Difficulties outside our control mean that www.vernoncoleman.org is no longer functioning as a separate website and has been temporarily (hopefully) redirected to www.vernoncoleman.com
Everything normally found on www.vernoncoleman.org can be found on www.vernoncoleman.com except for videos. Most of Vernon Coleman’s video can be found on www.onevsp.com which is the new, all dancing, all singing version of BrandNewTube, and on bitchute.com and other platforms. None of his videos can be found on YouTube which is controlled by the bad guys, doesn’t approve of facts, truths and proper debate and is only really useful for those seeking videos made by dancing hamsters, glove puppets and people diving into vats of blancmange.
Coleman’s 4th Law of Medicine: Health Screening and Check-ups Do More Harm than Good
Dr Vernon Coleman
My fourth law of medicine is that screening examinations and check-ups are more profitable for doctors than for patients – and do more harm than good.
I have been a stern critic of screening examinations and check-ups for several decades and have, in the distant past, pointed out that well-known (and extremely profitable) forms of testing such as the cervical smear, the mammogram and the prostate specific antigen (psa) test for prostate cancer may, over the years, have done considerably more harm than good.
Naturally, my criticisms have been met with a barrage of angry and very defensive comments from doctors who earn their living providing screening tests, and from companies which make money out of producing screening equipment. Today, the industry promoting health checks continues to promote (and profit from) them though, I am pleased to say, that a growing number of doctors now share my fear that such tests may, in the long run, do far more harm than good.
As long ago as 2004, a study by experts at Stanford University Medical School in the USA suggested that the psa test could not be relied upon to produce accurate results. And in recent years more and more doctors have come to accept that routine mammograms (in which the breast tissue is X-rayed) are far too dangerous and should be avoided.
It was in 1988 that I first warned about the danger of mammograms. My criticism was, of course, greeted with howls of outrage from the medical establishment. Back then I wrote: ‘There are, of course, risks in having regular X-ray examinations. No one knows yet exactly what those risks are. We will probably find out in another ten or twenty years time.’
In fact it was in 2006 that doctors finally issued a warning about mammograms, coming to precisely the conclusion I had warned about eighteen years earlier. Mammographic screening may help prevent breast cancer. But it may also cause breast cancer. Just how many women die because of the radiation they have received through mammography isn’t known but it seems that the risks for younger women (women in their 30’s for example) are higher than the risks for older women. (Radiation-induced cancer typically takes up to 20 years to develop so for a woman in her 80’s the risks of mammography are probably somewhere between slight and negligible.) According to some estimates, out of every 10,000 women who have mammograms from the age of 40 onwards between two and four will develop radiation-induced breast cancer. One of them will die as a result of this. The precise figures are unknown and depend upon the quality and amount of the radiation, the skill of the technician and other factors — probably including the general health of the woman concerned.
Patients are frequently invited to their doctor’s surgery for a screening test or a health check. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that your doctor suddenly cares for you. In Britain, family doctors are paid huge bonuses if they perform routine health checks on their elderly patients.
The principle of screening is a simple one: the patient trots along to the doctor and the doctor (for a chunky, great fee, of course) does tests which are designed to spot early signs of disease. The tests which are offered are done because the medical establishment has managed to convince NHS bureaucrats that screening is worth paying for.
Doctors are enthusiastic about screening because it’s enormously profitable. And they’re very lukewarm about encouraging their patients to follow healthier lifestyles because there is no money in it. For decades now, just about every attempt to show that medical screening programmes save lives has proved that they are a waste of time, energy and money. Indeed, surveys have proved that, because of the risk of false positives, medical screening programmes do far more harm than good.
Medical screening programmes go back a long way.
The first recorded screening took place at a public brothel in Avignon in 1347 when a local Abbess and a surgeon examined all the working women every Saturday to see whether or not they were fit to carry on serving the local population.
Then, in 1917 large corporations in the U.S. thought it might be a good idea to have their employees examined regularly. When half of four million American men called up for military service during the First World War proved to be unfit for military service, insurance companies started screening the general population.
Since then, the medical screening business has grown virtually unchecked and those promoting screening (or health checks) merrily ignore the inconvenient fact that since the 1970s there has been ample evidence to show that medical screening programmes are not just a waste of time and money but can also be a serious health hazard.
Back in 1979, the World Health Organisation published a report which showed that people who were subjected to regular medical screenings needed to go to hospital more often but were not as healthy as people who did not undergo regular medical screenings. The conclusion was that health screening is expensive and ineffective.
In the same year, the results of a Canadian Task Force report on Periodic Health Examination came to the conclusion that annual medical check-ups should be abandoned since they were both inefficient and potentially harmful.
Health checks are harmful for many reasons.
First, when people are taught to put their faith in medical check-ups they tend to abandon responsibility for their own health and enjoy a false sense of security. Patients forget that a medical check-up is no more a sign of long-term health than an encouraging bank statement is a sign of permanent financial security. A patient who is given a clean bill of health is likely to ignore strange symptoms which develop a week or two later. And there is a danger that he (or she) may feel that it is unnecessary to eat wisely or to take regular exercise.
Second, screening examinations may frighten people. They can result in cancer phobias, neuroses and depression. And they can result in so much stress that the immune system is damaged – leading to a greater susceptibility to disease.
Third, the procedures involved in screening programmes may do physical harm. There are, for example, some doctors who perform coronary angiographs as part of their check-up procedures. As many as two patients per 100 may die during this procedure.
