The correct position, of course, is “We are going to do a study to find out the truth about….” Then at least there is a chance for the facts to emerge!

Sometimes, in reverse, the bias is that “We are going to prove that the cause isn’t (whatever)…” or “We are going to establish once and for that there is no connection between [X] and [Y].”

So all of that careful stuff exists within my mind and it was there, in the back of my head, when I read of an interesting study looking at causes of food allergies. This, you may remember, is my long suit, my wheelhouse! I was not called the world’s “Number One Allergy Detective” for no reason (Sunday Mail 1991).

The headline that caught my eye was “US, Australia Lead the World on Kids’ Food Allergy Rates.” The research was certainly interesting.

In a nutshell (no pun intended):

• The global incidence of food allergy among children by age 6 at 4.7%.

• Risk factors included early antibiotic use, Black race, early allergic conditions, parental migration before birth, delayed solid food introduction, and family history.

• Findings supported the concept that food allergy development is multifactorial, the researchers said.

Some 4.7% of children have at least one food allergy by age 6 years, according to a meta-analysis that spelled out an extensive list of credible risk factors. I disagree with that fundamentally but you need to bear in mind they are ONLY thinking of antibody-antigen mechanisms, completely ignoring what Arthur Coca described as “non-reaginic familiar food allergy”.

Arthur F. Coca (1875 – 1959), a top allergist-immunologist of his day, founder of The Journal of Immunology and was its editor from 1916 to 1948—so no lightweight—was well aware that food allergies sometimes run in families (without necessarily meaning it’s a genetic thing). But that very often there was no obvious chemical mechanism or pathway, like the antigen-antibody response.

The former is easily explained by the fact that meals tend to be identical in families, just by nature of habit: Moms, Grandmoms, Sisters and Aunties all tend to cook and eat the same way! It’s frequent exposure to foodstuffs that tends to build up this kind of food allergy or intolerance, so this is a very plausible mechanism for transfer. Hence “familial”.

Non-reaginic is a bit more technical but Coca was recognizing something I encountered daily: that without even recognizing WHY or HOW, it was demonstrable that certain foods would seriously upset an individual. There may be no obvious chemical mechanism; no reagents.

The rift grew to a gulf and now orthodox allergists deny there is any such phenomenon, a stupid view which leaves the poor patient without any effective help. He or she eats beef twice a week, gets migraines often and is told “It can’t be beef, you’re not allergic to beef.” It soon follows that the patient is therefore mistaken or making it up, then he or she must have a mental problem, a delusion that food gives him or her the migraines and then, next thing you know, “It’s all in your mind. I’m sending you to see a psychiatrist.”

[This is exactly what happened to me with a bitter public enemy of mine, who was an immunologist; he “tested” a patient for beef sensitivity by giving her a capsule of beef, double blind and when she didn’t react told her it was all nonsense. She needed psychiatric help. AND he tried unsuccessfully to get my license revoked or “struck off” as we say in Britain, because I subsequently helped her find out what was really wrong.]

Anyway, here goes with the recent published study, if you are still interested!

It was a meta-analysis which means they grouped a whole bunch of studies together

Across the 16 studies that confirmed allergy by direct food challenge, U.S. and Australian children appeared to face elevated risk, with incidence at 6.7% and 10.2%, respectively, Derek K. Chu, MD, PhD, of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and colleagues. 

Risk factors associated with at least a doubling in risk or 5 percentage point greater risk included:

Early life antibiotic use, Black race, early onset of allergic conditions like atopic dermatitis or wheezing, elevated skin transdermal water loss, parental migration before birth, delayed introduction of solid foods, and family history of food allergy or related allergies.

Arthur Coca had picked up on the transdermal water loss, calling attention to a condition called hyperhydrosis, which means sweating excessively. The treatment of the day was to open the neck and sever the sympathetic nerve plexus, which is to wreck the autonomic nervous system. How unbelievably crude.

The value of the study is that it advances the concept that the development of food allergy is multifactorial rather than solely driven by eczema or timing of allergen introduction.

The “strongest and most certain factors” precipitating food allergies included prior allergic conditions:

• Eczema within the first year of life 

• Allergic rhinitis 

• Wheeze 

• Severity of atopic dermatitis 

• Increased skin transepidermal water loss 

• Filaggrin gene sequence variations. Filaggrin is a skin protein and loss of competence is the cause of many allergic skins conditions, such as eczema.

Also important were oral allergen exposures. Delayed solid food introduction, such as peanut after age 12 months, was associated with more than double the odds of food allergy in childhood and a 6.8 percentage point risk difference.

Infant antibiotic use in the first month of life also strongly predicted food allergy development. In fact antibiotics anywhere in the first year or during gestation also predicted 32-39% higher relative risk.

Social and genetic risk factors did have an impact but relatively minor:

• Male sex

• Firstborn

• Family history of food allergy

• Parental migration (immigrant status)

• Black African descent

While cesarean delivery had a modest association with food allergy onset by age 6, associations weren’t significant for low birth weight, post-term birth, maternal diet, and stress during pregnancy.

And just to finish, Coca argued that hidden food allergies are the cause of almost every disease and disorder including heart attacks, asthma, constipation, diabetes, epilepsy, hypertension, indigestion, migraine and many others. Of course he was derided by colleagues but I know he was correct.

He also gave us the word atopy (atopic).

AND WHAT WAS THE MISSING QUESTION THEY DIDN’T ASK? Oh yes, I forgot that. Well, they did not look to see if vaccination is a trigger for developing food allergies, which it is. Or whether eating junk processed foods leads to food allergies, which it does!

They could have had the answer by asking me direct and saved a lot of money! Or Ted Randolph, Herbert Rinkel, Michael Zeller, William Rea, Jean Monro, Albert Rowe and a host of other pioneer doctors from the 50s, 60s and 70s.

To your good health,

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby

The Official Alternative Doctor

SOURCE DOCUMENT: 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2844828

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Joint Task Force on Allergy Practice Parameters.

Note that Dr. Chu disclosed no relevant relationships with industry. Co-authors disclosed a wide range of conflicts of interest. How wide?

Influenza-like illness (ILI), on the other hand, refers to a syndrome characterized by symptoms similar to those of influenza, such as fever, cough, and sore throat, but which may be caused by other pathogens. 

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that since 2010, influenza has resulted in millions of illnesses, hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations, and tens of thousands of deaths each year. 

Be alert: these are “estimates”  as it says, not based on facts or figures. It’s a game. If you are going to publish guesses, you can paint any scary scenario you like. Alert individuals would also note that flu statistics were suddenly not being collected or published in 2020 – 2022. They wanted to artificially boost the COVID deaths and so reported all flu as SARS-CoV-2 and suddenly there was “no flu”!

According to orthodox doctors, vaccination remains the primary preventive measure against influenza; however, they admit that challenges persist regarding its effectiveness and public acceptance.?

That’s because, contrary to all their propaganda, vaccination is very little use. Some years its “effectiveness” (questionable) is as low as 40%.

Couple the false claims with the fact they totally ignore natural preventatives, which can be formidable and even try to demonize them. Vaccination is NOT the only viable preventative. More of that later.

Background

Influenza viruses are a family, categorized into types A, B, C, and D, with types A and B responsible for the seasonal epidemics observed annually. Type A viruses are further divided into subtypes based on two proteins on their surface: hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N). So, for example, H5N1, which is bird flu.

The big problem with flu viruses is that they mutate constantly. What is prevalent at the start of the winter season may be gone by Christmas and a new strain emerges. So immunity cannot last very long.

And that’s the problem for flu vaccines: by the time they come to the market they are out of date and worthless. Only a steady symphony of false boasts (marketing lies) and credulous doctor enthusiasm keeps the myth going from year to year.

“Must get your shot this year,” is the constant chime. “Get your FREE flu shot here,” say the placards outside the pharmacy.

No doctor worth his degree would ever say “Don’t bother with the flu vaccine this year; it’s the wrong formulation.” It might be true but he or she would face heavy censure.

So annual vaccination remains the primary strategy for preventing influenza and its complications. To protect Big Pharma profits they always claim that even when the vaccine and circulating viruses are not closely matched, vaccination can still reduce the severity of illness and prevent hospitalizations and deaths.

But there is another failing: since flu vaccines are designed to protect against specific influenza viruses, they do not prevent illnesses caused by other pathogens that present with similar symptoms. This limitation means that even vaccinated individuals can experience ILI due to non-influenza viruses.

Historical events have also influenced public perception of flu vaccines. The 1976 swine flu vaccination campaign in the United States, for example, was associated with an increased incidence of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (a kind of paralysis), leading to heightened public concern about vaccine safety. However, the official line is that subsequent studies (read: hasty damage limitation) have shown that the risk of GBS following flu vaccination is very low, and the benefits of vaccination in preventing influenza complications outweigh this risk.

So Where Does This Leave Us?

