Health

2026-08-02

"Cancer" is perhaps the most feared diagnosis that a patient can receive, especially because (a) the treatments on offer are so potentially unpleasant and (b) because they have such a poor record of actually curing the disease.

Oh, and big Pharma have such a government granted monopoly that anybody else who has the temerity to offer a treatment that might actually work gets prosecuted to the full extent of the law regardless of whether or not it works. One might think that anybody that offered a treatment with the poor results that chemo and radiation actually achieve should really be the ones who are prosecuted, but the NHS being a government-sponsored institution is obviously way above such petty criticism.

"... cancer is not a disease the body produces against itself but the body’s containment response to injury it cannot resolve"

But

2026-08-01

We mentioned Castor Oil previously, and this is the follow-on covering much the same topic in greater depth.

Yes, it's medicine Jim, but not as we have known it...

2026-07-29

Aaron Siri flags up the mendacity of a legal system whose practitioners, one might be forgiven for thinking, have no respect for either the law they are supposed to uphold or the basic human freedoms to which we are all as human beings entitled (slaves excepted - but to the best of my knowledge, slavery was abolished long ago... ).

This is not merely an American problem. 

Big Pharma (one should really say Big-Pharma-Big-Government) is a huge network of corporations of global reach and (thanks mainly one suspects to its links to big governments of all stripes) of inexhaustible financial means that together challenge the resources available to many individual nations - why are they so scared of dissent from such a small (and indeed quiet - they like to keep themselves to themselves) grouping of people as the Amish?

We know why.

2026-07-22

My old statistcs lecturer would be turning in her grave at the state of modern statistical analyses - if you want the right answers you absolutely have to invest in asking the right questions. "Garbage in = garbage out" applies.

Of course sometimes the answer isn't right enough to properly answer a population-wide question, so the temptation must be to ask the easier questions that give the answer preferred by those who are funding the investigation, since nobody seems prepared to think up all the major implications of adding a substance to food, which ultimately goes in as many different directions as there are people on the planet.

HART reviews the state of the investigations that underpin the firm intention to "enhance" our flour with "folic acid", which given the overwhelming preponderance of wheat as the primary input to our "daily bread" means that

2026-07-15

The Daily Sceptic reports that the inquiry has uncovered £billions wasted by the NHS on COVID PPE procurement.

As if we didn't already know.

Well it's always good to have a reminder, especially  when there may be an election in the offing. Or not, as the case may be.

Nevertheless, some of the more sceptical among us might consider this a classic limited hangout, admitting as it does the already public knowledge that many well-connected people seem to have made financial killings on PPE contracts (maybe not without connivance in high places) although perhaps (if you could stretch credulity

2026-07-12

Can there be so much smoke without a fire?

The Bernician analyses the smoke signals, and reveals a system of revolving doors very reminiscent of those between Big Pharma and our Health Regulators.

Anybody might think the purpose of government is now primarily to launder our tax money to "private enterprise" - not just any enterprise of course, but certainly to those big American enterprises with CIA connections. Of course it's all subject to appropriate restrictions on confidentiality etc but who is to verify the truth of these activities?

What could possibly go wrong?

2026-07-11

"No virus... has ever been isolated in the classical scientific sense. Not SARS-CoV-2. Not HIV. Not measles, mumps, rubella, polio, influenza, Ebola, Zika, rabies"

Alert readers will note that we have featured a number of Jon's articles on our site in times past. He was an early and pioneering reporter about matters medical, and he will be missed.

"... cancer is not a disease. Cancer is the body’s response to toxic assault. The tumour is protective tissue walling off poison. The exhausted mitochondria switch to a defective energy pathway. The 'cancerous cell' is a cell deformed by the assault"

Nevertheless there are many others who follow where he led - I think we are now in many good hands, if we can only identify them. As always, sorting the wheat from the chaff can be time-consuming, but it's a skill that comes with

2026-07-11

That the UK's Covid Inquiry was an exhausting, no expenses spared, root and branch inquiry into the evidence, what failed, what could be done better, and what lessons should be learned for the future, is not in doubt.

But define "evidence", "failed", "better".

Whose evidence?

Who failed to do what?

What would a better result look like and from whose perspective?

HART updates us on what happened to the evidence that they and others submitted.

You can find this evidence at the People's Vaccine Inquiry, because you won't currently find it on the website of the official UK Covid-19 Inquiry. 

The Trouble with Folic Acid

2026-07-02

It's sometimes so surprisingly easy to ask the wrong question.

Sometimes we may be inadvertently led by our medical advisor to do precisely that, to our detriment, because we may well get an answer inappropriate to our actual circumstances.