Fourth, when a screening examination results in a false positive the patient may be given a treatment which may damage his or health. A major Swedish report on breast screening (a type of screening which has been shown to be particularly useless and dangerous but enormously profitable) showed that out of 600,000 women screened, there had been 100,000 false positives. This means that 100,000 healthy women were told that they had breast cancer when they didn’t have anything wrong with them. They were terrified and treated unnecessarily.
Fifth, screening is expensive.
Sixth it is a proven fact that screening doesn’t work. It is dangerous and does far more harm than good.
Every independent survey I have found has concluded that screening (whether general or specific) is costly and useless. The reality is that the only people who benefit from screening programmes are doctors – and other parts of the health industry. Screening programmes are extremely profitable.
The problems, and hazards, with screening programmes seem boundless. For example, you have a one in three chance of a false positive result if you have a full body CT scan. There is also a one in 20 chance that the scan will miss signs of disease – and give you a false sense of complacency and encourage you to ignore important physical signs.
I’ve been screaming about the dangers of screening programmes for 50 years and was delighted when, in November 2009, the American Cancer Society finally accepted that screening for breast and prostate cancer is inefficient, inaccurate and alarmist and can do damage by detecting cancers that either don’t exist or wouldn’t kill if they did.
Naturally, however, such programmes are still promoted within the NHS where staff favour screening programmes because it is easy to measure the results. They can say: ‘We screened 10,000 people and found 10 people with possible cancer. We, have, therefore, saved 10 lives.’ In medical and statistical terms, such claims are nonsensical. But in political terms they are invaluable.
Offering sensible advice is much cheaper and safer but the results cannot be measured and it is difficult for doctors or health authorities to claim the credit for saving lives.
Taken from Vernon Coleman’s book `Coleman’s Laws: The Twelve Medical Truths You Must Know to Survive’ is available as a paperback and an eBook on Amazon.
Few men’s names are better known than Roget’s. And yet surprisingly little is written about this extraordinary English doctor.
Born in London, the son of a minister, Roget had an unhappy childhood. His father died young and his favourite uncle committed suicide in his presence. His wife died young. It is perhaps not surprising that he struggled with depression throughout his life.
Peter Roget qualified and worked as a physician. His first job was as physician to the Manchester Infirmary when he was 25-years-old. Four years later he was appointed physician to the Northern Dispensary in London.
But he was far, far more than a physician. In 1814, he invented a slide rule for calculating the roots and powers of numbers and in 1828 he helped found both the Royal Society of Medicine and the University of London. He was Fullerian professor of physiology at the Royal Institution from 1833 to 1836 and secretary of the Royal Society from 1827 to 1849. In 1834, he wrote Animal and Vegetable Physiology. He even designed an inexpensive pocket chessboard and, as a hobby, created chess problems.
However, those are still not the achievements for which he is best remembered. In 1840, he retired from medical work to work on the most notable work of his life. This was, of course, his Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases, a most comprehensive and classified collection of synonyms which enables writers to find an alternative word when they are creating a letter, an article or a book and do not wish to keep repeating themselves. Roget was the first person to create a thesaurus. He had always loved lists and had something of an obsession for list making when he was eight years old.
He started work on the thesaurus in 1805 and it was, for him, a way of escaping from his depression. The book was first published in 1852 when it was given the snappy title: Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases Classified and Arranged so as to Facilitate the Expression of Ideas and Assist in Literary Composition. The book was reprinted 28 times during Roget’s life. After he died at 90, while on holiday in Malvern, his son, John Lewis Roget took over the job of keeping the book up-to-date. And when he, in turn, died, his son Samuel Romilly Roget carried on the family tradition. Taken from `The 100 Greatest Englishmen and Englishwomen’ by Vernon Coleman – available via the bookshops on www.vernoncoleman.com
Why Women Won’t Live Longer Than Men In The Future
Dr Vernon Coleman
The difference in life expectation between men and women will not continue far into the 21st century. This is not because men are going to live longer but because women are going to die sooner.
(In fact, since I wrote the first edition of my book `How to Live Longer’ there has already been an equalling of life expectancies among men and women.)
I base this prediction on simple observations.
1. The number of women who smoke cigarettes is rising dramatically. Visit any large town, find yourself a convenient seat, and watch the young people go by. You will soon notice that smoking is now much commoner among young girls than it is among young boys. The statistical evidence supports this simple observation.
2. The incidence of alcoholism among women is rising too. A few decades ago, it was rare to find a woman who had wrecked her life and her health with alcohol. Today it is commonplace.
3. Increasing numbers of women have been suckered by the women’s liberation movement into believing that they owe it to themselves and their ‘sisters’ to take a more masculine attitude to life. Modern women have demanded, and have taken, the same sort of damaging stresses as were endured by men throughout the 20th century. Many women seem more aggressive and more ‘masculine’ than men. The incidence of stress related disorders among women is going to rocket in the next generation or two.
4. Women are taking their exercise more seriously too – they have become more competitive and they push themselves harder when they are allegedly relaxing.
5. As women take an increasingly masculine approach to life so they abandon their traditional, health giving relationships with their female friends. Many women now feel that it is somehow ‘beneath them’ to need to share their fears, their feelings and their weak moments with other women. Women are making themselves tougher and more self-sufficient. The effect on their health will be bad.
This essay was taken from Dr Vernon Coleman’s book `How to Live Longer’ which is available via the bookshops on www.vernoncoleman.com
Women in developed countries can, on average, currently expect to live up to ten years longer than men.
That’s a fact.
The oldest person in recorded history was a woman, Mme Jeanne Calment, who died at the age of 122 in 1997.
That’s a fact.
Nine times as many women as men live to celebrate their 100th birthday.
That’s a fact.
