From Richard Horton – despite the serious constraints put upon him as delegate at The welcome meeting and as Editor of the Lancet, house journal of the GMC and The Staus Quo in Medical Matters. This is a confession of the ongoing fraud that is the bio-medical science industry we now run in UK, US and a large part of the developed world. Where personal and corporate financial gain overrides any morality.

It is short and sweet, but first I give you his conclusion. So,  Richard Horton:

“The conclusion of the symposium was that something must be done. Indeed, all seemed to agree that it was within our power to do that something. But as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there were no fi rm answers. Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act fi rst. And every positive action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a counterargument (science will become less creative). The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.”

The full article is found here: Horton

and, cos its only short, Ill transpose it. So:

” What is medicine’s 5 sigma?

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.”

I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll.

Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

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. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.

The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data.

Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations.

Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.

Can bad scientific practices be fixed? Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised to be right. Instead, scientists are incentivised to be productive and innovative. Would a Hippocratic Oath for science help? Certainly don’t add more layers of research redtape. Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could remove incentives altogether.

Or insist on replicability statements in grant applications and research papers.

Or emphasise collaboration, not competition.

Or insist on preregistration of protocols.

Or reward better pre and post publication peer review.

Or improve research training and mentorship.

Or implement the recommendations from our Series on increasing research value, published last year.

One of the most convincing proposals came from outside the biomedical community. Tony Weidberg is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford. Following several high-profile errors, the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and rechecking of data prior to publication. By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticise. Good criticism is rewarded. The goal is a reliable result, and the incentives for scientists are aligned around this goal.

Weidberg worried we set the bar for results in biomedicine far too low. In particle physics, significance is set at 5 sigma—a p value of 3 × 10–7 or 1 in 3·5 million (if the result is not true, this is the probability that the data would have been as extreme as they are).

The conclusion of the symposium was that something must be done. Indeed, all seemed to agree that it was within our power to do that something. But as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there were no firm answers.

Those who have the power to act seem to think somebody else should act first. And every positive action (eg, funding well-powered replications) has a counterargument (science will become less creative).

The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously.

The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system. Vol 385 April 11, 2015

Background and discussion

Plenty more:


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The biomedical ecology of three sugars – sucrose, glucose and fructose.

May 2015

OK, I sort of suggested the discipline – though I notice others use the descriptor now – so here is a very good use of it. What are the physiological interactions in the gut and in the bloodstream of these three. Obviously this has to include other inputs which provide the components – so, for example, the rapid boost in glucose after eating wheat carbohydrate – and rates of use of and/or disposal of all three.

Start to examine published works, blog investigations and even text book references and it becomes an exemplar of, well, the Tale of Six Blind men and the Elephant once more. “I can clearly see” they all write and go on to describe another non-integrated impression of the mechanisms working and of the outcomes of such. There is certainly an outpouring of certainties in the face of the interactions of biological subtleties. There is, it seems, to find definite answers to complex interactions.

Fructose is a poison” is one such extreme. “No it’s not” might well be another! Better would be “What set of physiological circumstances can drive fructose consumption to yield toxic outcomes?”. It is a simple sugar, of the same formula but different structure to glucose and still occurs in two isomeric forms. Whereas glucose is used directly in the glycolysis and other energy generation processes, fructose has to be converted by enzymic action first. It does not trigger the all important insulin release into the blood stream and is also less readily absorbed from the intestine. Our most common dietary source of sugar, sucrose, is simply one glucose bonded to one fructose molecule. This bond is broken prior to intestinal absorption whereupon the glucose is very readily absorbed whilst the fructose is only slowly taken in, often in fact resulting in the excretion of a good percentage of this sugar.

The great rise in sucrose consumption in the post world war two, 1950s onwards era and the profound and hasty switch to “High fructose corn syrup” from the 1980s have raised obvious concerns about their driving obesity and diabetes, as well as a range of other associated conditions. As I have also chronicled, the much more recent contribution of Dr William Davis in bringing forward the role of the wheat grains in this pattern illustrates the source of rapid elevations in blood glucose levels. Palaeolithic diets, also widely promoted today, reach the same conclusions, albeit by a rather different route. Both describe the imbalances resultant in modern nutritional intake and both suggest that many, if not all, of us are consuming a constant essentially toxifying diet, whereby the sugars in our blood are constantly pushing against their homeostatic constraints and are chronically pushing emergency release metabolic pathways, such as glucose excretion in urine (diabetes) or fat deposition.