According to my old pal from the UK, Dr. Damien Downing, a major review appeared in the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases¹, in October (principal author Prof. Michael Osterholm, a respected researcher into infectious diseases). The paper, which found only 31 studies worthy of inclusion out of a massive 5,700 screened, concluded that there was only good evidence for moderate flu vaccine efficacy in healthy adults, and no real evidence of protection in those over 65 years, or for that matter in children. Of course it is the elderly, and particularly the frail elderly, that doctors are more concerned about – and in whom 90% of flu cases occur – and there was no evidence that flu vaccine prevents flu infection in this group.

Put another way, after nearly 6,000 studies of all sorts, there is no good evidence that flu vaccine prevents flu in its main target population.

The pooled effect in those healthy adults, aged 18 to 65, is reported as 57%, which means the vaccine roughly halves your chances of getting flu. 

BUT: what is well known about placebo effects can account for most of that 57% effect. If you know you’ve had a shot for the flu you think you’re invincible. But since the chance of getting flu in that age group was less than 3% to begin with, that’s really only about a 1.5 percent reduction. 

Then of course, this all happens at a price. Whatever you may have heard, there is no such thing as a medication without the risk of side-effects. In vaccines that risk can also come from the adjuvants. A vaccine is a small dose of an organism plus adjuvants – chemicals that are irritants to the immune system and trigger it to react to the organism part. Without adjuvants vaccines generally won’t work. Popular adjuvants include the antibiotic gentamicin (too much of which can make you deaf), aluminum compounds (which probably contribute to Alzheimer’s and other neurological diseases)², and the mercury antiseptic, thiomersal/thimerosal (long known to be toxic and recently suspected in autism) – after all, they have to be toxic to work as adjuvants. Fluarix, one of the main brands of flu vaccine in the USA and UK, is stated by the manufacturers to contain both gentamicin and thimerosal.

We also used to think that flu vaccine prevented deaths from flu to a significant extent, even if it didn’t prevent overt infection – until we realized there was a major artifact at work. This is known as the healthy vaccine recipient effect, and the clue is in the name; a frail elderly person is much less likely to get down to their GP to have the vaccine than is a fit elderly person, who by the way is more likely to eat and live well, take vitamins and so on, and so has better resistance to viruses anyway.

What Osterholm and colleagues concluded, citing a couple of Californian studies, is that flu vaccine reduced all-cause mortality in those over 65 by a mere 4.6%. Is that worth the risk of adverse effects? That’s the choice you have to make but now you can make it knowing these facts.

Tamiflu

What about Tamiflu (oseltamivir), is that any good? It’s always being touted “officially”. They claim it reduces the duration of flu symptoms by 1 to 1½ days but it can give you other unpleasant symptoms, such as nausea and vomiting, and serious brain-fog (“I couldn’t think past a comma”), even according to the official website.³ 

But the reality is worse: basically, the whole planet is starting to become resistant to it.⁴  Why? Well Tamiflu is excreted largely unchanged in the urine of patients, and is barely affected by sewage treatment. So the active drug enters the waterways, as was shown during a flu outbreak in Japan, where ducks, the natural reservoir for the virus, can pick it up. And when this happens, the virus can probably (which means that so far it has happened in a lab experiment) develop resistance to Tamiflu.

So Tamiflu, which governments hand out so readily is rapidly becoming obsolete, because of resistance. This is just the same situation as overuse of antibiotics leading to seriously resistant hospital bugs like MRSA. But that took decades. Tamiflu has gone from, well maybe (I’d never take it), to it’s no longer any use in lightning fast time.

Save your money

As Dr. Damien, retorts: “It shows that we live on a small planet – and there’s nowhere left to hide our waste.”⁵ 

What’s Better?

Well frankly, anything that’s natural, overwhelmingly safe and yet effective is to be referred to synthetic, patented drugs with side effects of any kind.

Good ways to beat flu (and ILI) include:

Vitamin D. Take 20,000 IU to 50,000 IU, just for 3-4 days. It’s very cheap and harmless at such low intake. Add to that:

Vitamin C. Top up with about 20 – 25 grams but with a caution. You need to sip it constantly during the day. So much all at once would results in stomach pains and diarrhea and would not benefit blood levels.

Hydrogen peroxide. Get a nebulizer, 3% food grade hydrogen peroxide, and breathe in the mist, 3 to 5 times daily. If you can’t afford a nebulizer, then dilute the hydrogen peroxide to 1% (2 parts water to 1 part of the store-bought strength) and GARGLE (don’t swallow!) It’s almost as good, in fact 100% effective at preventing COVID in a busy hospital situation.⁶ 

Antibiotics are worthless against flu and viruses. But if the coughing and sneezing persists to the point where you have yellow-greenish sputum or snot, then might be a time to ask for antibiotics. That’s because colored mucus or slime like that means that opportunistic bacteria have invaded.

Final Tips.

I say this most winters: DO NOT BLOW YOUR NOSE. Increased pressure in the nasal passages caused when you blow your nose will send infected snot sideways into your sinuses and the resulting sinusitis could take days (even weeks) to clear.

Instead SNIFF. That pulls the muck backwards and you can swallow it (for convenience) or spit it out (better for you).

Recovery

A final tip from the masters of holistic science (which includes me) is that sneezing and cough are DETOX mechanisms, to expel unwanted pathogens. So if you seem to be recovering and then, suddenly, your nose starts streaming or sneezing ramps up and gets nasty, just remember that is a good thing! It’s the excretion phase! Wipe your nose a lot; just don’t blow it.

The ultimate principle, for those who are curious, is that healing takes place from the inside out!

Stay well (it’s simpler)!
Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Alternative Doctor

References:

1. PMID: 22032844, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=22032844
2. PMID: 21568886, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21568886
3. http://www.tamiflu.com/hcp/influenza-treatment.aspx
4. http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:453789
5. Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, January 14, 2012. Flu Vaccine: No Good Evidence, Damien Downing, M.D.
6. Amoah GB, Quakyi IA, Sagoe KW, et al. (2021) Re: Oral antiseptics against coronavirus: in-vitro and clinical evidence. J Hosp Infect. 118:108-109. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34487774

For decades, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has concealed the names of generic drugs made in foreign factories that failed safety or quality inspections. The agency’s secrecy has kept patients, doctors, and pharmacists from knowing whether the medications they rely on were manufactured in unsanitary or unsafe conditions.

At factories across India and China — which also supply the UK and other “Western” and European drug agencies, as well as much of America’s generic drug supply — FDA inspectors have found disturbing conditions: pigeons defecating on sterilized equipment, pathogens in purified water used for production, and stagnant urine pooling near areas where injectable drugs were made. Yet the inspection reports released to the public routinely black out the names of the drugs involved.

The FDA says the practice protects “confidential commercial information,” but patient-safety advocates say the secrecy undermines the agency’s mission. “Is there some quality issue? Is there a contaminant? I don’t know,” said Dr. Donna Kirchoff, a pediatrician in Oregon who has spent years trying to trace where her patients’ medications were made.

A Long Pattern of Secrecy

There is no law requiring the FDA to redact drug names, but agency lawyers claim to have adopted the policy decades ago, interpreting trade-secret rules broadly to avoid lawsuits from drugmakers. Current and former officials can’t recall who made the original decision or when. Huh?

As if drug makers would sue the FDA! What a joke. Even if they did, their statutory duty is the public as a whole. Nobody gave them a mandate to save money! (or if they did, it got lost long ago!)

The FDA declined to make its general counsel available for comment; former counsels contacted by ProPublica either declined or didn’t respond.

Industry groups have also stayed silent. The main generic-drug lobbying group said it had never weighed in, and the brand-name drug association, PhRMA, said only that while transparency can promote public health, the FDA must “protect sensitive manufacturing information.”

In what sense is filth and bad practice a “sensitive manufacturing” issue? It’s criminality getting under the radar!

Rat droppings are found as contaminants in a wide variety of buildings

An inspection report from 2022 illustrates the problem. FDA inspectors found spore-forming organisms contaminating sterile areas at a factory in western India. The plant continued shipping drugs to the United States, but with the drug names redacted, the public has no way to know which medications — or which patients — might have been affected.

This is true also in the UK and Europe, Australia and New Zealand too. But there is no equivalent to the FDA, which is SUPPOSEDLY there to protect the consumer, not Big Pharma.

Labels That Don’t Tell the Story

Even if the FDA released drug names, consumers would still struggle to connect the dots. Pill bottles rarely list the actual manufacturer or factory address. A single company may operate multiple plants, each with its own safety record. “If there are no specifics on the labels, pharmacists, patients, and their doctors can’t trace a drug back to the factory,” said former FDA official Dr. Janet Woodcock.

For years, the FDA resisted calls to require this disclosure. “What benefit would this give you and is it worth all the effort?” Woodcock said. “We didn’t think the juice was worth the squeeze.” So she didn’t think it was “worth the effort” to do her statutory job?

The agency has now reversed its stance, asking Congress to amend the law so that drug labels include manufacturer names, factory addresses, and ingredient sources. It also proposed listing more details online. Still, the FDA has not published a comprehensive list linking drug names to manufacturing sites, even though it maintains such data internally. Instead, it posts two separate lists — one with factory addresses but no drug names, and another with drug names but no factory addresses — that cannot be cross-referenced.

