Dapagliflozin. Yet another pharmaceutical drug is banned

 Another pharmaceutical drug has been effectively banned by the NHS

This happens on a regular basis; but banning a drug is now done with the minimum of fuss and publicity. The pharmaceutical medical establishment seems to think it is better for us patients not to know about it!

The drug is called Dapagliflozin, sold under the name of Forxiga, amongst many others. The headline is that it is "no longer indicated" for Type 1 Diabetes. What this meansis  that the drug was once "indicated" for use with diabetes patients.

"No longer indicated" is a lovely, neutral (meaningless?) phrase, so much nicer than "withdrawn", or "banned"! It means the same though - the drug has been used because it was previously considered to be effective and safe; but it is no longer considered to be either effective or safe.

This is not an unusual event. There has been a long history, stretching back many centuries, of hundreds of pharmaceutical drugs that have been banned, withdrawn, or are "no longer indicated".

All these drugs have caused significant patient harm. Yet all these drugs were initially approved for use with patients, deemed by medical science to be effective and safe. Dapagliflozin was approved in 2012 in Europe, and 2014 in the USA. So much for medical science! 

            "Dapagliflozin was found to be safe and well tolerated by healthy volunteers in double-blinded, placebo controlled ... studies".

So patients have been prescribed all these banned pharmaceutical drugs, often for decades, and patients have suffered damage as a direct consequence. So much for what is supposed to be the first principle of medical ethics - "First do no harm"!

            "This Drugs.com webpage outlines the long list of side effects known to be caused by this drug - even though doctors were advised it was "well indicated", were prepared to prescribe it, and have caused their patients to suffer from anxiety, bladder pain, bloody or cloudy urine, blurred vision, chills, cold sweats, confusion, cool, pale skin, decreased frequency or amount of urine, depression, difficult, burning, or painful urination, dizziness, fast heartbeat, frequent urge to urinate, headache, increased hunger, increased thirst, itching of the vagina or genitals, loss of appetite,loss of consciousness, lower back or side pain, nausea, nightmares, seizures, shakiness, slurred speech, swelling of the face, fingers, or lower legs, thick, white vaginal discharge with mild or no odour, trouble breathing, unusual tiredness or weakness, vomiting, weight gain. And these are the "more common" side effects of the drug. Read the entire page. Doctors were actually warned that the drug was known to cause gangrene. 

No wonder, perhaps, that Dapagliflozin has been banned, however belatedly!

But banning a pharmaceutical drug is different now. There has been NO public announcement. NO admission of culpability. NO apology. Just an explicit instruction to doctors - its use has to be 'discontinued', with immediate effect. In other words, the drug is now known to be dangerous.

            "It is recommended that use of dapagliflozin in patients with type I diabetes is reviewed and discontinued by or in consultation with a specialist and that this is done as soon as clinically practical. With the removal of the type I diabetes indication, the previously published risk minimisation materials for the drug will no longer be available."

This is what happens whenever anyone goes to see their doctor. They risk being prescribed drugs, described as safe, which are not safe; described as effective when they are not effective. And what this situation shows is that the drugs doctors are prescribing today are no safer, and no more effective, than the drugs they have prescribed to us in the past. You are NOT safe in your doctors hands.

So anyone who is currently taking pharmaceutical drugs or vaccines today should ask themselves - what guarantee do you have that these drugs are safe, and will not suffer the same fate as Dapagliflozin? And do you really want to continue risking drug damage?

Once anyone believes good health comes from a bottle of pills, or a vaccine, that person has lost his battle with ill-health.

Once anyone believes good health comes from a bottle of pills or a vaccine, that person has lost his battle with ill-health.

Thanks to the Organic Consumers Association for this marvellous thought........

 “No authority during Covid-19 has said:

• People are sick, they need more time outdoors.
• People are sick, they need more touch. 
• People are sick, they need healthy gut flora. 
• People are sick, they need pure water. 
• People are sick, they need less electromagnetic pollution. 
• People are sick, they need less chemicals in food. 
• People are sick, let’s put diabetes warnings on soda pop. 
• People are sick, let’s encourage them to meditate and pray more. 
• People are sick, let’s get them in the garden. 
• People are sick, let’s make our cities walkable. 
• People are sick, let’s clean the air. 
• People are sick, let’s provide free mould remediation on all dwellings.
• People are sick, let’s promote education about local herbs.
• People are sick, let’s make the best supplements and practices of the biohackers and health gurus available to all.
• People are sick, let’s heal our agricultural soils.’
  