This article is so in-our-face that we might think that it couldn't possibly happen, but it's in-our-face for a reason, and not all such encounters are so obvious that the whole idea can be dismissed out of hand.

Caveat emptor indeed.

2026-06-30

Is there no illness that modern medicine cannot make worse?

Even mental illness seems to be afflicted by the tendency that ensures that the treated come off less favourably than the untreated. Why should this be? Why should it be permitted?

Make of this what you will...

2026-06-30

Nothing is more important than our health, but how can we know what is good for us and what isn't?

Most people rely on "expert advice". After all, life is complicated enough without having to diagnose our own ailments.

Until life catches up with us and the "expert advice" doesn't cut the mustard any more. Possibly around the age of 50 or 60, when the body rebels against whatever has been inflicted upon it since chldhood.

Yes, I've been there.

It's not a happy experience, in my case because my immune system became erratic and tended to overreact unpredictably to whatever minor irritant was offending it at the time. In fact looking back it was nothing to do with the proximate cause, and everything to do with immune system general overload. It simply threw it's toys out of the pram. In medical parlance I came out in hives and a tendency to have a fainting collapse. The doctor was reassuring - don't worry, we can

2026-06-29

No, it's nothing to do (sadly) with politicians opening their mouths and putting their foot in it. Not literally anyway, although some unkind persons may support the figurative notion.

Others might for their own reasons support a culling of the infected politician in the same way that they cull cattle, but whilst such a policy might serve to encourage others not to emulate the stricken, we do in theory already have a means whereby the electorate can cull the infected at the next election. Like all such policies however, it turns out that culling for whatever reason tends to be ineffective in controlling the disease and better methods must be sought.

It is of course necessary to identify the real cause of the problem if we want to effect a cure. 

In the case of politicians we are approaching the point where most people will be able to understand the essential mechanisms of the "deep state" via their controlled political parties. It's been going on a long

2026-06-28

A visit to the dentist isn't (let's face it) something to fill one with enthusiasm.

It rarely brightens the day, and occasionally comes with admonishments about brushing your teeth better, or bad news about needing unforeseen remedial work that (unless you have already purchased an insurance plan) will entail additional expense. 

So if you're lucky you get off with just a bill for the inspection, and if unlucky you get additional expensive appointments to use up your time and pecuniary resources (all of which involve levels of destruction from mild drilling to teeth pulling), with a possible helping of painful humiliation thrown in.

It is taken as axiomatic that they cannot make a poorly tooth healthy again, and some believe that root canal treatments are destructive of your body's electrical circuitry, possibly

2026-06-25

This tells us exactly what is wrong with our medical services - they are all based on premises that don't correspond with reality. They are then tied up by laws regulatory bodies and "standards of care" that are allegedly for our protection - they might indeed be for our protection were they to be based on the way that the body actually works, but in practice they serve to protect the pharmaceutical industry and their regulatory authorities - and to intimidate the public from going against the approved medical "advice".

"The human body is a portable electronic device"

2026-06-23

I suppose that this is yet another article for those who have not yet got the message.

What is really in childhood inoculations?

And no, contaminants are not listed as ingredients because they are not supposed to be there...

2026-06-22

Well well, another month, another allergy.

But surely this is not like the peanut allergy? 

Or is it?

2026-06-21

We have all heard about the nasty peanut allergy that can cause anaphylaxis.

Is there a cure? Maybe not, but somebody can sell you a life-saving epi-pen...

So how does one become allergic to something like a common peanut?

"... injection produces sensitization where oral exposure does not" = "eating it is OK, injecting it is not"

So who would be daft enough to inject peanut protein into themselves or others?

"Each injection delivers aluminum paired with foreign proteins"

Well, it's a long story, but maybe by now you can hazard a

2026-06-18

For those who still believe the persuasive narrative that Big Pharma (and "our" NHS) has saved us all from death and ill health, steel yourself to watch this film from Del Bigtree (yes of course he's American) via our own NOTONTHEBEEB.

Del has been at the forefront of independent journalists questioning the "received wisdom" that jabs for the pre-ill (ie: healthy!) are a boon for mankind and not just for Big-Pharma-Big-Government profits/revolving-doors. 

(82 minutes)

For much more in similar vein see our

2026-06-15

When we visit the doctor, we expect care that will make us well. Even merely care that is more likely than not to do us no harm.

The article featured here is relevant to the situation in the USA, whilst the situation in the UK differs if we choose care from the NHS. In the USA suing your doctor doesn't automatically mean taking on the government, so is more practicable in theory.

But the spells woven by the words are... interesting, depending upon who exactly is interpreting their precise meaning... meaning that may vary according to the assumptions of the interpreter.

Read well, become informed.