Last year, ProPublica sued the FDA for access to its full internal list of drugs and factories. The agency released some information but withheld more than 6,000 factory addresses, citing contractor confidentiality. The case remains ongoing.

Information the Public Not Allowed To See

The FDA also withholds other safety-critical information. Manufacturers must notify the agency within three days of discovering possible contamination or quality defects, but those reports aren’t publicly posted. The only way to see them is through a Freedom of Information Act request — a process that can take weeks or months.

In 2023, the FDA went further, stopping its practice of publishing reports that linked patient harm — including hospitalizations and deaths — to potential quality problems. “We’ve made it almost impossible for consumers to be their own best advocate,” said Lisa Salberg, founder of a nonprofit for people with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. “We want food labels to tell us what’s inside, but for medicine, we know nothing.”

A Case Study: Atorvastatin

Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering statin, was one of the world’s best-selling drugs before Pfizer’s patent expired in 2011. Since then, more than 20 mostly foreign manufacturers have produced the generic version, atorvastatin. FDA records show about half those factories have failed inspections for safety or quality violations.

At one plant in central India, conditions were so poor that the FDA banned imports — then granted an exemption allowing the same factory to continue shipping atorvastatin to the United States. It doesn’t make ANY sense.

The millions of Americans taking generic Lipitor have no way to know where their pills were made or whether their supply came from that troubled plant. Manufacturing failures can be life-threatening: contamination with glass or metal, improper dissolution, or incorrect dosing. 

Pharmacies and insurance companies, not patients, decide which generic version to dispense. A refill could come from a pristine factory or one plagued by mold, rat poo and rust. 

The FDA says it is “reviewing the redaction process,” but offered no timeline. Some former officials defend the practice, claiming full disclosure could reveal proprietary manufacturing methods. Others disagree. “Inspection reports don’t include trade secrets,” said Woodcock. “They’re talking about whether the test was done correctly or whether there was mold in the dryer.”

Legal experts told ProPublica the blanket removal of drug names is improper and should be done case-by-case. But during their tenures, few FDA leaders questioned the practice. “If lawyers tell you you can’t do this or we’ll get sued, no one is going to take that risk,” said Dr. Mac Lumpkin, a former deputy commissioner.

Re-conditioned packaging for pharmaceutical products can easily be used then filled with substances that are NOT approved.

Twenty-Five Years of Lying and Resistance

Calls for reform stretch back decades. In the early 2000s, FDA officials proposed sharing unredacted inspection reports with Switzerland to coordinate oversight of high-risk foreign factories. Agency lawyers blocked it, saying even trusted foreign regulators couldn’t see confidential information. “They didn’t want to do anything that would make the industry mad,” said Lumpkin. “It was not, ‘What do we need to do for public health?’ It was, ‘How do we keep the FDA out of court?’” Or let’s not be cute, it’s: how do we keep our Big Pharma pay lords out of court?

Around the same time, Woodcock began building a database of factory addresses for all drugs approved in the U.S. “There was no information,” she said. “It was terrible.” Even after the database was complete, the FDA released only partial details — drug names without addresses, and vice versa.

In the 2010s, as the Obama administration emphasized government transparency, the FDA launched an online database of factory inspections — but continued redacting drug names from the reports.

In 2022, a committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine urged the FDA to require manufacturers to disclose where their drugs are made. So far, the agency hasn’t acted. All we can be sure of is that there IS a problem, otherwise they wouldn’t be keeping information secret.

A Promise of “Radical Transparency”?

When Dr. Marty Makary became FDA commissioner in 2024, he promised “radical transparency.” The agency soon began publishing more information on why it rejects applications for new drugs — but not on where existing drugs are made.

Two years later, the FDA still hasn’t released detailed data connecting generic drugs to their factories.

ProPublica, which paid for access to a commercial database of FDA inspection documents, continues to fight for disclosure through the courts. The case could determine whether Americans will finally be able to learn where — and under what conditions — the pills in their medicine cabinets are made.

Meantime, best advice? Don’t take drugs. There are safer ways to retore health. Drug manufacturers are not going to lower their profits, just to keep you safe! (no, really, I’m talking about pharmaceutical drugs, not contaminated methamphetamines and ketamine). The criminals are tracked down and go to jail. But Big Pharma executives never do; they just get richer and richer.

To your good health,
Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

SOURCE:

https://www.propublica.org/article/fda-hides-drug-names-contaminated-factories

— Government independence, transparency, and legal integrity must be restored…

Blare the Medpage Today headlines (October 4^th). Say what? The government health agencies never had the least shred of trust, there was never independence, transparency or integrity.

Read instead: lying, cover ups, bribes, pay outs, obfuscation and secrecy—and abiding by the law never seemed to trouble those ensconced in the FDA, the CDC, NIH or ACIP.

Trump and RFK jr. have called out the mob in control of medical protocols and profits (same thing) and they don’t like it! They are screaming (and sweating).

“The combined MMRV offers a simple, safe way to protect children from four potentially serious diseases with one injection,” claimed the above article. That’s a complete, bald and politically-motivated lie. Combining the jabs is very dangerous and makes a bad situation worse. I have stated repeatedly that I was probably the first doctor in the world to spot the sudden wave of severe autistic disorder, following within days of the MMR shot. I spoke about it on radio and it’s in my 1985 book (written 1984) The Food Allergy Plan.

Next they claim missing the chicken pox vaccine “opens the door to resurgent chickenpox and later shingles — an often painful, debilitating, and sometimes deadly disease.” So how come that chicken pox in otherwise healthy children is described by the FDA as “usually a self-limited disease of mild to moderate severity.” That’s not deadly. Nobody ever died of typical chickenpox.

Similarly, shingles was once an unpleasant disease but uncommon, mild and self-limiting UNTIL THE ADVENT OF VACCINATIONS, since when it has become widespread and quite debilitating. There is no question among those of integrity and knowledge that the current wave of shingles was caused by the totally unnecessary mass vaccination campaign against chickenpox.

A great book to read on this topic would be Forbidden Facts: Government Deceit and Suppression About Brain Damage from Childhood Vaccines by Gavin de Becker. De Becker is a security and protection billionaire, who protects Robert F. Kennedy jr. on his campaigns. It’s a brilliant book and I wolfed it down even though, as you know, I have a great deal of insight into this issue. I read things he’d uncovered which I could barely believe.

It costs just $5 and is worth every penny. Download it as a Kindle book here.

Gavin de Becker. He advizes the great and mighty (Jeff Bezos, Richard Burton, Dolly Parton, Jane Fonda and Tina Turner, for example) on personal security and safety. 

De Becker is very witty, which I enjoy. He asks rhetorically how would we feel if every one of the top manufacturers has been criminally fined for the worst sorts of offences? “Let’s find out how we’d feel…” he says and then treats us to a long list of intolerable criminality [edited down by me]:

Pfizer: For illegal marketing of its products, the company was forced to pay the largest criminal fine in US history. Plus $1 billion more in a 2009 settlement to resolve violations of the False Claims Act… another $240 million in criminal fines, and another $190 million in 2004 to resolve false claims made to Medicare and Medicaid. That’s all—other than $60 million the same year for kickbacks and off-label marketing, and $ 40 million in settlements with whistleblowers, $75 million for fraudulent marketing, another $15 million for paying kickbacks to healthcare providers. 

Johnson & Johnson: $5 billion to multiple states and local governments for its role in the opioid crisis, deceptive marketing, downplaying the risks and overstating the benefits of their products, false claims made to mislead doctors, patients, and regulators, tricky promotion to get doctors to prescribe their products more widely, producing and distributing products they knew to be dangerous, producing and distributing Fentanyl products, and failing to adequately warn about the risks of their products. 

Earlier in the book, de Becker covered the billions J & J paid ($4.7 billion so far) in connection with baby powder that they knew for decades had cancer-causing ingredients that harmed people, another $2.2 billion for illegal marketing and kickbacks to doctors and pharmacies, $5 billion in 2013 for selling a product they knew was dangerously defective, another $1.1 billion in penalties for failing to warn about the risk of heart attack and strokes from one of their products, $33 million for their false and misleading marketing that overstated benefits and downplayed risks of Depo-Provera, $70 million for bribing doctors and pharmacies to prescribe drugs that were not appropriate for the conditions being treated. 

GlaxoSmithKline: $3 billion in penalties for fraud and failure to report safety data. Glaxo apologized and moved on. 

In 2014 found guilty of systematically bribing doctors, hospitals and government officials to boost drug sales, through a network of 700 middlemen and payments estimated at $150 million. GSK initially called the allegations a “smear campaign,” but eventually they admitted the illegal activities. Glaxo apologized and moved on.

I did not know that in 2014, the European CDC reported that Glaxo released gallons of live polio virus solution into a water-treatment plant in Belgium.

