State of the Nation's Health. The NHS Crisis and the Failure of Conventional Medicine (October 2021)

Britain places considerable importance on health. It spends huge amounts of money on the National Health Service (NHS), of which it is extremely proud. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) provides us with the figures that demonstrate this.

In 2018 total current healthcare expenditure was £214.4 billion, equating to £3,227 per person. 

• This accounted for 10% of the gross domestic product (GDP), compared to 9.8% in 2017, and 6.9% in 1997.
• Total healthcare spending more than doubled, when adjusted for inflation, between 1997 and 2018. In 2018, it grew by 3.2%, its biggest rate of annual growth since 2009. 
• Government-financed healthcare expenditure was £166.7 billion in 2018, accounting for 78% of total healthcare spending. 
• Government-financed healthcare expenditure, in real terms, grew by 2.0% in 2018, and accounted for the largest contribution to growth in total healthcare expenditure, while non-government healthcare financing grew by 7.6%, largely driven by an increase in out-of-pocket spending.

The UK's National Health Service (NHS) was formed in 1948, it's objective being "to provide the best medicine for all the people, free at the point of need". However, the NHS now provides only conventional or pharmaceutical medicine for its patients - conventional medicine has become a monopoly provision within the NHS. This maans that (i) patients have no alternative, (ii) the success or failure of the NHS is entirely in the hands of the quality and performance of pharmaceutical medicine. 

Natural medical therapies, such as homeopathy, herbalism, acupuncture, chiropractor, et al, have been effectively excluded from the NHS.

For the last 10 years, I written many blogs on "the NHS Crisis". Access to these blogs can be found by doing a search at the top of this page - "NHS Crisis".

In addition, my E-Book, "The Failure of Conventional Medicine", has charted in considerable detail why the NHS, year after year, has been falling ever deeper into crisis.

This is the first "State of the Nation's Health" blog but in future it will be published on a regular basis, in October every year. It will look at the performance of the NHS during the past year.

The Essential Characteristics of "Successful" Medicine

The NHS was formed to tackle and overcome illness and disease. So how can its performance be assessed? This must surely be done primarily on the basis of patient outcomes.

• A 'successful' medical system is one that can reduce the incidence of illness and disease.
• A 'failing' medical system will fail to do this. Instead, there will be an increasing number of people becoming ill; and people who are sick will not get better.
• A 'failing' medical system will cost ever increasing amounts of money and resources each year as a direct result of increased illness and disease, and the demands this makes on health resources.

These factors have become regular features of the NHS, with a depressing circulatory - an increase in illness and disease, increased and increasing patient need for treatment - and as a result an increased need for more money and resources.

The Covid-19 Pandemic

This pandemic has further highlighted that the medical system that dominates and controls the NHS is failing badly, not only in the ways it has dealt with virus itself, but in its dire social and economic consequences too. 

The pandemic has not changed the nature of the ongoing annual NHS crisis - it has just exacerbated it further.

Yet the government, the NHS, and the mainstream media (MSM) are now presenting the current problems of the NHS as the direct result of the virus. The virus has dominated every discussion about health for the last 20 months, or more, during which time British people have had to endure policies like social distancing, lockdowns, masks, experimental vaccines, the threat of enforced vaccination, and now vaccine passports. They have all caused severe social disruption, emotional distress, loss of employment and livelihood, small business failure, the disruption of education, and the loss and withdrawal of our freedoms and liberty.

Yet this so-called pandemic has really had little impact on the general nature of the health crisis.

• The monthly 5-year average death rate has not risen significantly in any month since the beginning of the pandemic. Certainly it has not been another Black Death, Great Plague, or even a Spanish Flu.
  
• Most of the 130,000 deaths attributed to the virus (defined as people who had a positive Covid-19 test 28 days prior to their death) were people with "underlying health problems", that is, people who were seriously ill when they contracted the virus. For most of the people who died, if the virus had anything to do with their death at all, it was 'the last straw, the straw that broke the camels back'. It was the cause of death in relatively few cases.
• It is also notable that official figures have shown that no-one died of 'normal' flu during the winter of 2020-2021, an extraordinary fact that raises suspicions about the manipulation of Covid-19 statistics, whether they have been exaggerated out of all proportion - for whatever reason pharmaceutical medicine had for doing so.
• The fear campaign frightened most people into believing that the pandemic was (i) "a serious threat to everyone", (ii) that there was "no available treatment" (meaning no conventional medical treatment). The campaign created a fearful population who were thereafter consequently prepared to forego their normal lives, and their freedoms.
  

The entire medical strategy to deal with Covid-19 is now being used to demonstrate that the NHS crisis was not the endemic, long-term problem we have witnessed for decades, but the unfortunate consequence of a new, deadly, rogue virus.

This medical strategy, imposed by government on the advice of conventional medical 'science', can be clearly seen (for anyone who wishes to see). Yet response to, and the outcome of the pandemic have been little different to any other NHS crisis in recent years - just more focused, and slightly more severe.

Patient Waiting Lists

The hopeless and inadequate response of the NHS to the Covid-19 virus has meant that medical treatment for other areas of healthcare has been utterly disregarded. Staff who would normally have provided these treatments have been diverted to deal with the virus, and hospital beds have been kept free in case Covid-19 patients needed them. The consequence has been that patient waiting lists for medical treatment are now the longest since records began.

The number of patients waiting for treatment surged by over 200,000 in the month of June alone! The total number of patients on waiting lists has risen to an estimated 5.5 million. Most of these patients are waiting for treatment conventional medicine itself deems to be urgent and/or essential, treatments for cancer, brain surgery, heart and kidney failure, eye treatment, limb and organ replacement, and the like.

Moreover (if this was not bad enough) the government's Health Secretary has recently warned that patient waiting lists are likely to increase rather than decrease in the short term. Some estimates I have seen predict a phenomenal 14 million people could soon be waiting for 'essential' treatment by the autumn of 2022. 

Such dire predictions have one of two purposes. They are either genuine warning about the NHS crisis. Or they are statements generated in order to extract even more money from the government. We will see.

• Patient waiting lists are a good measure of the size of the sick population, and the failure of the NHS to cope with their illness.
  
• Waiting lists that grow year on year demonstrate a population that is getting sicker, despite the medical treatment they are receiving.
• A government that has to ask the people 'to save the NHS' indicates it has little confidence in the medical system in which they are investing heavily.
  

The timescales for dealing with patient waiting lists are daunting. The Institute of Public Policy Research has estimated that 19.5 million people, who they estimate should have been diagnosed with cancer, have not been because of cancelled or missed referrals. They predict that thousands of cancer patients will die over the next decade "because of the devastating treatment backlog". They have calculated that it could take more than a decade to clear the backlog, that if hospitals could achieve a 5% increase in treatments over pre-pandemic levels, it would take until 2033 to clear the backlog. But of course they concluded that increasing activity levels would require yet more resources for more staff and new equipment.

