Gut Health is now linked to Alzheimer's Disease: so what has damaged our gut and led to the dementia epidemic?

Gut health has recently been linked to Alzheimer's disease (and therefore, probably, many cases of dementia as a whole). The study can be found here, "Common Gut Infection linked to Alzheimer's Disease". Any other industry, on learning this, might be expected to ask the next question. 

What is causing this infection, why has our gut been harmed?

But not, of course, pharmaceutical medicine! Whilst, for example, a car manufacturer might want to learn about problems that arising in their vehicles in order to remedy it, drug companies are weary about doing so as it might just identify one (or more) of their drugs as a cause of an unhealthy gut. And this would, of course, be bad for business!

Over 15 years ago I produced a list of pharmaceutical drugs that had been (and still are) linked to dementia and Alzheimer's disease. As you can see they include:

• vaccine ingredients such as mercury and aluminium derivatives
• the 'flu vaccine
• antidepressant drugs
• antipsychotic drugs
• statin drugs
• Benzodiazepine drugs, and other sleeping pills
• anticholinergic drugs
• antihistamine and other allergy drugs
• proton-pump inhibitors
• painkilling drugs
• epilepsy drugs
• HRT (hormone replacement therapy)
• and many more.

So is it any wonder that dementia, in all its forms, has increased to epidemic proportions during the last 70-100 years, mirroring the enormous rise in the consumption of all these drugs? Another common drug prescribed in vast quantities during this time are Antibiotic drugs - designed to kill bacteria - usually taken by mouth directly to the stomach - and so let loose on the beneficial bacteria of our gut microbiome. A direct, and surely an undeniable link!

        So is dementia caused by pharmaceutical drugs? 

        And does the pharmaceutical industry want to ask this question in order to discover what has been causing the epidemic of Alzheimer's disease?

We can be absolutely sure that the drugs do; but the industry don't! My e-Book, "Iatrogenic Disease: the "Disease-Inducing-Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs", demonstrates that most common chronic diseases are, to one extent or another, linked to well-known 'adverse drug/vaccine' reactions.

Yet you will never hear this from the pharmaceutical industry, or the conventional medical establishment, or government, or the mainstream media - most of our main sources of information. 

Why? 

The drug industry is just too powerful to permit it; and it uses its vast wealth and influence to ensure that we do not get to know about it.

Myths of Conventional Medical Success. Whooping Cough (Pertussin)

It has been my intention for some time to write on Whooping Cough (Pertussin) in my blog series "The Myths of Conventional Medical Success", following my blogs on Smallpox, Polio and Measles, Antibiotics - and, indeed, the Covid-19 vaccines. Each of these blogs highlights the outstanding success of the advertising and promotion of the pharmaceutical industry; whilst contrasting this with the abject failure of the drug companies medicine's to they claim to have 'conquered' or 'eliminated' these diseases.

The story of the Whooping Cough vaccines has been remarkably similar; great propaganda, but little or no evidence of effectiveness.

However, this blog has been effectively written for me in an excellent, and well researched article by Roman Bystrianyk, entitled "Whooping Cough and Vaccines: 10 things you probably didn't know, who was co-author of the equally excellent book, "Dissolving Illusions: disease, vaccines, and the forgotten history", written now over 10 years ago - but still as relevant as ever. So I will outline these 10 facts here, and rely upon you to read the Bystrianyk article in greater detail, and alongside his sources.

    1. Death Rate Dropped Nearly 100% Without Vaccination

Historical data from England and Wales, beginning in 1838, indicate that deaths from whooping cough, and other infectious diseases, had already dropped to near zero before the rollout of vaccines or antibiotics.

    2. Sweden Halted Vaccination; Deaths Unchanged

In Sweden, examinations in 1978 showed that 84% of children who were verified to have pertussis had previously received three doses of vaccine. As a result, the whole-cell DTP vaccine was deemed ineffective. 

    3. Vaccination Rates in England Dropped, No Increase in Deaths

A thorough examination of the complete, official data shows an obvious and dramatic drop in whooping cough deaths between 1902 and 2008. The DTP vaccine coverage rate was officially recorded in England starting in 1970. But by 1957, when vaccination began nationally, deaths from whooping cough had already all but vanished.

    4. Whooping Cough Had Become Mild

Whooping cough often instils fear in parents, conjuring images of children coughing and choking dangerously. However, in 1981, Gordon T. Stewart described whooping cough as "generally mild ... which most children escape or overcome easily without being vaccinated." Similarly, in 1995, Douglas Jenkinson studied 500 cases of natural whooping cough and observed that parents rarely noticed the characteristic cough, concluding that a “serious outcome is unlikely.”