Men aged 55 to 64 are twice as likely as women of the same age to die from accidents or heart disease and four times as likely to commit suicide.
That’s a fact.
It is widely believed that women live longer than men because of some genetic superiority. Indeed, most people believe that women have always lived longer than men.
Those are myths.
Up until the early part of the 20th century, life expectancy for men was pretty much the same as life expectancy for women.
The fact is that the difference only developed during the 20th century.
And I believe that the difference can be easily explained. The fact that women now live longer than men has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics or hormones. It is all down to lifestyle.
Here are the reasons why men now tend to die sooner than women.
1. For most of the 20th century the average man pushed himself much harder than the average woman did. There were exceptions among both sexes, of course, but on the whole, men felt that they had to drive themselves hard in order to ‘succeed’. (The definition of ‘success’ has varied from community to community.) The resultant high stress levels have helped produce a high incidence of heart disease and have damaged the immune systems of millions of men – thereby making vast numbers of men exceptionally vulnerable to many varieties of cancer.
2. Smoking has, for decades, been very much a ‘male’ habit. For most of the 20th century the number of male smokers far exceeded the number of female smokers. It was the popularity of smoking among men which partly explained the higher incidence of heart disease and some common cancers among men.
3. Throughout the 20th century men were more likely than women to eat too much and more likely to eat the wrong (often high fat content) foods. Women tended to be more conscious of the advantages of healthy eating than have men. In addition, women have traditionally been much more conscious of their size than have men, and slimming clubs have always been more popular with women than with men.
4. For the first three quarters of the 20th century, most of the financial worries within a marriage were shouldered by the man. Many women never saw their husband’s pay packet or bank details. A remarkable number of women never even knew how much their husbands earned. Worrying about money is one of the commonest stresses – and is particularly likely to result in ill health.
5. Generally speaking, men have been woefully unwilling to be on the lookout for – and aware – of abnormalities affecting their bodies. For decades women have routinely examined their own bodies – looking for abnormalities or early signs of developing disease. Men, on the other hand, have traditionally been unwilling to do this. Vast amounts of money have been spent teaching women how to examine their own breasts (in order to spot breast cancer). Virtually nothing has been spent teaching men how to examine their testicles (in order to spot cancer of the testes).
Women have been much more enthusiastic about learning the rudiments of self help. Far more women than men are knowledgeable about alternative medicine. In addition, women have learnt to be more willing to seek help from a health care professional when they have found symptoms or signs which might indicate an underlying health problem. Why are women so much more comfortable with seeking medical advice than men? I suspect the explanation is simple. Women who get pregnant are accustomed to seeking medical help during their pregnant years. And it is usually the mother (rather than the father) who takes sick children along to the doctor’s surgery.
6. Doctors are a major cause of sickness in our modern society but there are times when their help can be lifesaving for the sooner an individual seeks medical advice the greater likelihood that the doctor can deal with the problem satisfactorily. To all this must be added the fact that doctors have, for years, concentrated medical resources on health problems exclusively affecting women (such as cervical cancer and breast cancer) and virtually ignored health problems (such as prostate cancer) exclusively affecting men.
7. Alcohol was, for most the 20th century, a ‘man thing’. Alcoholism – and alcohol induced damage – used to be much commoner among men than women. The female body is more susceptible to alcohol but excessive drinking has traditionally been something much more likely to affect men than women.
8. Workaholism was almost exclusively a male problem for the greater part of the 20th century. Driven by ambition, competitiveness and a need to succeed, millions of men pushed themselves to the limit and beyond. Many men have died – or become chronic invalids – because of their workaholism.
9. Throughout the 20th century men have, generally speaking, been unwilling to talk to anyone about their problems. A man may joke with his best friend, or talk to him about his boss, his favourite football team or his car, but he is unlikely to open his heart, or to be prepared to share his innermost feelings. The average woman, on the other hand, does not have so much difficulty in opening up her heart and sharing her fears, hopes and aspirations with her best friend. Sharing personal fears is a good way of reducing the damage fears can do. The average man bottles up his fears and his worries – allowing those fears and worries to do a great deal of damage. By sharing her fears, the average woman dramatically reduces the damage that is done.
10. When men take exercise it tends to be physically combative and potentially damaging. Football, for example, is likely to result in all sorts of physical injuries. The exercise men take also tends to be competitive in nature. So, for example, when men play golf or squash they are often determined to win. The result of all this is that when men take exercise it is likely to prove physically and mentally damaging. Feminine types of activity, on the other hand, tend to be gentler and less competitive. Women attend keep fit classes or aerobic classes or go dancing. They benefit from their exercise programmes.
Note: Tomorrow I will explain why things are changing and why women won’t live longer than men in the future.
This essay was taken from `How to Live Longer’ by Vernon Coleman – which is available via the bookshops on www.vernoncoleman.com
The following extract is from my new novella: `A Needle for a Needle: A Mother’s Covid Revenge’
The Plot so far: Mrs Mallory’s son Leigh has died after a covid-19 vaccination. Now her husband, who has also been vaccinated has had a heart attack. Mrs Mallory is trying to get help. Read on:
‘Sit there and don’t move,’ said Mrs Mallory quite unnecessarily. ‘I’ll ring the doctor.’
The doctor’s phone was connected to an answering machine which clicked into action after a dozen rings. ‘Thank you for your call. Please note that we do not deal with emergencies at this practice,’ said a voice which Mrs Mallory recognised as belonging to one of the receptionists. ‘If you have an emergency please telephone for an ambulance, or make your way to the Accident and Emergency Department of your nearest hospital. You can find a list of local hospitals online. Please go to our website to rate our service on TruthPilot with whom we are trusted partners. Your call is important to us.’