This is what always happens with the NHS. Chronic disease increases, more money and resources are demanded, and provided; only in time for an increased incidence of disease, leading to yet more demands for money and resources. It is a familiar merry-go-round!

Epidemics of Chronic Disease

One of the main features of the NHS over the last 70 years has been epidemic increases in chronic diseases, such as allergy, arthritis, asthma, autism, auto-immune disease, cancer, dementia, diabetes, mental health, osteoporosis, and many more. These epidemics, which show little indication of declining, raises important (but usually unasked) questions. 

• Just how healthy is the UK's population today, especially when compared to 73 years ago when the NHS started, and particularly in recent decades when conventional medicine has taken complete control of the NHS?
• Is conventional/pharmaceutical medicine making us better, or sicker? 
• Is the NHS winning, or losing the war it regularly declares on illness and disease?

I have charted the rise of these chronic disease epidemics here. What needs to be emphasised is that almost without exception the epidemic are still increasing, and are usually predicted to rise even further in the years to come. Just a few months ago I charted the rise of chronic disease on this blog, a just few months ago. The Daily Skeptic (one of the alternative media I look to for some honesty about health issues, entirely absent in the mainstream media, has updated some of these underlying trends. I will use some of their statistics in "Chronic Disease: Still no Cures in Sight" here, with thanks.

Obesity. In the UK 2019 figures show that 28% of adults are obese and a further 36.2% are overweight. Obesity incidence is now occurring at considerably younger ages, with 2019 data showing that 10% of children aged 4-10 are obese and 21% at age 10-11. The incidence of obesity is rising rapidly: there were four times as many hospital admissions with a diagnosis of obesity in 2016/17 compared with 2009/10. 

Diabetes. 10% of all people aged over 40 in the UK are now living with a diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes; this amounts to 4.7 million of us, expected to reach 5.5 million by 2030. This compares to 1.4 million in 1996. The problem is global; the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated that the number of people with diabetes rose from 108 million in 1980 to 422 million in 2014. Between 2000 and 2016, there was a 5% increase in premature mortality from diabetes.

Autoimmune conditions. Many autoimmune conditions are becoming more common, with some increasing in incidence by as much as 9% each year. In the UK 4 million people are known to be living with at least one autoimmune condition, and many with several autoimmune conditions at the same time. Rheumatoid arthritis is increasing at 7% per year, Type 1 diabetes by 6.3%, coeliac disease by up to 9% per year.

Cancer. According to Cancer Research U.K., there are over 164,000 cancer deaths in the UK each year, which is about 450 each day. One in two people in the UK, born after 1960 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime. In the USA cancer incidence increased by 12% between 1994 and 2016; in the 1940s, one in sixteen had a cancer diagnosis; this had increased to one in three by 2018.

Dementia. There are currently around 850,000 people with dementia in the UK but this is projected to reach 1.6 million people in the U.K. by 2040. The global number of people living with dementia more than doubled from 1990 to 2016, while in the USA deaths from AD have risen 145% between 2000 and 2017. The USA Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report that the number of people living with the disease doubles every five years beyond the age of 65. Most worryingly, those with early onset dementia have increased by 200% since 2013.

Cardiovascular disease. For some years cardiovascular disease mortality has been declining, despite increasing incidence of disease. However, in recent years, the rate of decline in CVD mortality has slowed in most developed countries, particularly at ages 35-74 years, and is now rising in 12 out of the 23 nations studied in 2017, including the UK, the USA and Germany.

Autism. In the UK there was a sharp increase in the prevalence rates of autism in UK schools between 2010 and 2019. Autism currently affects 1–2% of the UK population - that is 1 per 100 children and 2 per 100 adults. According to the USA CDC, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is the fastest growing developmental disability, affecting 1 in 59 children (1970s: one in 5000). Prevalence has increased 10-17% each year over the last several years. It has been described as an ‘autism tsunami’.

These medical statistics present us with a stark picture. What is never done is to ask why such diseases are increasing so rapidly, so consistently, and why the £billions being spent on the NHS does nothing to reduce disease, or even stop the continual increase.

 

The Rise of New and Rare Diseases

One of the features of modern conventional medicine is the regular diagnosis of 'new', 'rare' diseases in children - for which there is no known cause - and no effecting treatment. I have listed some of these in this blog, and outlined my suspicion that they are caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

These new and rare diseases continue to appear, without explanation, without effective treatment, and always without any investigation into their links with pharmaceutical drug and vaccine treatments.

What usually happens is that expensive new treatments, costing huge amounts of money per patient per year - without them ever offering effective treatment.

The Role of Pharmaceutical Drugs in the Failure of Pharmaceutical Medicine

Pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are known to cause "side effects", or "adverse reactions", which I prefer to call 'disease inducing effects' (or DIE's). The link between pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines remains unrecognised by the conventional medical establishment (CME), so it is not properly understood by the vast majority of people. As I have argued elsewhere, the increased consumption of pharmaceutical drugs over the last 70 years has exactly mirrored the increase in chronic disease. Yet there may be early  signs that the link is being recognised.

The UK government commissioned a review that has just reported. The review highlights the serious problem of the over prescription of drugs, and the problems caused by the known adverse effects caused by prescription medicines. 

• It found that about 10% of all doctor prescriptions should not have been prescribed, 
• that 15% of people are now taking 5 or more medications daily, putting them at an increased risk of suffering "adverse effects".
• It found that 1 in 5 hospital admissions of people over-65 were caused by the adverse effects of prescribed drugs.
• Doctors were told to reduce drug prescriptions in favour of social prescribing, and encouraged a ore 'holistic approach to individual health and well-being.

This may be the start of a growing realisation that increased chronic disease is, in large part, fuelled by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. But the problem is far larger and more serious than the review suggests. Moreover, it is unlikely to change doctors prescription habits. It has certainly never done so before.

For instance, in 2016, an article published in the British Medical Journal by Peter Gøtzsche, argued that prescription drugs had become the third leading cause of death. His article highlighted psychiatric drugs, and particularly antidepressant drugs. He quoted studies that "tells us that the system we have for researching, approving, marketing, and using drugs is totally broken". At the same time he questioned the efficacy of these drugs. He also highlighted the lethal qualities of painkilling drugs, especially NSAID painkillers, that are now taken by so many people, and which "carry a huge death toll", primarily by causing bleeding stomach ulcers and myocardial infarction.

Despite this article, and many other similar articles which have been studiously ignored, it made no difference to the prescribing habits of doctors, to NHS policy, or to the understanding of government about why they constantly increase NHS funding, yet continue to face demands for even more NHS funding.