5. Whooping Cough Bacteria Is Common

Some estimate that as many as one-third of adolescents and adults with a prolonged cough are infected with B. pertussis bacteria. This applies even to those who have been vaccinated or had the natural disease.

6. Vaccines Cause Neurological Damage

The debate regarding neurologic damage from the vaccine has been going on for decades (and this goes back to at least the 1940's).

7. Whooping Cough Vaccine Fades In Three Years

A study by Dr. David Witt, chief of infectious disease at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California, found that the pertussis vaccine lost its effectiveness in as little as 3 years (and more studies are referenced).

8. Whooping Cough Now Affects Adolescents and Adults

Before the pertussis vaccine was introduced, lengthy natural immunity was, in fact, the norm because of the natural family and community dynamics. In the 1940s, pertussis was considered only a childhood illness. If an adolescent or adult got it, everyone was astonished.

9. Vaccines Permanently Mis-programs The Immune System

The term “original antigenic sin” (OAS) was coined by Dr. Thomas Francis, who became well known during the Salk vaccine era when he oversaw and interpreted the results of the largest (and most controversial) polio vaccine trial in history. He explained the phenomenon of OAS using the natural influenza virus as an example.

10. Despite Failures, Vaccinologists Recommend More Vaccination

As had been the promise with all vaccines at their inception, there was an expectation that vaccinated people would be protected for life against whooping cough.... This is far from true. The DTaP vaccine compromises the immune system permanently.

 

These ten points outline demolish any realistic chance that Whooping Cough (Pertussin) vaccines played any significant part in either the reduction of cases, the seriousness of those remaining cases, or the safety of the vaccine. 

It is not so much that all these ten points are all proven, and do not require more debate, and further research. 

• It is that most people are not aware of them, they are not, and never have been discussed by the conventional medical establishment,
  
• instead, the conventional medical establishment refuses to debate or to do any further research on them, 
• whilst continuing to maintain the conventional medical myth,

 ..... that the Pertussin vaccines are "safe and effective"; and have successfully eradicated Whooping Cough as a serious, killer disease. They most certainly have not done so.

 

Also read my other blogs on the Myths of Conventional Medicine.

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Eradicating Smallpox.

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Conquering Polio.

The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Conquering Measles.

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

Covid-19 Vaccines: have two vaccines already been banned? And are we allowed to know?

(A) The original blog was deleted by Blogger because, they said, it violated their "community guidelines". If so Blogger is a censorship organisation that tries to stop people knowing about the withdrawal of two Covid-19 vaccines. This is a re-writing of that blog that emphasises this point.

(B) This blog was also deleted by Blogger because, they said, it violated their "community guidelines". They said that it was "flagged to us for review". I appealed; and it has now been reinstated. This not only confirms Blogger (a Google platform) as a censorship organisation, but there a people 'out there' willing to flag up blogs critical of pharmaceutical medicine regardless of the facts. These two Covid-19 vaccines HAVE been effectively banned!


I have heard (!) that two Covid-19 vaccines have now been withdrawn from the market because they were unsafe, and no-one wanted to buy them, or take them. The two vaccines had much in common:

• they were both described by the Pharmaceutical Establishment, and Medical Science, as “safe and effective”,
• national drug regulatory bodies were prepared to approve them, if only for 'emergency use',
• government, the mainstream media, and the conventional medical establishment combined for over 3 years to repeat their 'Narrative' which persistently urged us to take the vaccines,

• Governments, including the British government tried to mandate both these vaccines, that is, they tried to force people who wished to remain "vaccine free" to take them,
• the mainstream media constantly castigate and dismissed as denying "medical science", "vaccine deniers", "disinformation peddlers", and "conspiracy theorists", anyone who declined to take the vaccines. 


The AstraZeneca vaccine was the one given to most British citizens in 2021. The company (fairly quietly) dropped the vaccine in 2022, they claimed on commercial grounds (the AZ vaccine was never approved in the USA and several other countries; it was effectively banned in a number of European countries, and was no longer being used in the UK). Another 'commercial' reason could be that the AZ vaccine is now subject to a large number of compensation claims by patients who have been damaged by the vaccine. Such claims, of course, will be strongly contested by government (who will have to pay any compensation awarded), and the pharmaceutical industry (who have been given immunity from any liability). Here are some of my sources to this information (which perhaps Blogger might like to confirm).

• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68977026
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-withdraw-blood-clots-b2541291.html
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/07/astrazeneca-withdrawing-covid-vaccine/
• https://news.sky.com/story/astrazeneca-starts-worldwide-withdrawal-of-covid-vaccine-13131585

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was given to 19 million USA citizens before it was (even more silently) withdrawn from the market in June 2023. Here are some references to this withdrawal

• https://www.reuters.com/article/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-revokes-emergency-use-authorization-for-jjs-covid-vaccine-idUSKBN2XN3UM/
• https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/15/health/johnson-johnson-covid-vaccine-end/index.html
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-05/fda-revokes-authorization-of-j-j-s-unpopular-covid-vaccine
• https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/06/j-fda-revokes-authorization/
• https://www.fda.gov/media/169003/download
  

Again, if these references to the withdrawal of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine are in any way incorrect, then I confirm that Blogger has every right to take down this blog.
 
However, if these reports are correct little more needs to be said, except perhaps that most people who took these vaccines throughout the world remain blissfully unaware of the patient harm about the harm that these dangerous pharmaceutical drugs have caused. It is, therefore, legitimate to ask,

• How many people actually know that these two Covid-19 vaccines have been withdrawn?
• How many people have been damaged by these vaccines, and remain unaware of what caused serious harm to their health?
• How many people will continue to accept the other Covid-19 vaccines, still available, because they have not been informed of their dangers?
  

And Blogger needs to ask itself whether these people have a right to know the fate of these two Covid-19 vaccines: or whether they should censor the information on their platform.

And it is important to note that the strident Covid-19 vaccine 'Narrative' goes on, albeit more quietly, less insistently than before. Government, mainstream media, and conventional medical authorities like the NHS in Britain, continues to offer annual Covid-19 'boosters', presumably on the basis that the Covid-19 vaccines are "safe and effective". If so, their position can be described as a triumph of hope over experience!

However, their position is worse than this. What we are facing here is massive dishonesty. I have written in more detail about this dishonesty many time previously on this blog, and elsewhere. I have always provided evidence of this dishonesty, for example at this link.

So I continue to insist on saying we have a medical system that is dominated and controlled by a pharmaceutical industry that has proven itself to be fundamentally dishonest, fraudulent and corrupt.

Blogger will have to decide for itself whether it supports arguments that are fully backed-up with clear and obvious evidence.

A Health Debate: "disinformation", "anti-vaxxer", "conspiracy theorist"

Twelve years ago I wrote a series of 7 article that argued we needed a serious health debate. The problem in having such a debate, since then and before, has been that one side, the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment (PME), has not wanted to take part in any such discussion. And since the so-called Covid-19 pandemic their refusal to engage has been considerably worse.

Instead the PME has done its best to close down all discussion on important health issues. One of its principle weapons to end debate has been the simple strategy of using certain dismissive words/phrases - such as "disinformation", "anti-vaxxer", "conspiracy theorist", et al.

All these terms are used to stand down discussion on the basis that the best form of defence is attack! The best way of avoiding discussion is to disparage and dismiss anyone, and everyone who disagrees with you.

Essentially, this position happens mainly when one side of an argument, usually the dominant side, but which, for whatever reason, is losing the argument. Why risk a discussion when it might risk undermining the power dynamic, the status quo? It happens regularly, for instance, when a politician, ahead in the polls, refuses to debate with an election rival. It happens when an employee asks an employer for a raise.

Yet it has become commonplace within the field of health, dominated by an immensely powerful pharmaceutical industry. Why should the medical establishment want to risk its dominance? Why should it waste time on anyone who has the audacity to suggest that their drugs and vaccines are neither "safe or effective"? Why should they engage with anyone who suggests that diet and exercise are more important than popping their pills? And there is certainly nothing to gain from speaking to anyone who believes in natural medical therapies, like homeopathy.

So shut down discussion by dismissing all such people who are spreading "disinformation", "anti-vaxxers", or "conspiracy theorists". End of argument, end of discussion.

One ongoing problems is that whilst these terms are used by an elite they are picked up by those who have a closed mind, or those who do not want to consider anything outside what they are being told. Conventional wisdom rules! Leave things as they are. We are busy people, we have other matters to deal with. Those in power must surely know best; they are the experts.

Perhaps the use of "conspiracy theory" is the worst of these repudiating terms. After all there are some very peculiar, even laughable conspiracy theories, ranging from the Flat Earth Society, to Holocaust denial, to fake moon landings, to the assassination of J.F. Kennedy, and the destruction of the twin towers in 9/11.