Merck: We all know about the criminal Vioxx scam, $650 million criminal fine for paying kickbacks and overbilling Medicare. Two of Merck’s virologists became whistleblowers and revealed that the company had tested their MMR vaccine, against a cherry-picked variant of the mumps virus rather than against the actual virus children might encounter. 

And guess what: The MMR tests came out really good—until it was revealed Merck had added rabbit blood to human samples in order to boost antibody levels. 

“Hey, nobody’s perfect,” says de Becker!

And guess what? Vioxx is now back on the market. That’s proof the FDA is criminally in cahoots with Big Pharma. If you are a man aged 65 to 74 you have a 1 in 50 chance of a heart attack this year. If you are taking substantial doses of Vioxx, that shifts to a 1 in 10 chance!

Eli Lilly: a criminal fine of $515 million in 2009, a civil settlement that could reach $800 million, for a total of $1.4 billion, all resulting from their product Zyprexa. They had to pay $1.2 billion to settle about 32,000 cases with customers who were injured by the same product, plus $47 million paid to a bunch of states for improper marketing. 

“I could share similarly rosy accounts regarding Sanofi, Novartis, and Roche,” says de Becker sarcastically, “But all we’d see is more price gouging, failure to disclose side effects, bribery, corruption, defective products, delayed recalls, lies, misuse of political influence, and cheating on clinical trials.

So the question which hangs is: DO YOU TRUST THESE CORPORATIONS TO BE TRUTHFUL WHEN THEY SAY IT’S COMPLETELY SAFE TO INJECT THEIR VACCINES INTO OUR KIDS? I hope not, otherwise you need psychiatric help!

And the second question hanging is: why do these fines not rein in the company’s bad behavior? The answer is that these fines are just chump change for them. They earn $trillions and get fined $million or a few $billions. They probably have it factored into their business plans! An allowance for criminal fines, XX%.

Seriously though, it’s a problem. Lying and cheating is endemic in US business practices (Oh plenty of others, China for example). But here we are talking about lying that costs lives—very many lives—not just greed or avarice.

We have to pray that RFK stays alive long enough (with de Becker’s protection) to dismantle the whole rotten empire, put Big Pharma on the back foot and clear out the nest of vipers, once and for all. Otherwise children everywhere are going to be destroyed and children are our future. THE future. The ONLY future.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy jr. has pledged to find the true cause of autism.

At the time of writing, the HHS tally of autistic and brain damaged male kids is  1 in 20 (California 1 in 12.5)* Meantime the grotesque corporations go on pouring on medicines which contain aluminum, mercury, asbestos (baby powder) and lead (milk formulas). Injecting kids with vaccines that don’t even apply to them (COVID, which no child or infant ever got) or Hep B on their first day in earth (Hep B is exclusive to drug addicts, prostitutes and homosexuals) and have shown themselves to be clearly capable of manipulating safety and effectiveness data in favor of profit and AGAINST the interests of children affected.

This has to be stopped. Pray to God it is. 

To your health,

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Alternative Doctor

* https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/autism-epidemic-runs-rampant-new-data-shows-grants.html

The posey (and dangerous) belief that US doctors are the best trained in the world is a myth. As an outsider myself, I have never seen so much incompetent blundering on any scale, as here. I’d far rather go to India to have my appendix out or have a gallstone removed than do it in this country.

So MANY people die here of medical incompetence. It doesn’t show up nearly enough, because the patient is listed as dying of the disease, instead of killed by the doctor. It’s right to ask: are American doctors among the most incompetent in the world?

There is good reason to think so. First, July 26, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association; author, Dr. Barbara Starfield, revered public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, wrote an article “Is US health really the best in the world?”

Starfield reported that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.  106,000 as a result of FDA-approved medical drugs, and 119,000 as a result of mistreatment and errors in hospitals.  Extrapolate the numbers to a decade: that’s 2.25 million deaths.  You might want to read that last number again.

Incredibly, 106,000 deaths per annum were caused by the CORRECT medicine, CORRECTLY prescribed, according to BEST PRACTICE!¹

Here is another citation: Author, Jeanne Lenzer refers to a report by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices: “It calculated that in 2011 prescription drugs were associated with two to four million people in the US experiencing ‘serious, disabling, or fatal injuries, including 128,000 deaths.'”  

The report called this “one of the most significant perils to humans resulting from human activity.”²

The report was compiled by outside researchers who went into the FDA’s own database of “serious adverse events.”

Therefore, to say the FDA isn’t aware of this finding would be absurd. The FDA knows. The FDA knows and it isn’t saying anything about it, because the FDA certifies, as safe and effective, all the medical drugs that are routinely maiming and killing Americans.

By the last count, independent studies suggest that between 200,000 and 400,000 people die each year in the United States from preventable medical mistakes. That doesn’t even count the millions maimed and injured.

And lately, a significant article published in the BMJ has shown convincingly that 1 in 250 patients die here when treated by US-trained doctors.

Medicare patients admitted to the hospital and treated by internists who graduated from medical schools outside the United States had lower 30-day mortality than matched patients cared for by graduates of US schools, according to results of a study published online in the British Medical Journal (BMJ).³

But that’s just the background. How about indescribably stupid blunders that literally kill people? There was a case in court recently in which a doctor was being sued, because he had removed a man’s liver BY MISTAKE. It’s mind boggling that a professionally qualified and trained surgeon could remove a liver by mistake. He thought it was the spleen, which is what he was supposed to remove.

Trouble is, though you can live for years without your spleen, you can’t live more than a few days without a liver. The patient died. 

I’m reminded of an old doctor’s gag: “the operation was a great success but the patient died.”

Wrong Side

Removing a limb or organ from the wrong side of the body is not rare—but inexcusable.

An Air Force veteran went for treatment for possible cancer of one testicle. When Benjamin Houghton went into surgery to remove his diseased left testicle at West Los Angeles VA Medical Center, the surgeons mistakenly removed the right, healthy testicle instead. 

The medical mistake was traced back to the patient’s medical record where the surgeon failed to mark the correct side before undertaking the operation. Mr. Houghton and his wife brought a medical malpractice case against the VA Medical Center for $200,000.

In 2007 neurosurgeons at Rhode Island Hospital made not one, but three catastrophic medical mistakes by performing wrong site surgeries on three different patients’ heads. 

Two of the mistakes were caught early enough to close the initial holes and treat the correct side, but the other surgery killed an 86-year-old patient. Believe it or not the surgeon who made these mistakes had his medical license suspended for only two months. So much for doctors policing themselves.⁴

Only a few days ago, I was reading about a baby who was decapitated at birth, because of extremely rough handling (read: ridiculously excessive force). The baby had become jammed, making it a very difficult delivery (or impossible for a clod of an ObGyn). Why didn’t he elect for an emergency caesarian? As a result of the delay the baby died but to rip its head off, taking delivery? Makes you shudder.

In February 2024, the Clayton County Medical Examiner’s Office ruled the baby’s death a homicide caused by “actions of another person,” stating the  death resulted from a fracture of cervical vertebrae in the spine.

The parent’s attorney, Dr. Roderick Edmond expressed the gravity of the situation, stating, ” Every aspect of the evidence that shows what happened is traumatizing, something I’ve never seen in my life.”⁵

The poor family were, of course, very upset. But they were even more traumatized when some pathologist MD posted pictures of their child’ autopsy on social media, without the parent’s consent, showing the decapitated corpse… I mean? 

His excuse?  A clause in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) that allows physicians to inform the public when there are safety concerns in health care. His justification cannot be supported.

Just a Mistake?

You might find yourself being sympathetic. No matter how terrible a blunder, it could have just been a mistake, surely?

Well, how about this case: a surgeon deliberately took a screwdriver and stitched it into a patient’s spine!

Surgeon Robert Ricketson was to operate on a patient’s spine but couldn’t find the titanium rods he intended to use. So instead of canceling the procedure, he sawed off a screwdriver handle and put that to use instead.

No surprise: within a few days the screwdriver makeshift rod broke, resulting in agony for the patient. 

Robert Ricketson, sued for his actions, said he had no choice but to implant the screwdriver into the back of Arturo Iturralde, then 73. He said he did not have the titanium rods needed to complete the operation properly. A nurse who was present knew full well this was criminal doctoring and retrieved the screwdriver parts and sent them to a lawyer, so the truth quicky came to light.

It emerged this grossly incompetent surgeon had already had his medical license suspended in Oklahoma and revoked in Texas, following a string of malpractice lawsuits and treatment for a narcotics addiction. He had also admitted to writing fake prescriptions to obtain drugs.

In 2017, a 49-year-old man was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The surgeon failed to conduct standard tests (like an angiogram), neglecting to check for arterial blockages. This led to inadequate blood flow post-op and the  negligence ultimately required an above-the-knee amputation.

In 2024 a jury awarded $10.2 million in damages.⁶

In 1995 patient Willie King was subjected to a wrong-limb amputation. He was scheduled to have his right foot removed, instead his left leg was taken away. The surgeon was Dr. Rolando Sanchez. During the surgery, Dr. Sanchez realized too late that he was operating on the wrong leg but the operation had already progressed past the point of reversal. In this case it was even more tragic because Dr. Sanchez believed he was removing the correct limb, the left leg had been fully prepped ready, before he even entered the OR.⁷

All this violates to first principle of medicine, which is FIRST DO NO HARM.