NHS Resources and Demands for Increased Funding and Resources

This has been going on since the inauguration of the NHS in 1948. There is always too much sickness for the NHS to cope with, and when the government provides more money and resources, levels of sickness continue to rise. 

So what about NHS staff who are under constant, and increasing pressure to deal with spiralling levels of sickness and disease. How are they faring?

The morale, retention and recruitment of staff, at all levels, and in every part of the NHS, continues to deteriorate. This has been happening for many years now. It is typical of any industry that is not doing well. If medical staff were working with sick patients, are making them well, these pressures would not exist. The job would not be easy; but the job satisfaction would make the toil worthwhile. 

Yet this is not the case when patients get ill, and remain sick for many years, even a lifetime. So when the number of sick patients grows without end, and so never go away. When the treatment they have at their disposal does not treat patients successfully, there is a loss of morale. It is utterly depressing, and this can be seen in many of the things happening within the NHS now.

Doctors and Primary care

• There is an ongoing and worsening shortage of doctors, with 1 in 7 GP posts unfilled.
• GP retention is a long-term problem for the NHS.
  
• A Record number of GPs seeking mental health counselling amid media abuse.
  
• There are warnings that GP practices could close or reduce services this winter as pressures mount. 

Patients are finding it increasingly hard to get an appointment with an NHS doctor, face-to-face, or on the telephone, many are becoming dissatisfied, and many resort to abuse and violence. 

• Some patients are now so desperate they have been violent towards health workers.
• The BMA has called for patient expectations to be "managed" - as over half of GP's are now suffering abuse.
  

It is unfortunate that too many patients continue to believe the NHS is able to offer them something that will make them well again, not realising that the problem is a lack of effective treatment, not doctors and other medical staff, denying them access to treatment that will make them better.

Mental Health Provision

Mental health provision has been a problem, part of the NHS crises, for many years. It might now prove to be one of the worst consequences of NHS Covid-19 policies which have further exacerbated the mental health epidemic. It may be one of the worst 'own goals' it has scored.

• Children's mental health referrals are reported to have doubled during the pandemic.
• There has been a 50% increase in the number of children going to A&E with serious mental health issues since the start of lockdown.
• When added to the mental health epidemic prior to the pandemic, this means that almost a quarter of a million children now being prescribed antidepressants, and as this article explains, this number is expected to increase because of the disruption of children's lives and education caused by Covid-19 policies.
  

Hospital and Accident and Emergency Departments (A&E)

The failure of primary care doctors to offer treatment is then transferred within the NHS. Patients go elsewhere, transferring the workload from GP surgeries to Accident and Emergency (A&E) departments, and to hospitals generally.

The situation in A&E units is bad and getting worse. A monthly analysis undertaken by the British Medical Association (BMA), on "Pressure Points in the NHS" says that emergency department waiting times have risen, even though demand was lower owing the Covid-19 restrictions.

    "Prior to the pandemic, the situation in A&E was increasingly catastrophic with demand soaring, the number of trolley waits being highest on record and performance against the four-hour target reaching an all-time low over the past winter." (My emphasis).

Hospitals also report a similar situation. The BMA analysis estimated that between April 2020 and July 2021, there were 3.79 million fewer elective procedures, and 26.02 million fewer outpatient attendances. The evidence of pressure is clear, so, for example, we have

• statements from acute medical doctors warning of unprecedented pressures, even during the summer period.
• Hospital are suspending all inpatient surgery because of bed shortages - again, in the summer period.
  
• Hospitals are already reporting that staff are "hanging on" prior to the usual 'winter pressures'.

The ambulance service is also under severe strain. One of the regular features of modern life is the ever-present sound of ambulance sirens, getting to sick patients, or rushing them to hospital. So it is not surprising that they, too, are under severe pressure.

• NHS Providers have mapped the pressures on paramedics, and the ambulance service.  
• The Welsh ambulance service has asked for assistance from the army to relieve pressures.

Of course most of these pressures are now being blamed on the Covid-19 pandemic. But these pressures have been around now for many years, they have not changed, they have increased, but they they have been increasing, incrementally, for many years - with ambulances queueing outside hospitals, unable to discharge patients to free up capacity. The pressures always seem to be getting worse, despite increased spending and staffing. The residential care sector usually take the blame. Now it is Covid-19.

Financial. Funding Crises and the NHS

NHS resources, and huge amounts of additional government spending, were directed towards 'chasing' the Covid-19 virus. Always the demand is for more, and each new £ will be spend on the same, failed and failing treatment.

Despite the 'whatever it takes' policy adopted by the UK government at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, and an additional input of some £2 billion, plus the £37 billion on the 'Test and Trace' fiasco, and much else, there are now further demands for more financial assistance for the NHS.  

• NHS Frontline Bodies Issue Urgent Appeal for More Health Service Funding.

The NHS now gets some 44% of all government spending. The proportion of GNP (Gross National Product) spent on health has risen every year since 1948. Yet it is still insufficient.

 

The social care budget (for day care, and residential care) has been widely accepted as inadequate for many years. In September 2021 the government announced a spending commitment of £5.5 billion for social care. However, for the next 3 years this vast sum of money will be spent on the NHS, not on social care. It leaves me wondering whether, in 3 years time, this money will be removed from the NHS and returned to social care? Given the performance of the NHS hitherto this seems highly unlikely.

The Future - Conclusion

The NHS focus during the Covid-19 virus has been the delivery of vaccines. It has totally ignored the value of innate and natural immunity. It has never informed people about the importance of our immune system, and what they can do to support and strengthen it. Only vaccines would save us, we were told. The importance of the immune system, which natural medical therapies have always placed at the very centre of their medical practise, has been completely ignored.

The vaccines will save us. Nothing else can. Or so we are told!

This means that there is little prospect of change for the future other than more money being poured into the NHS, and being spent on the same, failing pharmaceutical medicine. So little will change.

So the crisis will deepen. The government is already warning us that the NHS may not be able to cope with another Covid-19 spike, so we are now being asked "to save the NHS" again, and to save Christmas too! It is we patients who now have to save the doctors! It is a dire situation which is unlikely to change.

• I will re-assess the state of the nation's health again in October 2022. And before that, in March 2022, I will describe the 2021-2022 NHS winter crisis. 

• If my hypothesis is correct it will be the same old story. Except that it is likely to be even worse!

• If my hypothesis is incorrect I will be apologising to everyone. Conventional medicine can work successfully, it is not failing.
  

Pregabalin has killed at least 131 patients in the last two years in the UK alone. But Britain's drug regulator states it will take no action. So who is protecting us?

The Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) routinely prescribes dangerous drugs to its patients. They cause illness, disease, and death - but little or nothing is ever done to protect us from them.