Yet if and when we come across any of these alleged conspiracy theories it is incumbent upon each of us to consider them, and make up our own minds about their validity. We should not dismiss any one of these, completely out of hand! We should examine the evidence, we should listen to both sides of the argument and reach our own conclusions. This is what intelligent, informed people do.

This is especially important when it comes to health issues. Whether the earth is flat, or the Holocaust did not happen, etc., etc., they are not relevant to our day-to-day lives. They may be interesting, but they are not of immediate concern to our future lives. Health is relevant to each one of us, right now, today, tomorrow - and the medical treatment that we are offered and accept can have a devastating affect on our future wellbeing.

The PME has been telling us for over 200 years that their drugs and vaccines are “safe and effective”, that they have overcome, even vanquished many former 'killer' diseases. Indeed, in the last 4-5 years we have been pummelled with these argument regarding the Covid-19 virus. It was a dangerous pandemic that would kill millions, only the vaccine could save us, and then only if we all took it. And no contrary view or argument being allowed to interfere with the pharmaceutical narrative.

So much of what most people believe and understand about health, and medical treatment, comes entirely from pharmaceutical promotion, and this system of medicine's very specific approach to health. Alternative views are not well known or understood, not least because neither government, conventional medicine, or the mainstream media, are prepared to discuss them with us.

For most people, the health debate is just not happening. The pharmaceutical message reigns supreme, largely unchallenged, dismissed as "misinformation". 

And this at a time when national health services, around the world, are being "broken" by unprecedented epidemics of chronic sickness and disease.

The result is that all our politicians can think of doing is to throw yet more money at the same, old, failed pharmaceutical medical treatment!

Loosening the Grip of Pharmaceutical Medicine on our Health Services

When we seek out health services, in most countries of the world, we will almost inevitably get some form of pharmaceutical, drug-based medicine, delivered by medical staff who are totally committed to the idea that drugs and vaccines will (i) maintain our health, and (ii) return us to health when sick. This is certainly so in Britain, where the NHS now provides pharmaceutical medicine with a complete monopoly.

For a growing number of people this is unsatisfactory. It is not conducive to health freedom and patient choice where each individual ican choose the medical treatment we wish to have. Even if the NHS was dominated by Homeopathy, or Ayuveda, or any other natural therapy, it would be the same - not everyone wants to use the same medical treatment - and most people would like to know about the options available to them, their safety, and their effectiveness.

The basis on which a medical monopoly that has been awarded to pharmaceutical medicine is the subject of an article by the Alliance for Natural Health, which is a supporter of informed choice in the provision of health services. The article, Loosening Big Pharma's Grip on our Health, asked whether there needed to be more or less regulation of health services in response to this market dominance of a single medical system. It discussed the 'rigged' market in health, it made a distinction between Government and Market regulation, and looked at the costs of Big Pharmas current monopoly. It is a thoughtful article that ANH asks to be widely circulated - so I have reproduced the article in full here.

    "Drugs made by one of the largest and most profitable industries in the world - with 80 years of experience behind it - appear to have had little impact on curbing spiraling rates of chronic disease. Healthcare systems are at breaking point and most governments and politicians seem to studiously avoid pointing out what seems so obvious to so many of us.

Mainstream medical systems rely heavily on expensive, often dangerous, drugs to treat symptoms rather than targeting the underlying causes of disease. This pill-for-an ill, drug dominated model that’s driven by crony capitalism comes at a massive cost to both individuals and society.

At the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), we’re dedicated to challenging this broken system and advocating for a healthcare approach based on sound principles and ethics, rooted in prevention, natural health options, and the freedom to make informed choices. It is our hope that a new political landscape that is supportive of natural health will unfold, at least in the US, when the Trump-Vance Administration takes the reins in 2025, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in an influential role.

Pharmaceuticals are tightly regulated. But for whose benefit?

A rigged market in healthcare

While markets are often criticised for being profit-driven, they also provide a powerful regulatory mechanism. When markets are free, competition ensures that businesses, regardless of their motivations, must consider the needs of their customers and employees. Selfish business owners can’t thrive unless they deliver real value. In a truly free market, a company that ignores its customers’ needs or disregards safety concerns will ultimately fail. But for this self-regulating system to work, it must operate independently—without interference that protects bad actors.

