Covid-19 Vaccines. Reported Adverse Reactions and Questions to Department of Health

A large, and growing proportion of the UK population has now received either one or two doses of one of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines. I suspect that the vast majority of these people did so on the basis of what they had been told about them - by the Department of Health, the NHS, and the mainstream media (MSM) - that these vaccines were effectively safe, with few side effects, and would not cause serious patient harm.

Official statistics, data coming from the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA, and published on the UK Governments website, suggest that this is not the case.

The evidence is that the vaccines are causing serious patient harm, with over 1 million side effects being reported by nearly 300,000 patients. This includes reactions such as severe allergic reactions, anaphylaxis, Bell's Palsy, blood clots, cerebral venous sins thrombosis (CVST), Capillary Leak Syndrome, menstrual disorders and vaginal bleeding, Myocarditis and Pericarditis (inflammation of the heart), and fatalities. Indeed the latest MHRA data show that there have been 1,403 reported deaths of patients shortly after they have been given one of the Covid-19 vaccines.

The MHRA, in its regular report, consistently discounts the seriousness of these reported 'side effects', even though its primary function as a drug regulator should be to protect patients from drug and vaccine-induced harm. It is well known that reported side effects represent a small proportion of actual side effects - research has shown this to be somewhere between 1% and 10%. So 1,403 death could actually be 14,030 deaths, or as many as 140,300 deaths.

I cannot think of any other walk of life where such harm could be caused, or even suspected to be caused, without a serious and immediate "Health and Safety" response. An industry that cause serious harm to its workers, or its customers, would be subject to rigorous examination and inspection. A restaurant suspected of causing food poisoning would be closed down. A road junction where there had been numerous accidents would have been subject to increased traffic regulation.

But this does not happen when such health and safety problem relates to the harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. "All drugs cause side effects" we are told blandly by doctors and drug regulators; and it is left at that. There has been no public warning from government, from the NHS, or from the MSM. They continue to tell us that the vaccines are safe; and urge everyone to take the vaccine, without any knowledge of the reported side effects.

So I have decided to write to my MP, so that he can ask the following questions of the UK's Department of Health.

1. Can the Department of Health confirm that MHRA statistics relating to Covid-19 vaccines contained on this Government website come from official data, and does not constitute "anti-vaxxer" disinformation?

2. Can the Department of Health confirm that, up to 23rd June 2021, the MHRA has received 1,403 reports of patients dying shortly after receiving one of the Covid-19 vaccines?

3. Can the Department of Health provide me with information about how it has been, and is informing the general public, either through the NHS, or the mainstream media, of all these serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines, including death, as reported to the MHRA?

4. Can the Department of Health inform me how many deaths (caused, or suspected to be caused, by these vaccines, or any pharmaceutical drug) it considers acceptable before you respond with appropriate health and safety measures that ensure the general public is made aware of the situation, can make an informed decision about taking the vaccines, and ensure that further deaths are avoided?

5. Can the Department of Health inform me what precautionary measures it has already taken to ensure that people who take the vaccines are not dying as the result?

6. Can the Department of Health provide me with the information it is giving to patients taking a Covid-19 vaccine, and what guidance vaccination staff have about the information they give to patients?

7. Can the Department of Health assure me that everyone receiving a Covid-19 vaccine is being informed that to date 1,403 people have died shortly after taking the vaccine

It is likely to be several weeks before any response is forthcoming from the Health Department. When I receive their response I will publish it here, in full, alongside my response to the adequacy of their response.

So watch this space!

Postscript August 2021

I eventually received a response to my 6 questions, in a letter from the Department of Health and Social Care, dated 20th July 2021. I have copied that letter, word for work, below. But as you will see it does not provide answers for any of them. My questions were very clearly about deaths reported to the MHRA as being caused by the vaccine - not by the virus. It is clear that whoever answered these questions (the letter is signed by Lord Bethell) did not read the questions; and has no doubt provided me with a proforma answer about questions concerned with deaths caused by the virus. For what it is worth, this was the response.

    "I appreciate Mr Scrutton's concerns. Deaths reported by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) are based on the cause of death recorded on death certificates. These can include cases where the doctor thought it likely that the person had COVID-19, even when there was no positive test result.

    "The deaths reported by the ONS will include deaths that are not included in the Public Health England (PHE) definition, which is that a positive test result was confirmed by a PHE or NHS laboratory. They may also exclude cases that are included in the PHE definition because, although the patient had a positive test for COVID-29, this was not mentioned on the death certificate. However, in generally, the numbers of deaths reported by the ONS will be larger than those included in the PHE definition. More information on the PHE definition can be found at www.gov.uk by searching for COVIC-19 investigation and initial clinical management of possible cases.

    "All the deaths data shown on coronavirus.date.gov.uk are for people who have had a positive test restult confirmed by a PHE or NHS laboratory. They also include, for England, deaths of people who have had a positive test resut confirmed through testing done by commercial partners.

    "The data does not include deaths of people who had COVID-19 but had not been tested, people who tested positive only via a non-NHS or PHE laboratory, or people who had tested negative and subsequently caught the virus and died. People who have tested positive for COVID-19 could, in some cases, have died from something else. Death are only included in these figures if they occur within 28 days of a positive test. This makes the recording more accurate because cases where a person has tested positive but then died from other causes some months later are excluded.

    "Data on COVID-19 deaths in England are produced by PHE. These data are taken from three different sources:

• NHS England deaths in hospitals are reported by NHS trusts, using the COVID-19 Patient Notification System;
• PHE Health Protection Teams: the local teams report deaths notified to them, which will mainly be death not in hospitals; and
• linking data on confirmed positive cases to the NHS Demographic Batch Service: when a patient dies, the NHS central register of patients is notified. The list of all lab-confirmed cases is checked against the NHS central register each day, to check if any of the patients have died.