Finally, A Great Tragedy

In June 1997 singer Julie Andrews underwent an operation on her vocal cords at New York City’s Mount Sinai Hospital. As we all know, the surgical procedure left her unable to sing. Her beautiful, crystal clear 4-octave voice was ruined and even her speaking voice turned harsh and rasping.

In December 1999, Andrews filed a lawsuit against her doctors and Mount Sinai. It claimed she had not been told of the risks of the surgery and that the results “ruined her ability to sing and precluded her from practicing her profession as a musical performer.” There had been “no reason to perform surgery of any kind.” A statement from Andrews also noted, “Singing has been a cherished gift, and my inability to sing has been a devastating blow.”⁸

A confidential settlement was reached the next year. But no amount of money could replace that voice.

It only remains to say that the majority of doctors are not so incompetent. And to reiterate my earnest advice to all: IF YOU WANT TO STAY HEALTHY AND LIVE LONG, KEEP AWAY FROM DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS!

OK, a quirky one this week from me. But while others go banging on about the health benefits of herb teas and “reasons to take vitamin D, part seventeen”, I sometimes cast a wider net, as you all know!

To your health,

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

References:

1. Starfield, B.(2000, July 26). Is US health really the best in the world?JAMA, 284(4), 483–485. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.4.483
2. BMJ June 7, 2012 (BMJ 2012:344:e3989
3. BMJ 2017;356:j273
4. https://leightonlaw.com/12-famous-medical-malpractice-cases/
5. https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/father-speaks-out-after-babys-decapitation-death-in-clayton-county-ruled-homicide
6. https://www.wsorlaw.com/chicago-personal-injury-lawyers/10-2-million-verdict-for-illinois-negligent-amputation
7. https://blog.thinkreliability.com/blame-solves-nothing-revisiting-the-willie-king-wrong-site-amputation
8. https://www.biography.com/actors/julie-andrews-vocal-cord-surgery-lost-voice

It intrigued me enough to go on reading the article. But Ms. Robertson soon turned sour. She’s not an enterprising journalist at all, just your average hack, quoting orthodox baloney, masquerading as science. “During the pandemic, rampant misinformation drew attention to the antiparasitic as a treatment for COVID, though research continues to show it is not effective against the disease.”

First of all, there is NO continuing research. They have tried to suppress ivermectin. Orthodox doctors go banging on about “science” and adhering to the science. BUT THEY DON’T WANT THE SCIENCE. They just want their ignorant prejudices. Of course it’s all orchestrated by Big Pharma, which is where Ms. Robertson gets her “research” results.

It’s laughable, as is her ignorant and judgmental writing.

If you take the trouble to search on Google for this string: “ivermectin successful in uttar pradesh covid” you’ll be astonished at what comes up! I knew that the state of Uttar Pradesh in India had used ivermectin to remarkably good effect… It works! The endless parade of drivel that Ms. Robertson relies on keeps saying “It’s proven not to work”! 

But it’s just lies, fostered by Big Pharma. In fact professor Surya Kant, Head Department of Respiratory Medicine, at King George Medical University, Lucknow said the opposite. 

“There are newer drugs on the horizon which have been recommended though with very limited experience & devoid of enough data about safety and efficacy. These newer options are neither easily available nor affordable… We have revisited some of the old molecules and have found ivermectin, originally introduced as an antihelminthic [killing worms] to be an effective, safe and affordable therapeutic option in Indian settings for prevention and treatment of COVID-19.”¹

He’s got a few more credentials than Ms. Robertson, namely:

MBBS, MD (Gold Medalist), D.Sc. (Honoris Causa) FCCP (U.S.A.), FACP (USA), FRCP (London), FRCP (Glasgow), FAPSR, FGAPIO, FISEB, FAMS, FIAMS, FNCCP, FCAI, FIMSA, FGSI, FIAB, FICS, FUPDA, FIACM, FICP, FCGP, FISC, FUAPMI, FISH. 

The journalist? Well she’s just got a measly bachelor’s! Haha!

In October 2021, SunSentinel Opinion (congressman Neil Dunn’s own website) had this to say:

Data continues to mount demonstrating ivermectin’s efficacy against COVID-19. It is being deployed as part of the strategy to fight the pandemic in countries around the world, including Mexico, Peru and two large states in Argentina.

But even as the body of evidence in other countries grows, the opposition to not only using ivermectin but even discussing it in America multiplies.

To be clear, when I refer to the potential benefits of ivermectin, I am only suggesting that human-use ivermectin be considered. There has been talk of “horse paste” and purchasing ivermectin from farm stores. I unequivocally do not recommend humans use a medicine that is prepared and sold for use in animals.

Further, the decision to use any treatment for COVID-19 should be made after consultation with a trusted medical professional. If prescribed by a licensed and trusted medical professional, any medication should only be used specifically as prescribed.

However, the mere mention of ivermectin can get you banned from major social media platforms. Evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein’s podcast was yanked from YouTube for discussing the drug. Federal authorities are arrayed against it. And the American Medical Association called for the “immediate end” of any use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients with no research to support their stance…

Thousands of physicians working on the front lines of this pandemic — honest, intelligent, caring professionals working tirelessly to care for patients with COVID-19 — want the option of administering ivermectin. Yet they are widely discouraged, even demonized, by some public health professionals and even President Biden, who obliquely tarred physicians using ivermectin as “conspiracy theorists” and implied they are not “real doctors.”

It seems redundant to say it but THIS IS NOT SCIENCE AT WORK, it’s arrogant prejudice and counter-science by ad hominems and opinion.

Review Of Evidence

In 2021 a goodly summary of the science to date, covering the effectiveness of ivermectin, was published in the American Journal of Therapeutics. One of the authors was no other than Dr. Paul Marik, a great champion of REAL science in the holistic arena. He did a good paper on the value of high-dose vitamin C in saving lives of patients with sepsis (septicemia). He was subsequently ousted from his post, attacked and vilified by our dear “proper” doctors, who don’t want patient’s lives saved; they just want huge pharmaceutical expenses and then rounding it off by letting the patients die.

The authors of the AJT paper set up their study by writing:

Recently, evidence has emerged that the oral antiparasitic agent ivermectin exhibits numerous antiviral and anti-inflammatory mechanisms with trial results reporting significant outcome benefits. Given some have not passed peer review, several expert groups including Unitaid/World Health Organization have undertaken a systematic global effort to contact all active trial investigators to rapidly gather the data needed to grade and perform meta-analyses.

Meantime, the authors took up the story as they saw it…

The data they reviewed was “published peer-reviewed studies, manuscripts posted to preprint servers, expert meta-analyses, and numerous epidemiological analyses of regions with ivermectin distribution campaigns.

And they added, “A large majority of randomized and observational controlled trials of ivermectin are reporting repeated, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes.”²

Nothing wrong so far; in fact most drugs get to the market with less to commend them. But of course no doctor can say that, otherwise they would be ostracized and probably de-licensed.

What followed was column after column of the following:

• Since 2012, multiple in vitro studies have demonstrated that Ivermectin inhibits the replication of many viruses, including influenza, Zika, Dengue, and others.

• Ivermectin inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication and binding to host tissue through several observed and proposed mechanisms.

• Ivermectin has potent anti-inflammatory properties with in vitro data demonstrating profound inhibition of both cytokine production and transcription of nuclear factor-?B (NF-?B), the most potent mediator of inflammation.

• Ivermectin significantly diminishes viral load and protects against organ damage in multiple animal models when infected with SARS-CoV-2 or similar coronaviruses.

• Ivermectin prevents transmission and development of COVID-19 disease in those exposed to infected patients.

• Ivermectin hastens recovery and prevents deterioration in patients with mild to moderate disease treated early after symptoms.

• Ivermectin hastens recovery and avoidance of ICU admission and death in hospitalized patients.

• Ivermectin reduces mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

• Ivermectin leads to temporally associated reductions in case fatality rates in regions after ivermectin distribution campaigns.

• The safety, availability, and cost of ivermectin are nearly unparalleled given its low incidence of important drug interactions along with only mild and rare side effects observed in almost 40 years of use and billions of doses administered.

• The World Health Organization has long included ivermectin on its “List of Essential Medicines.”

The authors cite 84 quality references to validate these claims!

In addition, there were numerous specific trials reported akin to this one:

An RCT from Iran found a dramatic reduction in mortality with ivermectin use. Among multiple ivermectin treatment arms (different ivermectin dosing strategies were used in the intervention arms), the average mortality was reported as 3.3%, whereas the average mortality within the standard care and placebo arms was 18.8%; 6 times higher!³

Long COVID

SARS-Cov-2, whether an artificially enhanced virus or not, was a pretty brutal beast and was capable of causing lasting debilitation, a condition called “long COVID”. It is generally considered as a postviral syndrome consisting of a chronic and sometimes disabling constellation of symptoms which include, in order: fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pains, and chest pain. Many patients describe their most disabling symptom as impaired memory and concentration, often with extreme fatigue, described as “brain fog,” and is highly suggestive of the condition myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, a condition well reported to begin after viral infections, in particular with Epstein–Barr virus.