The healthcare industry does not operate in a free market, but rather in one that is highly regulated, the regulations having been carefully tailored to Big Pharma’s interests, not those of citizens. The result is that Big Pharma enjoys a protected monopoly that it has built over decades through its revolving doors with government agencies, notably the FDA. In a system where the rules of the game are rigged in favor of FDA-approved drugs, it’s no wonder that natural health options—like dietary supplements, lifestyle changes, and preventive care—are marginalised. Instead of being held accountable by market forces, Big Pharma thrives on government interventions that limit competition and create massive profit margins.

Government Regulation vs. Market Regulation

Many assume that government regulation is necessary to protect public health and safety, but regulations often fall short. Ponder this: If drugs require regulation to ensure their safety, effectiveness and quality—these being the three pillars of drug regulation—how come properly prescribed drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer, and that most drugs don’t work in most people? With Big Pharma’s tentacles so deep into regulatory agencies, transparency so compromised that crucial data are routinely hidden from public view, and conflicts of interest rampant in ways that sway judgment, objectivity and the opportunity to work in patients’ best interests, should we really expect Big Pharma to be the trusted custodian of our health?  

Consider that nearly half of the FDA’s budget comes from the drug industry in the form of user fees—the money Big Pharma pays the FDA for drug approval. Then there’s the revolving door between Big Pharma and the FDA, where many FDA officials use their time at the agency as a stepping stone to more lucrative employment in the sector they are meant to oversee. Is it any wonder that the FDA has repeatedly attacked and undermined the natural health sector?

Clearly, Big Pharma’s monopoly power comes not from free-market success but from political protectionism. Without government intervention propping up its control, Big Pharma wouldn’t stand a chance against natural health alternatives. These alternatives include inexpensive nutrients and herbs delivered as supplements that build resilience and prevent disease, and changes to conventional dietary and lifestyle norms that are plunging huge numbers ever deeper into metabolic disease. A sick child is the most precious asset to Big Pharma which can then hope for a lifetime’s worth of income from that individual.

The industry profits when people are chronically ill, relying on drugs to manage conditions rather than resolving them. Statins and the latest skinny jab, semaglutide (trade names Ozempic and Wegovy), are examples of long burn wins for Big Pharma.

In a true free market, these pharmaceutical monopolies would be exposed to competition from safer, preventive options, ultimately benefiting public health.

Big Pharma’s Monopoly and Its Costs

The cash flow made possible by monopolies allows pharmaceutical companies to influence politicians and medical societies, as well as steer the direction of medical research. The end result is a healthcare system where patients and practitioners alike are funneled into a drug-dependent approach, ignoring or actively discouraging preventive solutions that could improve quality of life and reduce healthcare costs.

Imagine a world where governments stopped propping up these monopolies. A natural health solution like diet, exercise, or a range of dietary supplements that could become the preferred choice over expensive, side-effect-laden drugs. Consumers could choose health solutions that are more in line with their personal values, budgets, and well-being goals. Commercial speech wouldn’t be constrained in ways that prevent companies from providing truthful information to the public. Big Pharma’s reliance on government regulation and monopoly pricing would collapse, and the market would then do what it does best: encourage quality and innovation by responding directly to consumers’ needs. Like nature, the fittest or best products would flourish in the marketplace, the ineffective ones would fail, and companies that sold products that were dangerous, if the risks were not adequately communicated, could be sued—rather than being protected by government or law (in the case of vaccines) as they are today.

Backroom deals are rarely for the benefit of patients and the public.

A New Approach for True Health Freedom

ANH believes that natural health freedom is only possible in a system where government power doesn’t create or sustain monopolies. People deserve access to preventive healthcare options that aren’t crowded out by a system that prioritises profit over wellness. A free market in healthcare would pave the way for greater transparency, accountability, and choice, empowering individuals to take charge of their health with natural and preventive options.

Ending Big Pharma’s monopoly on our health isn’t a matter of simply “deregulating”; it’s about ending the crony capitalism that keeps monopolies alive. Removing these artificial supports would allow for real competition in healthcare, enabling natural health options to thrive, lowering healthcare costs, and improving outcomes.

The healthcare revolution we need isn’t a top-down, regulatory-heavy approach. It’s a move toward real freedom, with health freedom being central. That’s because our health—for most people anyway (even if it isn’t always recognised until it’s lost)—is our most important asset. With a free market, individuals and patients have access to the health solutions of their choice, free from interference by captured government agencies and the media.

At ANH, we’re fighting to protect this freedom and support for health systems where disease prevention, natural health choices and unalienable rights are not only respected, but facilitated and encouraged. The endgame? Human vitality and flourishing."

 

Perhaps more than any other organisation of which I am aware, the ANH adopts the most intelligent and considered approach to the important concepts of health freedom and patient choice. I recommend that everyone supports them in their work.

