
• The harm was coincidental; the patient may be seriously ill, but this had nothing to do with the vaccine. 
• Perhaps it was a bad batch of vaccine. 
• Or the vaccine was improperly administered by the medic who injected the vaccine; it was his, or her mistake, an error. 
• Or the patient is responding in accordance with the 'nosebo' effect.
• Or we will be told that millions were given the vaccine, only thousands were harmed, and only hundreds died. 
• So the benefits of the vaccines have outweighed the harm they caused.
  

5. The Decline of the Pandemic

When the pandemic dies down (as eventually all epidemics do, over time, as our natural immunity to the virus, or bacteria, kicks in) this improvement will be declared to be solely the result of the vaccines, that vaccination alone has brought about this conclusion. Natural immunity will have played no part, whatsoever.

The Game and the Playing Field

So the future of the COVID-19 pandemic is destined to be played out on a playing field on which only one team is allowed to play. All other teams will have had no voice, little ability to suggest an alternative agenda.

In this way, we (the public) are being 'played' by the conventional medical establishment. They own the field on which the game is played; they are in control of the ball being used; and they dictate the rules by which the game is played. The result of the game may be a foregone conclusion; but it is in everyone's interest to play the game, and support the winning team!

The game will be played by only a few people, and the players allowed to play must be part of the rich, powerful and influential in-crowd. Russian players are NOT wanted, as they lay outside the American/European heartland of pharmaceutical insiders. Fortunes are going to be made. And winning the game will mean untold wealth for the winners. We (the public) are allowed to be spectators; we are allowed to watch the game; but only if we behave ourselves, accept the rules as laid down, and see only the game that is played in front of us. 

We must NOT be distracted by disinformation, fake news, and conspiracy theories. After all, we do all want to be part of the winning team - don't we?

So, let us all get in line, get vaccinated, and accept our health passports. It is what is expected of us. Anyone who disagrees will be punished, ostracised from social, recreational and economic life.

The Remaining Question

But what if these vaccines are not effective? What if they do cause more harm than good? What if the past performance of vaccines does accurately predict the performance of these new vaccines? The same questions will have to be asked.....

Where will be be?

In what direction are we travelling?

Health Censorship & Vaccine 'Disinformation'

The conventional medical establishment is in trouble. It is struggling because its drugs and vaccines do not work, the population is getting sicker, chronic diseases of every kind are rising exponentially, to and  beyond epidemic proportions, and it has no response to acute infections. All this is being highlighted by its inability to cope with the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic, and the nonsense policies that are damaging our social, economic and now our political lives.

So conventional medicine is in a state of panic. It has nothing positive to offer us. Yet it desperately wants to preserve its dominant and profitable role within national health services around the world.

The rise of an alternative medical science may not be grabbing the headlines in the mainstream media (MSM), mainly because MSM headlines are controlled by a pharmaceutical-controlled media. But this alternative science is on the rise, and as conventional medicine fails, its voice will become louder, for all to hear.

So the conventional medical establishment, through the governments and MSM that it controls, is resorting to ever more desperate measures. This includes political repression (supposedly to protect us from the pandemic), and media censorship - which together means that few people will have heard the news from Denmark.

The new laws proposed by the Danish government would have enabled it to implement authoritarian restrictions in the event of future pandemics. For example, the laws would have given it authority to forcibly hospitalise people diagnosed with an infection, there to be isolate, treate and vaccinate them. So draconian were these power, even the Danish Medical Association responded by stating they went too far, and that compulsory vaccination should only be used as a last resort. The Danish people protested for 9 days against the legislation (surely something that our MSM might have told us were it free to do so), and eventually the proposed legislation was defeated.

It is likely that the people of most countries in Europe will have to do likewise in the weeks and months to come - to fight for our political liberty, and hard-won freedoms.

It is clear from what has happened during recent weeks that there is a world-wide attack on patient choice and health freedom, best witnessed by moves against what is known as 'vaccine hesitancy'. 