I wrote about post-viral syndrome at length by the way, in my bursting-with-facts book on viruses and how to treat them called VIRUS BLITZ.

In 2020, a manuscript by Aguirre-Chang et al from the National University of San Marcos in Peru reported on their experience with ivermectin in long-haul patients. They treated 33 patients who were between 4 and 12 weeks from the onset of symptoms with escalating doses of ivermectin; 0.2 mg/kg for 2 days if mild and 0.4 mg/kg for 2 days if moderate, with doses extended if symptoms persisted. They found that in 87.9% of the patients, resolution of all symptoms was observed after 2 doses with an additional 7% reporting complete resolution after additional doses. That’s 94% recovery with this proven-not-to-work ivermectin!⁴

Big Pharma can only DREAM of results such as these. Their science, such as it is, is pitiful and they usually have to falsify the results to show any benefit. But ivermectin has proved its worth, over and over and over.

Exciting reading, huh? And all buried under the trope “ivermectin is just for worming horses”!

Prof.

Main Source Paper:

Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J, Iglesias J, Marik PE. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am J Ther. 2021 Apr 22;28(3):e299-e318.

References:

1. https://www.biopharmaapac.com/opinion/72/44/evolution-of-ivermectin-as-a-drug-of-choice-for-prevention-treatment-of-covid-19-dr-surya-kant.html
2. Am J Ther. 2021 Apr 22;28(3):e299-e318
3. Ivermectin as an adjunct treatment for hospitalized adult COVID-19 patients: A randomized multi-center clinical trial. Res Square. 2020. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-109670/v1
4. Aguirre-Chang G. Post-Acute or prolonged COVID-19: treatment with ivermectin for patients with persistent, or post-acute symptoms ResearchGate. 2020. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344318845_POST-ACUTE_OR_PROLONGED_COVID-19_IVERMECTIN_TREATMENT_FOR_PATIENTS_WITH_PERSISTENT_SYMPTOMS_OR_POST-ACUTE

Dr. Keith talking with world-class expert Dr. Rob Vanbergen, these two old hands have it covered. Why “A hospital in your hand” is an apt metaphor for this amazing class of electronic devices, what they can do and how you can get one and be trained up quickly and easily. Includes how to do vagus nerve stimulation. Your order link at the end, if you want one: www.TheSanaShop.com/KSM. You must use this link to get all the freebie bonuses mentioned at the end.

==> Get Your Avazzia Device Today

The FDA is busy meddling in the affairs of holistic health practitioners, trying to stop as much as possible of the grass roots indulgence in natural and traditional recipes that we all love. They cite “lack of scientific proof” as their objection. But you just wait till you see what I am going to reveal…

At the same time as attacking natural cures, they are not doing their real job; we all know that too. They toady up to Big Pharma and give them what they want, re-interpreting the rules and going easy on the proper demands and requirements.

But surely, in the end, a drug has to prove it has some value before being “approved”? Even if they covered up the side-effects and negative, there must be something concrete required?

Well, let me tell you that in the 9 years from 2013 to 2022 the FDA approved 429 drugs, most of which were authorized on the basis of wholly inadequate evidence that they worked as claimed. This is according to a database of government records set up to analyze this criminal defect in our protection!

In fact, according to Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee, writing for The Lever, over those years:

• Seventy-three percent of drugs approved by the FDA did not meet the agency’s four foundational standards required to show they work as expected. 

• More than half of drug approvals were based on preliminary data rather than sound evidence that patients had fewer symptoms, improved function, or lived longer. 

• Fifty-five of the 429 drugs approved met only one of the four standards needed to show that a drug is safe and effective; 39 drugs met none of them.

Drug companies have been allowed to market hundreds of prescription drugs to doctors and sell them to unsuspecting patients despite glaringly inadequate evidence that they offer any benefit and in many cases amid clear signs that they pose a risk of serious, often irreparable harm.

These are just some of the findings of a two-year investigation by The Lever and the McGraw Center for Business Journalism into all 429 new drugs approved from 2013 through 2022. A team of four experts, three of whom are physicians and one a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard, evaluated the scientific studies cited by the agency in its approval decisions.¹

So what are these four basic standards of proof that the FDA supposedly demands? They are simple enough:

• Control group: Patients taking the drug were compared to a control group that was given a placebo or a comparator drug.

• Replication: At least two “well-controlled” trials showed the drug was effective.

• Blinding: Subjects in the studies and the doctors who cared for them don’t know which patients are on the drug and which are in the control group.

• Clinical endpoint: The studies measured the drug’s effect on patients’ survival or function rather than a surrogate measure.

Seems reasonable, just basic science. Yet these were not being upheld. Only 2.4% of the 123 cancer drugs approved from 2013 through 2022 met all four of the FDA’s basic scientific criteria. 2.4%! A shocking 29 drugs (23%) met none of these criteria!

Eighty-one percent of cancer drugs were approved based on preliminary evidence rather than data showing patients would live longer. Studies of cancer drugs approved on preliminary evidence have failed to show they improve survival in the vast majority of cases.

Surrogate Evidence

So what is surrogate evidence, referred to in the requirement for a clinical endpoint? It means showing you did something that is arguably useful but not actually proving the drug has any value to the patient ie. of no proven clinical value.

A good example is a vaccine, where manufacturers simply show that they produced a rise in antibodies against the pathogen. That’s a “surrogate” result. We really want to show that it stops people coming down with the disease!

But that’s not what happened with Gardasil. IT HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO PREVENT YOUNG GIRLS GETTING CERVICAL CANCER. But among all the lies, cheating, corruption and meddling with statistics of which Merck was guilty, they did (just) manage to show it increased antibodies against the human papilloma virus (HPV).²

Another example of a surrogate result is with cancer drugs. Shrinkage of the tumor has become the gold standard of a drug deemed effective. But that really has no benefit in terms of quality of life, comfort and the most prized result of all: longer survival!

[Indeed, as I teach, half the tumor is your own immune cells in there fighting the cancer. Reducing the tumor by knocking off the T-cells would be a disaster, yet looks attractive as a surrogate result]

Negative Outcomes (Side-Effects)

If you are crafty like Big Pharma you can often try to blind the reviewers with surrogate outcomes and distract attention away from a lot of negative or even fatal side-effects being caused.

Be certain, drug manufacturers know all about side-effects, even deaths, produced by their products. Merck was well aware of the huge number of deaths being caused by their NSAID Vioxx. They hid the problem (oh yes, they did, and all has now been exposed), in order to protect their sales.

The penalty for killing in excess of 50,000 people? None. Nobody was indicted for a crime. The company was fined $321 million. That’s just chump change. A fine of $10 billion would barely hurt them or their profits.

Deferred Science

The biggest subterfuge of all was that the FDA adopted the position of “we’ll approve your drug for the time being but you need to come up with some science to prove it works, PDQ.” (PDQ British slang from the Raj days: pretty damned quick!) 

The resulting seismic shift from proving drugs work before they are approved to showing they work only after approval — if ever — has been quietly accomplished with virtually no awareness by doctors or the public.

On occasion, a pharmaceutical company did come up with retrospective science that showed their product had value. But most of the time, as you would expect, they simply failed to do so. And, also as you would expect, the FDA was pretty sluggish at withdrawing its approval even when the drug was shown to be worthless.

According to a 2022 analysis by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, more than one-third of drugs approved on an accelerated pathway have never seen a confirmatory trial. When they did conduct the studies, regulators found companies took anywhere from a few months to 12 years to do so. This investigation found that confirmatory trials can take even longer — up to 30 years — and may not be performed at all. Even if they were, it was often not a clinical trial but more surrogate preliminaries!

This also, incidentally, makes a joke out of the defense by drug companies that they need to charge inordinate prices, to cover the costs of research. B*S*! They just slide a product past the all-too-compliant FDA and they can pay for “research”, such as it was, out of the profit from the bogus approved product!

Avastin was approved in 2008 for use against metastatic breast cancer. By 2010 sales had risen to $6.8 billion. But it was useless. One of the conditions imposed by the FDA was that the manufacturer, Genetech, conducted a study to prove the drug worked. A full two years later, Genetech finally came up with two studies which actually suggested the opposite: the drug did not help patients live longer.

In total, the company had conducted five clinical trials, none of which demonstrated that Avastin helped breast cancer patients live longer or with less disability. The new studies also documented the drug’s more serious side effects, which included blood clots, perforated intestines, stroke, heart problems, and kidney malfunction.

Eventually the FDA did withdraw its approval but against massive opposition from Genetech and various cancer advocacy groups (all funded by Big Pharma, of course).

One more example and I’m done: Copiktra, a cancer drug manufactured by Secura Bio Inc. was approved in 2018 for use in cases of leukemia and lymphoma. But it took 11 months off the average survival of patients. That’s bad.