 

Autoimmune Disease. The Cause of Serious Illness and Disease. The Dilemma of Pharmaceutical Medicine

Our immune system keeps us well, free from illness and disease. At least this is what all natural medical therapies believe, and what Conventional Medicine used to tell us. But Conventional Medicine now seems increasingly to want to distance itself from this understanding. It now seems intent to devalue our confidence in the immune system. Rob Verkerk PhD, founder, Alliance for Natural Health, described our immune system thus:

   “Our immune systems, a complex network of organs, cells and proteins, work tirelessly, every millisecond of every day, defending our bodies from infection, protecting our own cells, as well as the microbes our bodies decide are good for us. This is an incredibly complex and skilful operation that we tend to take for granted—until it stops working as it should.”

Autoimmune Disease

I awoke recently to yet another "ground-breaking medical treatment", this time for Lupus. Read about it here, in this ITV article, 'Groundbreaking trial offers new lupus treatment'. Conventional medicine prides itself in its ability to diagnose serious illnesses and diseases, like Lupus, however when it come to identifying causation it is much less confident. When I was writing my Iatrogenic Disease e-Book I discovered so many serious illnesses and diseases where Conventional Medicine states, very clearly, that the cause was "unknown" or "uncertain"; and goes on to offer either (i) no causal reason, (ii) a description of what is happening, see here for example, or more recently blames (iii) our genetics, or the failure of our immune system, and similar.

One example of this failure to distinguish between 'description' and 'causation' can be found in most conventional medical explanations of Alzheimer's Disease. This is how the British NHS website described the 'cause' of Alzheimer's Disease.

        "Alzheimer's disease is thought to be caused by the abnormal build-up of proteins in and around brain cells. One of the proteins involved is called amyloid, deposits of which form plaques around brain cells. The other protein is called tau, deposits of which form tangles within brain cells".

The formation of "plaques" and "tangles" in the chemistry of the brain is NOT the cause of the disease. The healthy brain does not have them, so the cause would describe why those "plaques" and "tangles" formed in the first place. I have written about many more examples of conventional medicine using 'description' as a 'cause' here.

This is a real problem for conventional medicine - because without knowing the cause of illness it cannot possible hope to treat it successfully.

The ITV article on lupus, above, also provided no causal explanation of lupus, just an unsupported, un-evidenced statement that it is an 'autoimmune disease'. This is what the British NHS website tells us about its cause.

        "(Lupus) is an autoimmune condition, which means it is caused by problems with the immune system. For reasons not yet understood, the immune system in people with (lupus) starts to attack and inflame healthy cells, tissue and organs".

So this is not even a description of lupus masquerading as the cause! It is an unsubstantiated statement of a cause - one which offers no explanation as to why the immune system has acted in this way; it even admits that it does not know why it has acted in this way!

Conventional medicine now routinely underestimates, or even dismisses the role of our immune system, whose job has always been to ensure that the body is functioning normally, free of illness. If it is not functioning properly, something is wrong, something is causing it!

Infection is often used as a 'cause' of illness: it's the germ, bacteria, or virus that causes the illness. Or could it be that the germ is the result of a condition, something we find, in over-abundance, in an already sick patient? If it is the cause, why has the immune system been able to recognise and deal with it? Natural medicine understands that it is a compromised immune system that causes illness. The bacteria or virus is one that usually co-exists with us, part of us, we are made up of 'germs', with whom we usually live in harmony.

Autoimmune disease goes one stage further in conventional medicine's understanding of causation. The immune system is turning in on itself, it is "too active". So why has it decided to harm rather than protect us? Conventional medicine does not have explanation. Wikipedia's explanation of autoimmune diseases demonstrates this:

        "The exact causes of autoimmune diseases remain unclear and are likely multifactorial, involving both genetic and environmental influences. While some diseases like lupus exhibit familial aggregation, suggesting a genetic predisposition, other cases have been associated with infectious triggers or exposure to environmental factors, implying a complex interplay between genes and environment in their etiology".

It is these 'genetic' explanations of autoimmune disease that has led to the the new 'ground breaking' method of treating Lupus - leading to the "genetic engineering of cells".

        "The therapy works by genetically modifying cells to enable the body’s own immune system to recognise and attack problem cells, offering people a possible cure".

However, yet again, the proper response should have been to ask another question - why is the immune system doing this? What has caused the immune system to malfunction? Is the genetics of cells responsible for the condition? If it is not the cause, it might not be any part of the solution!

