Much of what is happening is described as progress but it isn’t really, of course – it’s just change. And a good deal of it is change contrived to keep us all too busy to notice what is going on in the world, and too wrapped up in our own daily problems to take action against the conspirators, the collaborators and the constant attacks on our freedom and humanity. Even small things become incredibly time consuming and exhausting. The bizarre and indefensible ‘recycling’ programmes which were introduced globally (everything happens in lockstep these days) were designed to make us worry about non-existent climate change, to make us compliant (and to force us to accept that we must do what we are told, even in our own homes and to keep us busy. Most of the carefully washed and sorted recycling material is dumped or burnt, and the environmental cost of collecting recycling material far exceeds any value that might accrue. In the UK, for example, much of the recycling material has been carried to countries far away to be dumped or burnt. There isn’t even any point in recycling paper (the most traditional recycling material). It is better for the environment to grow trees for that purpose and to burn the discarded paper to produce electricity or heat.
If you order a book (or whatever else) online you will be bombarded with emails. There will be a message to say that the purchase has been made, one to say that your order is being dealt with, another to let you know that the book has been passed to the delivery company, one to let you know that the delivery company has received the package, one to inform you that the delivery company has received the book, one to let you know that the book is on its way and one to tell you that the package has been delivered. Then you will receive an email from the seller to let you know that the delivery company has done their job and delivered the book. Later there will be another email from them wanting you to rate their service and one from the delivery company wanting you to let them know how well you think they did. If you don’t reply immediately those emails will be repeated at regular intervals. This barrage of unnecessary emails keeps us occupied with pointless trivia. (Not infrequently, I receive two copies of each of the emails in this tedious chain.)
The word ‘progress’ is used as a synonym for ‘better’; but how do you define ‘better’? Is receiving an email from a friend on holiday better than receiving a postcard? Is the world better when cars all look exactly the same? Is it better when log fires are forbidden by health and safety officials? Are trains better now that there are no restaurant and sleeper cars? Or has life been destroyed by fanatics, cultists and ignorant meddlers, acting, unknowingly, on behalf of conspirators aiming for a Great Reset? Is life better now that there are no junk shops, no rag and bone men and no odd job men who could repair just about anything you couldn’t deal with yourself? Is life better now that family doctors work the same hours as librarians and you have to plan your emergencies a day or two ahead if you hope to ride to hospital in an ambulance? Are hospitals better now that nurses spend more time in meetings than on the ward and are always too busy, and self-important, to find a bedpan, plump up pillows, help a frail patient with their meal or put a bunch of flowers into a vase? Is it progress that children now learn with the aid of iPads instead of being taught with pens and paper and chalk and a board? Is a smart phone real progress over a piece of slate and a slate pencil? Children half a century ago played hopscotch, skipped with ropes and in the winter played football with coats as goalposts while in the summer they played cricket with stumps chalked on lampposts. On their summer holidays they splashed in paddling pools or sailed toy yachts on boating ponds (all now filled in for health and safety reasons) and they rode on donkeys and played one penny games on the pier. Is it simply nostalgia when you know in your heart that things really were better then?
If you object to all progress then the conspirators will label you a ‘Luddite’, even if much of what they label progress isn’t progress at all.
It isn’t difficult to argue that children have little or no future today. The conspirators and the collaborators have taken away their education, their hope, their sense of comfort and even their happiness. Mental health problems among the young are rising at a rate never seen before. Even before the fake pandemic of 2020 the incidence of such problems among the young was frighteningly high. Today, there is an epidemic of mental illness. Millions of children, teenagers and young people are taking tranquillisers and anti-depressants (even though these have been proven to be of no value) and often taking them for years at a time. The lockdowns, the social distancing regulations and the partial or complete closure of hospital departments mean that those requiring specialist help will be on waiting lists for years if not for life.
Is a pub with a log fire and friendly bar staff better than a pub with a good internet connection? Are motorways, with endless queues, better than winding country roads which take you to your destination just as quickly and with far more pleasure? Are self-driving cars better than cars which have to be driven? How will self-driving cars manage to navigate English country roads and all those tiny, blind junctions? Who is going to provide a suitable call out service for all the electric cars which are stranded in country lanes when their batteries run out?
Is a traditional English breakfast better or worse than a bowl of sugar coated cereal? Why does it now take a week or more for a postcard to reach its destination when in Victorian times, in the 19th century, a postcard put in a pillar box in the morning would arrive at its destination in the afternoon? The postcode or zip code was, surely, an early sign of the end of civilisation. I recently bought around 1,000 old Edwardian postcards (no one wants them these days – they cost just a few pounds) and although the addresses consisted of nothing more than (at most) a name, a number, a street and a town, the cards clearly reached their destinations safely. There is less mail today because so many people use email – so why does the mail take so much longer to get where it’s going?
Is reading a book on a smart phone easier and more fun than reading a paperback – with no need to squint and constantly adjust the position of the screen on a sunny day? Was the NHS better when there was a dental service for all? Were charities more or less inclusive when they served merely to serve those in need rather than to enrich executives and advertising agencies? Was life better when we used public phone boxes instead of having to carry a mobile phone with us? Were radio and television programmes worse when traditional events such as the Promenade Concerts celebrated cultural traditions rather than global ones?
Was the Tate Britain art gallery better when it paid more attention to traditional artists than to the demands of the woke? The Tate Britain gallery now has just one room for art from 1545 to 1640 but 14 rooms devoted to art from 1940 onwards. Of the work on view, 200 items were made since the millennium and the work in the publicly funded gallery has been carefully curated to ensure that men and women are equally represented among living artists – regardless of reputation or the value of their work. Modern art on display, representing just a twentieth of the time span of the collection, takes up a quarter of the space. Culture, as well as history, has been changed to fit the requirements of the conspirators and the collaborators. Labels attached to older pictures highlight social injustice, colonial exploitation and prejudice. The gallery seems to illustrate the way in which the feelings of the few now dominate the views of the many in every sphere of activity.
The aims of the WEF and other organisations seem to be to destroy each nation’s heritage, to destroy every country’s culture. In the UK, all major institutions seem to have become very woke. The National Trust, the Marylebone Cricket Club and other former institutions are now unrecognisably woke – to the great confusion of long-standing members. Long established regiments in the army have disappeared or been merged.
The aim of the conspirators is to change the world by erasing nations, families and communities and by destroying everything humans consider to be personal and valuable. Immigration (whether legal or illegal) is encouraged in order to create impoverishment, resentment, racism, terrorism and plenty of excuses for war. (As an aside, it used to be thought that patriotism was good but nationalism was bad. Today, however, both are unacceptable because there can be no countries in the New World Order.)
Naturally, immigration programmes have led to resentment on both sides and, especially in France, the development of racial and cultural ghettoes is leading to civil war.