Vaccine hesitancy arises from patient choice. But this is not how the conventional medical establishment sees it. Vaccines are the great hope, their only hope, for getting the COVID-19 pandemic under control. So for them hesitancy is not about choice - it is about 'misinformation'. The MSM are already on board with this message, and have been for many years; so the ring of control has to be tightened further. People must not have access to misinformation, or more accurately, to information 'they' do not wish us to have.

So governments around the world, led and guided by the pharmaceutical industry, are engaging with social media companies to limit the spread of this disinformation, and help the the 'misguided' to find proper (that is ‘approved’) information about the new vaccines. So, for instance, on my Facebook page, now appears this text, each time I log into it.

      This Page posts about vaccines.When it comes to health, everyone wants reliable, up-to-date information. Visit the National Health Service's website. The website has information that can help answer questions you may have about vaccines.

At the moment I can get rid of it. But other, larger, more influential websites, can no longer publish on social media. Twitter, for example, will not allow any Dr Mercola article to be tweeted. Similarly Facebook censors any link to the Natural News website.

Governments want social media companies to go much further, to remove ‘misinformation’ more quickly, and promote 'authoritative' (government controlled, pharmaceutically approved) messages. According to some reports the UK government is even involving GCHQ (the Government Communications Headquarters) in taking out 'anti-vaxxers' online, and on social media platforms. This is how Children's Health Defense has described what is happening.

                "The mainstream media has exploded in recent weeks with calls for punitive action for anyone who expresses any doubts about the fast-tracked ‘saviour’ covid-19 vaccines. Following announcements by the UK Government of its plans to combat vaccine hesitancy, the UK Labour Party called for emergency legislation to be implemented to “stamp out” what it calls dangerous anti-vax misinformation. In the US, the American Medical Association has adopted a policy designed to educate doctors to deal with patients who express concerns over vaccination for covid-19. Draconian censorship and attempts to stamp out valid concerns over the safety and efficacy of these vaccines, particularly given the glaring absence of data, does nothing but entrench people’s mistrust and misgivings. Establishing “Vaccine confidence” (now used instead of ‘vaccine hesitancy’) is going to take honest, open and transparent discourse as a starting point, not the authoritarian diktats of a totalitarian nanny state."

These messages are being couched in terms of "this is necessary action - we are doing it in order to protect people from a dreadful infection". The justification for censoring health information is that it is necessary; our benevolent, well-meaning government knows what is best for us. They are taking paternalistic care of us. They have our best interests at heart.

This, of course, has been the political message of tyranny from time immemorial.

The real purpose of this tyranny is not political control; the censorship of health information is necessary in order to deflect our attention from the failure of the conventional medical system, so dominant, but which cannot treat illness, is actually creating illness, and requires from governments ever more resources to do so.

Too few people realise this, at the moment; we are not being told! Yet, as the Children's Health Defense website (everyone should be signing up for their regular bulletins) states, 

            ".... such tactics are likely to fan the flames of people’s concerns rather than allay or reduce them. Until governments and health authorities understand that people have valid questions about a medical intervention that involves shooting something into their bloodstream, vaccine hesitancy is only going to increase."

CHD goes on to argue that democratic governments must engage in open and transparent discourse around vaccine questions, publish full research data, be open and honest about adverse events, and citizens seeking to protect both their health. This is the reason for hesitancy: and more censorship will exacerbate the problem. 

• There is no disinformation involved: the information is contained, but hidden, within the literature of the conventional medical establishment. 
• There is no conspiracy theory. We are defending our right to make informed decisions about healthcare, we are demanding patient choice. We place health freedom at the very centre of all our freedoms.

If pharmaceutical medicine is so very good, so very safe, so very effective, so very necessary, let the drug industry prove this to us through positive patient outcomes

• an ability to deal with viral and other infections, 
• in the reduction of the chronic disease epidemics that now rage around the world. 