Pregabalin is an anti-epileptic or anti-convulsant drug which has recently returned to my attention in two Pulse articles. The first article, published on 20th August 2021, was entitled "Northern Ireland GP's told to stop initiating pregablin for neuropathic pain amid deaths rise".

        "According to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, there were 77 drug-related deaths involving pregabalin in 2019 - appearing in 40% of all drug-related deaths recorded that year - rising from 54 in 2018."

A routine report? Surely, this was the CME doing what it should be always do, something most people assume it usual does - to protect patients from pharmaceutical drugs that cause them harm.

The second article, published on 27th September 2021, was entitled "MHRA (the UK's drug regulator) has no plans to curb pregabalin prescribing by GP's".

    "The drug was removed from the country’s formulary as the preferred option for the treatment of neuropathic pain but GPs will still be able to prescribe pregabalin where they deem it to be ‘clinically appropriate’. Now the MHRA has confirmed to Pulse that it has no plans to limit prescribing of gabapentinoids, including pregabalin and gabapentin."

So this was the CME doing what it normally does: very little, or nothing at all, to protect patients from pharmaceutical drugs, even though the CME admits that the drug killed 77 patients last year, and 54 patients the year before.

This is not a unique situation. It has happened to all pharmaceutical drugs over the years, dangerous, but banned only after years, sometimes decades, of patient harm. This is why we cannot, and should not, ever be assured that the drugs doctors prescribe today are safe.

I have written about Pregabalin before. In April 2020 I wrote an article that reported a similar situation,  "Health, Safety & Pharmaceutical Drugs. Pregabalin/Lyrica causes death each and every year - but doctors can continue prescribing it! So this is not a new problem that the CME does not know about!

Further back, in June 1917, I wrote "The NHS, Pfizer and Lyrica. Corporate Profit and Patient Harm", in which I described pregabalin (or Lyrica as it was then known) as "a nasty little drug, with lots of nasty side effects", including infection, ataxia, blurred vision, constipation, diplopia, dizziness, drowsiness, fatigue, headache, peripheral edema, tremor, weight gain, visual field loss, accidental injury, xerostomia, abnormal gait, abnormality in thinking, amnesia, arthralgia, asthenia, cognitive dysfunction, confusion (dementia), edema, neuropathy, sinusitis, speech disturbance, vertigo, visual disturbance, myasthenia, and amblyopia.  

At this time, death was not listed amongst its "side effects". Nor is it still! Note that "death" is still not listed as a "side effect" on the Drugs.com website, a website that is supposed to provide doctors and patients with a complete list of side effects for every pharmaceutical drug.

The simple moral we can take from this simple tale is simply this.....

• ANY PATIENT WHO AGREES TO TAKE A DOCTOR-PRESCRIBED DRUG SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT THE DRUG WILL BE SAFE, THAT IT WILL NOT CAUSE THEM HARM!

• NONE OF US CAN BE ASSURED THAT OUR DOCTORS ARE SUPPORTED BY A STRUCTURE THAT PROTECTS PATIENTS FROM HARMFUL PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND VACCINES!
  

So we all need to be aware of how the CME operates, and avoid all of them.

 

The Covid-19 Vaccines: Children and Young People

Young children! Are you ready for this responsibility. Ready of not you are now to be given the responsibility to decide whether to accept Covid-19 vaccination, or not. Normally it is your parents who make such decisions. But the government is now giving the decision to you. So it is important that you are able fully to understand the benefits - and the disadvantages of saying "Yes" to being vaccinated, or refusing to have it.

This blog is for you, not for adults. I have written it because it is important that the 'pros' and 'cons' of having the vaccine explained in language they can easily understand, so that you are more able to make an "informed" decision. So there is no language used here that is difficult to understand, no technical jargon to confuse you. And it is important that you know both sides of the argument.

The Benefits of the Covid-19 vaccination

Anyone who wants you to be vaccinated, and asks your permission to vaccinate you, will certainly tell you about the benefits of vaccination. We have all been told about it for the last 18 months. But they will be less likely to tell you about the disadvantages of vaccination.

The Disadvantages of the Covid-19 Vaccination

1. It is known that children and young people are less likely to catch Covid-19 virus, less likely than any other age group. You may have heard that many thousands of people have died with the virus - about 130,000 it is claimed. Yet to my knowledge only about 9 young people have died. And all these children had other very serious health issues, and it was these health issues that were a more likely reason for their death.

2. Several drug trials on the Covid-19 vaccines have shown that they can all cause serious side effects, or adverse reactions, in children. Vaccine side effects can be very mild; or they can be very serious; and at worse they can cause death. In other words, the vaccines are causing serious illness and death.

3. Understand this fact. The Covid-19 vaccines are all experimental. They have not been fully tested. So doctors and nurses cannot be certain what the side effects might be, and they do not know (and cannot tell you) how you, or any other person, might be affected by the vaccine. You might get mild symptoms; you might get a serious illness; you might die. And no-one knows. It is a game of chance. And your decision is about whether you want to take the chance?

4. It has already been reported, on the UK government's website, that Covid-19 vaccines have caused the death of 1,625 people (as of today, 20th September 2021). Many of these people have died shortly after being given one of the vaccines. Yet many people suspect, with good reason, that this number could be at least 10 times greater than this, as not all drug side effects are reported, even deaths. So we will not know the real numbers for many years. In the USA, where children are already being vaccinated, there have already been several reports of healthy young children dying.

5. Covid-19 vaccines, during the last 9 to 10 months, are now known to have caused more deaths, and more serious illness and disease, than all the other vaccines taken for the last 20 years - combined.

6. Yet it is not just death that the Covid-19 vaccines are causing. In the UK there have been 1,800,000 reported side effects from people who have received one of the vaccines. These range from very mild, and temporary side effects, to adverse reactions that cause serious, sometimes permanent illness and disease. Some of these illnesses can be life-changing, diseases from which there is no recovery, like Myocarditis and Pericarditis - the inflammation of the heart.

7. The official organisation that usually recommends the use of vaccines have not recommended that children and young people aged 12 to 16 are given these vaccines. This was an important medical decision. But it has been overturned by the government.

• SO COVID-19 IS A VIRUS THAT DOES NOT AFFECT CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE.

• BUT COVID-19 VACCINES ARE KNOWN TO CAUSE SERIOUS, LIFE-CHANGING SIDE EFFECTS.

It is these two factors that you need to consider before deciding whether to accept the Covid-19 vaccine.

Most of this information will be denied by anyone who 'offers' to vaccinate you. Their task is to get you vaccinated - for which they will receive payment.

Nor will the information be given to you by anyone who from the Government, the Department of Health, or the National Health Service.