These are the real principles of maintaining and regaining good health. 

How much more healthy, safer from illness and disease, would we all be if conventional medicine were to tell us this, rather than pushing pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines?

The Menopause, HRT, and Breast Cancer

I have written about the menopause, hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and breast and cervical cancer many times before. To do so again is certainly deja vu! But headline health news recently provided us with "good" news - at least this is how it has been universally heralded:

HRT Prescription Charges to be Reduced.

       "The cost of repeat HRT prescriptions will be cut in a move set to save women who rely on the treatment 'hundreds of pounds per year', the government has announced. Working with NHS England, the government says it will look to implement longer prescribing cycles 'in line with NICE guidelines', so women receive fewer prescriptions, meaning they pay fewer prescription charges. The government has asked NHS England to review current practice and the barriers to implementing NICE guidance. To further improve access to HRT, the government will also look at the possibility of combining 2 hormone treatments into one prescription, so women only pay a single charge. It says this change would benefit around 10% of women accessing HRT".

Patients in particular were said to be delighted at the outcome - clearly the decision is going to save them money - and this is usually a good reason for delight! But should it be? The history of HRT is closely linked to breast and cervical cancer.

• In the early 2000's, research began to demonstrate the strong link between HRT and cancer, to the extent that the research was stopped because it was considered unsafe, and unethical to continue.

       "....several trials produced results that were so bad they had to be discontinued.  In 2002, trials conducted by the Women’s Health Initiative in the USA, described as 'the largest and best designed federal studies of HRT'  was halted because women taking the hormones had a significantly increased risk of breast  and cervical cancer, heart attacks, stroke and blood clots. More trials were terminated in 2007, when a study of 5,692 women taking HRT raised similar concerns but added 'more definition to the health risks' (WDDTY 9 August 2007, source: British Medical Journal, 2007; 335: 239-44).

• So from 2007, some 5 years too late, HRT was virtually suspended for several years.
• Then, in 2015, like magic, HRT was rejuvenated. The research was discounted, so doctors could began prescribing it again, and so women began taking it again - in large numbers. HRT might cause breast cancer, heart problems and dementia, but (what the hell) women should take it anyway!
• But then, in 2016, just one year later, there was a warning. HRT could cause breast cancer! As I said at the time, it was 'old news' presented as 'new news'. But nothing was done, no action was taken to protect women.
  
• Now, a further 5 years on, we are being asked to rejoice - because these dangerous drugs are to be made available to women far cheaper than they were before.

What this demonstrates, of course, is that medical science has a short memory, even about its own research, and further, that this amnesia places patients at risk of dangerous and harmful drugs. It tells us that the conventional medical establishment is prepared to give patients pharmaceutical drugs, regardless of the harm they are known to cause!

So what does conventional medicine say about the causes of breast cancer? This is just one of the serious adverse reactions to HRT, but this is what the UK's NHS state

        "The causes of breast cancer are not fully understood, making it difficult to say why one woman may develop breast cancer and another may not."

If you persevere, and continue down the page, after causes such as 'age', 'family history', 'previous breast cancer and lumps', 'dense breast tissue' (all of which the patient, nor medicine can do anything about), you get to hormone replacement, and a recognition that "HRT is associated with an increased risk of developing breast cancer". Then it suggests that

        "There is no increased risk of breast cancer if you take HRT for less than 1 year. But if you take HRT for longer than 1 year, you have a higher risk of breast cancer than women who never use HRT."

Yet surely this is what the government has now negotiated for women, cheaper repeat prescriptions for a drug that should not be used for more than one year! What kind of medicine is this? It is more than amnesia. It provides patients with price incentives to take a dangerous drug for longer, against it's own current advice!

The NHS goes on to accept that "the increased risk of breast cancer falls after you stop taking HRT, but some increased risk remains for more than 10 years compared to women who have never used HRT".

The advice for women should surely be not to take HRT. But as pharmaceutical medicine has nothing else, certainly nothing safer to offer, it is prepared to prescribe a drug that has been proven to be lethal for women for many decades - since the 1940's.

And this is done by a medical system whose first principle is supposed to be "First, do no harm".