As William Davis points out, too great a concentration of glucose in the blood raises its osmotic pressure too high – water would be drained from cells in the tissues above such a level, causing drastic organ failures. Fructose obviously has the same impact. However, as fructose does not lead to insulin release, its blood level is far less well controlled, save by the speed of absorption from the gut, perhaps, or its utilisation in the liver, where it is metabolised. If modern far higher levels of dietary fructose, both in sucrose and in the corn syrup, lead to greater levels of fructose reaching the blood then the hepatic processing will be the limiting factor, fructose could “back up” and osmotic pressure increase independent of the glucose levels.

The ramifications are many and varied and the impacts often extreme. Nobody can argue that we eat a diet even close to that of our ancestors and so our evolutionarily established mechanisms cannot be being utilised optimally. Surely we can and do naturally digest fruits all of which have a high fructose content. Glucose, if anything, we would formerly have consumed far less of. Why there is no “fructose-insulin” is an interesting question which I do not hear asked elsewhere.

This topic seems to have overlaps, as I have previously described, into the central arena of these investigations. However I suppose I use it here as a reminder of the interconnectivity of physiological systems – as the global warmonger Donald Rumsfeldt noted in a probably unique moment of vision “There are things we know, there are things we know that we don’t know AND there are things we don’t know that we don’t know”. Such are these collateral damages, imbalances and knock-on effects.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Type 2 Coeliac Disease

A homeopath friend forwarded this to me recently.

It’s the same condition described by Dr William Davis in his “Wheat Belly” media and so an exemplar of the why the US and certainly my UK home town of Colwyn Bay has such a wave of uncontrolled/uncontrollable obesity and diabetes. Obese coeliacs which I think it fair and accurate to describe as “Type 2 Coeliacs”

As I noted to Heather, the homeopath, “It’s collateral damage to earlier vaccinations, isn’t it!”

And here is the BMJ article (

“The summer of 1991 was when my problems really began. I had had a severe bout of sickness and diarrhoea on holiday in Corfu. I recovered from the gut infection after I came back from holiday, but my general health continued to deteriorate over the next six to 12 months.

Then followed two decades of unexplained ill health with multiple symptoms including weakness, exhaustion, bloating, nausea, indigestion, diarrhoea, skin rashes, ingrown hairs, cracked skin, joint and muscle pain, anal leakage of undigested fat, oscillating body weight, numbness in my feet and hands, muscle spasms in my legs (especially at night), mood swings, mild depression, and disturbed sleep patterns. These symptoms fluctuated day to day, but the worst by far was a constant intense bladder pain that was eventually diagnosed as incurable and untreatable interstitial cystitis.

My interstitial cystitis has been examined by biopsy, and I have undergone many many other urinary tests over 10–15 years, including passing a camera into my bladder and inflating the bladder with fluid to watch for the classic “bleed” from the bladder wall when it is distended. My eventual diagnosis in Oxford was by a consultant in genitourinary medicine who specialises in interstitial cystitis and was a diagnosis of exclusion after all other possibilities had been eliminated. Diagnosis by exclusion is the norm for interstitial cystitis.

I received drug treatment for the interstitial cystitis, but my symptoms did not improve until I excluded gluten and lactose. They are now much better but not entirely eliminated. I eventually gave up my career, and, without the unfailing support of my wife, it would have ruined my life.

I now know that all of these symptoms stem from an intolerance or sensitivity to gluten that does not manifest itself as classic coeliac disease but which still causes many of the same bowel symptoms and can trigger other autoimmune conditions such as arthritis, interstitial cystitis, and neurological conditions (including pins and needles and numbness). Over the next 20 years, I repeatedly told medical professionals that my bladder pain was always much worse when my bowel symptoms were particularly bad and that the two must be linked. Most importantly, I felt strongly that it was caused by something I was eating. In particular, I had noticed that when I had either starved myself for 24 hours or undergone a bowel cleanse before a medical procedure my symptoms seemed to disappear or were much reduced.

Medical professionals seemed mystified or dismissive and had no explanation. I well remember being told by one consultant that there was nothing that could link bowel symptoms to bladder symptoms or any other symptom I had. Another young consultant told me that people with symptoms like mine often commit suicide. I’m fairly sure he wasn’t suggesting it as a treatment option, but I certainly did feel very down about my condition.