Nor will you hear any of this information on any television programme you might watch, or radio programme you might listen to, or any newspaper you might read.

Even social media outlets, such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, are censoring this information. 

WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW ANY OF THIS!

You need to ask yourself - why have I not been told about the harm vaccines can cause? Why has this not been discussed.

Yet all this information can be found on official government websites, in the UK, in Europe, in the USA, and elsewhere. Yet this official information has not been given to the general public - you and me. It is being routinely dismissed as 'misinformation'. But the information, from official government and medical sources, has been studied and analysed by many alternative news organisations, such as "The Alliance for Natural Health", "The Expose", "UK Column", and "Children's Health Defense". Take a look at them, read for yourself before you make your decision.

So that if, or when, you are faced with the decision, you can say, clearly and confidently, "No thanks, I do not wish to be vaccinated". It is your right to do so.

The Myths of Conventional Medical Success. Eradicating Smallpox.

This is the second of a series of blogs on "The Myths of Conquering Disease". The first blog concerned Measles, and the alleged success of the MMR vaccine in the virtual elimination of this killer childhood disease. (The third has subsequently been published, on the Polio vaccines).

This blog investigates the alleged 'eradication' of smallpox by a vaccine, but it will do more than this. At the time of writing the UK government, on the advise of conventional medical science, is threatening to impose vaccine passports, essentially forced vaccination, mandatory drugging, on the people of Britain. This is aimed, initially, at forcing everyone to take the Covid-19 vaccines.

This may appear to be bad news for those of us who love freedom and liberty, and/or those who use natural medical therapies and the immune system to protect from viruses. Yet this historical survey of smallpox should encourage us. 

This is not the first time our government, in its wisdom, has tried to force harmful vaccines on us. It was also an integral part of the conventional medical establishment (CME's) attempts to treat smallpox back in the 19th century.

The Eradication of Smallpox

This myth about the 'eradication' of smallpox by vaccination is particularly important. When the effectiveness and/or safety of vaccines is questioned the automatic response of the CME is to refer to smallpox. This was a killer disease - and it was conquered by vaccines. Such has been the propaganda success of this story, most people now believe it; unquestioningly. Over the last 70 years it has become one of the enduring myths successfully generated by a failing medical system.

Smallpox has been with us for many centuries. It is believed to date back to Egypt in the 3rd century BCE. Since then, as civilizations grew and expanded, the disease spread all over the world, and smallpox epidemics left devastation in its wake on many, many occasions.

Smallpox was certainly a killer disease in the 17th and 18th century. And although it has not been eradicated (as the CME usually claim) its incidence is now extremely rare. But the decline of smallpox had little, if anything, to do with a vaccine. It was the result of a raft of social reforms and public health measures that improved the impoverished and deeply unhealthy lives of many millions of people during that time. The last serious smallpox epidemic occurred in 1949, and the link between smallpox and vaccines has been more about clever propaganda by the rich, powerful and influential drug companies that historical fact.

Smallpox was at its zenith in the 17th, 18th and early 19th century. The background to this can be simply explained. The Agrarian Revolution removed large numbers of people from their tough, meagre, but relatively healthy existence in rural communities. It separated poor families from their natural element. The displaced people were removed from the villages to the growing urban towns. Here they faced multiple problems, all of which naturally led to ill-health, and a greater vulnerability to infectious disease. There is an excellent book (that you should read) that graphically illustrates the relationship between people's living conditions and the incidence of killer infectious disease.

Humphries and Bysrtianyk. Dissolving Illusions: disease, vaccines, and the forgotten history.     (ISBN 1480216895 or 13:978-1480216891)

I will refer to this book through most of this blog. It provides a graphic description of the living and working conditions these new town dwellers had to endure, and how it inevitably affected their health. They can by simply highlighted here.

• Towns with a high density population with no amenities.
  
• Squalid, damp and overcrowded housing.
• Abject poverty produced by what were effectively slave labour conditions.
  
• Non-existent sewerage.
  
• Poor, inadequate and often diseased food supplies.
• Contaminated drinking water.
• Diabolically inhumane working conditions, and excessively long working hours, including very young children whose growth and development was stunted by having to work in mines, sweeping chimneys, and similar environments.
  

These were ideal breeding ground for disease. So there were regular epidemics that killed thousands of people, too weak to resist infection. It was not just smallpox. There were many other killer diseases.

• Typhoid fever
• Cholera
• Dysentary
• Diphtheria
• Whooping Cough
  
• Typhus
• Scarlet fever
• Measles
• Yellow fever
• Consumption (TB)

There was little or no protection from these diseases. No-one, certainly not the conventional medics of the day, knew what was causing the epidemics. Epidemics were almost annual events, and people were helpless when they struck their community.

The scourge of smallpox; the introduction of the vaccine; and medical disagreement

Smallpox was just one of these diseases. It was greatly feared. The cause was unknown. There was no medical treatment. And even if treatment had been available most people would not have been able to afford it.

The 18th century saw many doctors looking for a solution. Variolation was tried in Asia, where people with deliberately infected with smallpox (by blowing dried smallpox scabs into the nose). The individual would get smallpox, a milder form, and if they recovered they were thought to be slightly more more immune to the disease. It was not a great success.

Then in 1796 Edward Jenner developed his vaccine. The story is well known. He used a similar, but less dangerous pox - cowpox - to infect his patients. Jenner believed that this protected people from the more serious smallpox. He pronounced that this procedure gave life-time protection from smallpox. Yet from the earliest days there was no widespread acceptance of this.

    "The accounts from all quarters of the world, wherever vaccination has been introduced ..... the cases of failures are now increased to an alarming proportion".

Humphries and Bystrianyk (H&B) found numerous contemporaneous medical journals that detailed how smallpox could still infect those who previously had smallpox and also these those who had been vaccinated.

    "It attacked many who had had smallpox before, and often severely; almost to death; and of those who had been vaccinated, it left some alone, but fell upon great numbers".

    "In hundreds of instances, persons cow-poxed by JENNER HIMSELF have taken the real smallpox afterwards, and have either died from the disorder, or narrowly escaped with their lives".

H&B described a pattern that is has become familiar to this day within conventional medicine. A battle began between those who believed in the vaccine, but could not (or would not) recognise the dangers of the procedure, and those who were willing to see the dangers of the vaccine, but had no alternative treatment to offer.

Frightened people, threatened by a killer epidemic, will always look for solutions. And Jenner was the only person at the time who was offering a solution. And the medical profession could offer something only if they supported the vaccination process. So it was this side of the battle that came to the fore.

(This was not entirely true; Samuel Hahnemann was developing homeopathy at the same time as Jenner was developing his vaccine. He came up with both safer, and more effective treatments. But that is another story.)