Could it just possible be pharmaceutical drugs? The result of more "adverse drug reactions"? Are 'autoimmune diseases' really iatrogenic? Conventional medicine already knows that many of its pharmaceutical drugs cause autoimmune diseases, notably antibiotics, painkillers, anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, as wel as most vaccines. So, in order to prevent and treat autoimmune diseases, like lupus, would it not be more sensible to look at these drugs as, at least, part of the causation?

There is a group of pharmaceutical drugs called "immunosuppressants"? Their name provides a clue to the impact they have on the body. They suppress the immune system! And if the immune system is suppressed we get ill! Even conventional medicine knows this. It really is as simple as this! Most explanations of the role of these immunosuppressants drugs are similar, but this is taken from the Cleveland Clinic, and is perhaps the most honest about their usage, and the impact on the immune system.

        "Immunosuppressants are drugs that prevent your immune system from attacking healthy cells and tissues by mistake. Healthcare providers prescribe immunosuppressants to treat certain autoimmune diseases and prevent organ or stem cell transplant rejection. These medications also increase your risk of infection because your immune system isn’t working as it should".

Conventional medicine appears to be somewhat confused. It believes that the immune system is 'overactive' and attacks 'healthy cells and tissues by mistake'. It does not say why the immune system is making such mistakes! So drugs are used that suppress the immune system - they admit that this increases the risk of infection 'because your immune system isn't working as it should'. So the immune system is now suppressed, it is not overactive.

Conventional, drug-based medicine has done something that it always does - it has interfered with the normal functioning of the body.

We should note that Conventional Medicine never evidences why the immune system has become 'overactive'. Usually most websites just make a statement - that the immune system can be overactive, and that certain diseases (more than 120 of them) are caused by its inability to recognise 'the good' from 'the bad'. Statements are not evidence! At best the idea of an 'over-active immune system' is an opinion, a theory.   

This 'pain assist' website tries to inform us about the cause of an over-active immune system - but again fails to do so.

        "The exact cause of overactive immune system is not clearly understood but certain factors are known to precipitate it. Genetic changes can be one of the major reasons of autoimmune diseases. There can be various other factors such as stress, hormonal changes, infections and chemical toxic that could lead to these problems".

The Cleveland Clinic website is no more informative, and under the heading "Causes of an over-active immune system states that:

        "Doctors still don't know exactly why the immune system sometimes fails. But there are clues to how it happens. The immune system is an integrated network that’s hard-wired into your central nervous system.... so, when it’s healthy, everything works automatically. But things go haywire when the system starts to crumble. For example, if you don’t sleep well and get stressed out, your body will produce more of the stress hormone cortisol. Over time, high cortisol levels can have a degenerative effect on your body. Healthy bone and muscle break down and slow the healing process. Cortisol can interfere with digestion and metabolism, as well as adversely affecting your mental functions”.

So once again conventional medicine is making claims about disease causation, that it is a faulty immune system, but without giving us any evidence, or being able to say what is causing the fault. Is there really such a thing as an 'overactive' immune system? Or is it just an excuse, an attempt to deflect the real cause?

The cause of a malfunction immune system is most likely to be pharmaceutical drugs. Perhaps it is just too embarrassing for conventional medicine to admit this. Or perhaps the pharmaceutical industry is just so powerful within conventional medicine that our doctors dare not do so.

Disease Epidemics. Robert F Kennedy and his policy objectives. And Britains Mainstream Media

The appointment of Robert F Kennedy to head the Health and Human Services (HHS) administration in the USA has come with the usual criticism from the British mainstream media, not least BBC News, who dismissed him gratuitously as "an anti-vaxxer", a supporter of "conspiracy theories", and much else.

I was going to blog about this but then read this article by Robert Malone, MD. I have his permission to share it here as it is a very good outline of what Kennedy stands for, his policy objectives, and what he hopes to achieve in office.

The article also reflects back on the honesty of the mainstream media, and their routine attacks on anyone who has the audacity to criticise pharmaceutical medicine, or to suggest that it might be responsible for some of the disease epidemics now ravaging the world - or those parts of the world dominated by drug-based medicine.

Republished by permission from the Report from Planet Earth substack by the Author, Robert Malone, MD.

        "Despite the huge amount of appropriated funds and the strenuous efforts of many individuals working in healthcare, Americans have increasingly suffered from a range of acute and chronic conditions over recent decades. As an influential member of the Trump administration, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will have the opportunity to begin a reversal of this trend. He is developing plans to revamp the Federal agencies that regulate the medical and pharmaceutical industries.