    "Data on deaths from these three sources are linked to the list of people who have had a diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed by a PHE or NHS laboratory. This is to identify as many people with a confirmed case who have died as possible.

    "Notifications of deaths will often come from more than one source, so the records are checked and merged into one database and duplicates are removed. Automated processes are used to ensure that the data are as complete as possible. Full details of the process of producing the data are available on coronavirus.data.gov.uk/about-data. As referred to above, deaths that occured more than 28 days after a positive test are removed. 

    "This final list of deaths therefore includes all those previously reported by NHS England, and those that were confirmed cases, whether they died in hospital or elsewhere, provided death occurred with 28 days of a test.

     "With regard to annual death rates over the last six years, these canbe found on the ONS website at www.ons.gov.uk by searching for 'Deaths in the UK from 1990 to 2020.

    "Additional, Mr Scrutton can make a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by going to www.ons.gov.uk and searching for 'Freedom of Information'.

    "I hope this reply is helpful.

The reply is not helpful in any regard because has answered questions that I did not ask! Is the response deliberate obfuscation, and attempt not to answer questions about the harm being cause by the Covid-19 vaccines? When I asked the question 1.403 people had been reporting as dying soon after receiving the vaccines. That figure has since risen to 1,536.

In any case I will now write back to my MP, ask him to ask the questions again, and suggests that he advises Lord Bethell to actually reads the questions before his next response.

So once again, I will await an answer - and post them here. So again, watch this space. 

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.

The Under-Reporting of Adverse Drug and Vaccine Reactions. How is this achieved?

Only between 1% and 10% of the harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines is ever reported. This blog, which I wrote in June 2019, outlines the studies that have ascertained this, and looked at some of the implications, principally that the drugs prescribed by conventional medical doctors are NOT as safe as they tell us. 

Indeed, the side effects and adverse reactions are under-reported to such extent that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines can be up to 100 times more harmful than we are ever told.

This blog goes one stage further. 

It looks at why the vast majority of patient harm caused by the conventional medical establishment remains unreported. Why is it that drug regulators do not get to hear about it, it being so obviously important that adverse drug reactions are reported, recorded, and that national drug regulators take action to protect us from being harmed by them. 

This is why the reporting systems was set up, many following the Thalidomide scandal in the 1970's. Indeed, these reporting systems are considered so important that in most countries doctors are required by law to report them. So why is it not done?

There are three main problems, (i) the Patient, (ii) the Doctor, and (iii) the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment.

The Patient

It is the patient who is given the pharmaceutical drug or vaccines, so it is only they who know whether they have suffered a side effect. Yet how does the patient know? They are already ill, so perhaps this new symptom is part of the same illness Perhaps it has nothing to do with the drug. Perhaps it is part of the healing process. Perhaps it will go away soon. Perhaps it is not worth reporting, especially as the doctor is so busy. And in any case it is so difficult to get a doctor's appointment.

Anyway, the doctor (and the NHS, the mainstream media (MSM), and the government) have all told us the drug/vaccine is 'entirely safe'. Take, for example, the new Covid-19 vaccines. We have been told (for many, many months) that they are safe, that there are only a few minor local side effects, immediately following vaccination. Everyone has been urged to get vaccinated. So the vaccine must be safe. Doctors would not peddle a drug/vaccine that was unsafe. Surely. So this cannot possibly be a side effect. 

And perhaps if we do mention it we will be accused of listening to too much 'misinformation' and 'fake news' on social media. There has been nothing reported on the MSM to suggest there might be serious side effects. They are the solution to the problems, not the cause of problems. So why should I be the only person to experience a side effect?

The Doctor

Yet sometimes the 'side effect' is just so serious it has to be reported. What happens then?

First, we need to remember that it was the doctor who has given us the drug or vaccine. When doing so (s)he has told the patient, or at least implied, that it is entirely safe. And now the patient is saying that it is not safe, that it has caused a serious problem. It is professionally embarrassing; and the doctor is busy.

Legally, the doctor is obliged to fill in a Yellow Form (in the UK - other countries have other systems but usually make it a requirement) but doctors often/usually fail to do so. Perhaps it is easier, or less embarrassing to deny the problem; or that the problem has anything to do with his/her prescription. Or perhaps the problem is discounted - it's not serious, it is temporary, it will soon go away. And perhaps another drug can be prescribed that will deal with it.

With the Covid-19 vaccines this must be a particularly difficult situation for doctors, such has been the amount of promotion and advertising provided by the NHS, the Government, and the MSM. How is it then possible to admit that the vaccine might not be as safe. Perhaps the doctor has assumed, along with the propaganda, that the vaccines are safe, and in denying/discounting any link between the vaccine and the patient's new problems there is genuine doubt. 

Whatever the situation is, the Yellow Card is not filled in and sent to the drug regulator.

To watch a discussion with three care workers who suffered severe side effects from the Covid-19 vaccines, click on this video link. It demonstrates the difficulty of reporting adverse drug/vaccine to the CHE. And the fact that none of these cases were reported to the drug regulatory agency.

The Conventional Medical Establishment (CHE)

The CHE has been developed, led, and is now dominated by the pharmaceutical industry, by far the most profitable, and now the wealthiest industry in the world. They have used their very considerable financial might to take almost total control of mainstream medical services, and all sources of health information available to the public. 

The mission of the CHE is to sell drugs and vaccines, especially through nationally funded or subsidised medical services like the NHS. Such is their wider influence they do not even need to advertise or promote their drugs, their control of the MSM means this is done for them, free of any cost. So they have a vested interest in telling us, through conventional medical authorities, government and the MSM that their drugs and vaccines are entirely safe.

So the fact that only a small percentage of drug/vaccine side effects are ever reported is not a problem; indeed it is a positive advantage. The primary objective of natural drug regulators is to safeguard patients; but drug regulators are controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, and they are interested more in selling drugs than safeguarding patients. Under-reporting is ignored; discounted; it is not seen to be a problem; it is rarely if ever mentioned.

What this means is that the CHE has a vested interest in reducing the number of reported adverse drug/vaccine reactions. They undermine the public perception of the safety and efficacy of their medicines. So even though governments around the world have legislated to control the drugs industry, everywhere the systems that have been put in place have been undermined and circumvented by the CHE.

It is not just patients and doctors not reporting adverse drug/vaccine reactions. It is the important drug regulatory agencies, controlled by CHE, who are hesitant to take any action against the drugs/vaccines that cause patient harm. They are obliged, by law, to publish the 1% of reports they do receive; but they won't act to ensure that more reports are submitted.

So what happens to Adverse Drug/Vaccine Reactions?

Drug and vaccine side effects are published regularly by governments, and government agencies. If we look for the reported adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines, for instance, they can be found; like this government webpage in the UK, and via VAERS in the USA. It shows that the number of deaths, alongside other serious side effects, are increasing - even if only 1% are being reported. They stand at nearly 1,500 in the UK. Nearly 7,000 in the USA. And about 14,000 in the EU. 

But even this information, mentioned in obscure official government websites, is not mentioned by conventional medical authorities, or by governments, or by the MSM when it talks to the general public. As far as we are told, the vaccines continue to be safe. We are not told otherwise. Even death is not something the CME thinks we should know about; leave alone information about other serious, life-changing 'side effects'.

If patient harm does surface, as it has done with the blood clotting links and Covid-19 vaccines, we hear only CHE spokespersons (including MSM journalists, and government ministers) reassuring us that the numbers who have been affected are very low in comparison with the number of people who have been vaccinated. Patient harm is heavily discounted.

This is bad enough. But if we multiply the numbers harmed by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines by 100 a very different, and far more serious picture emerges. 

The odds in the game of Russian Roulette patients are expected to play with pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines (will I get the side effect, or will I be lucky) immediately becomes less attractive to anyone who is paying attention, and has access to the full facts. So the CHE prefers that only 1% to 10% of adverse reactions are reported; and do what they can to ensure we do not begin to suspect that pharmaceutical medicine is too dangerous to risk. The more harm to which they have to admit, the less attractive their medicines become, the less they can sell, their profits  reduced, their financial ability to ensure that the CHE alliance is held together is compromised.

The Covid-19 Pandemic. Could someone please explain these peculiarities so we can understand what is going on?

This piece asks some pertinent question about the Covid-19 pandemic, and the health policies we have all been put through during the last year and more. I don't know where this piece comes from, so I cannot make the appropriate references and attributions. If anyone knows the source, let me know; I will gratefully acknowledge it! 

The questions highlight most of the 'unexplained peculiarities' of the pandemic, and they will all need to be answered at some point in order to explain and justify what our governments, guided by conventional medical science, have put us through, and which the mainstream media (MSM) has never asked about.

    Explain how the flu disappeared but has been replaced with something which has the EXACT same symptoms.



    Explain how the only proof that Covid exists is a computer modelled genome with zero physical proof.



    Explain how you prove something into existence without going through an isolation or purification process.



    Explain why no government agency has any quantifiable proof that “it” even exists.



    Explain why they downgraded “Covid 19” to a non consequential infectious disease days before they declared a pandemic.



    Explain how they pulled the Coronavirus Act 2020 legislation out of (nowhere, so rapidly,) in a matter of days, despite the act being several hundred pages long.



    Explain why they have to use criteria like “deaths for ANY reason within 28 days of a positive test”.



    Explain why they banned autopsies.



    Explain why they changed the law to allow any practitioner to diagnose covid through observation alone, even if it is done through video consultation.



    Explain why undertakers have seen no difference in custom.



    Explain how all cause mortality is at an all time low.



    Explain how millions of protesters across the globe aren’t getting sick with “Covid.”



    Explain how this is the only crisis that needs an advertising campaign paired with a constant barrage of repetitive brainwashing propaganda on the TV and in the streets.

    

Explain how tens of thousands of people stood on the streets of London last Saturday but it wasn’t once shown on ANY TV channel.



    Explain how thousands were yelling “shame on you” outside the BBC HQ in both London, Manchester and Cardiff but it wasn’t shown on the TV?



    Explain how the people who are wearing the masks and following the rules are the only ones who are catching “COVID”.



    Explain how the creator of the PCR amplification tool is on record for stating that the PCR was not designed as a test for infectious diseases.



    Explain why they are using the PCR to diagnose an infectious disease.



    Explain why it’s been changed from Covid deaths, to covid infections to covid “cases” .



    Explain how the “anti- vaxxers” are being blamed for the rise in “cases” when the only people who could possibly be contributing to the statistics are the people who are getting the “test” in the first place.



    Explain why the hospitals were empty during the height of the “pandemic.”



    Explain why 1000s of nurses are getting fired for saying that their hospitals were empty.



    Explain why the hospitals are now filling up with vaccine adverse reactions but the MSM aren’t reporting it.



    Explain why kids need to be vaccinated when, by your own definitions, covid isn’t dangerous to children.



    Explain, if all the vulnerable people have already been vaccinated, why do all the healthy people need to get vaccinated if you’re already protected and the recovery rate was already 99.96% without the vaccine.



    Explain why the average age of death with “Covid” is higher than the average age of death without.



    Explain how you can get banned from Facebook and Twitter for sharing official government links.