Mrs Mallory telephoned the emergency number and spoke to a kindly sounding woman who asked her, as calmly as if she had all the time in the world, if she wanted the police, the fire brigade or the ambulance service. Mrs Mallory asked for an ambulance.
‘There is currently a waiting time of 16 hours for an ambulance,’ said the woman to whom she next spoke. ‘Our ambulances and crews are very busy with other calls. We always endeavour to provide the public with the very best service possible. Your call is important to us.’
‘My husband is having a heart attack,’ said Mrs Mallory. She described her husband’s symptoms.
‘In that case I can put you on our special emergency list for priority calls,’ said the telephone operator. ‘I’ll check on the availability of that service.’ There was silence for a moment. It seemed to Mrs Mallory to last about a month, though in reality it may have been shorter. ‘We hope to get an ambulance to you in 17 hours,’ said the receptionist, sounding very pleased with herself. ‘But I must warn you that the junior doctors and the consultants are all starting their combined strike in 12 hours’ time so by the time we can get you to the hospital there won’t be any doctors available. Is there anything else I can help you with, today?’
Mrs Mallory thanked the operator and put the phone down. Her first thought then was to telephone Leigh and to ask him to take them to the hospital in his van. And then she remembered that she couldn’t ever telephone Leigh again. She suddenly felt very lonely. They had no other relatives. She tried to think of a neighbour she could ask but couldn’t think of anyone whom they knew well enough and who would be available. She opened a little personal directory she kept by the phone. It contained the telephone numbers of a plumber, an electrician and a taxi company. She rang the taxi company.
‘I’m sorry,’ said the woman who answered the phone. ‘But we can’t get anyone to you this week.’
‘It’s an emergency,’ said Mrs Mallory. She explained.
‘Oh, in that case I’m afraid we can’t help you at all,’ said the woman. ‘Our insurance doesn’t allow us to carry people who are ill.’ There was a pause. ‘I’m terribly sorry,’ she said, in a mechanical sort of way, the sort of insincere apology someone in a hurry might make after a slight collision on a crowded pavement. ‘I’m sure you understand, it’s company policy. We can’t allow our drivers to be placed in a difficult situation. Our company policy is to ask you to ring an ambulance. But we hope to be of service to you in the future. We are partners with TruthPilot, the internationally renowned ratings organisation. Please go to our website if you would like to leave a rating and a comment. We offer a 10% discount coupon to all those who leave a five star rating.’ She ended the connection quickly.
Mrs Mallory went back into the living room to see how her husband was doing.
Here’s Proof all those Summer Fires were Arson – not Climate Change
Dr Vernon Coleman
No one with functioning brain tissue believes this summer’s fires were natural events – let alone that they had anything to do with fake climate change.
Now, Janet and Cyntha, the amazing team who put together the eternally stunning Fall of the Cabal videos, have produced a video proving – beyond a scintilla of doubt – that the fires were man-made.
And they’ve shown just how the fire starters did the job.
You can see their just under two hour long video HERE
The Fall of the Cabal special presentation, entitled `Fire!!! Things that make you go HMMMMM’ makes you realise just how thoroughly evil the conspirators truly are.
The globalists will do anything to help sustain the global warming myth and take us into the Great Reset with their smart cities – including killing citizens and destroying homes.
I was so sickened by what the conspirators have done, and doubtless will continue to do, that I had to take a break half way through the film.
This new, brilliantly researched film from Cyntha and Janet of The Fall of the Cabal should be entered for the Oscars. It would walk away with the statue for best documentary.
Only got to # 1 and had to say , yes there are germs , that’s why God gave us a wonderfully made immune system . I want to also say , since these blasted shifty and shitty jabs , Gyn patients, in the office , ( who are jabbed ) , who get genital herpes or chlamydia ect … , need higher and longer doses to get rid of these “ germs”. The jab causes immunosuppression. It’s a Bioweapon .
Number 9 can’t be any truer … our medical residents stopped coming to THEIR clinic , so attendings had to see THEIR clinic patients…one warning first , then they failed that following month ….attendings lost , they won for “ being picked on , and having rights “.
Ray, I go one way and then the other on this plague. First, it traveled faster than man, horse, rat, or even the weather (how fast does the weather travel?). This leads us to suspect it was extraterrestrial, hmm, ridiculous or not. Perhaps they haven't nailed down whether it was a virus or a bacterium, perhaps they have. But it was not something else.
9. I overheard two young people talking in a café. `My boss is terrible,’ said one. `He keeps trying to tell me what to do!’ `You should complain,’ said the other. `They’re not allowed to do that.’
Me: That's what bosses do, they tell you what to do. Otherwise, they wouldn't be bosses, they'd be co-workers. I'm 53 and still have bosses over me.
10. And I overheard two teenagers talking about climate change, energy and the planet. `I don’t know why they burn coal or diesel or gas any more. And I don’t know why they’re putting up these horrid windmills and solar panels. Electricity is so much cleaner. It just comes out of the socket and there’s no mess.’
Me: The education system sucks, don't they teach kids how anything works anymore?
Notice re vernoncoleman.org
Dr Vernon Coleman
Difficulties outside our control mean that www.vernoncoleman.org is no longer functioning as a separate website and has been temporarily (hopefully) redirected to www.vernoncoleman.com
Everything normally found on www.vernoncoleman.org can be found on www.vernoncoleman.com except for videos. Most of Vernon Coleman’s video can be found on www.onevsp.com which is the new, all dancing, all singing version of BrandNewTube, and on bitchute.com and other platforms. None of his videos can be found on YouTube which is controlled by the bad guys, doesn’t approve of facts, truths and proper debate and is only really useful for those seeking videos made by dancing hamsters, glove puppets and people diving into vats of blancmange.