Mr. Kennedy has presented incontrovertible data about the state of our health. He says the first step towards change is reforming policies and restoring compromised government oversight.   

It will take a concerted effort to convert a system that has allowed an array of degrading health conditions and an avalanche of human suffering. The statistics compiled by reliable scientific sources reveal details of this staggering crisis.

• Six out of ten adults in America are living with a chronic illness. 74% of American adults are overweight or obese. Rates of kidney disease and autoimmune conditions are going up. Cancer rates among young people are rising.
•  One-third of American teens are taking a prescription drug and nearly 30% are pre-diabetic. More than 18% of adolescents have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. In 2020, 77% of young adults didn't qualify for the military based on their health scores, forcing the military to lower its standards.
• Health problems of young Americans begin at an early age even as they receive vaccines to protect them from illness. The CDC currently recommends at least 70 doses of 18 different vaccines from infancy until age eighteen, yet children have never had more acute and chronic ailments. These vaccination protocols urgently need re-evaluation.

The increasing use of prescription drugs by all Americans presents a dire warning. However, due to the unprecedented influence of lobbyists, elected representatives have allowed the pharmaceutical industry rampant freedom to sell questionable products.

Washington has not solved the problem of the revolving doors between Big Pharma and government regulators. This is the primary reason federal agencies are paralyzed by corporate interests and remain negligent in their protective roles. 

Americans are also barraged with a one-sided view about the benefits of pharmaceuticals. The United States is one of two countries in the world where prescription drugs can be advertised. This inappropriate promotional effort has a secondary consequence; news and information about pharmaceutical issues cannot be trusted when coming from networks dependent on this huge source of income.

Mr. Kennedy’s efforts to initiate meaningful change to the current system continue to be dismissed by mainstream news media. Big Pharma’s concerns about earnings overshadow what is best for patients. Profitable symptomatic drugs dominate treatment while funding research to understand the underlying causes of illness is secondary. 

Mr. Kennedy’s critique of the standards and practices that have allowed dangerous pharmaceuticals on the market is not speculative. Government oversight has become lax and needs a dramatic overhaul. An assessment of Big Pharma's motivation and practices is overdue. 

In addition to improved oversight of treatment with drugs, the causes of acute and chronic illness must also be examined.

RFK Jr. also points to the sound evidence that increasing amounts of environmental toxins are likely factors contributing to high rates of disease. While many other countries have restrictions reflecting these concerns, the government has failed to protect Americans; the United States has some of the weakest standards in the developed world.

As of 2019, the U.S. permits the use of 72 pesticides that the European Union bans. The government also allows chemicals in food and skincare that are outlawed in Europe. Some of these additives are quite common in our daily lives.

The direct relationship between exposure to toxins and well-being has been effectively obscured by the corporate interests overseeing medical care and agricultural guidelines. 

Despite growing awareness over decades that chronic diseases and acute illness are often preventable with a natural diet of fresh food free from chemicals, at least 71% of medical schools still don’t require a course in nutrition.

Dietary recommendations are coming from those swayed by corporations profiting from denatured foods. 95% of the members of a USDA panel who updated the most recent nutritional guidelines had conflicts of interest.

Financial incentives for improving diet and physical fitness must become central to the U.S. Government’s contribution to supporting a vital population.

Mr. Kennedy has rightly pointed out that the other important issues facing us today will only be resolved by making America healthy again. Considering how ill Americans are, anyone who doubts his premise that monetary interests and political corruption have driven the rise of acute and chronic disease — is supporting the continuing corruption.

The great challenge of improving the nation’s health should not be on one man’s shoulders — it is everyone’s responsibility. Any resolution of the healthcare crisis will be accomplished only by a united effort across political lines.

 

My concluding comments: If I was a USA citizen I would not support the Trump administration in most of his policies and appointments. But I can be selective, I can exercise my judgement. Most of what Robert Malone has said above is little different to what I have been saying on this blog for over 15 years now.

The mainstream media's response in Britain demonstrates that by dismissing Kennedy in the unreasoning way they have done this morning they are under the control, and probably in the pay of the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment. As Kennedy suggests! The media exercise little selectivity in what they say about anyone who does not support the conventional medical narrative, or points to the dangers of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and the patient harm they are causing, especially over the last 75 years.

So I hope that in 4 years time many more people will understand Kennedy's message, that he accomplishes most of what he has set out to achieve, and that he will open up a more open, honest and transparent health debate in the USA, in Britain, and around the world.

---