Mandatory Vaccination

This situation continued like this until 1853. During this time H&B noted that 'vaccine hesitancy' began. Again, it is a familiar story that is being repeated today: doctors promoting and recommending vaccination, often forcibly: and patients recognising that the vaccines were causing serious harm, whilst not preventing reinfection. So a growing number of people recognised the dangers, and questioned the value. of the vaccine.

So in 1853 the UK government imposed mandatory vaccination for smallpox. This was despite the continuing debate about the safety and effectiveness of vaccination. Mandatory vaccination was also imposed in the USA, and elsewhere around the world. In Britain the law was tightened in 1867. The result was that little changed.

    "Compulsory vaccination laws did nothing to curb the problem of smallpox. Boston data begins in 1811 and shows that, starting around 1837, there were periodic smallpox epidemics. Following the 1855 mandates, there were smallpox epidemics in 1859-1860, 1864-1865, and 1867, culminating with the infamous epidemic in 1872-1873. These repeat smallpox epidemics showed that the strict vaccination laws instituted by Massachusetts had no beneficial effect".

H&B outlines considerable contemporaneous evidence that similar outcomes persisted in many other parts of the 'vaccinated' world.

    "Bavaria (Germany) in 1871 of 30,742 cases 29,429 were in vaccinated persons, or 95.7%, and 1,313 in the unvaccinated, or 4.3% . In some of the small local outbreaks of recent years the victims have been nearly all vaccinated (e.g., at Bromley (England) in 1881, a total of 43 cases... (were) all vaccinated".

    "Official returns from Germany show that between 1870 and 1885 one million vaccinated person died from smallpox".

So despite forced vaccination, smallpox epidemic continued to happen regularly, and a large proportion of those who died had been vaccinated. It is a familiar story! H&B reported a 1970 study that suggested the vaccine was actually causing smallpox infection and death.

    "Because of poor surveillance and vaccine reaction under-reporting, the authors of a 1970 study suspected that the number of smallpox vaccine-related deaths was higher than the reports reflected. This study only examined deaths from 1959 to 1968 in the United States. If the deaths were this high in a country with a modern health-care system, what was the total number of deaths from smallpox vaccination from 1800 to the present across the entire world?"

For more information about the failure of the Smallpox vaccine, and some contemporary comments about its dangers, read this article, written by Roman Bystrianyk.

For more contemporaneous (19th century) opinions about "safety and effectiveness" of the smallpox vaccine, and its impact on the vaccinated, see also this article.

For a concise 250 year history of smallpox, and the impact of vaccines, this is a must-read article.

Again, it is a familiar finding that is likely to be repeated if there is mandatory Covid-19 vaccination, with death figures arising from these vaccines now rising rapidly, they (rather than the virus) will be the cause of patient harm and death.

The Decline of Smallpox

The smallpox death rate began to decline from about 1872 onwards in most parts of the world. This was, of course, during the time of mandatory vaccine. But it was also the time that social and public health reforms were beginning to bear fruit.

So which of these two factors caused the reduction in the incidence of smallpox? First, it is important to note that vaccination was declining from this time to, and the use of vaccination was to continue decline alongside the incidence of smallpox.

    "...after 1872 vaccination coverage rates slowly declined from a high of nearly 90%. Coverage rates plummeted to only 40% by 1909. Despite declining vaccination rates, smallpox deaths remained low, vanishing to near zero after 1906. Smallpox vaccination has always correlated positively to epidemics in the countries that collected data in the vain hope of proving the vaccine's worth". (My emphasis).

The Great Demonstration in Leicester in 1885

The decline in vaccination did not arise from by a reassessment by government, or a revaluation by conventional medicine, that the vaccines were not only ineffective, but instrumental in causing smallpox outbreaks. It happened because people lost confidence in vaccination. It was the people who made the decision - and particularly the people of Leicester, England, where, in 1885 'The Great Demonstration' took place.

    "Despite the actions taken by the government to ensure a very high vaccination rate, a massive smallpox epidemic hit not only Leicester but all of England and other parts of the world in the early 1970's. The epidemic in Leicester resulted in thousands of cases of smallpox and hundreds of deaths, shaking to its core many people's belief in the protective power of vaccination".

The Leicester Mercury in July 1884 said that "it must strike the reflective observer as rather singular that all the recent smallpox outbreaks have made their appearance among populations where the laws enforcing vaccination have  been rigorously and systematically carried out". 

Clearly, this paper was speaking during a time when press freedom was still operational! 

The 'Great Demonstration' was, in effect, a Great Revolt against the smallpox vaccine. It was inspired by the recognition of the harm it was causing, and the penalties handed out to people who had the courage to refuse it. H&B gives a full account of the event, describing "fearless people who wanted to be able to make their own decisions for their health and the health of their children, and thus fought for self-determination."

    "Thousands of brave people set off a historical rebellion that successfully countered a prevailing medical belief and heavy-handed government rule."

The Conventional Medical Establishment were horrified, and in their arrogance (not untypical of the arrogance of the CME today) proclaimed that Leicester residents would suffer greatly for their decision to turn their backs on vaccination.

    "They prognosticated that this unvaccinated town with its "highly flammable material" would suffer with the "dread disease" that would spread like "wild-fire on the prairie" and decimate the population".

CME's worst fears never happened. Vaccine supporters were already claiming responsibility for the fall in smallpox numbers, and they believed their own propaganda. They predicted doom but "...the leaders of Leicester held steadfast to what they knew was right and successfully implemented their plan of sanitation, hygiene, and isolation - instead of vaccination.Their grand experiment would test the very notions of freedom of choice, self-determination, and the heart of a flawed medical belief". (My emphasis).

Even 30 years later H&B found that many still believed Leicester would eventually face disaster, quoting a 1914 article in the New York Times, which sounds astonishingly similar to the kind of coverage our mainstream media is using today in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic.

    "Those who openly oppose vaccination or who tell everybody to wait until they come to the bridge of danger before crossing it, are taking a heavy responsibility on their souls".

The Sanitation Revolution

Leicester backed the Sanitation Revolution which was proceeding apace around the world, where action was taken to improve housing, living and working condition, the amelioration of poverty, improved nutrition, and similar. This progress did not come from the CME, it was done for political and social reasons. And it was this social progress that reduced the incidence of smallpox.

It also produced another piece of evidence to prove that vaccines had not vanquished smallpox. During these years epidemics of other killer diseases also declined - typhoid, cholera, dysentery, diphtheria, whooping cough, typhus, scarlet fever, measles, yellow fever, consumption - diseases for which there were no vaccines, and no other conventional medical treatment. 

The early 20th century saw the continuing decline in both the incidence of all these killer infections, which H&P describe as "The Amazing Decline". During this decline smallpox vaccination continued to decline, and their were increasingly fewer cases of smallpox, usually of a much milder nature.

    "By the 1920's it was recognised that the new form of smallpox produced little in the way of symptoms even though few people had been vaccinated.... As the classic and deadly variety of smallpox declined, so did the rate of vaccination".

In the 1920's and 1930's only the mild form of smallpox was evident. The death rate fell close to zero, and by 1946 smallpox had all but vanished. Compulsory vaccination ended in England in 1948. The last smallpox death in the USA was in 1948, even though vaccination continued until 1963.

    "This resulted in an estimated 5,000 unnecessary vaccine-related hospitalisations from generalised rash, secondary infections, and encephalitis".

The rising power of the pharmaceutical industry

Yet throughout the 20th century conventional medicine also became more powerful, largely due to the general belief that science would soon triumph in medicine, curing illness and disease, just as science had produced motorcars, aeroplanes, telecommunications and the like. Indeed, the discovery of insulin, anaesthetics, (leading to the development of surgery) plus other 'hopeful' developments, led to an optimism that has never materialised.

The pharmaceutical industry has become the most profitable in the world, and it has not been shy to use its influence, and its wealth, to take control of governments, monopolise medical organisations, and pay for the mainstream media. Therefore - vaccines eradicated smallpox!

So whilst conventional medicine lost the battle against smallpox it eventually won the propaganda war. And it is always the victor that writes history. This is why so many people believe that it was the smallpox vaccine that overcame smallpox. This is propaganda, it is not reality. Conventional medicine is a confidence trick. This is why it is properly referred to as "ConMed" - its propaganda has been brilliant.

Postscript January 2025

Roman Bystrianik has now written an excellent article on smallpox that provides further information about Smallpox. He provides evidence that smallpox was considered a 'mild' disease in early 19th century, that smallpox vaccines were never successful (beyond medical promotion), about vaccine failure and the reduction of smallpox deaths. It provides a fascinating alternative history taken from contemporary doctors who sceptical about vaccination.

Postscript February 2025

Now Roman Bystrianik has researched some comments made about the smallpox vaccines by leading contemporary medical figures. It is very clear that none of them believed the vaccines had done anything to 'eradicate' smallpox!

If you found this interesting, you can also read my other blogs on "the Myths of Conventional Medicine".

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Conquering Polio.

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Conquering Measles.

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Whooping Cough (Pertussin).

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. The Covid-19 vaccines.

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Antibiotics

Conspiracy Theory. Disinformation. Fake News. And Medicine?

Conspiracy theory is defined by Britannica as "an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy."

Misinformation is defined by Oxford Reference as "a form of propaganda involving the dissemination of false information with the deliberate intent to deceive or mislead."

 Fake News is simply and very succinctly defined by Reuters International and the University of Oxford as "the news you don't believe".

So when we hear someone, anyone, compounding a theory, an idea, or a concept, that runs counter to the 'dominant' or 'official' view we need to listen carefully before we either believe or dismiss it. This is especially so when it concerns health. We need to ask pertinent questions - to both those who are putting forward the idea, and those who are summarily dismissing it.

• Does the idea make sense to our experience/understanding of what is happening in the world?
• Is the idea well argued, supported and justified with sound evidence?
  
• Who is putting the new idea forward, what are their motives in doing so, and who do they represent? 
• Who is dismissing the idea as a conspiracy theory, disinformation, or fake news?
  
• What do each side have to gain from the acceptance, or the rejection of the idea?

It is always important to remember that just because an idea/concept/theory does not comply with the dominant, or 'official' view, it does not necessarily make it fake news, disinformation, or a conspiracy theory.

Lots of ideas that are routinely dismissed as conspiracy theories/disinformation/fake news, many deservedly so; they sound like nonsense, they make little sense, and they do not begin to meet any of the above criteria. Many can, and should be dismissed as such. Yet before we ever do so we should ensure that we have applied these criteria.

• Just because something is dismissed as "disinformation", "fake news", or "conspiracy theory" does not necessarily mean that it is!

For instance, some people call the concept of mad-made climate change a conspiracy theory. Climanate change has become the dominant or official version of what is happening to our weather. Yet many people deny this view - and because they question the dominant view they are usually dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists'. In such a situation we need to examine both sides. What are the vested interests of climate change theorists? What are the vested interests of those who are denying climate change? How sound is the science behind climate change? Is the case for man-made climate change properly argued and evidenced? And above all, is there evidence on the ground of climate change - desertification, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, extreme weather events, extensive forest fires, flash flooding, and the like. You don't need to be a scientist to see what is happening in the world!

When we examine an idea that is being dismissed as a conspiracy theory it's always important to understand that even non-scientists can ask questions, not least when these questions are based on our experience and understanding of the world. Does the dominant view, or the 'conspiracy theory', best explain what we see happening to the world? 

Moreover, when we have asked all these questions we can make up our own mind. We are not slaves either science or governments - both of which can be noted for their arrogance. Indeed, we all have a responsibility to look at the evidence and to make up our minds. Did mankind really got to the moon in the 1960's, or was it all staged and filmed on earth? Did 9/11 really happen, or were the twin towers deliberately blown up? You decide!

Health, Disinformation, Fake News and Conspiracy Theory

So let's consider what has become the most important area of 'conspiracy theory' at this present time - the issue of health, and in particular, what is happening to us in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic. The 'conspirators' amongst us claim a variety of things that are being summarily dismissed by conventional medicine - here are just a few.

• The excessive fear the CME (Conventional Medical Establishment) health campaign has generated about the Covid-19 virus.
• The clear and deliberate exaggeration of the numbers of Covid-19 cases, and Covid-19 deaths over the last 18 months. 
• The ongoing failure of hand washing, social distancing, the wearing of masks, and lockdowns, as effective preventative measures against the virus.
  
• The emotional, social, economic and medical harm brought about by the policy of the CME.
  
• The CME's failure/refusal to advise people about how they can support and strengthen their natural immunity against the virus. 
• The over-emphasis placed on the logistical success of the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out, and the under-emphasis on their abject failure to prevent infection, or hospitalisation, or death. 
• The growing evidence that the Covid-19 vaccines are causing serious adverse reactions, including a growing number of deaths; allied with the failure (refusal) of the government, medical authorities and the MSM to inform the general public about this. 
• The CHE's censorship and punishment of any conventional medical doctor or scientist who opposes or disagrees with the dominant CHE message. 
• And the MSM's ongoing refusal to acknowledge the work of natural medical therapists with their patients both to prevent and treat the condition.

This is all opposed to the 'dominant' CME view. Information about health is largely controlled by pharmaceutical medicine, and the 'science' on which it claims to be based. Pharmaceutical (or conventional) medicine is now so powerful it controls most national health provision in the UK, and in most countries around the world. It dominates most national governments. It has infiltrated and taken over most of the mainstream media (MSM). 