Yet there is an alternative, a safer medicine available. It is homeopathy. Homeopathy can deal with the menopause, and do so without causing breast and cervical cancer, heart problems, and dementia.

Why Homeopathy? for the Menopause.

Postscript: July 2022

HRT and the Menopause
So HRT was safe until the early 2000's: then it was so unsafe that research was stopped because these drugs were too dangerous; then new research in 2015 (financed by the pharmaceutical industry) 'proved' it was safe...... AND NOW "new evidence" is being considered that NICE guidelines might have to be renewed - because the drug is causing breast cancer.
    * When will conventional medicine learn?
    * When will patients learn that Con Med is not to be trusted?
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/womens-health/nice-to-review-menopause-guidance-over-evidence-of-hrt-cancer-risk/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pulse%20daily
 

The Immune System. Why Conventional Medicine wants to Re-educate us

The Conventional Medical Establishment is trying to "re-educate" us about our immune system. The new medical understanding is that the immune system protects us best only after we have been vaccinated, and even questions whether there is any such thing as "natural immunity". 

These are some comments I have seen recently on the Quora website, responses to a question about whether "young children have a natural immunity to Covid-19, even if they do not catch it". What these responses describe appears to be an entirely new understanding of what the immune system is, what it does, and how it does it.

        "No human of any age has immunity until infected or vaccinated."

        "I don't think they could have any natural immunity....."

        "No. No one has any immunity to COVID 19. We/Humans have never had it before; therefore, we have never developed any immunity."

        "No, Next question please". 

        "One cannot have a “natural” immunity to a non-preexisting entity. First, one has to be exposed."

        "No. To have an immune response to a specific virus your immune system has to see the virus, either by catching ir or being vaccinated against it...."

        " No. There is no such thing as “natural immunity”.

        "There is no natural immunity".

        "The coronavirus that causes Covid-19 is novel to the human race, so no one is immune to it, especially children."

        "No human has 'natural immunity' until they are infected and their immune system responds." 

        "No, haven't you seen any local news? The hospitals are filled with children with Covid.

Most of the responses the questioner received were in the same vein. To date the questioner has received 53 similar responses. Perhaps this should not come as too much of a surprise. During the Covid-19 pandemic conventional medical 'experts' have been given free-rein, both by government and the mainstream media (MSM), to inform us about this entirely new understanding of our immune systems. 

"We have no immunity, we are all at risk, we all need the vaccine" has become part of the official narrative being incessantly forced on us.

Only vaccines can safe us from Covid-19!

So what you will now hear from me will be described by the conventional medical establishment as disinformation! However, I will quote only from conventional medical websites to describe what we used to believe the immune system is, and what it does. This 'misinformation', for examples, is taken from the John Hopkins Medicine website.

        "The immune system protects your child's body from outside invaders, such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, and toxins (chemicals produced by microbes). It is made up of different organs, cells, and proteins that work together. There are two main parts of the immune system:

• The innate immune system, which you are born with.
• The adaptive immune system, which you develop when your body is exposed to microbes or chemicals released by microbes."

THE INNATE IMMUNE SYSTEM. This is your child's rapid response system. It patrols your child’s body and is the first to respond when it finds an invader. The innate immune system is inherited and is active from the moment your child is born. When this system recognizes an invader, it goes into action immediately. The cells of this immune system surround and engulf the invader. The invader is killed inside the immune system cells. These cells are called phagocytes." (also from the JHM website, my emphasis).

THE ACQUIRED IMMUNE SYSTEM. The acquired immune system, with help from the innate system, produces cells (antibodies) to protect your body from a specific invader. These antibodies are developed by cells called B lymphocytes after the body has been exposed to the invader. The antibodies stay in your child's body. It can take several days for antibodies to develop. But after the first exposure, the immune system will recognize the invader and defend against it. The acquired immune system changes throughout your child's life." (also from the JHM website, with my emphasis).

The JHM website only then adds that "immunizations train your child's immune system to make antibodies to protect him or her from harmful diseases." It is almost an after-thought. But it is an after-thought that does not explain why the child's immune system should not work; why it should fail in its primary task; or what has compromised our 'natural immunity' so that we need vaccines.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases describes the function of the immune system as follows"

        "The overall function of the immune system is to prevent or limit infection..... The immune system can distinguish between normal, healthy cells and unhealthy cells by recognizing a variety of "danger" cues called danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). Cells may be unhealthy because of infection or because of cellular damage caused by non-infectious agents like sunburn or cancer. Infectious microbes such as viruses and bacteria release another set of signals recognized by the immune system called pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs)." 