    Explain why there are several class actions in progress, taking governments across the globe to court for crimes against humanity, but there is zero MSM coverage.



    Explain why most government leaders are reading from the same script.



    Explain how all the things that you were laughing at us for talking about last year are now becoming a reality this year.

I have asked similar questions, in greater detail, on this blog during the last 15 months (do a search on 'Covid-19' above). It is now time that we demand some answers!

The conventional medical establishment, which on the government's own admission has dictated its policies, and which has apparently neutralised and enslaved the mainstream media, the so-called 'free press', cajoling it into meek "promotional compliance" to its agenda, are going to have a lot of explaining to do over the coming months and years.

How safe are Covid-19 Vaccines? What is happening around the world? And what are the official websites telling us?

What is the truth about the Covid-19 vaccines? Whatever the arguments for and against them everyone needs to know whether the vaccines are safe, or whether they can cause serious adverse reactions, and even death. We all have to make an informed decision, based on the evidence made available to us.

The Government, the Conventional Medical Establishment (CHE) and the mainstream media (MSM) are all absolutely certain about this. The vaccines are safe, entirely safe. Everyone should get vaccinated. They speak with one clear and decisive voice. Any information contrary to this advice is 'misinformation', 'fake news', or 'conspiracy theory'. And, we are told, listening to 'anti-vaxxers', or responding to 'vaccine hesitancy', could be serious enough to cost us our life. The vaccines are that crucial!

This official message has been consistent and implacable. Often issues of this importance will lead to discussion, disagreement, and argument. Government will debate with opposition parties; newspapers will examine, investigate, and provide us with their conclusions, which usually vary between paper and paper; television news will interview people with different views. But none of this has happened for over a year now. The seriousness of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines, have not been a matter for disagreement. 

I AM AWARE OF THAT A DEBATE IS GOING ON. INDEED I AM PART OF THE DEBATE. But the debate Is going on Out Here - it cannot be heard in Parliament; or within conventional medical circles, or even within the MSM, or so-called 'Free Press'. It is not welcome

THE SAFETY OF COVID-19 VACCINES

Yet there are events happening around the world, and published within official government and health websites that raise serious questions about what we are being told, and suggests that we are not being given the whole, unvarnished truth. Moreover, this official information is not open to challenge. It exists - open to interpretation, yes; challengeable, no! I will focus on two issues.

• Over 20 countries around the world have, at one time or another, suspended one or other of the new Covid-19 vaccines. Denmark has permanently banned two of them (the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines) as a result of the serious adverse reactions suffered by patients. This has been done whilst other countries continue to denied them. This raises important questions. Is it safe for the citizens on one country to take the vaccines, whilst it is unsafe for the citizens of another country to take them?

The suspension and banning of the Covid-19 vaccines is something that can be discussed, debated, and argued about; but the different reactions, the different stances, cannot be denied. And if there is an issue here it is surely one that is important to the personal decision we should all be taking about whether to have, or to refuse the vaccines. If people merely follow Government / CME / MSM advice and get vaccinated without being aware of this debate they are not making an informed choice.

• Official statistics about the reported side effects of the Covid-19 vaccines is another factor. The figures of patient harm are much greater, and more serious than we are being told, indeed, they are on a scale vastly greater than has been admitted by government, the CHE or the MSM. And these are statistics taken from official government/health websites. So they are not misinformation; but it is not information that is being shared widely with the public. Most people are blissfully unaware of what is happening. 

At the time of writing, there have been over 1,000 reported deaths in UK; nearly 4,000 in the USA; and more that 7,500 in the European Union - all these people dying within a few days of receiving the vaccination.

The websites carrying this information, and the sources of their information, are impeccable. As well as death many other serious health conditions have been reported, and so should be linked with the Covid-19 vaccines: it is not just blood clotting. The information is undeniable. Is the importance and seriousness of the information is open to discussion? Yes. Is it of crucial importance to people in making an informed choice about taking the vaccines? Yes. Is it being share with the public? No. But the information is undeniable, and it is evidenced here on these websites.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting#annex-1-vaccine-analysis-print

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-vaccine-injuries-climb-pfizer-seeks-full-approval/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=4d3a5a92-4213-46f8-a5f5-c14b564d90cf 

https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/7766-dead-330218-injuries-european-database-of-adverse-drug-reactions-for-covid-19-vaccines/

Unfortunately few people will bother to research these specialist websites. They will listen to, trust and rely on what the government, doctors, and their mainstream news sources tell them. Why should they do otherwise? They would not provide them with misinformation; would they?

If the adverse reactions have been mentioned at all it is usually heavily discounted, or even denied. Or the people/organisations that provided the information will have been discounted or abused; dismissed as 'anti-vaxxers' peddling harmful misinformation.

Yet there remains another question even more important question. If these important official figures are correct, why is it that we are not being told about them? Why are they being censored?

• Why is the conventional medical system (CHE), which is allegedly committed to the Hippocratic oath of "First, do no harm", allowing vaccines to be rolled out when they are aware (or should be aware) they are causing serious patient harm? Do they not have a duty to inform us?
  
• Why are governments around the world complicit in this, even taking draconian powers over our personal freedoms, undermining our social and emotional lives, destroying so many jobs and livelihoods, in order to ensure that we are vaccinated? They too must know about these official statistics. Do they not have a duty to inform us?
  
• Similarly, why does the mainstream media (MSM) not investigate these matters? Are the statistics correct? How serious are they? Is the medical system protecting us from harm? Is the government telling us the whole truth to its citizens? Do they not have a duty to inform us?
  

Instead, all three do no more than to justify their stance. They are still doing it. The vaccines are safe. Side effects are mild; or it is merely an unfortunate coincidence that patients are getting blood clots, et al, and even dying. And, of course, the “benefits of the vaccines outweigh the disadvantages” - although we are never told what lies at either side of this often-used equation.

So what is the agenda of people who are telling us this? What is the agenda of government, the CHE and the MSM. They are all aware of this, or they should be; but they have never mentioned the large numbers of people who have died of the Covid-19 vaccines, not to mention the other serious side effects. None of the families have been interviewed. None of the medical experts have bothered to tell us about them. And Governments continue to peddle the partial propaganda of the pharmaceutical industry.

MEDICAL SCIENCE

The political, medical, and journalistic agenda is the one set down by conventional medical science. Government is 'following the science'; these are not their policies, policy is informed by science. And science is sacrosanct, it speaks with a single voice, and it tells us that Covid-19 is a serious pandemic, that the only solution to it are the new vaccines, and the vaccines are safe. 

Yet Denmark hears this science too; and comes to a decision different to the decision taken in the UK, the USA, and much of the rest of the world. How can it do this?

Does 'science' speak with one voice, as we have been told now for over a year? Is the science sacrosanct, or does this so-called 'science' have to be interpreted?

It is clear that there is more that one voice, that medical science is not sacrosanct. Medical science is not just a matter of combining two chemical and observing the reaction. It is a complex matter of what data is collected, how it is collected, and how it is interpreted. And the statistics that result are open to many different interpretations. Medical science does not have all the answers, and it is so much under the control of the pharmaceutical industry that the answers it provides cannot be relied upon.

When we can see this, understand it, realise what is happening, is it possible to continue trusting the Government, the CHE, or the MSM? They are not doing their job. The entire conventional medical establishment (which now seems to include national governments, and the MSM) are complicit in the failure to discuss the issues. 

I ask - seriously - would anyone buy a second hand car from these people? 

Health, above all else, is a matter of trust. Would you allow yourself to be injected with any vaccine, or persuaded to take any pharmaceutical drug - unless you were utterly confident that you were being told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? But the 'whole truth' is being censored - by a pharmaceutical-led cabal that now includes not only important medical authorities, including drug regulators, and the WHO, but also governments, and the MSM. We are increasingly being controlled, not just about what we do, but what we must think, what we must believe, and what our values should be.

What is the difference between Medical Science and the Real World?

Conventional medical science is usually based on 'Randomised Controlled Trials' (RCT's), often described as by conventional medical practitioners as "the Gold Standard" of scientific investigation. What this means, in essence, is that medical scientists seek to fix two criteria, for example:

• on one side, the condition - obesity or weight loss, 
• on the other side, the medicine(s) used by complementary medicine for the treatment of obesity or weight loss.

The problem with this method is that in real life these two variables cannot be so easily 'fixed'. And when medical science tries to fix them, the method they choose usually has more to do with the outcome they want to achieve than any kind of scientific objectivity. (I have explored the bias of conventional medical science in more detail on this link). 

That's look at an example. BBC News has recently reported that a recent Australian study has found that complementary medicines for weight loss are 'not justified'. The story can be told simply, in the words of the BBC.

            "The first global review of complementary medicines for weight loss in 16 years suggests their use cannot be justified based on current evidence. Researchers found that while some herbal and dietary supplements resulted in marginal weight loss compared to a placebo, they did not benefit health."

In other words, the medicine's used by complementary, or natural medicine, do not work; yet (it emphasises) people are spending lots of money on them.

To come to this conclusion, the RCT studies that were reviewed would have (i) fixed the medicines, and (ii) the weight loss. They would have tried hard to eliminate all other external factor.

So the over-weight patient takes the medicine; and the study finds he/she does not lose weight.

What this ignores is the consultation, the skills of the therapist, and the 'holistic' nature of natural medical therapies. The RCT's studies might reflect the practice of pharmaceutical medicine (where usually 'the problem', once diagnosed, leads to the prescription of a pharmaceutical drug), but it does not reflect what happens in real life. The consultation, and the ingredients of the conversation between therapist and patient, cannot be eliminated. 

I have treated many overweight or obese patients and the process is much more complex, much more varied than than the selection of a 'medicine'. The consultation would take in account many factors, many 'variables' that medical science, and 'gold standard' RCT's, have to exclude. For example,

• Lifestyle
• Mental health factors
  
• Diet and nutrition
• Exercise

each one, in themselves, very complex, and very individual to the patient. The therapist would seek to clarify these factors, provide advice, and respond to the patient's response to this advice.  

This is what a 'holistic' approach is all about. 

It does not focus on medicines; it focuses on the patient. It takes into consideration a variety of complicated factors. After this, and only after this, does the therapist recommend a 'medicine' that might assist the patient in the process of losing weight. Yet the 'medicine' is only a small part of the treatment, compared to the patient making lifestyle changes in all the factors outlined above.

Homeopathy treats obesity, and can help patients lose weight. This website gives a detailed explanation of how homeopaths set about the task, and the variety of factors they take into account. Yet you will notice that the remedies commonly used with patients come last; and that the choice of remedy has more to do with the patient, the individual, than the condition. Obesity is not a simple, single condition.

This is what holistic medical therapies do. It is not just about 'medicine'. Conventional medicine does NOT do this; certainly it is not done in medical science or via RCT studies. Natural therapy focuses on the individual, in all his/her complexity; it does not impose any 'controls' on what is considered important. It is holistic. It takes everything into account; and only at the very end comes up with medicine.

Conventional medicine fixes the condition (that is, obesity is the same problem with each and every individual), and then fixes the medicine (an 'off-the-shelf' solution to the over-simplified, over-generalised condition).