But it was 6 years later before the FDA spoke out against it and announced that Copitra should not be used as first- or second-line treatment for certain types of leukemia and lymphoma “due to an increased risk of treatment-related mortality.”  I think that means it was killing people.

How many patients had their lives shortened in those 6 years, because of an “FDA approved” drug? 

What Is Success?

Even when cancer drugs do improve survival, the gains can be meager. A 2022 study by researchers at the National Cancer Institute found that the median [increased] survival time for 124 cancer medicines approved from 2003 through 2021 to treat solid tumors was just 2.8 months. The average cost of such drugs is more than $24,000 per month. 

In other words, after patients and their families spend financially crippling sums and go through side effects ranging from nausea to death, their outcomes are hardly better — and could be worse — than no treatment at all.

We’ve all known that Big Pharma and the FDA are engaged in an elaborate dance of deception, which doesn’t just put people at risk: IT KILLS. But just remember what I’ve written when you hear screams and cries that RFK jr. is destroying medicine and “people will die” as a result of what he’s doing!

We’ve got a minimum of 4 years to clean up the evil and he’s off to a good start in my view!

To your health,Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Alternative Doctor

References:

1. Main Source: https://www.levernews.com/fda-approved-and-ineffective/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
2. HPV vaccines and cancer prevention, science versus activism, Infectious Agents and Cancer, Lucija Tomljenovic, Judy Wilyman, Eva Vanamee, Toni Bark, Christopher A. Shaw; doi:10.1186/1750-9378-8-6

[echoing the lyric of Stephen Sondheim’s “Send in The Clowns”]

There’s a lot of stuff coming out to make the medical profession squirm. So what do they do? Go into denial! Hire of few shills to pick apart the science and pretend it’s no good, while their “science” is impeccable. Aw, c’mon!

First Off:
CT scans cause cancer. A LOT of cancer. It reminds me of the old days of mass chest x-rays in the 1950s and 60s, looking for TB and lung cancer. It emerged that the mass x-ray program was CAUSING more cancers than it was finding. So the program was abandoned. But that was then; we don’t abandon lucrative programs these days, just because we are killing patients, Oh no!

Watch what happens. I bet you NOTHING happens. Or some shill will crawl out of the woodwork, to play around with the figures and prove it was all nonsense.

Truth is, according to a paper published in JAMA, CT scans could be causing up to 100,000 cancers a year, in the USA alone! That would be about 5% of cancers  per year CAUSED by this diagnostic method.

True it was not a population study as such but a “risk assessment”. That doesn’t make it invalid. These forecasts have to be taken seriously and the approach to medicine reviewed. We don’t NEED that many CT scans and that’s a fact.

A risk model suggested that radiation from CT exams in 2023 were projected to lead to over 100,000 future cancers over the lifetime of the patients exposed that year.

Previous projections published in 2009 had estimated that approximately 29,000 future cancers would result from routine CT exposures.

These projections, and the frightening new 2023 figures, were reported by Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and her colleagues. 

Risks were higher in children and adolescents, but higher CT utilization in adults accounted for most (91%) radiation-induced cancers.

See, CT scans use ionizing radiation (like x-rays). MRI scans and ultra-sound are much safer and don’t use radiation. But it’s going to be a tough sell, getting doctors to go back to using their skills and training, instead of just sending the patient off for a CT scan.

Worse still is that patients can be very demanding and insist on the CT scan. They believe that is the “best” available and won’t be fobbed off with something else.

Try explaining the concept of “low-value testing” to a distraught Mom!

And—you guessed it—the shills speak up on behalf of the very lucrative CT scan “industry”. They dismiss these projections as a “theoretical risk” and insist that modeling studies “are not based on actual patient outcomes.” Which of course mean they are defending their turf and are not going to budge.

“There are no published studies directly linking CT scans (even multiple CT scans) to cancer,” the American College of Radiology (ACR) claimed in response. “Americans should not forgo necessary, life-saving medical imaging and continue to discuss the benefits and risks of these exams with their healthcare providers.”

Smith-Bindman and colleagues acknowledged that the study had several limitations, including the fact that their risk estimated model parameters were based on Japanese survivor outcomes “…and questions remain about the transfer of radiation risks from the mid-20th century Japanese population to the current U.S. population.”¹

Oh well, that’s it then. It’s only the Japanese. We can’t apply those figures to US human beings (please don’t write me, I’m being sarcastic, not a racist pig!)

Flu Vaccine Seems to INCREASE Disease!

Whoops, what a HUGE embarrassment. We’ve known for decades, of course, that the flu vaccine is useless. They never get the strains right for the year and, in any case, over 95% of flu cases don’t have flu (fact), they have an influenza-like illness ILI (not caused by one of the flu viruses). 

So, to show that it’s not only not working but INCREASES your chances of an ILI is doubly humiliating. It shows up not only the shoddy science behind the flu vaccines but makes a fool out of all the doctors who support the nonsense and keep spouting that everyone must have a flu shot!

Call in the shills! Quick!

One of the first to rally to the cry was Jeremy Faust, editor-in-chief of MedPage Today, an emergency medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a public health researcher.

“Of course, people who are anti-vax, love to jump all over this,” he says. “It’s a stunning Cleveland Clinic… negative effectiveness study. What’s stunning about it is how bad it is. So if you don’t know that, you shouldn’t be in this space. Go back to writing fiction.”²

Arrogant little bastard.

But Faust fails to make his point convincingly. He waffles about susceptible depletion bias, bad science and the study authors who “aught to know better” but in the end, the unvaccinated group had a lower incidence of flu. Period.

In any case, even if specious tweaking of figures managed to bring the vaccinated group back on top, it means the two groups are very close. They shouldn’t be. According accepted wisdom there should be lots of cases in the unvaxxed group and NONE in the vaxxed group!

And of course this overlooks the actual patients harmed by the vaccine. Oh yes, there are none, I remember now… Vaccines are 100% safe! (now I’m being really sarcastic, get it?)

Now Comes The Worst Of It:

This one is too difficult to waffle and blur the pitch. This one will have to be retracted and it won’t be long before that happens, I predict; a matter of weeks I should say. Pfizer will bring immense pressure to bear to force the journal to “retract” the paper, so they can pretend it never happened.

But the secret is out. In a press conference on March 11, 2025, Dr. Peter Kotlár, a Slovak physician, government commissioner, and MP, dropped a bombshell: all analyzed Pfizer and Moderna vaccine batches contain dangerously high levels of DNA, potentially transforming recipients into “genetically modified organisms.”

“In every single vial tested, there is an extremely high amount of DNA… stable compared to mRNA, can integrate into human DNA,” Kotlár asserted. “Theoretically, DNA fragments can integrate into the host genome, increasing the risk of genetic mutations.” Remember this guy is an MD, as well as a politician.³

Not just any old fragments of DNA but that from the SV40 virus. This finding raises urgent safety concerns, particularly due to the well-documented role of SV40 as a potential carcinogen.

This discovery not only highlights serious lapses in regulatory oversight for mRNA vaccines but also revives disturbing parallels to the polio vaccine scandal of the 1960s, where millions were unknowingly exposed to SV40. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) formerly hosted a page acknowledging this connection, but they have now taken it down. Tara! It never happened!  It was just “misinformation” ahead of its time.

So authorities carry on blithely, as if nothing is wrong. They are STILL recommending old folks and the vulnerable get their COVID shots! No care or caution on view, anywhere…

Doesn’t it make you sick the way they protect their Pharma buddies and are quite prepared to kill or risk killing humans in the process?

The connection cannot be shrugged off because of the huge surge in cancers we are seeing, particularly very aggressive and rapidly-fatal cancers, which have been nicknamed “turbo-cancers”.

Instead of exercizing caution and putting a hold on these vaccines, official sites are quick to criticize detractors. BUT THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE NONSENSE.

The Australian TGA (equivalent of the FDA) waded in with the arguments that the samples are small (3 phials only in one of the labs). But just one phial is enough to establish contamination. Some samples were past their expiry date (so what? DNA is either present or not). Some may not have been stored “correctly” (so what? even kept at room temperature they would not articifically “grow” DNA!)

Finally, they try and discredit these labs by saying they are not properly authenticated for testing vaccines. They were not “testing vaccines”, they were looking for contaminants. Even college kids could do that, given the necessary equipment.⁴

These are the guys who whine about those who spread “misinformation”? The public should trust the science, they say? I don’t think so, not this kind of “science”.

This page was on CDC.gov, now deleted. But you can read the cached (archived) version here: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/historical-concerns/index.html

You’ll find this para:

Simian Virus 40 (SV40): 1955 – 1963

“Because of research done with SV40 in animal models, there has been some concern that the virus could cause cancer in humans. However, most studies looking at the relationship between SV40 and cancers are reassuring, finding no causal association between receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine and development of cancer.”

