Is the Nation Sufficiently Healthy to Recruit an Enlarged Army?

Recent political events surrounding the new Trump administration in the USA have raised issues about the recruitment an enlarged armed forces throughout Europe. Almost inevitably this will ultimately lead to questions about the lack of health and fitness of our young people for military service - and this in turn may raise even more serious questions about the quality of our health services.

A 2024 study from the USA Pentagon, reported on Miltiary.com, showed that 77% of young Americans would fail to qualify for military service - without a waiver being made for being overweight, using drugs or having mental and physical health problems. A similar study in 2017 had showed that 71% of Americans would have been ineligible to serve. So this is not only a huge proportion of the population, it is a problem that is rapidly growing - a 6% increase in 7 years.

This reminded me of the problems Britain experienced during the Boer War (1899-1902), and the period leading to the First World War (1914). Throughout the Boer War, a prolonged and intense conflict in Southern Africa, there were constant concerns about the fitness, strength and suitability of the recruits to the army. Huge numbers of men had volunteered to fight but many were rejected. In 1902 it was estimated that 60% of the male population were physically unfit for military service.

In response, a Committee on Physical Deterioration was set up by the British government. The Fitzroy Report (produced in 1904) described the poor physical condition of army recruits, and recommended an urgent improvement in both living and working conditions, not least those arising from overcrowding, poverty, pollution, and parental neglect. Perhaps these findings should not have been a total surprise. It followed two centuries of extreme social upheaval - the Agrarian and Industrial Revolutions. And the report did lead to important, quite rapid social change.

The latest report from the Pentagon states that "When considering youth disqualified for one reason alone, the most prevalent disqualification rates are overweight (11%), drug and alcohol abuse (8%), and medical/physical health (7%)”. So it is not social conditions that are now causing the problem: it is drugs, including medical drugs, and a health system that is just not working. 

Moreover, the problem of recruitment to the armed forces remains in Britain.

        "The British Army has consistently fallen short of its recruitment targets ... each year since 2010, as highlighted by the recent Ministry of Defence data. The figures reveal a cumulative deficit of 22,350 in the Basic Training Starts (BTS) Targets for British Army ‘Other Ranks’, compared to the total recruitment goal of 119,530 set over the period from 2010 to 2023."

And the reason for the failure to recruit are similar to those found in the USA.

        "The total number of rejections over the last five years was 125,861, with 23,763 Commonwealth applicants turned away due to “lack of vacancies” and 76,187 rejected on medical grounds over the period." 

So over the last 5 years, ‘medical reasons’ have emerged as the foremost reason for the British armed forces to reject those who wish to join. And what we need to remember is that this rejection of 76,187 applicants follows nearly 80 years of a National Health Service, "free at the point of need", and now costing the country over £200 billion annually.

So what does that say about the quality of the medicine provided by our overly-costly NHS?

But then we may never know, as this is not a question our military, our health services, and our government, is ever likely to ask!

Sickle Cell Disease. A new treatment costing £1.65 million being offered by the NHS

Sickle Cell Disease is rightly considered to be a horrible condition. It is thought that about 15,000 people have the condition, in England alone, affecting people mainly of Black African and Caribbean heritage. It can cause intense, recurring pain, and it can be life-changing, and even life-threatening.

The NHS has announced that a new, "groundbreaking", individualised 'gene editing' therapy will be offered to patients in England on the National Health Service (NHS). Good news, then? 

The main problem is that the treatment is going to cost the already over-stretched, almost bankrupted NHS £1.65 million per patient. It is expected that 50 people per year will be offered the treatment - total expenditure of an astonishing £82.5 million per annum.

If the treatment works, this may represent excellent value - at least for 50 people every year. But the NHS spending this amount of money represents what is known, in economic jargon, as "an opportunity cost", that is, the opportunity to spend this money on other things.

Other things, for example, like spending money on the treatment of the remaining 14,950 people who currently suffer with sickle cell disease!

Conventional medicine always does this. It comes up with new, 'groundbreaking' treatments that are so expensive they are either not used, or used only by people wealthy enough to pay for their own treatment, or used with a tiny number of people at public expense.

So I have an alternative suggestion!

Earmark this £82.5 million for sickle cell disease. Divide the money between the 15,000 patients who suffer from the disease, and allow each patient to spend their £5,500 on homeopathic treatment!

Homeopathy has been treating Sickle Cell Disease for many, many years; often with complete success. Do a web search - "homeopathy, sickle cell", and see for yourself. Even if each consultation with a homeopath costs £100 per month (with remedies), not one of these 15,000 patients will have to spend more that £1,200 on their treatment. 

The remaining £4,300 could then be spent by the 15,000 sickle cell patients on celebrating their freedom from the disease.

It is time for some new, "groundbreaking" thinking about how the NHS spends public money - on treatment that actually works

The Epidemic Rise of Chronic Disease: and the Bonanza of Pharmaceutical Drug Taking: a Known Link?

We are sicker now than we have ever before. We are in the middle of a health crisis. In the 1930's 7.5% of people suffered from chronic disease in America. Today, 60% lives with one or more chronic conditions. Other 'developed' countries (countries with a high level of pharmaceutical drug consumption) show a similar trend. Life expectancy is also reducing, both for healthy life expectancy, and total life expectancy. This is where 80 years of pharmaceutical medicine has led us!