Let's try one more description of the immune system this time described by the NCBI, the National Centre for Biotechnology Information .

        "The immune system has a vital role: it protects your body from harmful substances, germs and cell changes that could make you ill. It is made up of various organs, cells and proteins. As long as your immune system is running smoothly, you don’t notice that it’s there. But if it stops working properly - because it’s weak or can't fight particularly aggressive germs - you get ill. Germs that your body has never encountered before are also likely to make you ill. Some germs will only make you ill the first time you come into contact with them. These include childhood diseases like chickenpox."

        "Without an immune system, we would have no way to fight harmful things that enter our body from the outside or harmful changes that occur inside our body. The main tasks of the body’s immune system are: 

• to fight disease-causing germs (pathogens) like bacteria, viruses, parasites or fungi,
• to remove them from the body, 
• to recognize and neutralize harmful substances from the environment, and 
• to fight disease-causing changes in the body, such as cancer cells.

This is how the immune system has been understood for a very long time. Thucydides, an Athenia historian and general, said this about acquired immunity in 430bce, during the Athenian Plague.

        "Yet it was with those who had recovered from the disease that the sick and the dying found most compassion. These knew what it was from experience and had no fear for themselves; for the same man was never attacked twice - never at least fatally."

So nothing in any of these conventional medical descriptions, pre-Covid-19, talk about the inability of the immune system to recognise new, or strange viruses, whether artificially produced in a Chinese laboratory, or not. They do not support what conventional medicine now seems to be saying. To the contrary, we have been told, and we have been aware for many millenia, that the immune system is designed to protect us against 'foreign substances'.

Nowhere, in any of these descriptions, is it suggested that we have NO immunity UNTIL we have CAUGHT the infection; and certainly not UNTIL we have been vaccinated.

• So who is spreading disinformation?
• Has conventional medicine been wrong about the immune system for centuries - until now? If so, where is the science?
  
• Or perhaps our former understanding of innate and acquired immunity (= natural immunity?) does not lead to the financial rewards that 'vaccine acquired' immunity provides for the pharmaceutical industry?

I do not know who the young person was who asked the question. But the responses he/she received will have left him/her in little doubt that he/she was completely unprotected against the Covid-19 virus, and that he/she would either have to subject himself/herself to the virus, or get the vaccine.

Of course the immune system does not protect everyone from everything; if it could do that no-one would ever be ill. We have known this for a long time too. But the problem is not the immune system - it is our treatment and abuse of our immune system. If we eat badly, if we don't exercise properly, if we smoke, if we drink to access, if we take pharmaceutical drugs, et al., we can undermine, or compromise our immune system. When we abuse our bodies our immune system will not function so well; it will not give us the protection it should; we will succumb to illness.

The Covid-19 narrative has, at least (and to a very limited extent) been honest about this. We have been told that those people most at risk of infection, hospitalisation and death are people with compromised immune systems. However, the narrative has never gone on to develop this further. Conventional medicine should have been telling us how best we can support natural immunity but it has signally failed to do so.

• It has never told people what they can do to support and strengthen their immune systems - in terms of nutrition, exercise and life-style choices.
• It has never offered people tests that can assess the strength of their immunity (although I believe such tests do exist).
  
• It has never told people who have strong immune systems that they could/should carry on their lives, normally, through the pandemic - in order to keep social life moving.
• The official narrative certainly never mentioned that people with "underlying health conditions" were often people who have a history of taking pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines for other illnesses, and that taking these drugs could have compromised their immune system.
• We have never been told that people who had had limb and organ transplantation, and other people taking "immuno-suppressant" drugs (that is, pharmaceutical drugs that intentionally compromise our natural immunity) were most at risk from the Covid-19 virus.

So the pharmaceutical industry might want to promote their vaccines. It might want to downplay the importance of innate and acquired immunity - natural immunity. It might want to suggest that vaccine immunity is best.

But nobody needs to believe this blatant promotional sales pitch!

Natural immunity is alive and well; and unless we abuse it it will continue to protect us from most infections, and keep us well, just as it has always done.