What this piece of conventional medical 'science' indicates is just confined and restricted conventional  medical science is. It explains why conventional medicine has little or no medical solution to the problem of obesity; and perhaps why, to cover up its inadequacy, it wants to dismiss 'complementary medicine'. It seeks to make the point that it natural medicine is no more effective than pharmaceutical medicine.

And for obesity, any other illness/disease can be substituted - the same general principle applies. 

The successful treatment of any sickness or disease is not simple or straightforward; it cannot be simplified by 'scientic methodology'.

Medical treatment must always be measured in terms of 'patient outcomes' - not medical science. 

CHRONIC DISEASE. The rise and rise of chronic diseases over the last 100 years; and the introduction of some new ones

As defined by MedicineNet, a chronic disease is a disease that persists for a long time, lasting at least 3 months, and usually much more, often many years, even decades. The most common chronic diseases are arthritis, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, epilepsy/seizures, and obesity, but there are many more, including some that were previously unknown prior to the age of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Yet despite their variety all chronic diseases have several undeniable features in common.

• The incidence of all chronic diseases (without exception?) have increased, often exponentially, during the last 100 years, and these rates are still increasing.
• Conventional medicine will offer explanations for these huge increases in sickness, but most of them are either irrelevant, or insufficient to explain the inexorable rise of these chronic diseases.
• Conventional medicine usually offer only palliative treatments for these diseases, but rarely any treatment that treats the disease successfully, or reduces the ever-rising numbers of people suffering from them.
• The side effects, the adverse drug/vaccine reactions to pharmaceutical medicine are known to cause the symptoms of all these chronic disease
  

As a population, after 70-100 years of burgeoning pharmaceutical medicine, we are not getting healthier. We are getting progressively sicker. We might be living longer (largely owing to improved sanitation, housing, diet, nutrition, and less poverty and destitution) but certainly most people are not able to spend these additional years positively, and in good health.

So let's examine the impact of some of the more common forms of chronic diseases, how they impact on our lives, how CHE explains them, and how it can cause them. But before doing so let's first consider an alternative view about what chronic disease is, and what causes it. This is broadly the view of homeopathy, and more broadly it is the view held by all natural medical therapies.

Chronic Disease and Homeopathy. Natural medicine believes that the human body has everything it needs to keep itself fit and healthy, long into old age. Chronic disease develops if and when we put our body under some kind of stress. Perhaps we have poor nutrition, and unhealthy diet; or we don't exercise sufficiently or sensibly; or we get into bad habits - smoking, drinking, insufficient sleep, and the like.

But chronic disease is also caused by suppressing illness, and this belief is one of the key differences between natural medical therapies and conventional medicine. For instance, homeopathy believes that suppressing minor ailments/illnesses/conditions with pharmaceutical drugs is ultimately injurious to our health. 

• So natural medicine recognises that pain is a sign that something is wrong, a warning, not something should be suppressed with painkilling drugs, that killing or suppressing pain actually worsens pain over the longer-term, and drives it deeper into the body. 
• It recognises that a fever is the body's natural attempt to fight off an infection, again, not something that should be suppressed by anti-inflammatory drugs.
• It recognises that suppressing, killing, blocking, inhibiting the normal functioning of the body in any way is what causes adverse drug reactions, and that this suppression can result in long-term chronic disease.
  

So one of the major insights provided by homeopathy, and natural medicine generally, is that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are likely to be a major cause of chronic disease. They are one explanation for the rising levels of chronic disease. So when examining each of the following chronic disease, we can examine whether conventional medicine is a possible explanation for the rise and rise of the disease. 

The last 70-100 years has seen pharmaceutical medicine become the dominant medical system, and during this time the consumption of prescription drugs has risen to levels never previously known.

ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder)

People with ADHD have trouble paying attention, have problems with concentration, daydream, have impulsive behaviour, act without thinking, have difficulty getting on with other people, or are just overly active. These traits are, to an extent, normal but for a diagnosis of ADHD to be made the symptoms have to be quite severe.

Incidence

There is probably little doubt that there have always been people in society, throughout history, that might have been diagnosed as ADHD. It is the scale that matters, and this Healthline webpage states quite clearly that ADHD was "first mentioned" in 1902, that it was not until the late 1960's that it was "formally recognised" in the USA, and that now it is "a common neurodevelopmental disorder most commonly diagnosed in children". In Britain, the NHS did not recognise ADHD as a condition until 2009. So ADHD is both common, and recent!

• The ADHD Institute in the USA says that "A mean worldwide prevalence of ADHD of about 2.2% has been estimated in children and adolescents (aged over 18 years). The mean prevalence of ADHD in adults (aged 18-44) from a range of countries .... was reported as about 2.8% overall".
• This UK website says that between 2% and 5% of school aged children now have ADHD, and that the prevalence of ADHD in the adult population is between 3% and 4%, but "the majorityof these individual are undiagnosed".
• This link refers to the Journal of Attention Disorder which published a UK research survey of 10,438 children between the ages of 5 and 15 years that found 3.62% of boys, and 0.85% of girls, had ADHD. It also says that the Lancet has estimated that the global prevalence of ADHD is now between 2% and 7%, with an average of 5%.
  

Conventional Medical Explanations

Most conventional medical websites suggests that there is not known cause of ADHD. For instance, the Journal of Learning Disabilities says that "there is no one cause of ADHD. It is considered to be a result of an often complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors" placing 70% to 80% of the blame on genetic factors. The CDC website does suggest that it might be caused by brain injury, exposure to environmental toxicity during pregnancy or childhood, premature delivery and low birth rate. 

However, none of these causes provides an adequate or convincing explanation for the rapid recent rise in the incidence of ADHD.