Thank you for saying, and saying so well, so many of the things that have been troubling me for decades. Though I am an American, the issues with the medical/pharmaceutical industry here are largely the same, if not worse.
I am a breast cancer survivor, from the age of 32. I believe the cancer was caused by chemical exposure at a place I worked. Of course I was informed that chemo was my only option. It was a largish tumor when discovered, and fast-growing. I tolerated the large dosages so badly that my treatment was cut short, but not by much.
I had many of the issues you described, the longest and worst was feeling that I just couldn’t concentrate or think as well, and of course the oncologist and everyone else insisted that it was purely imaginary. It was truly well over a year before I felt mentally sharp again. It also caused me to go into early menopause, and to remain childless. No one mentioned that little possibility to me.
I’m 72 now, but I doubt and always have doubted that chemo was responsible for my survival, forty years later.
I have said since that no matter what, I’d never have chemotherapy again. That may be the smartest decision I’ve made! My GP tried to get me to have a colonoscopy, which I refused. I had to go see the specialist doctor to discuss this, and he was completely confounded when I asked what will happen if I have the test and they find cancer, and when he said chemotherapy, I laughed and told him I’d never have THAT again.
He couldn’t believe I’d refuse treatment! I pointed out that even if they found colon cancer I wouldn’t take chemo, so there was absolutely no point to having a colonoscopy in the first place. His main argument seemed to consist of “But....but....but....!”
I especially loved the one: “But you could die!l”
Yeah? So what? Everyone does. I could get killed by a car when I walk out of here. If I have colon cancer, I’m reasonably certain my last days will be much better without chemo, even if possibly shorter. I’m never having that crap put in me again. Sorry to have wasted your time. That was five years ago. If I DO have colon cancer, it don’t know it and doubt that I do.
Anyone wants chemo, they should go for it!
Just don’t ask me about it, my experience was uniformly horrible. Some people come back with, Yeah hey, you’re still alive! True, but I might have been anyway. All I know is, I will never, ever submit to that particular treatment again.
It’s good to hear from an informed professional that I was right, that stuff is worse than what it it’s supposed to cure, by far!
Again, thank you for your essay and the research. And my apologies for the overly long reply.
Well just don't hesitate to comment on my columns, you are always welcome here.
I am a drug dealer (licensed in 3 states) who has been retired from the pharmacy wars since 2017, and not a minute too soon. That said, I loved helping my patients, delivering prescriptions, dispensing medical information, and generally helping people get around the medical scams.
Recent research suggests that a quarter of all the papers published in medical journals are either ‘plagiarised’ or simply ‘made up’.
Some observers seem surprised by this.
They shouldn’t be.
The paragraphs which follow were taken from my book The Health Scandal which caused quite a storm when it was published in 1988. The Sunday Times said `This book detects diseases in the whole way we deliver health care’. Nursing Times described it as ‘central to the health of the nation’ and the British Medical Journal said it was ‘a book to stimulate and to make one argue’. Nothing has changed. The Health Scandal has recently been republished and is now available via the bookshop on this website).
‘With enormous pressures on them to make discoveries and produce startling results a growing number of researchers are 'cooking the books' and 'fiddling the figures'.
In my book Paper Doctors, published in 1976, I described two examples of doctors who had been found out. The first was Dr William Summerlin, who was hired by the Sloan Ketting Institute in New York at a salary of$40,000 a year to do work on the problems of transplanting skin and overcoming rejection problems. Summerlin seemed to have made a major breakthrough in this area but no other laboratory anywhere in the world was able to duplicate his excellent results. Then, under pressure, Summerlin admitted that he had cheated. He was supposed to have transplanted skin from black mice to white mice. In fact he had simply inked in the transplant sites with a black felt-tipped pen.
The second medical trickster was Dr J. P. Sedgwick, a GP working in London's West End. Dr Sedgwick was offered £10 per card to fill in a number of trial cards showing the effects of a new hypotensive drug on the blood pressure of some of his patients. Dr Sedgwick filled in 100 cards and accepted £1,000 from the company concerned, Bayer. (See also page 34.)
Bayer became concerned when the cards were returned for not only were they still clean and unmarked but the blood-pressure figures (which all seemed to have been filled in at the same time) were identical on several sets of cards. The drug company eventually reported the doctor to the General Medical Council and inJ uly 1975 Dr Sedgwick had the dubious distinction of being the first medical practitioner to be struck off for such unprofessional behaviour.
Since those early days of deceit, dishonesty among researchers has become sadly and regrettably all too commonplace and the journalsare these days constantly reporting more and more instances of over-zealous researchers falsifying or inventing results.
In 1980, for example, the world of medicine was devastated by a series of scandals involving such prestigious centres of excellence as Yale School of Medicine, Boston's Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard. At the Boston University Medical Center a three-year $1 million cancer research project was tainted by false data. At Cornell University Mark Spector seemed on the brink of winning a Nobel Prize for his work explaining how tumour-causing viruses could turn a cell cancerous. Then suddenly his spectacular career was in ruins. Findings that were originally described as fundamental breakthroughs were branded as fraudulent. Colleagues discovered that Spector had cunningly doctored isolated bits of cellular matter to look like things they were not.
In 1983 there was an even bigger scandal in America when Dr John Darsee who had worked as a researcher at Harvard was accused of falsifying data. Darsee had done research work on a project funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute designed to help assess the effectiveness of drugs to treat heart attacks. After the research project was discredited Harvard was asked to return the $122,371 it had received as funding.
In the autumn ofl986 Professor Michael Briggs, who had worked at an Australian University, admitted 'serious deceptions' in his research into changes in the fats in blood caused by oral contracep tives. Briggs published papers dealing with contraceptive pill side effects between 1976 and 1984 and claimed that his research work had been done at Deakin University. Two drug companies who had provided Briggs with financial backing were shocked when details of his fraudulent behaviour were revealed. Professor Briggs had, after all, been an expert adviser to the World Health Organization.
Then in November 1986 yet another fraudulent medical author was exposed. Robert Slutsky of the University of California at San Diego withdraw fifteen published papers. His action immediately put fifty-five other papers under a cloud. Towards the end of his stay at the University Slutsky had been producing new scientific papers at the rate of one every ten days.
Inevitably all this fraudulent research work leads to problems for other researchers. Once a fraudulent paper gets into the system it can be quoted hundreds of times by other researchers within months of its first publication. The Index Medicus, the most important listing of research papers, does not correct false information or list fraudulent authors or fraudulent papers. There is, therefore, no way for an author to check on the validity of the papers he wants to use in his own research work. In October 1986 a quick survey of papers that were known to be fraudulent revealed a total of forty-three papers published in the last five years or so. If each one of those papers was quoted by only ten other authors, then that makes 430 papers of questionable quality hiding in the world's medical literature.