This domination is part of what I usually refer to, in this blog and elsewhere, as the CME. So what is the agenda of the CME? It has told us, persistently, for many years, that it is winning the war against illness and disease; that it is based on medical science, and that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are keeping us healthy. And at the same time it dismisses other natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, acupuncture, herbalism, chiropractor, et al, as 'unscientific'; and so they do not work. 

Anyone who contradicts this dominant CME agenda, for example over the Covid-19 pandemic, and the life-saving importance of the Covid-19 vaccines, is now routinely dismissed as peddling fake news, disinformation. We are conspiracy theorists!

Are they right? Let's apply the rules. First, is the CME winning the battle against illness and disease, as it claims; and more specifically how well is it doing in its battle with the Covid-19 virus?

1. Does the idea make sense of our experience/understanding of what is happening in the world?

The CME is very clearly not winning the war against illness and disease. To determine this we have only to examine the rapidly growing incidence of chronic disease, any chronic disease, to discover that more people are now being affected, more seriously, than ever before. It is undeniable fact that we are facing epidemic levels of allergy, arthritis, autism, cancer, dementia, heart/lung/kidney/liver disease, et al, never before experienced.

And after 18 months the CME's response to Covid-19 is still struggling to make any impact on the virus, even after massive vaccination campaigns. In time, all epidemics subside, even the Black Death, the Great Plague, and Spanish flu, etc. But it will be different this time; it will not be a natural decline - the CME taking credit for it!

Yet to question either of these assumptions is considered to be disinformation, fake news; and anyone doing so is dismissed by government, by official health organisations, and by the MSM, as conspiracy theorists. We are described and dismissed as 'vaccine hesitant', as 'anti-vaxxers'  - but without any attempt to explain or discuss with us what our position is. 

And any mention of this 'disinformation' is now being routinely censored by social media organisations. Why does the CME need censorship to win their argument? It is necessary for the MSM to ensure that most people continue to think and believe it is winning the battle against illness and disease, and the war against Covid-19.

2. Is the idea well argued, and supported and justified with sound evidence?
The CME's treatment of illness and disease, its effectiveness and safety, is never seriously questioned or challenged; and hasn't been for the last 100+ years. Most people get their medical information from two sources, doctors and the MSM, and both usually toe the CME's line. So most people continue to believe the repeated assertions that conventional medicine is both safe and effective. Yet there is precious little evidence to support the claims.

I have argued most of the 'conspiracy' theories in this blog, not least during the Covid19 pandemic. They offer an alternative explanation about what has happened to us, and what can be readily observed in the world. 

• The Covid-19 campaign has generated high levels of fear amongst the general population. 
• The overall mortality rate has not increased significantly during the months of the Covid-19 outbreak, and does not warrant this level of fear.
• Hand washing, social distancing, the wearing of masks, and lockdowns, has neither significantly prevented or reduced the incidence of the disease.
• It harm to our emotional, social, economic and medical lives cannot be denied; and the harm has been caused by CME policies, and will have to be dealt with in the months and years to come.
  
• The CME'has rarely, if ever, advised us about the importance of the immune system in protecting us from the Covid-19 virus, or indeed any other virus.
  
• Even with the emphasis placed on the logistical success of the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out, the CME remains reluctant to allow vaccinated people to resume their lives; and vaccinated people continue to contract the virus, they are being hospitalised, and are still dying. 
• The Covid-19 vaccines themselves are now causing serious adverse reactions, and the number of reported deaths are increase every week. Yet neither government, the CME authorities, or the MSM have mentioned this to the general public. It can be found in official data; but we are not being told about it.
  
• The MSM is involved heavily in censorship. They put forward the government/CME position exclusively; and anyone who disagrees are not given a platform.
  
• The CME is disciplining and punishing any conventional medical doctor or scientist who disagrees with their dominant message. 
• And the MSM continues to neglect, and refuses to acknowledge the work being done by natural medical therapists with their patients.

3. Who is putting the idea forward, what are their motives, and who do they represent? 

One of the problems with the medical 'conspiracy theorists', those who do not comply with the dominant medical explanation of the Covid-19 pandemic, is that there are very few organisations sufficiently strong to get its message across. Nor is there any significant co-ordination between them. Indeed, about the only thing that unites the so-called 'conspiracy theorists' is their genuine concern about the harm that the CME is causing by it's response to the virus - to the economy, to our mental health, to social life, to children's education, and to personal freedoms and liberty. 

 

So it is difficult to see any major vested interest that is backing this 'disinformation' campaign!

 

4. Who is dismissing the idea as a conspiracy theory?

Clearly, the CME is currently dominant in health care provision. The pharmaceutical industry ,which leads and controls the CME, is immensely rich, powerful and influential. It has used its position to control national governments, most medical provision, and the mainstream media - indeed, most of the sources of information that the public can use to inform itself about health, illness, disease, and medical treatment. And it is now seeking to extend its control to the information that can be put on social media outlets.

 

So those claiming the existence of "a conspiracy" are back by powerful and influential vested interests. It is understandable that the CME wishes to maintain its dominant position. It has a lot to lose and a lot to protect. It is losing its battle with illness and disease, and is desperate to attack and condemn anyone and everyone who is not 'on message', or who speaks against them.

So the health 'conspiracy theorists' are facing an enormously powerful vested interest, whose very credibility is under threat by its ongoing failure to treat illness and disease successfully, the chronic disease that its drugs and vaccines have cause over the last 70-80 years.

5. What do the two sides have to gain from the acceptance, or the rejection of the idea?

There is only one side of this dispute that can point to any "gains" from the routine dismissal of the dominant message of the CME. It is the CME. Rather than responding to the criticism they condemn it as a 'conspiracy'. Rather than discussing the issues they deny that there are any issues.

It is becoming palpably clear that the "disinformation" is coming from just one side of this health argument. Consider just a few aspects of the so-called 'conspiracy theory':

• the "fake news" is that Covid-19 has been a major health crisis; the correct news is that average mortality rates have not increased significantly during this so-called pandemic.
• the "fake news" is that the Covid-19 vaccines are effective and safe, and will enable social life to return to normal
• the information that demonstrates the vaccines are ineffective and harm comes from the data published by the government and conventional medical authorities
• the failure to provide that information to the general public is 'disinformation' of the very highest order.

In brief, those who are being accused being "conspiracy theorists" are the people who are more accurately describing what is happening, and what can be seen to be going on in the world. Indeed, it is a more convincing explanation than that given by CME's dominant message. It is the government who is providing "disinformation". The MSM are the purveyors of "fake news". It is the CME who represents the "conspiracy theorist".