Pharmaceutical Drugs

The role of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines is rarely mentioned in the conventional medical literature, except that known adverse drug and vaccine reactions include many that accurately describe the symptoms of ADHD. I have written about the ADHD / Pharmaceutical Drug link elsewhere, and the drug and vaccines implicated include drugs now commonly prescribed, such as  painkillers, antibiotics, antidepressants, and a wide variety of childhood vaccines.

The increased consumption of these pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, especially with children, almost exactly mirrors the increase of ADHD. It might be asked why this link has not been more actively investigated by the pharmaceutical medical establishment!

Allergy

There are many kinds of very different allergies, from hay fever to food allergies, from asthma to sinusitis, and so many more. Perhaps the one thing they have in common is that they have all risen to epidemic proportions during the last 70 to 100 years, and are still growing. Allergy UK bluntly states the dire consequences of this allergy epidemic to so many people.

            "Allergy is the most common chronic disease in Europe. Up to 20% of patients with allergies struggle daily with the fear of an asthma attack, anaphylactic shock, or even death from an allergic reaction".

Incidence 

Allergy UK says that the World Allergy Organisation (WAO) estimate of allergy prevalence of the whole population by country ranges between 10-40%; that more than 150 million Europeans suffer from chronic allergic diseases and the current prediction is that by 2025 half of the entire EU population will be affected; that the UK has some of the highest prevalence rates of allergic conditions in the world, with over 20% of the population affected by one or more allergic disorder; that a staggering 44% of British adults now suffer from at least one allergy and the number of sufferers is on the rise, growing by around 2 million between 2008 and 2009 alone; that almost half (48%) of sufferers have more than one allergy; and that in the 20 years to 2012 there was a 615% increase in the rate of hospital admissions for anaphylaxis in the UK.

The USA fares no better. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology delivers a variety of statistics including: about 7.8% of people 18 and over have hay fever, that worldwide, allergic rhinitis affects between 10% and 30 % of the population, that adverse drug reactions may affect up to 10% of the world’s population, and affect up to 20% of all hospitalized patients, that drugs may be responsible for up to 20% of fatalities due to anaphylaxis; that 8% of children (infant to 18) have a food allergy, and 38.7% of food allergic children have a history of severe reactions; that the prevalence of general allergy has continued to rise in the industrialized world for more than 50 years.

Allergies have, no doubt, always existed; but not to the enormous scale that is being witnessed at this time, and rising.

Conventional Medical Explanations

Conventional medicine appears to have no explanation for this prodigious and ongoing rise in allergy. An allergy is usually described as a reaction to a particular food or substance, but 'causation' is rarely addressed. It is often blamed on the immune system, whose role is to destroy harmful substances in the body; allergy happens when the immune system reacts to a substance that is not harmful, but still tries to  destroy it.

The fact that an allergy is a reaction to an allergen is a description, not a cause; because all identified allergens are normal substances that most people have always lived alongside quite happily. The 'cause' of allergy is something that makes an individual allergic to that allergen, or which makes the immune system turn against the allergen..

Pharmaceutical Drugs

Conventional medicine rarely mentions that the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines now routinely prescribed, especially to young children, are known to cause allergy. Most drugs, and probably all vaccines, have 'allergy' acknowledged as a side effect in the Patient Information Leaflets. This is conventional medicine's own literature. I have written about the main pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines implicated as a cause of allergy, including most vaccines, antibiotics, painkillers, anti-epileptics, sleeping pills, and many others.

Alzheimers/Dementia

Incidence:

• Worldwide, nearly 50 million people have Alzheimer’s or related dementia, according the the Alzheimers.net website. It says that only 1-in-4 people with Alzheimer’s disease have been diagnosed, and that Alzheimer’s and dementia is most common in Western Europe, followed closely by North America. It says that there was an 89% increase in deaths due to Alzheimer’s between 2000 and 2014, that more than 5 million Americans are living with Alzheimer’s, and that by 2050 it is estimated there will be as many as 16 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s.
• Alzheimer's Research UK says that there are now 209,600 new cases of Alzheimer's disease diagnosed every year in the UK.
• The Alzheimer's Society, in a major study in 2014, said that the number of people with dementia in the UK was forecast to increase to over 1 million by 2021, and by over 2 million by 2051, that the total population prevalence of dementia among over 65s was 7.1%, which was equal to 1 in 14 of the population aged 65 years and over

Conventional Medical Explanation for the rise of Alzheimer's disease, and dementia generally, is that it is the result of an ageing population. However, the most serious problem with this explanation is that younger adults, and even children, are now contracting this disease, which is usually referred to as 'early onset dementia' for those under 65 years old. Alzheimer's Research UK admits this when it says that "it is a common misconception that dementia is a condition of older age, over 42,000 people under 65 years old have dementia in the UK." The Alzheimer's Society study in 2014 found that there were over 40,000 people with early-onset dementia in the UK.

It should also be noted that there is a widespread acceptance that conventional medicine has no effective treatment for Alzheimer's disease.

Pharmaceutical Drugs. Conventional medicine rarely admits that the adverse drug reactions of a large number of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines mention many of the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease or dementia, such as confusion, loss of memory, disorientation, and others. I have listed some of these pharmaceutical drugs here, and they include vaccines, antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, sleeping pills, statins, anticholinergic drugs, and many others commonly taken by older people.

Arthritis

Arthritis is a generic term incorporating many separately diagnosed conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, gout, and many others.

Incidence:

• In the USA, 2013 to 2015, the CDC estimated that 54.4 million adults (22.7% of the population)  had some form of doctor-diagnosed arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, or fibromyalgia. It further estimated that by 2040, an estimated 78 million (26% of the population) of USA adults aged over 18 years are projected to have doctor-diagnosed arthritis.
• In the UK, Versus Arthritis states that musculoskeletal conditions sch as arthritis and back pain affected an estimated 18.8 million people across the UK in 2017. This accounted for more than 22% of the total burden of ill health in the UK.