Then pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines would not need to be mandated, forced on us. Instead, we would all be queueing to demand them.

 

Wellness is about the Host. It is not about the threat of bacteria, viruses, pathogens and other germs

A question about food poisoning, and pathogens, was posted to the Quora website yesterday. It asked....

There are more than 2,000 pathogens that cause food poisoning. How then can you medicate a patient with food poisoning?

The question emphasised clearly how most people now see illness and disease. It is all about germs, whether they be bacteria, viruses, or pathogens. This is the focus of pharmaceutical medicine, which currently so dominates most people's thinking about wellness.

• Chase the germ, they threaten us, we must avoid them at all costs, neutralise them, kill them with drugs and vaccines; this is the only way to protect ourselves from the threat to our health.

The natural medical community has quite a different, much simpler answer. Wellness is all about THE HOST: the threat of illness and disease does not come from nasty germs attacking us from outside, but from the body's inability to cope with the germs!

So this is (a slightly expanded) version of my response to the question.

    "The main problem with food poisoning is not the 2,000 pathogens you mention. This is the usual problem with conventional medicine’s view of illness, the hopelessness of which we have witnessed in its response to the COVID-19 pandemic - WE CHASE THE VIRUS. Similarly, with food poisoning, we focus on pathogens, and not on the reason that these pathogens are a problem.

    "We need to move our focus on things ‘out there’, intent on attacking us, but things that are within us. It was Louis Pasteur, at the end of the 19th century, who concentrated on the threat posed by bacteria and viruses. Antoine Bechamp, a contemporary virologist, focused on the health of the host: he said that a strong host is not subject to germs, or pathogens. 

Pasteur was wrong, but unfortunately he ‘won’ the argument. Bechamp was right; and ignoring him has led to our misguided view of what health is about, and the medical (and non-medical) treatment we require to maintain our health.

    "As far as food poisoning is concerned we have been harming our stomach and digestive system so much over recent decades that many people can no longer deal with ‘pathogens’. For instance, our mass-produced, industrialised food now contains residues of pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, et al. And our impoverished soils have reduced the nutritional value of our food. Both makes us (the host), and our digestive systems, more susceptible to pathogens.

    "Worse, the use of antibiotic drugs (we have been taking them like sweeties for 70 years plus) has severely compromised the microbiome of our stomachs, and its ability (the ability of the host) to cope with these so-called ‘pathogens’.

So the answer to your question is that it's not about more 'medication', usually meaning more pharmaceutical drugs or vaccines to deal with pathogens that have been caused to be a problem in the first place. 

It is more about preventing pathogens becoming pathogens in the first place - by using the following strategies. 

• Organic food (free from all the poisonous 'cides) is an important part maintaining our digestive system, perhaps alongside the sensible use of probiotics for those whose digestive system have already been damaged. 
• Avoiding all pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines is another strategy (it is not just antibiotics that cause the problem - most pharmaceutical drugs listed in this link, digested through the stomach, are known to cause gut problems).
• For those whose digestive system have been compromised, the use of natural medical therapies, such as homeopathy and naturopathy, is recommended. They recognise the importance of the host (us; our bodies; and not least our digestive system); they understand that we need to co-exist with all kinds of germs, and can offer safe treatment for people suffering from a poorly functioning gut.

Maintaining wellness is not as complicated as the pharmaceutical medical establishment thinks it is. We do not have to chase germs; conventional medicine total inability to deal with COVID-19 has demonstrated this. Wellness is more about making sure that we, notably our immune system, are able to cope with bacteria, viruses, and pathogens.

Our focus should be to look after the HOST, which means looking after ourselves through nutrition and diet, lifestyle choices, and where necessary, gentle natural medical therapies.

 

VACCINES. Disinformation? Fake News? Conspiracy Theories? Or is it Uncovering a Cover Up?