Coleman’s 4th Law of Medicine: Health Screening and Check-ups Do More Harm than Good
Dr Vernon Coleman
My fourth law of medicine is that screening examinations and check-ups are more profitable for doctors than for patients – and do more harm than good.
I have been a stern critic of screening examinations and check-ups for several decades and have, in the distant past, pointed out that well-known (and extremely profitable) forms of testing such as the cervical smear, the mammogram and the prostate specific antigen (psa) test for prostate cancer may, over the years, have done considerably more harm than good.
Naturally, my criticisms have been met with a barrage of angry and very defensive comments from doctors who earn their living providing screening tests, and from companies which make money out of producing screening equipment. Today, the industry promoting health checks continues to promote (and profit from) them though, I am pleased to say, that a growing number of doctors now share my fear that such tests may, in the long run, do far more harm than good.
As long ago as 2004, a study by experts at Stanford University Medical School in the USA suggested that the psa test could not be relied upon to produce accurate results. And in recent years more and more doctors have come to accept that routine mammograms (in which the breast tissue is X-rayed) are far too dangerous and should be avoided.
It was in 1988 that I first warned about the danger of mammograms. My criticism was, of course, greeted with howls of outrage from the medical establishment. Back then I wrote: ‘There are, of course, risks in having regular X-ray examinations. No one knows yet exactly what those risks are. We will probably find out in another ten or twenty years time.’
In fact it was in 2006 that doctors finally issued a warning about mammograms, coming to precisely the conclusion I had warned about eighteen years earlier. Mammographic screening may help prevent breast cancer. But it may also cause breast cancer. Just how many women die because of the radiation they have received through mammography isn’t known but it seems that the risks for younger women (women in their 30’s for example) are higher than the risks for older women. (Radiation-induced cancer typically takes up to 20 years to develop so for a woman in her 80’s the risks of mammography are probably somewhere between slight and negligible.) According to some estimates, out of every 10,000 women who have mammograms from the age of 40 onwards between two and four will develop radiation-induced breast cancer. One of them will die as a result of this. The precise figures are unknown and depend upon the quality and amount of the radiation, the skill of the technician and other factors — probably including the general health of the woman concerned.
Patients are frequently invited to their doctor’s surgery for a screening test or a health check. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that your doctor suddenly cares for you. In Britain, family doctors are paid huge bonuses if they perform routine health checks on their elderly patients.
The principle of screening is a simple one: the patient trots along to the doctor and the doctor (for a chunky, great fee, of course) does tests which are designed to spot early signs of disease. The tests which are offered are done because the medical establishment has managed to convince NHS bureaucrats that screening is worth paying for.
Doctors are enthusiastic about screening because it’s enormously profitable. And they’re very lukewarm about encouraging their patients to follow healthier lifestyles because there is no money in it. For decades now, just about every attempt to show that medical screening programmes save lives has proved that they are a waste of time, energy and money. Indeed, surveys have proved that, because of the risk of false positives, medical screening programmes do far more harm than good.
Medical screening programmes go back a long way.
The first recorded screening took place at a public brothel in Avignon in 1347 when a local Abbess and a surgeon examined all the working women every Saturday to see whether or not they were fit to carry on serving the local population.
Then, in 1917 large corporations in the U.S. thought it might be a good idea to have their employees examined regularly. When half of four million American men called up for military service during the First World War proved to be unfit for military service, insurance companies started screening the general population.
Since then, the medical screening business has grown virtually unchecked and those promoting screening (or health checks) merrily ignore the inconvenient fact that since the 1970s there has been ample evidence to show that medical screening programmes are not just a waste of time and money but can also be a serious health hazard.
Back in 1979, the World Health Organisation published a report which showed that people who were subjected to regular medical screenings needed to go to hospital more often but were not as healthy as people who did not undergo regular medical screenings. The conclusion was that health screening is expensive and ineffective.
In the same year, the results of a Canadian Task Force report on Periodic Health Examination came to the conclusion that annual medical check-ups should be abandoned since they were both inefficient and potentially harmful.
Health checks are harmful for many reasons.
First, when people are taught to put their faith in medical check-ups they tend to abandon responsibility for their own health and enjoy a false sense of security. Patients forget that a medical check-up is no more a sign of long-term health than an encouraging bank statement is a sign of permanent financial security. A patient who is given a clean bill of health is likely to ignore strange symptoms which develop a week or two later. And there is a danger that he (or she) may feel that it is unnecessary to eat wisely or to take regular exercise.
Second, screening examinations may frighten people. They can result in cancer phobias, neuroses and depression. And they can result in so much stress that the immune system is damaged – leading to a greater susceptibility to disease.
Third, the procedures involved in screening programmes may do physical harm. There are, for example, some doctors who perform coronary angiographs as part of their check-up procedures. As many as two patients per 100 may die during this procedure.
Fourth, when a screening examination results in a false positive the patient may be given a treatment which may damage his or health. A major Swedish report on breast screening (a type of screening which has been shown to be particularly useless and dangerous but enormously profitable) showed that out of 600,000 women screened, there had been 100,000 false positives. This means that 100,000 healthy women were told that they had breast cancer when they didn’t have anything wrong with them. They were terrified and treated unnecessarily.
Fifth, screening is expensive.
Sixth it is a proven fact that screening doesn’t work. It is dangerous and does far more harm than good.
Every independent survey I have found has concluded that screening (whether general or specific) is costly and useless. The reality is that the only people who benefit from screening programmes are doctors – and other parts of the health industry. Screening programmes are extremely profitable.
The problems, and hazards, with screening programmes seem boundless. For example, you have a one in three chance of a false positive result if you have a full body CT scan. There is also a one in 20 chance that the scan will miss signs of disease – and give you a false sense of complacency and encourage you to ignore important physical signs.
I’ve been screaming about the dangers of screening programmes for 50 years and was delighted when, in November 2009, the American Cancer Society finally accepted that screening for breast and prostate cancer is inefficient, inaccurate and alarmist and can do damage by detecting cancers that either don’t exist or wouldn’t kill if they did.
Naturally, however, such programmes are still promoted within the NHS where staff favour screening programmes because it is easy to measure the results. They can say: ‘We screened 10,000 people and found 10 people with possible cancer. We, have, therefore, saved 10 lives.’ In medical and statistical terms, such claims are nonsensical. But in political terms they are invaluable.
Offering sensible advice is much cheaper and safer but the results cannot be measured and it is difficult for doctors or health authorities to claim the credit for saving lives.
Taken from Vernon Coleman’s book `Coleman’s Laws: The Twelve Medical Truths You Must Know to Survive’ is available as a paperback and an eBook on Amazon.
Peter Mark Roget
(1779-1869)
Dr Vernon Coleman
Few men’s names are better known than Roget’s. And yet surprisingly little is written about this extraordinary English doctor.
Born in London, the son of a minister, Roget had an unhappy childhood. His father died young and his favourite uncle committed suicide in his presence. His wife died young. It is perhaps not surprising that he struggled with depression throughout his life.
Peter Roget qualified and worked as a physician. His first job was as physician to the Manchester Infirmary when he was 25-years-old. Four years later he was appointed physician to the Northern Dispensary in London.
But he was far, far more than a physician. In 1814, he invented a slide rule for calculating the roots and powers of numbers and in 1828 he helped found both the Royal Society of Medicine and the University of London. He was Fullerian professor of physiology at the Royal Institution from 1833 to 1836 and secretary of the Royal Society from 1827 to 1849. In 1834, he wrote Animal and Vegetable Physiology. He even designed an inexpensive pocket chessboard and, as a hobby, created chess problems.
However, those are still not the achievements for which he is best remembered. In 1840, he retired from medical work to work on the most notable work of his life. This was, of course, his Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases, a most comprehensive and classified collection of synonyms which enables writers to find an alternative word when they are creating a letter, an article or a book and do not wish to keep repeating themselves. Roget was the first person to create a thesaurus. He had always loved lists and had something of an obsession for list making when he was eight years old.
He started work on the thesaurus in 1805 and it was, for him, a way of escaping from his depression. The book was first published in 1852 when it was given the snappy title: Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases Classified and Arranged so as to Facilitate the Expression of Ideas and Assist in Literary Composition. The book was reprinted 28 times during Roget’s life. After he died at 90, while on holiday in Malvern, his son, John Lewis Roget took over the job of keeping the book up-to-date. And when he, in turn, died, his son Samuel Romilly Roget carried on the family tradition. Taken from `The 100 Greatest Englishmen and Englishwomen’ by Vernon Coleman – available via the bookshops on www.vernoncoleman.com
Why Women Won’t Live Longer Than Men In The Future
Dr Vernon Coleman
The difference in life expectation between men and women will not continue far into the 21st century. This is not because men are going to live longer but because women are going to die sooner.
(In fact, since I wrote the first edition of my book `How to Live Longer’ there has already been an equalling of life expectancies among men and women.)
I base this prediction on simple observations.
1. The number of women who smoke cigarettes is rising dramatically. Visit any large town, find yourself a convenient seat, and watch the young people go by. You will soon notice that smoking is now much commoner among young girls than it is among young boys. The statistical evidence supports this simple observation.
2. The incidence of alcoholism among women is rising too. A few decades ago, it was rare to find a woman who had wrecked her life and her health with alcohol. Today it is commonplace.
3. Increasing numbers of women have been suckered by the women’s liberation movement into believing that they owe it to themselves and their ‘sisters’ to take a more masculine attitude to life. Modern women have demanded, and have taken, the same sort of damaging stresses as were endured by men throughout the 20th century. Many women seem more aggressive and more ‘masculine’ than men. The incidence of stress related disorders among women is going to rocket in the next generation or two.
4. Women are taking their exercise more seriously too – they have become more competitive and they push themselves harder when they are allegedly relaxing.
5. As women take an increasingly masculine approach to life so they abandon their traditional, health giving relationships with their female friends. Many women now feel that it is somehow ‘beneath them’ to need to share their fears, their feelings and their weak moments with other women. Women are making themselves tougher and more self-sufficient. The effect on their health will be bad.
This essay was taken from Dr Vernon Coleman’s book `How to Live Longer’ which is available via the bookshops on www.vernoncoleman.com
Why Women Live Longer Than Men
Dr Vernon Coleman
Women in developed countries can, on average, currently expect to live up to ten years longer than men.
That’s a fact.
The oldest person in recorded history was a woman, Mme Jeanne Calment, who died at the age of 122 in 1997.
That’s a fact.
Nine times as many women as men live to celebrate their 100th birthday.
That’s a fact.
Men aged 55 to 64 are twice as likely as women of the same age to die from accidents or heart disease and four times as likely to commit suicide.
That’s a fact.
It is widely believed that women live longer than men because of some genetic superiority. Indeed, most people believe that women have always lived longer than men.