Medical research is not only costly and of questionable value.
Much of it, it seems, is downright misleading.
As a final footnote to this section it is also perhaps worth pointing out that in a recent analysis of research work published in his book The Clay Pedestal (published in the United States by Nadonna Publications) T. Preston pointed out that one survey of research work showed that almost seventy-five per cent of all the reports published contained invalid conclusions that had been based on the incorrect use of statistics.’
In the US, research paper from 2005 stated only 20% of the medical research papers were non-directed for a pre determined goal. Deciding on profile of test subjects, to manipulating the statistics, to kicking out anomalies as non-esential to the study all work in favor of marketing a marginal Rx drug. My opinion, we could eliminate 80% of the drugs on the market and never miss them.
Yes, all the "me too" drugs, which are representative of most of the side effects, for example, the statin drugs. Strangely enough, Mevacor, the original, known as lovastatin, never had the side effects of the others in my experience.
Priming the Pump! Three months before Mevacor became available, a medical report got broad attention in Newspapers and in the Medical field that TR Niacin caused liver cancer. Based on a St louis VA study involving less that 10 hospitalized veterans with alcoholism. Guess what! Niacin which was effective was discredited and Mevacor became the drug of choice to screw up cholesterol levels which is not the root cause. All about money! They never told the American physicans that Mevacor destroys Co Q 10. All those who died from overdosing on Mevacor which destroyed their liver should sue Merck.
The Shocking Story of the Trans Pacific Partnership
20TH AUGUST 2023 by Dr. Vernon Coleman
In 2005, New Zealand, Chile, Brunei and Singapore created the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The partnership was a mutual trade agreement.
In 2008, the United States decided to take over the TPP and the Obama administration sponsored lobbyists to transform the TPP into an agreement designed to block the public regulation of health, the environment, or other public interest problems that might interfere with corporate profits – namely American corporate profits. Obama protected the big international companies and the bankers and punished the people who had been foolish enough to vote for him.
Obama’s bailouts made the crooks ever richer and impoverished still further the poor and the middle classes. The destruction of the middle classes and the poor is a deliberate neoliberal policy, in the same way that the destruction of Third World economies is a deliberate policy.
The American version of the TPP gave power to a new court (an Investor State Dispute Settlement court) which could stop governments from suing companies and investors who had caused damage. Worse still, ISDS tribunals could order governments to pay fines to foreign companies which felt that public regulations had impaired their profits. The tribunals could order a government to pay a company any amount it liked, without limit. And so the new court made it possible for bankers and companies to do what they liked to a country without any penalty. And if a bank or company felt that a country’s labour or safety regulations might damage its profits, it could sue the Government for loss of profits.
So, for example, when an Ecuadorian court ordered the oil firm Chevron to pay $9.5 billion in damages for causing pollution, an ISDS tribunal in The Hague overruled the Ecuadorian Supreme Court. To make matters worse the ISDS fined Ecuador $1.8 billion, plus interest, for cancelling a joint exploration venture with the oil giant Occidental.
Small countries are regularly ruined by these lawsuits which often involve small sums of money for the globalists but huge sums of money for the countries involved.
The US Chief Justice, John Roberts has said that ISDS has the power to review any nation’s laws and annul the actions of that country’s legislature, executive and judiciary.
The ISDS tribunals (which make the judgements) consist of three private sector lawyers who may also be the lawyers acting for the companies which have brought the legal action. So the three lawyers bring a lawsuit and then decide who wins. And then they decide how much money the country should pay, in dollars, for daring to violate American corporate rights.
It is, by any definition, nothing more than a racket and just as bad, if not worse, than anything conceived by the Cosa Nostra.
Bankers and companies can even sue for what they claim are potential future profits.
All this sounds like something out of a bizarre piece of fiction. But it isn’t. It’s all true.
Oh, and one other thing: all this pro-American legislation (much of it dealt with in secret) means that consumers have absolutely no way of knowing whether the food which they eat has been genetically modified, grown with hormones, treated with chemicals or anything else.
The conspirators behind all this can do what they damned well like. And no one can stop them.
And it is worth remembering that these laws were introduced by the Obama Administration which was ruthlessly pro-corporate. And nothing has changed. In 2021, President-elect Joe Biden wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine that his incoming ‘foreign policy agenda will place the United States at the head of the table’.
Thanks to the neoliberals all international law is now drawn up by corporate lobbyists employed by the conspirators working towards the Great Reset.
Ten Solid Gold Reasons Why I Despise Drug Company Employees (And You Should Too)
20TH AUGUST 2023 by Dr. Vernon Coleman
It isn’t drug companies which are bad, of course. It’s the people who work for them. Drug companies are just corporate entities. They are neither intrinsically good nor bad. It is the drug company employees (usually incredibly well paid) who are corrupt, arrogant, greedy and immoral. Many of those who work (or have worked) for drug companies don’t even realise just how corrupt, arrogant, greedy and immoral they have become. There must be the best part of a million people around the world who are currently working for drug companies. And there are doubtless many millions who are now retired. How they can look in the mirror without flinching is a mystery.
Some critics assume that drug companies suddenly became ‘crooked’ and ‘dishonest’ with the production of the covid-19 ‘vaccines’. But that’s not true. I first exposed the drug companies in my book The Medicine Men which was published nearly half a century ago – in 1975. Drug company staff have been deceitful, misleading and dangerous for decades. Drug industry staffers haven’t just got bad. The industry has been institutionally corrupt and devious for many, many years. Employees always take the credit if they produce something useful but never own the blame when things go wrong – as they so often do.
In the early 1970s I applied for a job with a drug company so that I could expose some of the industry’s dirty secrets. The company gave me a job but then recognised my name and insisted that I sign a contract promising not to write about anything I discovered. Naturally I declined to sign the contract!
Nevertheless, I still managed to do a good deal of research and to write my book exposing the industry. The book was called The Medicine Men.
Days after I wrote The Medicine Men a major drug company offered to give me money to go on a speaking tour. The aim, it was clear, to buy me with a considerable pay-off. I laughed at them and said ‘No’! (The Medicine Men has been republished and is now available again.)
I’ve been exposing the drug companies ever since.
Here are just some of the reasons why I regard the world’s drug company staff as more loathsome than the members of the South American drug cartels. They’ve certainly done more damage and killed more people.
Drug companies suppress research which the regard as commercially inconvenient. If a research project shows that a new drug is dangerous then the drug company responsible for the research will refuse to publish the results. The truth will `out’ eventually, of course. But by then many thousands of people may have died or been injured.