 

POSTCRIPT

91 Scientific studies prove naturally acquired immunity provides better protection protection than the Covid-19 Vaccines (a summary given of each study provided here)

Neurodiversity. A valuable concept: but it has an inherent danger

When faced with a failing, but still powerful and highly manipulative medical system, it is necessary to examine any new terminology that suddenly appears with regard to health. One such medical term is "Neurodiversity". It has been variously described, but the 'Genius Within' website provides a good comprehensive definition.

    "Neurodiversity is the concept that all humans vary in terms of our neurocognitive ability. Everyone has talents and things they struggle with. However, for some people the variation between those strengths and weaknesses is more pronounced, which can bring talent but can also be disabling.

    "Neurodiverse / neurodivergent people tend to find some things very easy and other things incredibly hard. This usually leads to an inconsistent performance at school or work.

    "Neurodiversity can be a competitive advantage when the individuals are in the right environment, making use of their strengths, instead of constantly trying to overcome challenges. To achieve this we must create inclusive spaces to work and learn that reduce disabling factors and amplify diverse abilities.

Given this definition I have no problem with the concept of Neurodiversity. Indeed, it is an approach to life that seeks to adopt a positive view towards all people, focusing what what every person has to offer than any deficit they may have. It seeks to avoid the problem of dealing with people as a merely a member of a 'minority' group, and all the stigma this can entail. Genius Within say that its aim "is to work towards a world where all variations in the rich tapestry of human cognition are accepted and enabled."

Yet Neurodiversity has been controversial among disability advocates. Those opposed to, or have doubts about the concept point out that it does not reflect the realities of individual lives, especially those people who have high support needs. I share this concern; but my issue is somewhat different.

I wholeheartedly applaud any other effort to avoid and overcome the problem of stigmatising minority groups whether this be through sociability, learning difficulties, attention span, changeability of mood, and other issues regarding mental functioning. Indeed I welcome anything that removes the social barriers to the acceptance and full involvement in social life of any individual.

Genius Within says that neurodiverse, or neurodivergent conditions include a variety of physically 'invisible', but ever-growing conditions such as:

• ADHD (affecting 5% of the population)
  
• Autism (2% of the population)
  
• Dyslexia (10% of the population)
  
• Dyspraxia (5% of the population)
  
• Tourette syndrome (2% of the population)

They add that 7% of the population now have mental health needs, and 5% of the population have an acquired brain injury. So the neurodiverse population is a significant, and a growing one.

My quite specific problem with the definition of neurodiversity is given by the 'Understood' website which states that:

 

    "Neurodiversity is a viewpoint that brain differences are normal, rather than deficits."

The conditions listed above as neurodivergent are not "normal" conditions. They have a relatively modern rise to prominence. They are essentially new diseases, either previously unknown, or whose incidence have become more widespread in recent decades. Why is this? What is the pathology. Something has caused them. And my argument is that it is always vital we seek to find the causation of any illness.

• If we had not discovered that rickets was caused by a lack of vitamin C that disease would still be rife amongst the population.
• If we had not discovered that most 19th century epidemics (for measles, cholera, typhus, typhoid, smallpox, et al) were caused by poverty, poor nutrition, inadequate overcrowded housing, bad sanitation and water supply, we would still be experiencing these epidemics at regular intervals.
• If we had not linked the use of DDT, and other toxic chemicals, as the cause of poliomyelitis, we would still be in the midst of a polio crisis.
  

So if neurodiversity is used to challenge the view that neurodevelopmental disorders are pathological, that knowing about the causation is not important, if we accept that they are "normal", medicine will be unable to progress.

My first contact with the concept of neurodiversity was in response to a blog I wrote, several years ago now, on the link between autism and childhood vaccines. I was taken to task by someone who told me that autism was NOT a disease, or an illness, but a gift. She said that she loved her son, and did not want him to be associated with being sick, or in any way abnormal. 

This made me realise that we were speaking about two quite different things. She was talking about the love she had for her son, and how he should be treated. I was talking about the pathology of the condition with which her son had been diagnosed.

There should be no conflict between these two approaches, the one can progress alongside the other. She should be able to love her autistic son, and I should be able to look at the cause of her son's condition. The two tasks were not mutually exclusive.

Treating the person as "normal" is important. Treating the condition itself as 'normal' risks failing to examine the cause of the condition - and doing away with it.

I understand that neurodiversity is especially popular within the autism rights movement. And this is my worry. My concern is that 'neurodiversity' will be used by the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) to deflect attention away from the causation of these conditions, not least autism. 