I found these figures on Twitter. They provide a general idea about the percentage increase in the incidence of chronic diseases since 1990, that is, during the last 30 years. I do not know who worked out the percentages, their absolute accuracy, or to which country, or countries they apply.

(PS April 2025. I have found the source in an article in the What Doctors Don't Tell You (WDDTY) magazine, March 2025. The increases are from 1990 - so they have happened within just over 30 years).

ADHD                     plus 819%
Alzheimer's             plus 299%
Autism                    plus 2,094%
Bipolar                    plus 10,833%
Celiac Disease        plus 1,111%
Chronic Fatigue      plus 11,027%
Depression              plus 280%
Diabetes                  plus 305%
Fibromyalgia          plus 7,272%
Hypothyroidism      plus 702%
Lupus                      plus 787%
Osteoarthritis          plus 449%
Sleep Apnea            plus 430%

Yet I do know, and we should all know from our own experience, that the figures are broadly accurate. Even the conventional medical establishment does not deny them (they just rarely talk about them). The rise and rise of chronic disease is rarely challenged, and never explained, by medical authorities.

This epidemic rise of chronic disease reflects the reality of our declining health. There has undoubtedly been an enormous increase in levels of illness in the last 30 years. Indeed, these figures would be far, far worse if the base year chosen had been 1950 - that is since the beginning of the consumption bonanza of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines began.

Moreover, many other chronic illnesses could have been included in this list which would have further underlined the problem in recent decades: for example, cancer, allergy, asthma, epilepsy, heart, liver, kidney, and lung disease, osteoporosis, and many others.

We are getting sicker and we should all be aware of this. There are lots of other ways of observing this trend, not least the growing pressure on health services in the drug-taking countries of the world, and the ongoing patient demands for medical treatment, and ever-increasing resources to provide them.

More and more money is now being spent on pharmaceutical medicine than ever before. So why are pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines not working? More and more of us are consuming more and more for longer and longer periods of time.

This blog has regularly pointed to the fact that there are regular announcements (through government and mainstream media outlets) of ‘medical breakthroughs’,  new 'wonder drugs' that will overcome this or that disease. So why are these ‘medical breakthroughs’ not bearing fruit, why are we not getting better?

Moreover, each new 'medical breakthrough' is costing more and more. National health services around the world, but especially in high drug-taking countries, are struggling to cope with the medical demands of increasingly sick patients. Many national health services are close to bankruptcy.

So why do we continue spending more and more on the provision of the same health services, year on year, only to discover, year by year, that all that happens is that we get sicker? For the last 20 years my suggestion has long been that it is time for us to put the two trends together!

That the increased consumption of pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines are directly linked with these massively increased levels of sickness.

However, they are rarely linked together. Increased sickness has invariably been accompanied by increased demands for, and the provision of, more £$billions to be spent on the same old (failed) medicine. So each time the vicious is replicated, more spending, and more ill-health.

So are the two trends directly linked? And if so, where is the evidence for such a link? 

The answer is simple. The link is easily and clearly explained by something that is widely known, and a matter of recrod - “drug side effects”, or “adverse drug/vaccine reactions”. Conventional medicine knows a lot about adverse drug reactions. This knowledge is published within conventional medical literature. It is readily available to anyone who wants to investigate and understand the link between ill-health and drugs. The problem is that the llink is not made by governments, or the mainstream media, or the conventional medical establishment. It is their silence on this matter that suggests that they have each become part and parcel of the pharmaceutical establishment. 

Indeed, the situation is worse than this. Government, the mainstream media, and conventional medicine are each promoting pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. They subliminally do much of the advertising for drug companies. And they usually refuse to inform patients about the link between known ‘side effects’ and increased levels of sickness.

In another recent blog I argued that when disease causation is discussed, most everything known to be, or thought to be causative of disease is mentioned; but pharmaceutical drugs are usually notably omitted. Whilst the blog focuses on dementia and Alzheimer's disease similar arguments can be made for most, if not all the other chronic diseases mentioned above. It is all there, in conventional medical literature.

So if YOU suffer from a chronic disease, what pharmaceutical drugs have you taken that might have caused your illness?

I have done the work for you! Have a look in my e-book, "Iatrogenic Disease: the disease-inducing-effects (DIEs) of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines". You will see here that over 70 of the most common chronic diseases are covered, and some of the drugs and vaccines known to cause them as "a side effect".

Yet you do not have to take my word for it. Everyone can do their own research. If you are taking pharmaceutical drugs for any illness, have a look at the 'Patient Information Leaflets' (PILs) that come with each drug packet, and with each vaccine. They all outline most (although not all) the known side effects of that drug.

The solution might be to stop taking pharmaceutical drugs. Yet do not stop taking them without consulting your doctor. Although taking them may well be causing serious illness and disease, to stop taking them suddenly can also be a problem. Drug taking is a no-win situation for the patient!

The prospect of contracting chronic disease might be terrifying. But it is time conventional medicine began to acknowledge that the drugs/vaccines they use are a significant part of the problem, and reducing drug taking is part of the solution.

And for those people who want to stop or reduce their consumption of drugs, they would do well to do what many people are now doing (and I did over 50 years ago) - to look at the role of alternative medical therapies, like homeopathy, which are invariably safer, and more effective medical therapies.

 

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!