Drug companies never do research which might highlight serious problems with their products. So, for example, I don’t believe vaccine makers do sufficient research to find out if their products are safe for long term use or safe to be given with other products as part of a mass vaccination programme. I believe there is a desperate need for more research into how vaccines affect the immune system. (Read my book `Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying’ for surprising facts. Despite many attempts to destroy the book it is still available. Every newspaper and magazine refused to review it when the book was published.)
Drug companies have bought and corrupted the medical establishment with gifts, money and free holidays. The corruption is so extensive that it is nigh on impossible to find any eminent medical body that isn’t stuffed with people who are receiving or have received money from drug companies.
Drug companies use animal experiments to `prove’ that their products are safe for human use. But this is fraudulent. Drug companies know that tests done on animals are unreliable and cannot be trusted. Moreover, tests on animals are recognised as being utterly useless by the industry, the medical profession and the watchdogs. My book Betrayal of Trust (now republished) contains details of 50 drugs which caused cancer and other serious problems when given to animals but which were passed for human use. I took a fifteen foot long computer print-out to a House of Commons committee – the print-out contained nothing but the names of drugs which kill animals but are prescribed for people. I wanted the House of Commons to stop experiments on animals. Nothing happened.
Drug companies do everything they can to suppress the truth. When I was hired to speak to NHS staff about drug side effects, drug company bosses forced the company to fire me before I could speak. I was replaced with a drug company employee! When I edited the British Clinical Journal, a drug company executive told the publisher to fire me. (He did.) The European Medical Journal (which I founded, edited, paid for and ran entirely without drug company advertising) had to close after a lawsuit paid for by a pressure group funded by drug companies. (I managed to save a book publishing imprint EMJ Books out of the wreckage.)
Drug companies control most big charities. They give the charities huge amounts of money to promote their products.
Drug companies pay huge amounts of money for advertising space in medical journals. I don’t know of any medical journals which are free of what I see as a significant conflict of interest. I have never accepted advertising on my own books, articles or videos so that there can never be any doubt about my independence.
Drug companies hide or lie about the side effects of drugs – sometimes managing to do this for years.
Drug companies pressurise journalists and editors not to publish critical material. After I wrote a series of articles which a drug company didn’t like my research file mysteriously disappeared from a filing cabinet. The editor refused to continue to publish the series because my research file had gone. Drug company pressure spreads far and wide. After I was invited to speak to the Oxford Union in a debate about vivisection the invitation was withdrawn because no drug company employed vivisectionist would speak against me. The vivisectionists were frightened they’d lose the debate and so the Union cancelled me. Drug company lobbyists have helped get my books banned around the world.
Drug companies have a massive amount of influence over statutory bodies which are supposed to protect the public.
Anyone who has ever worked for a drug company for more than a month, as anything other than a typist or car park attendant, should know that all this goes on – and has been going on for decades. But drug companies pay their staff very well and whistle blowers are rare.
Now you know why I don’t trust drug company employees.
And, for the record, I regard it as an honour that drug companies seem to regard me as their No 1 Enemy.
Former 20 Year Editor Of The NEJM Pronounces Much Of Clinical Research And Doctors No Longer To Be Trusted
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
-Marcia Angell
Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, also has a similar quote:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
Unfortunately the Rockefeller Allopathic Medical Cartel in this country is only concerned about $$$. Your well being and “health” is only a means for them to make $$$.
Personal experince: My wife was diagnosed with NHL in 1999, when they thought there was only 7 forms. Now we know there are 72 forms or more and half are know to have a viral component. I studied the issue and decided a nutritional drink with the right formula would help boost her ability to tolerate the 6 rounds of CHOPS, that became 8 because the drug manufacturer was pushing to increase their revenue. Little did I know at that time.
I eliminated sugar from her diet and supplemented with Lactaid (chemo kills essential enzymnes) which helped her digestive processes.
The oncologist turned to me as we walked down the hall and he was amazed as to how well my wife was tolerating the CHOPS. He said: Don't tell me what you are doing, but keep doing it.! Reason: The chemo pushers have convinced the oncologists that nutritional supplementation interferes with the effectiveness of their treatment and failure is caused by nutrient supplementation. Not by the destruction of the immune system by the chemo regimen. In remission for 8 years, became diabetic and metformin was prescribed, in addition she acquired a severe bacteriel infection and was prescribed a 10 day regimen of Cipro. BOTH DRUGS HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM! Downplayed in the literature. The Covid crisis ignored the positive role that the immune system has in warding off the impact of a viral invasion. Almost 10 years to the date of diagnosis, my wife passed, because second time around they didn't have a clue how to deal with the issue except load her up with chemo drugs! As long as the allopathic medicine model dominates and they keep pushing RNA injections we are going down the wrong path in medicine. They are fighting like hell to prevent you and I to know that there are solutions that are effective because profit motivates our medical system. The push to discredit Ivermectin points to this as well as the decades long push to discredit and ignore the major role that Vitamin D which is a hormone has. It activaties over 3000 gene expressions when required, including E-Cadherin which prevents metastasis! If all women has a Vitamin D level of over 50 ng's, and a good life style, 80% of breast cancer diagnosis would disappear. Surgeons would need to find new lines of work. Learn more from my friend Carole Baggerly at www.grassrootshealth.net
True Story. At a Cancer conference, a young women stood up and explained her NHL treatments, and finally the oncologist said there was nothing more they could do and she should get her affairs in order. She turned to alternative medicine and did major life style changes and her NHL disappeared! She found the right formula to boost her immune system. Until medicine recognizes the central role that the immune system plays we are spinning are wheels in healthcare. My comments for the day!
Question, sir: A patient has Rheumatoid Arthritis and has been prescribed Rasuvo/Methotrexate. What might you prescribe in place of the Methotrexate? Or would you even prescribe Methotrexate?
Methotrexate is an excellent place to start RA treatment. Has the patient been on methotrexate treatment before. Rasuvo is an injectable solution that may reduce side effects, but it seems excessive (expensive) compared to tablets, which are cheap (or were).
Yeah, I've had RA for 10 years, I've been on Methotrexate since the first. I don't really like the injection, since it makes me feel sick. I've tried to get tablets, but my doctor says that the injection is better, and yes, it's expensive.
I was going to see if there was a better alternative.
No problem, if the doc won't consider the tablets, because he says the injection in better (it's really not), then consider a different doc.
Sorry to not have a better answer, other than sourcing the tablets from out of the country. I don't really have any suggestions here, but Singapore has excellent services.