Eventually, after about a decade, I gave up seeking a cure or diagnosis of my illness. I tried to live life as best and as fully as I could. By now I had two young children, and I tried to focus on the positives and counted my blessings. However, in Christmas 2006 I had a severe bout of biliary colic and eventually had my gall bladder removed (yet another condition I now know may be linked to gluten sensitivity), but my health continued to deteriorate after the operation.

By summer 2008, I was unable to walk up a hill and was gradually becoming house bound. The internet became an important link to the outside world, and I began a desperate search for some clue as to what was wrong with me. A chance conversation in a chat room forum with someone who had had exactly my symptoms and the suggestion that I try excluding gluten (and lactose) from my diet was how I eventually reached my own initial self diagnosis. The results were dramatic. Within a week of excluding gluten and lactose from my diet, all my symptoms had dramatically improved in just the same way as when I previously starved myself. I wasn’t starving myself now though, I was just not eating gluten and lactose. I felt better and had more energy than I had in decades.

I went to see the consultant who had carried out the gall bladder operation and excitedly told him about my discovery that gluten and lactose were the source of all my health problems and how dramatic had been the results of excluding them from my diet even after a few weeks. He seemed quite uninterested but told me to carry on with the gluten and lactose exclusion diet “if you find it is working for you.”

After experimenting with my diet, I have found that I react severely to even small traces of both gluten and lactose. Accidental exposure to either of them brings all my symptoms back in a matter of hours, and the symptoms take several days to subside again. I can almost always identify the source of the accidental exposure, and it happens very rarely now as my experience and knowledge of my condition and food ingredients have increased.

Despite the success with my exclusion diet, it wasn’t until early 2012 that I finally got a proper diagnosis of my condition. After a chance internet search, I found medical research papers on gluten sensitivity and intolerance written by Dr Kamran Rostami. I have a degree in biochemistry, and those papers were a revelation. From my own personal experience and from the point of view of my training as a scientist, his papers made complete sense of everything that I had experienced. I had no idea that there was such a large and growing body of people expressing a wide spectrum of symptoms that seem to be linked to gluten intolerance and sensitivity but who did not exhibit classic coeliac disease. Like me, many of them had remained undiagnosed for years.

I immediately asked my GP to get me an appointment with Dr Rostami, who, unbeknown to me, was working just a few miles away in my local hospital. Before Dr Rostami, no medical professional had ever said the word “gluten” to me over the entire 20 years of my ill health. However, I don’t feel bitter about the medical practitioners who failed to diagnose my health problems. Each was highly skilled in his or her own specialty, but nobody was looking at the whole picture. A specialist in chronic bladder pain is not a specialist in gastrointestinal medicine.

As a result of my conversations with Dr Rostami, I strongly suspect that my problems with gluten really began long before 1991 and that the gut infection I had on holiday was simply a trigger that made my gut more permeable to gluten (and lactose) and eventually caused the emergence of more severe symptoms. Looking back, it is clear to me that I exhibited early signs of gluten intolerance and sensitivity in my childhood. I weighed under 6 stone (38 kg) when I was 12 years old. In 1991 I weighed about 11 st 7 lb (73 kg), but after my symptoms started, my weight fell to under 11 st (70 kg) and I felt very weak. Then my weight ballooned up to 13 st 7 lb (86 kg) after my gall bladder was removed in 2008. Finally, after I had excluded gluten, it fell to 11 st 4 lb over a few months, where it remains today. To be honest, the most important issue with my weight is that it can easily rise 4-7 lb (2-3 kg) overnight if I accidentally eat gluten, as I fill up with fluid when my immune system goes into overdrive.

I had mild depression throughout my teenage years, was small and underweight, and went through puberty later than the other boys in my class at school. I also used to gorge on bread, cakes, and biscuits, but I was always thin despite the thousands of calories I was eating. I have read that it is common for people to be addicted to the foodstuff that does them most harm. That was certainly true in my case. Paradoxically, as the son of a farmer and growing up on a farm, I used to help my father grow wheat, and he was paid a higher price by merchants if he could grow wheat with high levels of gluten for bread and biscuit making. Like my father, I used to chew the wheat grains at harvest time to check for hardness as we decided when to harvest the crop. Every year I got itchy bleeding rashes on my ankles and elbows that went away as soon as harvest finished. Now I know why.