The CME already denies vehemently any connection between autism and childhood vaccination. The rise of autism has been alarming, and it continues to rise. Yet when asked about the cause of the autism epidemic the CME says (quoting the UK's NHS):

          "The exact cause of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is currently unknown. It's a complex condition and may occur as a result of genetic predisposition (a natural tendency), environmental or unknown factors."

How a disease, unknown prior to the 1940's, can have a 'genetic' cause is not explained. Yet it would appear that the CME does know that it is NOT childhood vaccines. It dismisses any link out of hand!

          "In the past, a number of things were linked to ASD, but extensive research has found no evidence to suggest that any of these contribute to the condition."

Yet there are, in fact, 160 research papers that supports the vaccine / autism link.

I would hate to think that the neurodiversity movement would be taken over by the CME. There is a real danger that the pharmaceutical industry might want to 'support' the neurodiversity movement, another part of its programme to deny medical harm caused by adverse drug and vaccine effects. It provides them with an attractive argument. "Autistic children are lovely, loveable people; we should spend our time loving them, not asking questions about why they developed autism".

So Neurodiversity could become an excuse for pharmaceutical denial. We don't need to look at the pharmaceutical causes of autism, in case links are found with vaccines, or paracetamol, or antidepressants, or any other drug. We do not need to look at the pharmaceutical causes of Tourette's, in case links are found with drugs like Amphetamine Sulfate, Benzphetamine Hydrochlorideor, Cylert, Pemolline, or vaccines.  

And the same applies to any of the other conditions under the umbrella of neurodiversity.

The CME message would be clear. "We have to accept that we will all be ill, and that there is no treatment for these conditions. We don't need to know about causation. It is sufficient just to love people, don't bother to look at cause. And if you (the neurodiversity movement) do this, we will support you movement with money."  This is exactly what it has done with many health charities, and patient support groups. 

The pharmaceutical industry is highly profitable, the most highly profitable industry of all; and it uses its money to divert attention from its direct culpability in the causation of illness.

I have never known anybody who has purposely set out to have a child who suffers from any condition, neurological or any other, because they are lovable. Good parents will love them, of course; and value them, of course.

But causation should never be dismissed; we should not allow anyone who has caused any medical condition to deflect attention away from their culpability; we should not allow drug companies to get away with any patient harm that may have been caused by their highly profitable drugs and vaccines.

Mandatory vaccination or Forced Drugging. Is it happening?

Mandatory vaccination or forced drugging is something people around the world are now facing.

I have had several conversations recently with people who told me that there was no mandating of vaccines, or forced drugging. Their reasoning was that no-one was being forcibly held down and injected. This kind of semantic obfuscation has become typical of what we are being told by doctors and politicians, and the rest of the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME). 

No politician (within the democratic world) is likely to admit to physically forcing vaccination on people: but politicians are seeking to ensure that non-compliance with vaccination will lead to losing their employment, and severe restrictions of social life. According these these 'double-speaking' politicians, this does not constitute mandating vaccines, as this video (from New Zealand) demonstrates (click here, https://www.facebook.com/raewyn.howes/videos/414242080260286, for as long as it remains uncensored on Facehook). Basically, the video shows New Zealand politicians saying there will be no mandating of vaccines, followed by government statements mandating them, and individuals whose jobs and livelihoods have been threatened!

This is typical of what is happening at the moment - politicians following policies that enforce drugging but having to deny it because it might be unpopular.

This is not the first time that the CME has tried to force drugs and vaccines on us. I have written about two of these occasions recently, the mandating of the smallpox vaccination, and the mandating of the polio vaccines. Both ended badly, not because of the objections of 'democratic' politicians, but in both cases the vaccines were so harmful they were ultimately rejected by the people.

I expect this will be the outcome of the mandating of Covid-19 vaccines - but unfortunately not until they have continued to cause untold patient harm, or before sufficient numbers of people realise how dangerous the vaccines are.

Politicians, and doctors around the world are being led by the nose by the pharmaceutical companies, which stand to profit enormously from forcing these vaccines on unwilling people. Both politicians and doctors are now part and parcel of the CME, entirely willing to be their bidding. And they are enforcing vaccines that have NOT been fully tested, have been 'approved' for emergency use only, and patients have not been fully informed about the serious adverse vaccines reactions that have been reported.

Moreover, politicians (and doctors) are willing to do so quite regardless of many political and medical principles that have been adopted over the years. I list some of them here.

1. Hippocrates oath (-460 // 377): "I will not give anyone poison, if asked, nor take the initiative of such a suggestion."

2. Code of Medical Ethics, Article 36:
Article R4127- 36 of the Public Health Code:  "The consent of the person examined or treated must be sought in all cases. When the patient, in a state of expressing his will, refuses the investigation or treatment proposed, the doctor must respect this refusal after informing the patient of his consequences.′′

3. Nuremberg Code (1947): "The consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights resumed this ban against unintentional experimentation, in its 1966 text, which states: no one may be  subjected without his consent to medical or scientific experiment."

4. Geneva statement for doctors (1948): "I will respect the autonomy and dignity of my patient. I will not use my medical knowledge to infringe human rights and civil liberties, even under force. I will keep absolute respect for human life, from conception. I will consider my patient's health as my first concern."

5. Helsinki Declaration (1996) signed by 45 countries:
Article 25: "The participation of persons capable of giving informed consent to medical research must be a voluntary act. No person capable of giving their informed consent can be involved in a search without giving their free and informed consent.′′

 6) Oviedo Convention (1997) signed by 29 countries:
Article 5: "An intervention in the field of health can only be carried out after the data subject has given free and informed consent. This person is given prior adequate information about the purpose and nature of the intervention, as well as its consequences and risks. The data subject may, at any time, freely withdraw his consent."

7. Loi Kouchner (March 4, 2002):
Article 111-4: "Every person shall make decisions concerning his health with the healthcare professional and taking into account the information he provides him / her. The doctor must respect the will of the person after informing them of the consequences of their choices. If the person's willingness to refuse or discontinue treatment puts his or her life at risk, the doctor must do everything to convince him or her to accept the much needed care. No medical or treatment can be practiced without the free and informed consent of the person and this consent can be withdrawn at any time."

8. Salvetti stop (2002): No medical treatment is mandatory in the European Union:  "As a non-voluntary medical treatment, mandatory vaccination is an interference with the right to privacy, guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms." (Salvetti v Italy-ECHR decision of 9 July 2002; No. 42197/98)

9. French Civil Code:
Article 16-1: ′′ Everyone has the right to respect their own bodies. The body is inviolable."

10. Council of Europe resolution 2361 (28 January 2021): advisory opinion: the Assembly urges member states and the European Union:
    Article 731:  "To ensure that citizens are informed that vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to get vaccinated, if he or she does not wish to do so personally."
    Article 732:  "To ensure that no one is discriminated against for not being vaccinated, due to potential health risk or not wanting to get vaccinated.′′

(A word of apology here. I have used a source that put this information together that I can no longer find. If/when I can reference this source I will be delighted to do so).

On the grounds of these political and medical principles alone, mandatory or forced drugging should not be carried out. The fact that doctors are willing to do so today, aided, abetted and supported by the CME; and that politicians of every political persuasion, not least the 'liberal' left, are prepared to sanction it; is utterly and completely disgraceful.

Forcing people to accept pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines does not require the forcible holding down of a patient. It is simply the action of ignoring what someone tells you!

I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE THIS PHARMACEUTICAL TREATMENT

WE WILL BE ALL FREE BY FEBRUARY!

How good a memory do you have? Can you remember back to those bad old days when we were all "locked down", unable to have a social or work life.

The official Covid-19 Narrative (provided in unison by government, conventional medical authorities, and the mainstream media (MSM) was that Covid-19 was a killer disease; there was no medical treatment, we were all at risk; it was killing millions of people around the world: so we all had to sacrifice our lives in order to save ourselves, others; and we had to save the NHS at the same time!

After nearly a year of this blanket official Narrative it suddenly changed. Now there was hope. We could spur ourselves on. Help was at hand. This was the new message.

Daily Express
20th December 2020
"WE WILL BE FREE BY FEBRUARY"

The new Astra Zenica vaccine, with its "new winning formula" would be approved early that week. Two million jabs would be ready for the most vulnerable and elderly within a fortnight. Let me quote from this heroic front page article.

            "Britain could be free from severe Covid restrictions by February thanks to a new ‘winning formula’ vaccine. The “game-changing” Oxford AstraZeneca jabs expected to be approved as early as today, paving way for a massed vaccination blitz. Insiders say that the perfected vaccine works better than hoped and will match the best on offer. A source said: “The path to liberation is finally becoming clear".

This message was to help us through the misery of lockdown. And as has always been the case with the official narrative, everyone was singing, in unison, from the same hymn-sheet.

(And as a postscript, 3 years later, please note that the AstraZeneca vaccine has now been withdrawn from the market because of the harm it is now known to have caused).

The Sun
27th December 2020

            "The UK could be free of lockdowns by February - after Government officials drew up a list of 15million vulnerable Brits who need the vaccine first. It comes amid news that the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab could get the green light for use as early as Monday - with roll-out beginning in just a week.

So it spurred on on, the worst was over, in just a couple of months we would all be free to resume our normal lives again. As long as we all took the (now banned) AZ vaccine!

Yet by February 2021, the very time when we should have all been free, the official narrative had been forced to change. The optimism had faded. The vaccine was not working, as we had been promised.

Mail Online
4th February
Britain could vaccinate its way out of lockdown by April 7th

             "That's the latest date the UK will finish injecting all over-50s if vaccine drive keeps up pace - as ministers claim it's the key to ending restrictions and infections drop again.... MPs are pressing for a road map out of lockdown as Boris Johnson and his advisers continue to act cautiously. Schools look set to begin fully reopening on March 8 but it could be weeks or months until lockdown ends".

I could continue with this rather depressing tale; but sadly I would very quickly get bored; and in any case you know what has happened. Hope faced into reality. Our 'freedom' has been regularly postponed: this had to happen first: > then we needed two doses of the vaccine; > then the NHS still needed to be protected because from unsustainable pressures: > then we need a boaster vaccine: > then it's all the fault of those nasty anti-vaxxers: > then we now need an annual jab; > then we needed vaccine passports: > then we needed to force more people to comply: > then we need to have flu vaccines too. And so it goes on.

Whenever we listen to people who speak to us, especially when they tell us we must do something, we have to determine whether (i) are they telling the truth; (ii) do they really know what they are talking about; (iii) whether we can trust anything they are saying; (iv) or whether they are lying. We have to do this all the time but we now need to do it over the Covid-19 narrative.

The Covid-19 Narrative is the Narrative of the Pharmaceutical Industry. It might appear that the drug companies have been silent during this pandemic; but they speak through Governments, through official medical channels, and throughout the mainstream media. This is the measure of the control Big Pharma has over the Covid-19 narrative, and health messages generally.

As Marshal McLuhan once told us, "The medium is the message". And the medium through which public information is now coming is controlled by the Conventional Medical Establishment (CME). This is why, at any one time, the dominant message reaching the public is the same. No matter the platform, the source is the same - the CME. And anything outside the official CME narrative has to be dismissed as "misinformation", "conspiracy theory", and censored on social media.

So what is the official Narrative telling us today? Is it any more truthful, or more accurate, then the message we were being given in December 2020; or in February 2021? There are, perhaps, more important questions to ask.

• is conventional, drug-based medicine, really any closer now to having any sort of control over this virus?
• more, does it have any control over the epidemic levels of chronic diseases?
  
• and why is the official narrative still fail to tell the public about the patient damage that the Covid-19 vaccines are now known to be causing?
  

Covid-19 will subside. All infectious disease subside - eventually. This is NOT through the work of vaccines, it is the through work of our innate and natural immunity. Yet, as soon as it can, the CME will claim that it was their vaccines that were triumphant. This always happens; it happened with measles, with polio, and with smallpox, and many more. This might be a lie, but the CME will state it through governments, conventional medical authorities, and the MSM, and they will repeat it often enough for most people to believe it.

Pharmaceutical medicine is not setting us free. It really has no intention of setting us free. If two vaccinations had been sufficient to set us free we would now be enjoying our freedom! If the boaster shots are capable of setting us free, they will set us free. But why should the pharmaceutical companies want to set us free, even if they were capable of doing it (and they are not). Setting us 'free' from illness and disease is not a good financial strategy for the drug companies. If they were capable of making us well, if they could cure illness and disease, we would no longer require or need their drugs. It would be bad for business. Pharmaceutical medicine wants us sick!

For them, setting us free is a really bad idea!

If we really want of liberty, we will have to look for it elsewhere!