Those are myths.
Up until the early part of the 20th century, life expectancy for men was pretty much the same as life expectancy for women.
The fact is that the difference only developed during the 20th century.
And I believe that the difference can be easily explained. The fact that women now live longer than men has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics or hormones. It is all down to lifestyle.
Here are the reasons why men now tend to die sooner than women.
1. For most of the 20th century the average man pushed himself much harder than the average woman did. There were exceptions among both sexes, of course, but on the whole, men felt that they had to drive themselves hard in order to ‘succeed’. (The definition of ‘success’ has varied from community to community.) The resultant high stress levels have helped produce a high incidence of heart disease and have damaged the immune systems of millions of men – thereby making vast numbers of men exceptionally vulnerable to many varieties of cancer.
2. Smoking has, for decades, been very much a ‘male’ habit. For most of the 20th century the number of male smokers far exceeded the number of female smokers. It was the popularity of smoking among men which partly explained the higher incidence of heart disease and some common cancers among men.
3. Throughout the 20th century men were more likely than women to eat too much and more likely to eat the wrong (often high fat content) foods. Women tended to be more conscious of the advantages of healthy eating than have men. In addition, women have traditionally been much more conscious of their size than have men, and slimming clubs have always been more popular with women than with men.
4. For the first three quarters of the 20th century, most of the financial worries within a marriage were shouldered by the man. Many women never saw their husband’s pay packet or bank details. A remarkable number of women never even knew how much their husbands earned. Worrying about money is one of the commonest stresses – and is particularly likely to result in ill health.
5. Generally speaking, men have been woefully unwilling to be on the lookout for – and aware – of abnormalities affecting their bodies. For decades women have routinely examined their own bodies – looking for abnormalities or early signs of developing disease. Men, on the other hand, have traditionally been unwilling to do this. Vast amounts of money have been spent teaching women how to examine their own breasts (in order to spot breast cancer). Virtually nothing has been spent teaching men how to examine their testicles (in order to spot cancer of the testes).
Women have been much more enthusiastic about learning the rudiments of self help. Far more women than men are knowledgeable about alternative medicine. In addition, women have learnt to be more willing to seek help from a health care professional when they have found symptoms or signs which might indicate an underlying health problem. Why are women so much more comfortable with seeking medical advice than men? I suspect the explanation is simple. Women who get pregnant are accustomed to seeking medical help during their pregnant years. And it is usually the mother (rather than the father) who takes sick children along to the doctor’s surgery.
6. Doctors are a major cause of sickness in our modern society but there are times when their help can be lifesaving for the sooner an individual seeks medical advice the greater likelihood that the doctor can deal with the problem satisfactorily. To all this must be added the fact that doctors have, for years, concentrated medical resources on health problems exclusively affecting women (such as cervical cancer and breast cancer) and virtually ignored health problems (such as prostate cancer) exclusively affecting men.
7. Alcohol was, for most the 20th century, a ‘man thing’. Alcoholism – and alcohol induced damage – used to be much commoner among men than women. The female body is more susceptible to alcohol but excessive drinking has traditionally been something much more likely to affect men than women.
8. Workaholism was almost exclusively a male problem for the greater part of the 20th century. Driven by ambition, competitiveness and a need to succeed, millions of men pushed themselves to the limit and beyond. Many men have died – or become chronic invalids – because of their workaholism.
9. Throughout the 20th century men have, generally speaking, been unwilling to talk to anyone about their problems. A man may joke with his best friend, or talk to him about his boss, his favourite football team or his car, but he is unlikely to open his heart, or to be prepared to share his innermost feelings. The average woman, on the other hand, does not have so much difficulty in opening up her heart and sharing her fears, hopes and aspirations with her best friend. Sharing personal fears is a good way of reducing the damage fears can do. The average man bottles up his fears and his worries – allowing those fears and worries to do a great deal of damage. By sharing her fears, the average woman dramatically reduces the damage that is done.
10. When men take exercise it tends to be physically combative and potentially damaging. Football, for example, is likely to result in all sorts of physical injuries. The exercise men take also tends to be competitive in nature. So, for example, when men play golf or squash they are often determined to win. The result of all this is that when men take exercise it is likely to prove physically and mentally damaging. Feminine types of activity, on the other hand, tend to be gentler and less competitive. Women attend keep fit classes or aerobic classes or go dancing. They benefit from their exercise programmes.
Note: Tomorrow I will explain why things are changing and why women won’t live longer than men in the future.
This essay was taken from `How to Live Longer’ by Vernon Coleman – which is available via the bookshops on www.vernoncoleman.com
A Mother’s Covid Revenge
Dr Vernon Coleman
The following extract is from my new novella: `A Needle for a Needle: A Mother’s Covid Revenge’
The Plot so far: Mrs Mallory’s son Leigh has died after a covid-19 vaccination. Now her husband, who has also been vaccinated has had a heart attack. Mrs Mallory is trying to get help. Read on:
‘Sit there and don’t move,’ said Mrs Mallory quite unnecessarily. ‘I’ll ring the doctor.’
The doctor’s phone was connected to an answering machine which clicked into action after a dozen rings. ‘Thank you for your call. Please note that we do not deal with emergencies at this practice,’ said a voice which Mrs Mallory recognised as belonging to one of the receptionists. ‘If you have an emergency please telephone for an ambulance, or make your way to the Accident and Emergency Department of your nearest hospital. You can find a list of local hospitals online. Please go to our website to rate our service on TruthPilot with whom we are trusted partners. Your call is important to us.’
Mrs Mallory telephoned the emergency number and spoke to a kindly sounding woman who asked her, as calmly as if she had all the time in the world, if she wanted the police, the fire brigade or the ambulance service. Mrs Mallory asked for an ambulance.
‘There is currently a waiting time of 16 hours for an ambulance,’ said the woman to whom she next spoke. ‘Our ambulances and crews are very busy with other calls. We always endeavour to provide the public with the very best service possible. Your call is important to us.’
‘My husband is having a heart attack,’ said Mrs Mallory. She described her husband’s symptoms.
‘In that case I can put you on our special emergency list for priority calls,’ said the telephone operator. ‘I’ll check on the availability of that service.’ There was silence for a moment. It seemed to Mrs Mallory to last about a month, though in reality it may have been shorter. ‘We hope to get an ambulance to you in 17 hours,’ said the receptionist, sounding very pleased with herself. ‘But I must warn you that the junior doctors and the consultants are all starting their combined strike in 12 hours’ time so by the time we can get you to the hospital there won’t be any doctors available. Is there anything else I can help you with, today?’
Mrs Mallory thanked the operator and put the phone down. Her first thought then was to telephone Leigh and to ask him to take them to the hospital in his van. And then she remembered that she couldn’t ever telephone Leigh again. She suddenly felt very lonely. They had no other relatives. She tried to think of a neighbour she could ask but couldn’t think of anyone whom they knew well enough and who would be available. She opened a little personal directory she kept by the phone. It contained the telephone numbers of a plumber, an electrician and a taxi company. She rang the taxi company.
‘I’m sorry,’ said the woman who answered the phone. ‘But we can’t get anyone to you this week.’
‘It’s an emergency,’ said Mrs Mallory. She explained.
‘Oh, in that case I’m afraid we can’t help you at all,’ said the woman. ‘Our insurance doesn’t allow us to carry people who are ill.’ There was a pause. ‘I’m terribly sorry,’ she said, in a mechanical sort of way, the sort of insincere apology someone in a hurry might make after a slight collision on a crowded pavement. ‘I’m sure you understand, it’s company policy. We can’t allow our drivers to be placed in a difficult situation. Our company policy is to ask you to ring an ambulance. But we hope to be of service to you in the future. We are partners with TruthPilot, the internationally renowned ratings organisation. Please go to our website if you would like to leave a rating and a comment. We offer a 10% discount coupon to all those who leave a five star rating.’ She ended the connection quickly.
Mrs Mallory went back into the living room to see how her husband was doing.
Here’s Proof all those Summer Fires were Arson – not Climate Change
Dr Vernon Coleman
No one with functioning brain tissue believes this summer’s fires were natural events – let alone that they had anything to do with fake climate change.
Now, Janet and Cyntha, the amazing team who put together the eternally stunning Fall of the Cabal videos, have produced a video proving – beyond a scintilla of doubt – that the fires were man-made.
And they’ve shown just how the fire starters did the job.
You can see their just under two hour long video HERE
The Fall of the Cabal special presentation, entitled `Fire!!! Things that make you go HMMMMM’ makes you realise just how thoroughly evil the conspirators truly are.
The globalists will do anything to help sustain the global warming myth and take us into the Great Reset with their smart cities – including killing citizens and destroying homes.
I was so sickened by what the conspirators have done, and doubtless will continue to do, that I had to take a break half way through the film.
This new, brilliantly researched film from Cyntha and Janet of The Fall of the Cabal should be entered for the Oscars. It would walk away with the statue for best documentary.
Watch it.
And then tell everyone you know to watch it.
Only got to # 1 and had to say , yes there are germs , that’s why God gave us a wonderfully made immune system . I want to also say , since these blasted shifty and shitty jabs , Gyn patients, in the office , ( who are jabbed ) , who get genital herpes or chlamydia ect … , need higher and longer doses to get rid of these “ germs”. The jab causes immunosuppression. It’s a Bioweapon .
Correct!
Number 9 can’t be any truer … our medical residents stopped coming to THEIR clinic , so attendings had to see THEIR clinic patients…one warning first , then they failed that following month ….attendings lost , they won for “ being picked on , and having rights “.
Here is the refutation of a few common medical myths, the "plague" among them:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/something-must-give-when-everything
Ray, I go one way and then the other on this plague. First, it traveled faster than man, horse, rat, or even the weather (how fast does the weather travel?). This leads us to suspect it was extraterrestrial, hmm, ridiculous or not. Perhaps they haven't nailed down whether it was a virus or a bacterium, perhaps they have. But it was not something else.
Inhuman? Yes. Humans are evil enough; no need for E.T.:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/military-response-guaranteed
#3 - same. I did not know, but now I do.
Loved this! However, I was so looking forward to the latest disappointment to the cats from their uprights!😝
9. I overheard two young people talking in a café. `My boss is terrible,’ said one. `He keeps trying to tell me what to do!’ `You should complain,’ said the other. `They’re not allowed to do that.’
Me: That's what bosses do, they tell you what to do. Otherwise, they wouldn't be bosses, they'd be co-workers. I'm 53 and still have bosses over me.
10. And I overheard two teenagers talking about climate change, energy and the planet. `I don’t know why they burn coal or diesel or gas any more. And I don’t know why they’re putting up these horrid windmills and solar panels. Electricity is so much cleaner. It just comes out of the socket and there’s no mess.’
Me: The education system sucks, don't they teach kids how anything works anymore?
I could sit for hours and discuss each one , I deeply respect Dr. Coleman…. Edwin , thank u .
He really is brilliant.
Thanks, -Edwin.
I wish he was a friend or neighbor, or lived in the same house … what wonderful conversations!