A clinician’s perspective

The definition of non-coeliac gluten sensitivity goes back to 1986, and there are sporadic reports of this entity but not as strong as in the past few years. Interest has increased after recent advances enabling us to make a clear differentiation between coeliac disease and gluten sensitivity.1 2 3 4

It is now becoming clear that, besides those with coeliac disease or wheat allergy, there are patients with gluten sensitivity in whom neither allergic nor autoimmune mechanisms can be identified.5 6 It has been estimated that, for every person with coeliac disease, there should be at least six or seven people with non-coeliac gluten sensitivity. Gluten sensitivity may therefore affect 6-10% of the general population. This means approximately 4-7 million people in the United Kingdom have this condition, and the vast majority are unaware of their sensitivity to gluten.5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Patients with gluten sensitivity have negative immuno-allergy tests to wheat and negative coeliac disease serology; normal endoscopy and biopsy; clinical symptoms that can overlap with those of coeliac disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and wheat allergy; and they show a resolution of symptoms when started on a gluten-free diet.16 17 18 19 20

This patient’s history is a classic example of severe gluten sensitivity. He describes how gluten has affected his digestive system, his skin, his nervous system, muscles and joints, sleep, and mood, and even his so called incurable interstitial cystitis. I met the patient after a long history of ill health. He was frustrated with the lack of a diagnosis to explain his symptoms. He underwent gastroscopy and colonoscopy in 2009. Duodenal biopsy and serology for coeliac disease came back negative.

Despite being highly educated with a degree in biochemistry, he had to give up his career and wait for decades before being diagnosed with gluten sensitivity. This is disconcerting if we think about how many people are possibly experiencing similar symptoms, with the added drawback of poor health literacy. I greatly admire the way he managed to find a solution for the unresolved symptoms he had experienced for decades. Despite the fact that he responded well to a gluten-free diet, it was still important for him, as it is for most patients, to have a diagnosis that can explain the symptoms.

His weight was inversely related to his gluten intake. Although weight loss can be a feature of coeliac disease and gluten sensitivity, it is less common in atypical forms of both conditions.21

Currently there are no laboratory biomarkers specific for gluten sensitivity, and the diagnosis is based on exclusion criteria; elimination of gluten-containing foods from the diet followed by an open challenge is most often used to establish whether health improves with the elimination or reduction of gluten from the patient’s diet.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 As rightly reflected in a recent BMJ editorial, increasing people’s ability to understand and engage in their healthcare is an international priority. At the same time, however, educating healthcare professionals about this highly prevalent and under-recognised condition is strongly recommended.

Kamran Rostami


Cite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e7982


  • This is one of a series of occasional articles by patients about their experiences that offer lessons to doctors. The BMJ welcomes contributions to the series. Please contact Peter Lapsley ( for guidance.

  • Competing interests: All authors declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Conclusion to book – no really, I am going to stop and publish it now. Just you watch…..

16 – Conclusion

May 2015

So here endeth a collection of four years of musings, discussions, researches, analyses and distillations. Literary impressionism, maybe, painting a host of images and reflections in trying to get to the heart and soul of this core element of modern living. And finding, of course, that a broad array of seemingly unrelated areas are drawn into these pictures and that the sum is far greater than the parts except, and this is the essential point, there IS the one precipitating factor.

Professor Paul Shattock, when I talked with him after one of his lectures ten years ago, reacted strongly to my objection to the defence of the MMR campaign. I’d said “But the MMR cannot be treated as a single entity. It is not the MMR that causes autism – it is Vaccination. MMR is often the final precipitator but that is because it is one of the later jabs. Much of the damage has already been done – as collateral damage to earlier inoculations, like DPT, Meningitis and so on”.

Paul said “No, you cannot say that. They would laugh you out of court. Any individual prescription has listed its possible side effects. Different chemicals thus have different side effects and cannot be considered together”.

Of course I objected strongly. There are so many analogies one can use to describe the accruement of damage on a single system by a range of different forces. Erosion of a cliff by wind, waves, frost and rain for example but, in this screed, the story of blood sugar is a good exemplar. A whole range of modern foodstuffs raise blood glucose levels – not just “sugar” but, for example, as we saw, wheat grains raise levels even faster and are so profoundly obesogenic.

But he would not move. All jabs must be considered as separate factors and not as contributors to the greater physiology of the recipient. Such shallow and wholly indefensible thinking. Maybe not Paul’s, maybe “industry standard”, maybe “the academic norm” but where was the joined up thinking, where was the systems approach? I felt he, a pharmacologist, was uneasy but had to hold the line. He, as the father of an autistic child, I felt totally supported me- but this man was muzzled, despite his brave work in pushing the case of this obviously increasing sector of society, of which his son is one.