The key word there is “most”. It’s a sin that ANY SV40 virus particles should be in a polio vaccine! The argument “It’s OK, it doesn’t cause cancer,” is irrelevant. It’s also NOT TRUE. There is a known oncogenic (tumor causing) mechanism connected with the SV40 virus, which is that it suppresses the p53 gene, which is protective against cancer. As an example, SV40 definitely causes cancer in hamsters.⁵

Moreover, pleural mesotheliomas and osteosarcomas develop in hamsters injected intracardially with SV40.6

Is that important? Yes. We use hamsters in lab testing because their immune systems reespond quite like ours! So claims that it doesn’t apply to humans is disingenuous at best, outright lying more likely.

I’m really angry, as you can see. This is supposed to be the great calling of medicine. Yet these crooks are playing with human lives, just to protect their profits.

Look after yourself—and I mean that advisedly,

To your good health,

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

References:

1. 1. Smith-Bindman R, et al “Projected lifetime cancer risks from current computed tomography imaging” JAMA Intern Med 2025; DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.0505.
   2. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/faustfiles/115110
   3. https://www.aussie17.com/p/breaking-news-slovak-government-official
   4. https://www.tga.gov.au/news/media-releases/addressing-misinformation-about-excessive-dna-mrna-vaccines.
   5. M Carbone, R Stach, I Di Resta, H I Pass, P Rizzo. Simian virus 40 oncogenesis in hamsters. Dev Biol Stand. 1998 ;94:273-9. PMID: 
   6. Cicala, C., Pompetti, F., & Carbone, M. (1993). SV40 induces mesotheliomas in hamsters. The American Journal of Pathology, 142(5), 1524–1533. PMID: 8388174; PMCID: PMC1886912.

Not so much to talk about acute damage due to vaccinations. That’s a very hot controversy! (well, not really—there’s no such thing as vaccination damage, don’t you know?)

But I’d like to focus a little on the equally serious problem of delayed reactions and the larger unanswered questions which surround the long term consequences of immunization. 

What triggered this was an enquiry which led me to search the pages in back of my alternative-doctor.com website. Shock! Yikes! I found 1,000s of pages were missing. The products of years of writing and publishing just gone!

Well, you don’t need to know how I got back most of them. But it did result in my reviewing the page on professor Rodney Obomsawin’s book, which I had got in turn (with permission) from John Scudamore of the incredible whale.to website!

To talk with you sensibly, you need to be reminded that the basic structure of a virus is nothing.. oh sorry, the smallest amount of something that is not quite nothing! It was a joke in my day that a virus was “a piece of bad news, wrapped in protein.” The protein was the virion casing, the bad news was viral DNA and/or RNA.

Even the layman knows that viruses are very adept at slithering into human cells and taking over the genetic material in the nucleus. WELL RIGHT THERE IS A PROBLEM THAT I DON’T SEE MANY PEOPLE WRITING ABOUT. Does anyone really know just to what extent viruses can inject their material into the human genome? I don’t think so.

But it’s an awesome question and worth asking, given the rise in chronic diseases, most notably perhaps, auto-immune diseases. We know viruses can cause cancer. What about leading to two heads or four legs?

According to Raymond Obomsawin, Joshua Lederberg, a Stanford University School of Medicine geneticist and Nobel Prize winner, was perhaps the first to raise the warning (1967) that the use of live virus vaccines in mass immunization campaigns represents “biological engineering on a rather large scale.” He (Lederberg) goes on to comment:

While these [vaccines] are thought to be of indubitable value for preventing serious diseases, their global impact on the development of human beings of a side range of genotypes is hard to assess at our present stage of wisdom. . . . Live viruses are themselves genetic messages used for the purpose of programming human cells for the synthesis of immunogenic virus antigens.¹

Researchers such as Buttram postulate that the use of live viral vaccines in mass immunization programs introduces foreign genetic material into the human system, which has precipitated an unprecedented escalation of various auto-immune disorders in recent decades. These are disorders wherein antibodies or immune cells indiscriminately attack the tissues of one’s own body-mind complex.²

Harvard graduate and physician, R. Markowitz, explains how the live viruses in vaccines can, in the long term, lead to such auto-immune disease conditions. Attenuated viruses (in the vaccines) attach their own genetic “episome” to the genome (half set of chromosomes and their genes) of the host cell, and are thus capable of surviving or remaining latent within the host cells for years. The presence of this foreign antigenic material within the host cell sets the stage for their unpredictable provocation of various auto-immune phenomena such as herpes, shingles, warts, tumors—both benign and malignant—and diseases of the central nervous system, such as varied forms of paralysis and inflammation of the brain.³

Markowitz further poses the caution that vaccines do not act by merely producing pale or mild copies of the original disease, but all of them commonly produce a variety of symptoms of their very own. In some cases “these illnesses may be considerably more serious than the original disease, involving deeper structures, more vital organs, and less of a tendency to resolve spontaneously. Even more worrisome is the fact that they are almost always more difficult to recognize.”⁴

A British Medical Journal article long ago by Miller et al, reports that “Various German authors have described the apparent provocation of multiple sclerosis by–vaccination against smallpox, typhoid, tetanus, polio, and tuberculosis.”⁵

No less disconcerting is the warning raised by Rutgers University Professor R. Simpson when he addressed science writers at a seminar sponsored by the American Cancer Society:

Immunization Programs against flu, measles, mumps, polio and so forth may actually be seeding humans with RNA to form latent proviruses in cells throughout the body. These latent proviruses could be molecules in search of diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Parkinson’s disease, and perhaps cancer.⁶

A study in Science reported a notable similarity between certain different viruses (including measles and influenza) and the protein structure of the brains protective myelin sheaths. This being the case, antibodies induced by live viral vaccines could well be cross reacting and attacking brain cells.⁷

All this is very scary stuff and it’s being kept very quiet.

Mental Disorders

Medical historian Harris Coulter has developed a systematic and comprehensive thesis that childhood immunizations frequently result in a demyelinating encephalitis. This condition prevents the normal development of the protective myelin sheaths of the brain and nerve cells during infancy and early childhood. Such adverse pathologic changes may, on a visible level, lead to a range of learning disabilities and behavioral problems, which we all know has now reached pandemic proportions here in the USA.⁸

Bruce Rabin, a professor of pathology and psychiatry at Western Psychiatric Institute, Pittsburgh has found evidence that approximately one-third of all cases of schizophrenia are auto-immune in nature, with immune bodies attacking the brain cells.⁹

When we consider the alarming increase in the numbers of schizophrenic cases, and the now credible “viral hypothesis of mental disorders,” childhood vaccine programs can be considered as highly suspect in playing a causative role.¹⁰

Those of you who have read my massive compendium PSYCHIATRY WITHOUT DRUGS will know I regard almost all “mental health issues” as physical in origin. It’s been proven not to be a “chemical imbalance” as the medical literature still keeps propounding. Food allergies, vitamin deficiencies, hormonal imbalances and other disorders, including I specifically mentioned auto-immune allergy to brain tissue are the real cause of suffering but are never even considered by psychiatrists.

To them, everything is a “drug deficiency.”

My hero, the “Medical Heretic”, Robert S. Mendelsohn comments trenchantly that:

While the myriad short-term hazards of most immunizations are known (but rarely explained), no one knows the long-term consequences of injecting foreign proteins into the body . . . . Even more shocking is the fact that no one is making any structured effort to find out.

There is growing suspicion that immunization against . . . childhood diseases may be responsible for the dramatic increase in auto-immune diseases since mass inoculations were introduced. These are fearful diseases such as cancer, leukemia, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig’s disease, lupus erythematosus, and the Guillain-Barré syndrome. . . . Have we traded mumps and measles for cancer and leukemia? ¹¹

There you go… a lot of look ups, if you are inclined. As I and others often joke: if you are not a bit scared scared, you don’t get what’s happening!

To Your Good Health,

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

References:

1. [Lederberg, J., Science, October 20, 1967, p. 313]
2. [Buttram, H., “Live Virus Vaccines and Genetic Mutation,” Health Consciousness, April, 1990, pp. 44 and 45]
3. [in  James, W., Immunization, p. 15]
4. [Markowitz, R., “The Case Against Immunizations,” Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, Washington, DC, 1983, Institute reprint]
5. [Miller, et al, “Multiple Sclerosis and Vaccinations,” British Medical Journal, April 22, 1967, pp. 210-213]
6. [James W, ibid.]
7. [Jahnke, U., et al, “Sequence Homology Between Certain Viral Proteins and Proteins Related to Encephalomyelitis and Neuritis,” Science, Vol. 29, July 19, 1985, pp. 282-284
8. [Coulter, H., Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality, Washington, DC, 1990, (entire work)]
9. [McGuire, R., “Brain Auto-Antibodies in 33% of Schizophrenics,” Medical Tribune, July 14, 1988, p. 6]
10. [Morozov, P., editor, “Research on the Viral Hypothesis of Mental Disorders,” in Advances in Biological Psychiatry, Vol. 12, published by Karger, S., New York, 1983, pp. 52-75]
11. [Mendelsohn, R., “The Medical Time Bomb of Immunization Against Disease,” pp. 47 and 48]