In my last blog I discussed the censorship of health news by the mainstream media (MSM). This censorship can be seen, in its clearest manifestation, in their attitude towards vaccines and vaccination. The MSM, alongside conventional doctors, routinely tell us that vaccines are 'entirely safe' and extraordinarily effective. Any one who disagrees with this position is accused of spreading disinformation, fake news, and conspiracy theory. Yesterday, Andrew Marr interviewed the man behind the new Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for his BBC programme, and described him as "the saviour of the world" - or words to that effect!

As someone who is convinced that vaccines are both unsafe (positively dangerous in fact), and have an effectiveness that is consistently over-hyped by the MSM, the MSM presumably consider me to be an "anti-vaxxer". 

By contrast, I consider myself to be someone in favour of SAFE MEDICINE. 

Disinformation? Fake News? Conspiracy Theory? Or Conventional Medical Literature?

I will give readers of this blog a guarantee. The information that will be used in this blog about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines (and pharmaceutical drugs, and all conventional medical treatment generally) will come mainly from these two sources.

1. The literature of the conventional medical establishment itself; including Patient Information Leaflets (PILs), and websites owned by pharmaceutical interests, such as Drugs.com. Patients should never agree to any vaccination without first reading the PIL; and most of these PILs can be found on this website. Read the side effects for yourself, and then decide if the vaccine is safe.
   
2. Vaccine compensation schemes for the few patients who have been able to prove that damage to their health has been caused by vaccination. These include the UK's Vaccine Damage Payment scheme; and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the USA. Both schemes pay out enormous sums of money for people who have been damaged by 'safe' vaccines.
   

So conventional doctors tell us routinely that vaccines are safe. Yet the literature of conventional medicine, and the medical science it says underlies it, is sufficient to prove otherwise. Vaccines are harmful, many more people are damaged every year who cannot prove the link. And yet our doctors tell us they are safe; they are not telling us the truth.

In addition, I will report on evidence that appears on social media that conventional medicine should take seriously, investigate thoroughly, and come to a conclusion - but which is usually ignored or rejected outright without investigation.

1. Evidence that comes from vaccine victims; patients who have taken them, been damaged by them, have had their lives changed for the worse; and have not been believed by conventional medicine. Such links are usually dismissed by conventional medicine as 'anecdotes', with no causal effect proven; but real-life tragedy for families.
   
2. Investigative journalism, studies and reports of vaccine concern that have not been properly investigated, or which are  being discounted or dismissed by the conventional medical establishment. Two examples of these, concerning vaccines, and already in my in-tray, are as follows:

Lawsuits begin over SARS-CoV-2 Laboratory Leak. This concerns the persistent rumour that the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic was a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Wuhan Center for Disease Control, and the EcoHealth Alliance. An application for information from the National Institute of Health made by the US Right to Know organisation was met with silence. 'Conspiracy Theory' is one thing; refusal to provide information in response to a legitimate request for information is another, and is suggestive of a cover up. It is our right to know this information.

Flu Shot Deaths in South Korea said to be 'coincidental'. More than 80 people have died in South Korea following influenza vaccination. This was investigated by South Korean health authorities who dismissed this as 'coincidence', and decided to contine promoting the vaccine "despite public anxiety'. One death following vaccination might be a coincidence; even two; at a stretch three. But dismissing 80 deaths as a 'coincidence' is not a satisfactory response.

In both these examples, people are looking only for the truth; a reasonable explanation; some semblance that genuine concerns are being considered, and a determined and rigorous application of the precautionary principle. Silence (ignoring the issues), and dismissal (discounting the importance of the issue) is insufficient. As long as the conventional medical establishment responds to genuine concern in this inadequate way people will be dissatisfied, patients will ask questions, and expect reasonable answers.

Disinformation? All that's necessary, then, is open access to the real information.

Fake News? If so, all that's required is access to the real news.

A Conspiracy Theory? Or is it really about uncovering a Cover Up?