When Progress isn’t Progress at all
20TH AUGUST 2023 by Dr. Vernon Coleman
Much of what is happening is described as progress but it isn’t really, of course – it’s just change. And a good deal of it is change contrived to keep us all too busy to notice what is going on in the world, and too wrapped up in our own daily problems to take action against the conspirators, the collaborators and the constant attacks on our freedom and humanity. Even small things become incredibly time consuming and exhausting. The bizarre and indefensible ‘recycling’ programmes which were introduced globally (everything happens in lockstep these days) were designed to make us worry about non-existent climate change, to make us compliant (and to force us to accept that we must do what we are told, even in our own homes and to keep us busy. Most of the carefully washed and sorted recycling material is dumped or burnt, and the environmental cost of collecting recycling material far exceeds any value that might accrue. In the UK, for example, much of the recycling material has been carried to countries far away to be dumped or burnt. There isn’t even any point in recycling paper (the most traditional recycling material). It is better for the environment to grow trees for that purpose and to burn the discarded paper to produce electricity or heat.
If you order a book (or whatever else) online you will be bombarded with emails. There will be a message to say that the purchase has been made, one to say that your order is being dealt with, another to let you know that the book has been passed to the delivery company, one to let you know that the delivery company has received the package, one to inform you that the delivery company has received the book, one to let you know that the book is on its way and one to tell you that the package has been delivered. Then you will receive an email from the seller to let you know that the delivery company has done their job and delivered the book. Later there will be another email from them wanting you to rate their service and one from the delivery company wanting you to let them know how well you think they did. If you don’t reply immediately those emails will be repeated at regular intervals. This barrage of unnecessary emails keeps us occupied with pointless trivia. (Not infrequently, I receive two copies of each of the emails in this tedious chain.)
The word ‘progress’ is used as a synonym for ‘better’; but how do you define ‘better’? Is receiving an email from a friend on holiday better than receiving a postcard? Is the world better when cars all look exactly the same? Is it better when log fires are forbidden by health and safety officials? Are trains better now that there are no restaurant and sleeper cars? Or has life been destroyed by fanatics, cultists and ignorant meddlers, acting, unknowingly, on behalf of conspirators aiming for a Great Reset? Is life better now that there are no junk shops, no rag and bone men and no odd job men who could repair just about anything you couldn’t deal with yourself? Is life better now that family doctors work the same hours as librarians and you have to plan your emergencies a day or two ahead if you hope to ride to hospital in an ambulance? Are hospitals better now that nurses spend more time in meetings than on the ward and are always too busy, and self-important, to find a bedpan, plump up pillows, help a frail patient with their meal or put a bunch of flowers into a vase? Is it progress that children now learn with the aid of iPads instead of being taught with pens and paper and chalk and a board? Is a smart phone real progress over a piece of slate and a slate pencil? Children half a century ago played hopscotch, skipped with ropes and in the winter played football with coats as goalposts while in the summer they played cricket with stumps chalked on lampposts. On their summer holidays they splashed in paddling pools or sailed toy yachts on boating ponds (all now filled in for health and safety reasons) and they rode on donkeys and played one penny games on the pier. Is it simply nostalgia when you know in your heart that things really were better then?
If you object to all progress then the conspirators will label you a ‘Luddite’, even if much of what they label progress isn’t progress at all.
It isn’t difficult to argue that children have little or no future today. The conspirators and the collaborators have taken away their education, their hope, their sense of comfort and even their happiness. Mental health problems among the young are rising at a rate never seen before. Even before the fake pandemic of 2020 the incidence of such problems among the young was frighteningly high. Today, there is an epidemic of mental illness. Millions of children, teenagers and young people are taking tranquillisers and anti-depressants (even though these have been proven to be of no value) and often taking them for years at a time. The lockdowns, the social distancing regulations and the partial or complete closure of hospital departments mean that those requiring specialist help will be on waiting lists for years if not for life.
Is a pub with a log fire and friendly bar staff better than a pub with a good internet connection? Are motorways, with endless queues, better than winding country roads which take you to your destination just as quickly and with far more pleasure? Are self-driving cars better than cars which have to be driven? How will self-driving cars manage to navigate English country roads and all those tiny, blind junctions? Who is going to provide a suitable call out service for all the electric cars which are stranded in country lanes when their batteries run out?
Is a traditional English breakfast better or worse than a bowl of sugar coated cereal? Why does it now take a week or more for a postcard to reach its destination when in Victorian times, in the 19th century, a postcard put in a pillar box in the morning would arrive at its destination in the afternoon? The postcode or zip code was, surely, an early sign of the end of civilisation. I recently bought around 1,000 old Edwardian postcards (no one wants them these days – they cost just a few pounds) and although the addresses consisted of nothing more than (at most) a name, a number, a street and a town, the cards clearly reached their destinations safely. There is less mail today because so many people use email – so why does the mail take so much longer to get where it’s going?
Is reading a book on a smart phone easier and more fun than reading a paperback – with no need to squint and constantly adjust the position of the screen on a sunny day? Was the NHS better when there was a dental service for all? Were charities more or less inclusive when they served merely to serve those in need rather than to enrich executives and advertising agencies? Was life better when we used public phone boxes instead of having to carry a mobile phone with us? Were radio and television programmes worse when traditional events such as the Promenade Concerts celebrated cultural traditions rather than global ones?
Was the Tate Britain art gallery better when it paid more attention to traditional artists than to the demands of the woke? The Tate Britain gallery now has just one room for art from 1545 to 1640 but 14 rooms devoted to art from 1940 onwards. Of the work on view, 200 items were made since the millennium and the work in the publicly funded gallery has been carefully curated to ensure that men and women are equally represented among living artists – regardless of reputation or the value of their work. Modern art on display, representing just a twentieth of the time span of the collection, takes up a quarter of the space. Culture, as well as history, has been changed to fit the requirements of the conspirators and the collaborators. Labels attached to older pictures highlight social injustice, colonial exploitation and prejudice. The gallery seems to illustrate the way in which the feelings of the few now dominate the views of the many in every sphere of activity.
The aims of the WEF and other organisations seem to be to destroy each nation’s heritage, to destroy every country’s culture. In the UK, all major institutions seem to have become very woke. The National Trust, the Marylebone Cricket Club and other former institutions are now unrecognisably woke – to the great confusion of long-standing members. Long established regiments in the army have disappeared or been merged.
The aim of the conspirators is to change the world by erasing nations, families and communities and by destroying everything humans consider to be personal and valuable. Immigration (whether legal or illegal) is encouraged in order to create impoverishment, resentment, racism, terrorism and plenty of excuses for war. (As an aside, it used to be thought that patriotism was good but nationalism was bad. Today, however, both are unacceptable because there can be no countries in the New World Order.)
Naturally, immigration programmes have led to resentment on both sides and, especially in France, the development of racial and cultural ghettoes is leading to civil war.
Thank you for saying, and saying so well, so many of the things that have been troubling me for decades. Though I am an American, the issues with the medical/pharmaceutical industry here are largely the same, if not worse.
I am a breast cancer survivor, from the age of 32. I believe the cancer was caused by chemical exposure at a place I worked. Of course I was informed that chemo was my only option. It was a largish tumor when discovered, and fast-growing. I tolerated the large dosages so badly that my treatment was cut short, but not by much.
I had many of the issues you described, the longest and worst was feeling that I just couldn’t concentrate or think as well, and of course the oncologist and everyone else insisted that it was purely imaginary. It was truly well over a year before I felt mentally sharp again. It also caused me to go into early menopause, and to remain childless. No one mentioned that little possibility to me.
I’m 72 now, but I doubt and always have doubted that chemo was responsible for my survival, forty years later.
I have said since that no matter what, I’d never have chemotherapy again. That may be the smartest decision I’ve made! My GP tried to get me to have a colonoscopy, which I refused. I had to go see the specialist doctor to discuss this, and he was completely confounded when I asked what will happen if I have the test and they find cancer, and when he said chemotherapy, I laughed and told him I’d never have THAT again.
He couldn’t believe I’d refuse treatment! I pointed out that even if they found colon cancer I wouldn’t take chemo, so there was absolutely no point to having a colonoscopy in the first place. His main argument seemed to consist of “But....but....but....!”
I especially loved the one: “But you could die!l”
Yeah? So what? Everyone does. I could get killed by a car when I walk out of here. If I have colon cancer, I’m reasonably certain my last days will be much better without chemo, even if possibly shorter. I’m never having that crap put in me again. Sorry to have wasted your time. That was five years ago. If I DO have colon cancer, it don’t know it and doubt that I do.
Anyone wants chemo, they should go for it!
Just don’t ask me about it, my experience was uniformly horrible. Some people come back with, Yeah hey, you’re still alive! True, but I might have been anyway. All I know is, I will never, ever submit to that particular treatment again.
It’s good to hear from an informed professional that I was right, that stuff is worse than what it it’s supposed to cure, by far!
Again, thank you for your essay and the research. And my apologies for the overly long reply.
Don't apologize, do your own sub stack, an intelligent lady like yourself, well, I expect you have much to share.
-Edwin
You’re too kind. Thanks!
Well just don't hesitate to comment on my columns, you are always welcome here.
I am a drug dealer (licensed in 3 states) who has been retired from the pharmacy wars since 2017, and not a minute too soon. That said, I loved helping my patients, delivering prescriptions, dispensing medical information, and generally helping people get around the medical scams.
Dishonesty in Medical Research
20TH AUGUST 2023 by Dr. Vernon Coleman
Recent research suggests that a quarter of all the papers published in medical journals are either ‘plagiarised’ or simply ‘made up’.
Some observers seem surprised by this.
They shouldn’t be.
The paragraphs which follow were taken from my book The Health Scandal which caused quite a storm when it was published in 1988. The Sunday Times said `This book detects diseases in the whole way we deliver health care’. Nursing Times described it as ‘central to the health of the nation’ and the British Medical Journal said it was ‘a book to stimulate and to make one argue’. Nothing has changed. The Health Scandal has recently been republished and is now available via the bookshop on this website).
‘With enormous pressures on them to make discoveries and produce startling results a growing number of researchers are 'cooking the books' and 'fiddling the figures'.
In my book Paper Doctors, published in 1976, I described two examples of doctors who had been found out. The first was Dr William Summerlin, who was hired by the Sloan Ketting Institute in New York at a salary of$40,000 a year to do work on the problems of transplanting skin and overcoming rejection problems. Summerlin seemed to have made a major breakthrough in this area but no other laboratory anywhere in the world was able to duplicate his excellent results. Then, under pressure, Summerlin admitted that he had cheated. He was supposed to have transplanted skin from black mice to white mice. In fact he had simply inked in the transplant sites with a black felt-tipped pen.
The second medical trickster was Dr J. P. Sedgwick, a GP working in London's West End. Dr Sedgwick was offered £10 per card to fill in a number of trial cards showing the effects of a new hypotensive drug on the blood pressure of some of his patients. Dr Sedgwick filled in 100 cards and accepted £1,000 from the company concerned, Bayer. (See also page 34.)
Bayer became concerned when the cards were returned for not only were they still clean and unmarked but the blood-pressure figures (which all seemed to have been filled in at the same time) were identical on several sets of cards. The drug company eventually reported the doctor to the General Medical Council and inJ uly 1975 Dr Sedgwick had the dubious distinction of being the first medical practitioner to be struck off for such unprofessional behaviour.
Since those early days of deceit, dishonesty among researchers has become sadly and regrettably all too commonplace and the journalsare these days constantly reporting more and more instances of over-zealous researchers falsifying or inventing results.
In 1980, for example, the world of medicine was devastated by a series of scandals involving such prestigious centres of excellence as Yale School of Medicine, Boston's Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard. At the Boston University Medical Center a three-year $1 million cancer research project was tainted by false data. At Cornell University Mark Spector seemed on the brink of winning a Nobel Prize for his work explaining how tumour-causing viruses could turn a cell cancerous. Then suddenly his spectacular career was in ruins. Findings that were originally described as fundamental breakthroughs were branded as fraudulent. Colleagues discovered that Spector had cunningly doctored isolated bits of cellular matter to look like things they were not.
In 1983 there was an even bigger scandal in America when Dr John Darsee who had worked as a researcher at Harvard was accused of falsifying data. Darsee had done research work on a project funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute designed to help assess the effectiveness of drugs to treat heart attacks. After the research project was discredited Harvard was asked to return the $122,371 it had received as funding.
In the autumn ofl986 Professor Michael Briggs, who had worked at an Australian University, admitted 'serious deceptions' in his research into changes in the fats in blood caused by oral contracep tives. Briggs published papers dealing with contraceptive pill side effects between 1976 and 1984 and claimed that his research work had been done at Deakin University. Two drug companies who had provided Briggs with financial backing were shocked when details of his fraudulent behaviour were revealed. Professor Briggs had, after all, been an expert adviser to the World Health Organization.
Then in November 1986 yet another fraudulent medical author was exposed. Robert Slutsky of the University of California at San Diego withdraw fifteen published papers. His action immediately put fifty-five other papers under a cloud. Towards the end of his stay at the University Slutsky had been producing new scientific papers at the rate of one every ten days.
Inevitably all this fraudulent research work leads to problems for other researchers. Once a fraudulent paper gets into the system it can be quoted hundreds of times by other researchers within months of its first publication. The Index Medicus, the most important listing of research papers, does not correct false information or list fraudulent authors or fraudulent papers. There is, therefore, no way for an author to check on the validity of the papers he wants to use in his own research work. In October 1986 a quick survey of papers that were known to be fraudulent revealed a total of forty-three papers published in the last five years or so. If each one of those papers was quoted by only ten other authors, then that makes 430 papers of questionable quality hiding in the world's medical literature.
Medical research is not only costly and of questionable value.
Much of it, it seems, is downright misleading.
As a final footnote to this section it is also perhaps worth pointing out that in a recent analysis of research work published in his book The Clay Pedestal (published in the United States by Nadonna Publications) T. Preston pointed out that one survey of research work showed that almost seventy-five per cent of all the reports published contained invalid conclusions that had been based on the incorrect use of statistics.’
Such a good essay Edwin and thank you for bringing it to light . Thank you Dr. Coleman . We also have scum like this too. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/detroit-area-doctor-sentenced-45-years-prison-providing-medically-unnecessary-chemotherapy
In the US, research paper from 2005 stated only 20% of the medical research papers were non-directed for a pre determined goal. Deciding on profile of test subjects, to manipulating the statistics, to kicking out anomalies as non-esential to the study all work in favor of marketing a marginal Rx drug. My opinion, we could eliminate 80% of the drugs on the market and never miss them.
Yes, all the "me too" drugs, which are representative of most of the side effects, for example, the statin drugs. Strangely enough, Mevacor, the original, known as lovastatin, never had the side effects of the others in my experience.
Priming the Pump! Three months before Mevacor became available, a medical report got broad attention in Newspapers and in the Medical field that TR Niacin caused liver cancer. Based on a St louis VA study involving less that 10 hospitalized veterans with alcoholism. Guess what! Niacin which was effective was discredited and Mevacor became the drug of choice to screw up cholesterol levels which is not the root cause. All about money! They never told the American physicans that Mevacor destroys Co Q 10. All those who died from overdosing on Mevacor which destroyed their liver should sue Merck.
The Shocking Story of the Trans Pacific Partnership
20TH AUGUST 2023 by Dr. Vernon Coleman
In 2005, New Zealand, Chile, Brunei and Singapore created the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The partnership was a mutual trade agreement.
In 2008, the United States decided to take over the TPP and the Obama administration sponsored lobbyists to transform the TPP into an agreement designed to block the public regulation of health, the environment, or other public interest problems that might interfere with corporate profits – namely American corporate profits. Obama protected the big international companies and the bankers and punished the people who had been foolish enough to vote for him.
Obama’s bailouts made the crooks ever richer and impoverished still further the poor and the middle classes. The destruction of the middle classes and the poor is a deliberate neoliberal policy, in the same way that the destruction of Third World economies is a deliberate policy.
The American version of the TPP gave power to a new court (an Investor State Dispute Settlement court) which could stop governments from suing companies and investors who had caused damage. Worse still, ISDS tribunals could order governments to pay fines to foreign companies which felt that public regulations had impaired their profits. The tribunals could order a government to pay a company any amount it liked, without limit. And so the new court made it possible for bankers and companies to do what they liked to a country without any penalty. And if a bank or company felt that a country’s labour or safety regulations might damage its profits, it could sue the Government for loss of profits.
So, for example, when an Ecuadorian court ordered the oil firm Chevron to pay $9.5 billion in damages for causing pollution, an ISDS tribunal in The Hague overruled the Ecuadorian Supreme Court. To make matters worse the ISDS fined Ecuador $1.8 billion, plus interest, for cancelling a joint exploration venture with the oil giant Occidental.
Small countries are regularly ruined by these lawsuits which often involve small sums of money for the globalists but huge sums of money for the countries involved.
The US Chief Justice, John Roberts has said that ISDS has the power to review any nation’s laws and annul the actions of that country’s legislature, executive and judiciary.
The ISDS tribunals (which make the judgements) consist of three private sector lawyers who may also be the lawyers acting for the companies which have brought the legal action. So the three lawyers bring a lawsuit and then decide who wins. And then they decide how much money the country should pay, in dollars, for daring to violate American corporate rights.
It is, by any definition, nothing more than a racket and just as bad, if not worse, than anything conceived by the Cosa Nostra.
Bankers and companies can even sue for what they claim are potential future profits.
All this sounds like something out of a bizarre piece of fiction. But it isn’t. It’s all true.
Oh, and one other thing: all this pro-American legislation (much of it dealt with in secret) means that consumers have absolutely no way of knowing whether the food which they eat has been genetically modified, grown with hormones, treated with chemicals or anything else.
The conspirators behind all this can do what they damned well like. And no one can stop them.
And it is worth remembering that these laws were introduced by the Obama Administration which was ruthlessly pro-corporate. And nothing has changed. In 2021, President-elect Joe Biden wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine that his incoming ‘foreign policy agenda will place the United States at the head of the table’.
Thanks to the neoliberals all international law is now drawn up by corporate lobbyists employed by the conspirators working towards the Great Reset.
Ten Solid Gold Reasons Why I Despise Drug Company Employees (And You Should Too)
20TH AUGUST 2023 by Dr. Vernon Coleman
It isn’t drug companies which are bad, of course. It’s the people who work for them. Drug companies are just corporate entities. They are neither intrinsically good nor bad. It is the drug company employees (usually incredibly well paid) who are corrupt, arrogant, greedy and immoral. Many of those who work (or have worked) for drug companies don’t even realise just how corrupt, arrogant, greedy and immoral they have become. There must be the best part of a million people around the world who are currently working for drug companies. And there are doubtless many millions who are now retired. How they can look in the mirror without flinching is a mystery.
Some critics assume that drug companies suddenly became ‘crooked’ and ‘dishonest’ with the production of the covid-19 ‘vaccines’. But that’s not true. I first exposed the drug companies in my book The Medicine Men which was published nearly half a century ago – in 1975. Drug company staff have been deceitful, misleading and dangerous for decades. Drug industry staffers haven’t just got bad. The industry has been institutionally corrupt and devious for many, many years. Employees always take the credit if they produce something useful but never own the blame when things go wrong – as they so often do.
In the early 1970s I applied for a job with a drug company so that I could expose some of the industry’s dirty secrets. The company gave me a job but then recognised my name and insisted that I sign a contract promising not to write about anything I discovered. Naturally I declined to sign the contract!
Nevertheless, I still managed to do a good deal of research and to write my book exposing the industry. The book was called The Medicine Men.
Days after I wrote The Medicine Men a major drug company offered to give me money to go on a speaking tour. The aim, it was clear, to buy me with a considerable pay-off. I laughed at them and said ‘No’! (The Medicine Men has been republished and is now available again.)
I’ve been exposing the drug companies ever since.
Here are just some of the reasons why I regard the world’s drug company staff as more loathsome than the members of the South American drug cartels. They’ve certainly done more damage and killed more people.
Drug companies suppress research which the regard as commercially inconvenient. If a research project shows that a new drug is dangerous then the drug company responsible for the research will refuse to publish the results. The truth will `out’ eventually, of course. But by then many thousands of people may have died or been injured.
Drug companies never do research which might highlight serious problems with their products. So, for example, I don’t believe vaccine makers do sufficient research to find out if their products are safe for long term use or safe to be given with other products as part of a mass vaccination programme. I believe there is a desperate need for more research into how vaccines affect the immune system. (Read my book `Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying’ for surprising facts. Despite many attempts to destroy the book it is still available. Every newspaper and magazine refused to review it when the book was published.)
Drug companies have bought and corrupted the medical establishment with gifts, money and free holidays. The corruption is so extensive that it is nigh on impossible to find any eminent medical body that isn’t stuffed with people who are receiving or have received money from drug companies.
Drug companies use animal experiments to `prove’ that their products are safe for human use. But this is fraudulent. Drug companies know that tests done on animals are unreliable and cannot be trusted. Moreover, tests on animals are recognised as being utterly useless by the industry, the medical profession and the watchdogs. My book Betrayal of Trust (now republished) contains details of 50 drugs which caused cancer and other serious problems when given to animals but which were passed for human use. I took a fifteen foot long computer print-out to a House of Commons committee – the print-out contained nothing but the names of drugs which kill animals but are prescribed for people. I wanted the House of Commons to stop experiments on animals. Nothing happened.
Drug companies do everything they can to suppress the truth. When I was hired to speak to NHS staff about drug side effects, drug company bosses forced the company to fire me before I could speak. I was replaced with a drug company employee! When I edited the British Clinical Journal, a drug company executive told the publisher to fire me. (He did.) The European Medical Journal (which I founded, edited, paid for and ran entirely without drug company advertising) had to close after a lawsuit paid for by a pressure group funded by drug companies. (I managed to save a book publishing imprint EMJ Books out of the wreckage.)
Drug companies control most big charities. They give the charities huge amounts of money to promote their products.
Drug companies pay huge amounts of money for advertising space in medical journals. I don’t know of any medical journals which are free of what I see as a significant conflict of interest. I have never accepted advertising on my own books, articles or videos so that there can never be any doubt about my independence.
Drug companies hide or lie about the side effects of drugs – sometimes managing to do this for years.
Drug companies pressurise journalists and editors not to publish critical material. After I wrote a series of articles which a drug company didn’t like my research file mysteriously disappeared from a filing cabinet. The editor refused to continue to publish the series because my research file had gone. Drug company pressure spreads far and wide. After I was invited to speak to the Oxford Union in a debate about vivisection the invitation was withdrawn because no drug company employed vivisectionist would speak against me. The vivisectionists were frightened they’d lose the debate and so the Union cancelled me. Drug company lobbyists have helped get my books banned around the world.
Drug companies have a massive amount of influence over statutory bodies which are supposed to protect the public.
Anyone who has ever worked for a drug company for more than a month, as anything other than a typist or car park attendant, should know that all this goes on – and has been going on for decades. But drug companies pay their staff very well and whistle blowers are rare.
Now you know why I don’t trust drug company employees.
And, for the record, I regard it as an honour that drug companies seem to regard me as their No 1 Enemy.
Former 20 Year Editor Of The NEJM Pronounces Much Of Clinical Research And Doctors No Longer To Be Trusted
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
-Marcia Angell
Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, also has a similar quote:
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
Unfortunately the Rockefeller Allopathic Medical Cartel in this country is only concerned about $$$. Your well being and “health” is only a means for them to make $$$.
Buyer beware
cancer treatment is pornographic. Watched it and know it when I saw it.
Personal experince: My wife was diagnosed with NHL in 1999, when they thought there was only 7 forms. Now we know there are 72 forms or more and half are know to have a viral component. I studied the issue and decided a nutritional drink with the right formula would help boost her ability to tolerate the 6 rounds of CHOPS, that became 8 because the drug manufacturer was pushing to increase their revenue. Little did I know at that time.
I eliminated sugar from her diet and supplemented with Lactaid (chemo kills essential enzymnes) which helped her digestive processes.
The oncologist turned to me as we walked down the hall and he was amazed as to how well my wife was tolerating the CHOPS. He said: Don't tell me what you are doing, but keep doing it.! Reason: The chemo pushers have convinced the oncologists that nutritional supplementation interferes with the effectiveness of their treatment and failure is caused by nutrient supplementation. Not by the destruction of the immune system by the chemo regimen. In remission for 8 years, became diabetic and metformin was prescribed, in addition she acquired a severe bacteriel infection and was prescribed a 10 day regimen of Cipro. BOTH DRUGS HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM! Downplayed in the literature. The Covid crisis ignored the positive role that the immune system has in warding off the impact of a viral invasion. Almost 10 years to the date of diagnosis, my wife passed, because second time around they didn't have a clue how to deal with the issue except load her up with chemo drugs! As long as the allopathic medicine model dominates and they keep pushing RNA injections we are going down the wrong path in medicine. They are fighting like hell to prevent you and I to know that there are solutions that are effective because profit motivates our medical system. The push to discredit Ivermectin points to this as well as the decades long push to discredit and ignore the major role that Vitamin D which is a hormone has. It activaties over 3000 gene expressions when required, including E-Cadherin which prevents metastasis! If all women has a Vitamin D level of over 50 ng's, and a good life style, 80% of breast cancer diagnosis would disappear. Surgeons would need to find new lines of work. Learn more from my friend Carole Baggerly at www.grassrootshealth.net
True Story. At a Cancer conference, a young women stood up and explained her NHL treatments, and finally the oncologist said there was nothing more they could do and she should get her affairs in order. She turned to alternative medicine and did major life style changes and her NHL disappeared! She found the right formula to boost her immune system. Until medicine recognizes the central role that the immune system plays we are spinning are wheels in healthcare. My comments for the day!
DOUBLE BRAVO
Question, sir: A patient has Rheumatoid Arthritis and has been prescribed Rasuvo/Methotrexate. What might you prescribe in place of the Methotrexate? Or would you even prescribe Methotrexate?
Methotrexate is an excellent place to start RA treatment. Has the patient been on methotrexate treatment before. Rasuvo is an injectable solution that may reduce side effects, but it seems excessive (expensive) compared to tablets, which are cheap (or were).
Yeah, I've had RA for 10 years, I've been on Methotrexate since the first. I don't really like the injection, since it makes me feel sick. I've tried to get tablets, but my doctor says that the injection is better, and yes, it's expensive.
I was going to see if there was a better alternative.
Thank you, sir.
No problem, if the doc won't consider the tablets, because he says the injection in better (it's really not), then consider a different doc.
Sorry to not have a better answer, other than sourcing the tablets from out of the country. I don't really have any suggestions here, but Singapore has excellent services.