The name “Autism” itself is, anyway, a catch all and includes a range of altered parameters. The range, and so the diagnosis, varies over countries and moreso between countries. Here, in the UK, vaccine damage has long been spoken of, from sudden death precipitation through to a wide range of lesser, generally chronic outcomes. Read the medicaments’ leaflets – they list them all as “rare outcomes” and contraindications. Autism, although first described as a condition in the 1940s, did not come into the picture. Certainly, anyway, it was a very rare condition.

In the 1970s there was a long public outcry due to collateral damage arising from the Whooping Cough vaccine and numbers of takers dropped radically. Eventually this was played down, calmed down, pasted over etc and fell from the news  Then the 1980s saw rising numbers of those described and diagnosed as Autistic. Conditions such as asthma, allergies, excema, hyperactivity or ADHD, colics and a number of others were also increasing but autism, as a clearly chronicled series of regressions, where the young children had sudden declines from previously obtained abilities, the milestones of childhood, came to grab the headlines. Time and time again parents recounted how these declines were immediately preceded by the latest of their childhood jabs. More often than not, but absolutely not exclusively, this later jab was the MMR, hence the link between MMR and Autism was easily made.

As we have also seen, this link is so readily disproved by large population studies:

  1. Because all jabs have physiological impact including generic collateral damage.
  2. Autism is an essentially vague in definition, including a range of disabilities, and is an ongoing progression, over a period of several years.

It is clear to me, and hopefully to you by now, that the unspoken shutdown on any discussion of the efficacy or the downsides of vaccines, leaves vast amounts of research unstarted. When the size of the vaccine pharmaceutical industry is looked at, and the weight of their product development and publicity budgets are examined this shutdown is clearly not due to a lack of interest. It is due to corporate, integrated strictures.

Strictures make structures and the whole industry is predicated against any question of the efficacy of the process. It is deemed that in being able to demonstrate within the bloodstream of a vaccine recipient that a protein created by the body has been triggered which reacts with the applied antigenic material   is a demonstration of the success of the process. Antibodies are being created to “combat” the antigen ie remove it from the bloodstream. It is NEVER possible to demonstrate such a reaction actually “fighting off infection” – the ASSUMPTION is made that, if and when required, this happens automatically. Anything demonstrated is, of course, in vitro.

Then population studies are used and epidemiologists have to show how, over twenty or thirty years, rates of infection have altered, how mortality has declined. As reviewed and discussed earlier, this is just not possible. Rates of mortality from all the classic childhood illnesses were in free-fall to zero before any of the jabs were introduced.

So it has all been a profoundly damaging, total waste of time

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Distemper bad temper……….

Distemper. A disease of dogs.

“Well” the vet said to me, growing hotter and hotter under the collar, “We have eliminated distemper in dogs by using vaccination. It used to be a major cause of canine mortality”.

I said that I had never researched the issue but felt it would fit into the patterns shown in human illness – constantly improved diet, housing and lifestyles reduced mortalities to near zero. There never was a need for vaccines and I was sure many canine illnesses of recent years can only be explained as collateral damage to vaccines. My dog, vaccinated just before we got her, practically died from it and has been a vaccine damaged dog ever since.

Even Wiki is rather cagey, as you can see in the following extracts:

“Canine distemper (sometimes termed hardpad disease in canine) is a viral disease that affects a wide variety of animal families, including domestic and wild species of dogs, coyotes, foxes, pandas, wolves, ferrets, skunks, raccoons, and large cats, as well as pinnipeds, some primates, and a variety of other species. It was long believed that animals in the family Felidae, including many species of large cat as well as domestic cats, were resistant to canine distemper, until some researchers reported the prevalence of CDV infection in large felids. It is now known that both large Felidae and domestic cats can be infected, usually through close housing with dogs or possibly blood transfusion from infected cats, but such infections appear to be self-limiting and largely without symptoms.

“In canines, distemper impacts several body systems, including the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts and the spinal cord and brain, with common symptoms that include high fever, eye inflammation and eye/nose discharge, labored breathing and coughing, vomiting and diarrhea, loss of appetite and lethargy, and hardening of nose and footpads. The viral infection can be accompanied by secondary bacterial infections and can present eventual serious neurological symptoms.