The Conventional Medical Explanation is usually that the massive increase in arthritis pain in past decades, and as well as future projected increases, are the result of an ageing population. Lack of exercise and obesity is also regularly cited as an important factor in the increase levels of arthritis.

It should also be noted that there is a widespread acceptance that conventional medicine has no effective treatment for arthritis.

Pharmaceutical Drugs. Yet arthritis is treated, mainly by painkilling drugs, often for many years. These provide (at best) temporary relief for pain, but in the long-term most arthritic conditions get progressively worse, patients need stronger, more toxic drugs.

Yet conventional medicine rarely recognises that most, if not all pharmaceutical drugs are known to cause 'pain' as a 'side effect'. I have listed some of these drugs here, and they include not only painkillers, but corticosteroids, antibiotics, and many others.

Summary of Conventional Medicine's contribution to the rise of arthritis? 

• No effective treatment.
• Lots of non-medical reasons/excuses.
• Pharmaceutical drugs that cause the condition.
  

Asthma

Asthma is a chronic disease of the airway to the lungss, where the bronchial tubes becomes inflamed, narrowed, thus causing a blockage and consequent breath difficulties. The disease is closely linked to the functioning of the immune system.

Incidence

Asthma is an ancient condition that can be traced back to 2600bce in China, and to ancient Egypt and Greece. Yet however far it goes back into history Asthma is not running at epidemic levels, and rising. It has been estimated that since the 1980's there has been a 60% increase in the incidence of asthma, and that the death rate from asthma has doubled during the same time.

WHO has estimated that more than 339 million people had Asthma globally in 2016, and that it caused 417,918 deaths.

The British Lung Foundation has found that 8 million people, over 12% of the population, have been diagnosed with asthma. They says that this means more people have had an asthma diagnosis than have been diagnosed with all other lung diseases combined.

Conventional Medical Explanations

As usual, conventional medicine has no adequate or sufficient explanation for this exponential rise in the incidence of asthma. It will often refer to 'risk factors' of inhaling substances and particles that may irritate the airways and provoke and allergic reaction.

Nor is there any indication that conventional medicine has any successful treatment, just treatments that can reduce the severity of asthma attacks.

Pharmaceutical Drugs

Yet it is well known that there are many commonly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs that have been prescribed over the last 70-100 years that cause asthma. To mention these alone - aspirin, and other painkillers, antibiotics, childhood and other vaccines - should leave little doubt that these drugs have played an important role in the asthma epidemic.

Autism 

Autism, or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is usually described as a developmental disability. It can cause significant social and behavioural problems in young children, many have developed normally for the first year or two years of their lives. Its most notable features concern communication and interaction difficulties with other people. Autism affects children along a broad spectrum, with the ability to learn, think, and problem solving ranging from severely challenged to gifted.

Incidence

Autism was first described in the 1940's in the USA. Yet this unknown disease has become one of the most astounding stories of the last 70 years. From a virtually unknown disease, the CDC website gives the following statistics on the rise and rise of autism in the USA. In 2000, 1 in 150 children were diagnosed. In 2010 this had grown to 1 in 68 children. It is now thought to be 1 in about 45 children.

The situation is similar in other parts of the world, notably where pharmaceutical medical treatment is dominant, and the use of childhood vaccines has increased alongside the rise of autism.

Conventional Medical Explanations

Conventional medicine has no cure or indeed treatment for autism. Moreover, it usually states, quite unequivocally that it does not know what causes autism, although increasingly it is focusing on a 'genetic' aspect. Despite this, it does know that childhood vaccines are not to blame.

Pharmaceutical Drugs

There are many pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines implicated in causing autism, all of them heavily prescribed during the rise of autism. I have outlined some of these drugs and vaccines here, alongside some of the evidence linking the two.

However, such allegations are always met with resolute denials from the conventional medical establishment. The CDC, for instance, states that "some people have had concerns that ASD might be linked to the vaccines children receive, but studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing ASD". They then provide a reference to a piece of research - paid for by the pharmaceutical industry!

A similar analysis can be done for many other chronic diseases - autoimmune disease, cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, osteoporosis, Parkinson's disease, and many others. In each and every case there is"

• a massive increase in the incidence of the disease,
• an inadequate explanation for these rise by the conventional medical establishment,
• pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that are known to cause the disease, or the symptoms of the disease.
  

CONCLUSION
If we want to know what is happening to health, after 70 to 100 years when conventional medicine has been dominant, when vast sums of money has been spent on medical treatment, especially in the 'advance western world', we just have to observe what has been happening during that time.

• We are getting sicker,
• The medicine in which we have invested heavily is failing,
• A significant reason for the increased sickness we are witnessing is conventional medicine.

The failure of conventional medicine is the result of a medical system that believes it knows better than the body, that it can out-think and out-perform the body with drugs that 'kill', 'inhibit'. block', the natural functioning of the body. It has had its time.

Albert Einstein once defined insanity. It is a definition that can be ascribed to the health policies that have been pursued in most countries of the world through these decades, namely, to spend more and more on pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines to deal with the ever-burgeoning levels of illness and disease.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

It is not more money, or more resources that is needed to reverse increasing levels of sickness. It is a change in what that money is spent on. The time for natural medical therapies has arrived. Natural medicine has a different understanding of what good health is. They are more concerned with wellness and well-being, more focused on the immune system, and supporting and strengthening natural immunity. Natural medicine recognises that our bodies have everything that is required to keep us well; that wellness requires sensible lifestyle choices, and that medicine is only successful if it supports, and works alongside the body.

This is why so many people are now choosing homeopathy, and other natural medical therapies, and positively rejecting pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.