“Canine distemper is caused by a single-stranded RNA virus of the family paramyxovirus (the same family of the distinct virus that causes measles in humans). The disease is highly contagious via inhalation and fatal 50% of the time. [Where?] [Not verified in body.] Despite extensive vaccination in many regions, it remains a major disease of dogs, and is the leading cause of infectious disease death in dogs.[Not verified in body]”

NOTE: “Not verified in body” means this is simply a statement of belief and NOT fact. The Wikiretort “Where” is very telling after the statement “fatal 50% of the time”. Hey, maybe Wikieditors are being better vetted (as it were!!)

Anyway, has anyone out there got any extra information on this subject because I’m seeing this vet again in two nights time and I really want to give her chapter and verse on the issue!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Now hold on a moment

UK daily newspaper “Pharmocology Bulletins”, also known as “i”, today reports without question a new, 100% effective vaccine developed at record speed, by the Canadian government against the scourge of Ebola. It is ready to be released into all those needy, African communities having been trialled from March of this year. Africans and, also, well, pretty much anyone who can be persuaded to receive it. “Beware, the vile malificence of this most scheming of virusses – it could creep up on you TOMORROW”.

So what did they do?

In, what, six months they carried out numerous long term trials based on the perceived and measured physiological response to introduction of a fragment of viral material, carried with sundry disabling ingredients, referred to as “adjuvant materials” [“Tail of newt, eye of frog” – that kinda thing…..] into the blood circulations of a number of Trial Subjects. This was, of course, after a long period determining which viral fragment(s) to use and, of course, of course, that there could never be any chance of any collateral damage WHATSOEVER to any of the recipients of the potion, I mean “vaccine”.

This process clearly took shall we say ten to fifteen years, but was MIRACULOUSLY concentrated into less than six months. Now, you may think that Canadians are, well, sleepy, slow and quiet. Not a bit of it! They live life so fast they can cram all those years into such a short time. And still appear dull as dishwater…….

7500 volunteers who had “come into close contact with Ebola victims” were jabbed with this new elixir and NONE OF THEM DIED or even had any “Instances of Ebola”. [And what a grand title for a book that is!] [Well, actually, 16 in the second group did. These were local villagers, where this vaccine damage, surfacing as “Ebola” was endemic and had earlier led to the massive outbreak of Vaccine Collateral Damage, VCD, as I have previously written.]

“With such high efficacy, all affected countries should immediately start ring vaccinations” said monsieur Bertrand Draguez, Directeur Medicale a Medicins sans Frontieres. Mais monsieur, que disez vous? C’est pas possible parce’que le medicin n’a pas une certificate.

[I’ll go back into the safety of my square bracket to add that clearly:

  1. The potion has been ready for a long time, developed in secret, aka without any publicity, and held ready for an opportunity for its release to come up OR BE MANUFACTURED.
  2. The recent “epidemic” was a classic “Constant Gardener” incident or, at least, vaccination fatigue upon malnourished and ill housed populations.
  3. This jab, whatever it contains, will do nothing to improve the health and life chances of the impacted populations. In fact, it can only make matters worse for many, both because of any toxicities but, also, because WHO etc just jab and say “Job done”, then walk away.
  4. If you go to any of these countries, whatever you do, do not let anyone jab you this jab.
  5. Or, for example, the Yellow Fever jab, as the story of stoic BBC reporter Malcolm Brabant can surely tell you far better than I, for he too suffered collateral damage. Luckily he survived and has lived to write the book:]
Posted in Adjuvant, Antibodies, Constant Gardener reference/analogy, Developing world vaccines | 1 Comment

Ebola? Not here!

Ebola vaccine trial stopped in Ghana.

Youth leaders threatened to boycott the programme. “We don’t want to be guinea pigs,” one local leader told Reuters.

Ebola has killed more than 11,000 people in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia since it began more than a year ago but new cases have declined sharply. Ghana has yet to record a case.

“The (health) minister has suspended the trials indefinitely because the people said they don’t want it,” Health Ministry spokesman Tony Goodman said. The worst-hit countries have completed first trials of an experimental vaccine.

On Wednesday, parliament ordered the trials suspended and summoned the health minister to appear next week on the matter, senior parliamentary official Ebenezer Dzietror told Reuters.

(Reporting by Kwasi Kpodo; Editing by Matthew Mpoke Bigg and Christian Plumb)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment