Drug regulation – How does it work?

31st December 2022

Before laying into the drug regulators, and their inexorable move towards the dark side, I thought I should try to explain a bit more about who decides what drugs should be used, and for what conditions.

Yes, I know, for most people this appears simple. The Federal Drugs Administration (FDA), in the US, or the European Medicines Agency (EMA), for the European Union, approve drugs for use in human beings, and that’s pretty much that.

Other countries have their own drug evaluation agencies, but l have no intention of looking at them in any detail. Also, if the FDA and EMEA approve drugs, then they are pretty much waved through elsewhere. A statement that will no doubt be assailed by various parties but I stand by it.

In short, if these two big agencies say a drug is safe – and effective enough – it is given their stamp of approval. It is then allowed to be prescribed … pretty much worldwide. Therefore, yes, the FDA/EMA represent the first hurdle that needs to be cleared, or your drug is going nowhere.

However, this once formidable hurdle has been hammered down into an almost unnoticeable speed bump, sitting about one inch above the ground. To quote from Forbes magazine – as far back as 2015 ‘The FDA Is Basically Approving Everything. Here’s The Data To Prove It.’ 1

‘In 2008, companies asked for 134 approvals and got 75 of them, a 56% approval rate. That rate hovered steady in 2009 and 2010, and then rose to about 70% in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Last year it jumped to 77%, with 97 out of 126 requests for approval coming back positive. This year’s approval rate? It was 88%…

in reality, the FDA approval rate is more like 96%. Eliminating BioMedTracker’s counting of multiple uses for the same drug means FDA approved 23 drugs and rejected 1, Merck ’s anesthesia antidote, Bridion. Again, that means 19 of 20 new drug applications were approved.’

Drug companies have long since worked out how to neutralise the FDA and EMA. Which means that the big effort, nowadays, is made in working with other, increasingly important ‘agencies’, to achieve three main things:

  • Market expansion
  • New indications for use
  • Co-opting ‘your’ drugs into the guidelines

I think of FDA approval as establishing the initial bridgehead in a seaborne invasion. Once you have landed, you can then spread out to take over the rest of the country. This has become a massive and resource intensive exercise and involves many other different ‘agencies’ that need to be brought to heel.

In the UK, for example, a clear second barrier to drug use is (or more accurately ‘was’) the National Institute for Clinical and Health Excellence (NICE). This ‘agency’ was set up to decide if a drug, or other medical intervention, provided good value for money.

If not, NICE said no, and the drug would not be approved. Doctors could still prescribe such drugs, but it was much frowned upon, and could result in various sanctions.

When it started, in 1999, NICE decreed that no healthcare intervention should cost more than thirty thousand pounds for each year of perfect quality life that it provided (approx. $40K). One year of perfect health is known as one quality adjusted life year (1 QALY). Calculating QALYs is fraught with assumptions and models, and suchlike, which I am not going into here.

Where did this thirty thousand figure come from? The truth is that was plucked from thin air. Strangely, this figure has never increased, in well over twenty years. It is inflation proof. It is also endlessly flexible. Think of it as the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. You know it is there, but it can never truly be seen, or pinned down. This allows for endless fudging to take place, depending on how the media and politicians react to their decisions.

The first ever judgement of NICE was to turn down the anti-flu drug Relenza. I think it was just to show how ruthless and anti-industry they were going to be. A flag rammed into the ground. ‘We own this territory.’ This caused the CEO of Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) to hurl his toys out of the pram. Various drug companies sent a letter to Tony Blair, the Prime Minster at the time:

“We warned that NICE’s activities could have worldwide repercussions for sales of the medicines concerned and that it could send out deeply damaging signals about the future rewards for innovation. We received repeated assurances from Ministers and from Sir Michael Rawlins (head of the NICE) that our concerns were well understood and that NICE would not operate as a fourth hurdle for new medicines. The landmark ruling on Relenza makes it crystal clear that our worst fears were fully justified,” it said.

The letter went on: “the emergence of NICE as a new obstacle to market entry serves to wipe out, at a stroke, a key element of the UK’s competitive advantage in the global pharmaceutical industry. It is self-evident that any savings to the NHS resulting from restricting access to new medicines will be insignificant when set alongside the potential loss of the UK’s current international standing in the pharmaceutical industry.”

“Much damage has already been done by NICE’s recommendation….the government must act swiftly now to limit and repair the damage by making clear that its response to NICE will take full account of the wider implications of its activities and that new medicines approved by the MCA will continue to have immediate access to the NHS,” said Dr McKillop.2

I think GSK threatened to pull out of the UK altogether. In the medical world we call the ‘I am going to scweam and scweam and scweam until I am sick, sick, sick.’ business strategy.

However, it did not take long before the industry ceased their pitiful screaming and realised the NICE could be one of their most valuable assets. How so? Primarily because other countries do not really have a NICE equivalent, and many of them look to the judgements of NICE for guidance. If NICE say yes, then they will almost always say yes as well. Bingo.

Ergo, if you manage to get NICE to say that your drug it not only safe and effective, but also cost-effective. This opens the doors worldwide. The market is yours. And so, inevitably, NICE has gone the way of the FDA. They now approve, pretty much everything. Increasingly, they don’t even bother to let anyone know how they worked out their figures.

For example, we can take a look at the drug Inclisiran. This is a cholesterol lowering injectable drug, known as a PCSK9-Inhibitor. A number of different PCSK-9 inhibitors have reached the market recently. They all lower cholesterol (LDL) more than statins – hooray (or perhaps not). They are all, also, mind-bogglingly more expensive.

A year’s supply of a statin now costs about thirty pounds (forty dollars) per year. At least it does in the UK. On the other hand, a one-year supply of a PCSK-9 inhibitor costs around five thousand. Some cost a bit more, some less. However, they are all at least one hundred times more expensive than statins, more like two hundred.

I once idly calculated that if everyone taking a statin were to move over to a PCSK9- Inhibitor instead, it would cost the NHS around sixty billion pounds a year. Which would mean cancelling almost all other activities. Hip replacements … you must be joking, no money left for that nonsense. Cholesterol lowering is what the NHS now does. And nothing else!

At this point you might be asking yourself. How could a drug with very few additional ‘benefits’ to a statin possibly manage to get approved by NICE? How did anyone manage to work this one out? You may be glad to know that I am not going to go through all the complicated trial results, calculations and suchlike here.

But you can, if you wish, read it all for yourself in the ‘evidence’ section of the NICE report on Inclisiran. All two hundred and forty-three pages of it. And good luck with that.3  

Over the years these NICE reports have become utterly bonkers. They are now so long, so jargon filled, with statistics filling the air. They are also so very, very, very, boring. Some may say that this is a strategy used to stop any objections to their decisions. Primarily, because no-one could possibly be bothered reading the damned thing. Bullshit baffles brains.

Little do they know that I occasionally rouse myself to look at NICE reviews in detail. Even though some parts are beyond me. Here is one very brief example of jargon-filled obfuscation taken from page sixty-five of the Inclisiran report:

‘The time-adjusted percentage change in LDL-C from baseline after Day 90 and up to Day 540 was calculated from the MMRM. Linear combinations of the estimated means after Day 90 and up to Day 540 were used to compare treatment effects.

Treatment effects from these 100 MMRM analyses were then combined using Rubin’s Method (100) via the SAS PROC MIANALYZE procedure. The difference in the least squares means between treatment groups and corresponding two-sided 95% CI was provided for hypothesis testing.’

  • The MMRM analyses?
  • Rubin’s method?
  • The SAS PROC MIANALYZE procedure?

Search me guv.

To be honest I tend to skim these parts. This is on the basis that I have better things to do with my life than find out what the SAS PROC MIANALYZE procedure might be. Instead, I spend my time searching for the key facts that have been hidden away. The secret to the magic trick. The ‘Prestige.’

As with all magic tricks:

“The first part is called “The Pledge”. The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course … it probably isn’t.”

“The second act is called “The Turn”. The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you’re looking for the secret … but you won’t find it, because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know how it, say, disappeared. You want to be fooled.”

“But you wouldn’t clap yet. Because making something disappear isn’t enough; you have to bring it back. That’s why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call The Prestige.” 4

Where was the ‘Prestige’ with Inclisiran? I knew it was hidden somewhere deep within those two hundred and forty-three pages. My attention designed to be cunningly diverted by such things as the SAS PROC MIANALYZE procedure. Say what? My first clue as to where the Prestige lies can be found is on page one hundred and six (see below).

Just look at those thick black lines. Yes, here is a report by a tax-payer funded Government agency. But we are not allowed to see critical data. Such as, how many participants in the trial suffered an adverse event. Nor how many discontinued the drug and – perhaps most critically – how many died. Really, they are keeping all this a secret? Yes, indeed, they are. Here is another page I thought you might enjoy. It is page 112. It is a belter. All the information you need in one critical table

Oh no, it’s all been redacted – again. After this point there is page after page, after page, of black text and thick black lines. What does it actually say beneath the censored information?

We’re in the money

Come on, my honey

Let’s spend it, lend it,

Send it rolling around!

Moving on, the single most important thing for us to know, from a NICE report, is the following?

Is Inclisiran cost-effective? Or, to put it another way, can it provide more than 1QALY for each thirty thousand pounds it costs? In addition, can it really be that much more effective than statins. [In my opinion, nothing is more effective than statins. So, use nothing].

This, then, is the central NICE question. Is Inclisiran cost-effective, or not. I cannot answer this question, and nor can you – or anyone else outside NICE. Why not, you may ask. Well, to answer this question I present you with, but one small section, that looks at the cost-effectiveness of Inclisiran.

In this case cost-effectiveness on the treatment of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

As you can see… you can’t see anything. You are not allowed to. This table can be found on page 211 by the way. Quite astonishingly, all the information on costs has been redacted. This table is followed by many other with all the figures redacted. How as this happened? Because Novartis will not allow NICE to show it to you.

What is the point of doing all this work, and publishing this enormous document, if all the critical information is to be kept secret? Kept secret from the very people who pay for all the damned work. NICE is taxpayer funded, its calculations should be transparent, and its decisions should be transparent. But they are not.

The simple fact is that the pharmaceutical industry has learned how to control NICE. It has become, like the FDA and the EMA, a ‘captured’ agency. On the outside it pretends to be a fully independent scourge of the pharmaceutical agency. In reality it does exactly what it is told – by the pharmaceutical industry.

In this case, the crowd goes wild, as the magician demonstrates his Inclisiran trick.

‘Ladies and gentlemen, here is a PCSK-9 inhibitor called Inclisiran. Look at it closely. Yes, examine it any way you like (note to self, make sure they don’t actually look at anything after page 100). It costs…. What does it cost Madam. Why cost is not the issue. What matters is whether or not it is cost-effective. Am I right, madam? My, your dress is so beautiful, and your hair. If I may say magnificent.’

Woman nods and smiles.

‘Yes, you may be thinking … how can this drug possibly be cost-effective?’ Well, let me place this drug into the sealed box that we call NICE evaluation. Yes madam, a most impressive box indeed. Stamped with approval by, well, everyone. Yes, madam, everyone.’

Magician places Inclisiran into black box.

‘Now, we just need some money…. I shall stuff two million pounds into the box …

Magician stuffs the box with money, then shakes it.

‘Hey presto.’ He opens the box. ‘Yes, as you can see Inclisiran is, indeed, cost-effective. Yes sir, it is indeed, magic … what’s that, you would like to see into the box yourself. Sorry, sir, we have to keep some of our secrets to ourself …. Yes, officer, if you could just take that gentleman out and arrest him for some reason or another…’

Nowadays, the tentacles of the pharmaceutical (and medical devices industry) wrap around far more agencies than just the FDA and EMA. And is not just NICE. It is the medical societies, the opinion leaders, the charities and – let us not forget – the politicians. All are caught up its deadly embrace. No-one escapes. If they do, they immediately become a conspiracy theorist.

In the next episode I shall turn my attention to the Universities, and those who work in them. Here lies, perhaps, the greatest source of power. A place where money can be converted into both academic and medical authority. Increasingly backed up by the force of law.

1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2015/08/20/the-fda-is-basically-approving-everything-heres-the-data-to-prove-it/?sh=4dfb8edb5e0a

2: https://www.thepharmaletter.com/article/uk-s-nice-turns-nasty-rejecting-glaxo-wellcome-s-anti-flu-drug-relenza

3: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta733/evidence/committee-papers-pdf-9258232573 4: https://observer.com/2020/09/the-prestige-christopher-nolan-magic-trick/

261 thoughts on “Drug regulation – How does it work?

  1. VeryVer

    If we threw all the drugs into the ocean tomorrow, would any of us be worse off? Which drugs would you keep if you could only have 5? Insulin? Penicillin?

    Reply
    1. Dave

      Ivermectin, HCQ, metformin and aspirin seem useful, and ultra-cheap.
      Very useful once industrial civilisation fails to function in the efficient way it did in the late 20th.C.

      Many blogs on this are available, a good one being ‘Our Finite World’ by Gail Tverberg, a retired actuary. Sorry to go off-topic.

      Reply
    2. Vivo

      Let us not do that. I recently talked to a lady who works at a Dutch water company, she told me ‘people do not realize how much they pollute the water with by only flushing their toilet’. So on top of that all medicine finally end up polluting our environment!

      Reply
    3. Eggs ‘n beer

      Personally? The only drugs our extended family of 27 use (ages 9-91) are lamotrigine and levetiracetam, for epilepsy, and methotrexate for RA. And we’re not sure that the levetiracetam is doing any good. The RA sufferer was on HCQ for 20 years until November when her quack took her off it, bingo, Covid in December. So add HCQ, and ivermectin which several of us took in the last couple of years or so.

      Globally would have to include HCQ, ivermectin, insulin.

      Reply
        1. Eggs ‘n beer

          Thanks Harry. We’ve tried several diets, but it is almost certainly a result of scar tissue after an operation to partially remove a meningioma (benign brain tumour); that is, a physical problem rather than a chemical imbalance.

          Reply
          1. Harry de Boer

            It was not a personal recommendation rather than a suggestion for your list of non-mainstream treatments. Cheers.

        1. lorrainecleaver7

          Brooke Jackson, the Pfizer whistleblower, shared this document today on Twitter. It explains the blank Vaccine insert and lack of informed consent among many other things! https://bailiwicknewsarchives.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/2022.12.19-six-key-statutes-creating-adbp.pdf
          To the extent that “use” of Covid-19 products after Feb. 04, 2020 “shall not constitute clinical
          investigation,” use of such products is authorized even if there is no safety or efficacy data, even
          if such products are toxic and ineffective.
          Investigators, researchers, physicians, nurses, pharmacists and other individuals involved in
          product dispensing, use, or administration to human beings apparently have had and today have
          no legal obligations to comply with laws and regulations that applied previously to use of
          experimental, investigational, unapproved or approved biological products or devices, including
          compliance with informed consent laws, medical monitoring of recipients during product use and
          post-administration monitoring and reporting of adverse effects.
          Recipients of such products are not legally recognized as experimental subjects or patients
          receiving experimental, authorized or approved products, because “use” of the products “shall not
          constitute clinical investigation.” There is no stopping condition, because there is no legallyrelevant “clinical investigation” to be stopped.
          On the basis of a self-declared “public health emergency” and self-declared classification of
          products as “emergency use medical countermeasures,” including an unreviewable determination
          as to the relative risks posed by a communicable pathogen as compared to “medical
          countermeasure” products, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can suspend informed
          consent obligations and rights, on behalf of the entire American population.
          “Vaccinators” are thereby authorized by the HHS Secretary to withhold information about product
          ingredients; vial contents; potential individual risks and benefits based on individual health
          conditions; treatment alternatives; and the option to accept or refuse the products.

          Reply
  2. Sally Johns Green

    This all being so, I ask a question that really doesn’t need to be asked. The answer to it is surely “ you can’t”. The question is “ how are we able to trust any medication that we are prescribed?” Which leads me on to a second question. How do we know what is high blood pressure? Off message, I know, but part of the whole smoke and mirrors sketch….Surely the Pharmas wouldn’t tell us a falsely low figure to aspire to, just to boost their profits? Probably ditto with an awful lot of “managed” conditions?

    Reply
    1. Ben the Layabout

      I no longer trust my doctors. A certain amount of investigation revealed that taking baby aspirin, statin and hypertension medications (primary prevention) yield annualized reduction of all-cause death by about 0.03%, 0.07% and 0.18% respectively.

      Reply
    2. cavenewt

      “Surely the Pharmas wouldn’t tell us a falsely low figure to aspire to, just to boost their profits? Probably ditto with an awful lot of “managed” conditions?”

      I’m not sure whether to assume your question is rhetorical or ironic. Have you noticed how they keep lowering the acceptable LDL level to push more statins? Have you noticed how they have suppressed information about treating diabetes with lifestyle changes rather than a permanent dependence on insulin?

      Have you noticed that it has now been normalized that we assume that as we age we have to be on more and more prescription medications?

      I’ve lost the reference, but I was once reading an industry magazine where it actually quoted a pharmaceutical executive saying that they could cure MS tomorrow, but that would interfere with a very profitable income stream. What shocked me was not what he said, but that he said it out loud.

      Reply
      1. Sally Johns Green

        A nurse I know had recently attended a workshop on diabetes management. The keynote speaker was a Pharma “expert “. He was plugging medication, an audience member asked him “surely we can make lifestyle changes to help deal with diabetes?” Nurse friend told me she’d never seen anyone silenced and overruled so fast. Ruining his agenda, the naughty questioner.

        Reply
        1. cavenewt

          The more people who speak up and push back, the less they will be able to get away with this kind of merde. Pardon my French.

          Reply
        2. Paul Fruitbat

          Diabetes Unpacked: Just Science and Sense. No Sugar Coating (1 Aug. 2017)
          by Prof Tim Noakes, Jason Fung MD, Nina Teicholz, Malcolm Kendrick MD, Zoë Harcombe PhD, Robert Cywes MD, Jeff Gerber MD, Ivor Cummins, David Unwin MD, Caryn Zinn PhD.

          In “The Clot Thickens” Dr Kendrick explains that diabetes consists of too much glucose in the bloodstream with nowhere to go. Hence, the solution is twofold: exercise to use up as much of the glucose as possible, and stop eating carbs to prevent any more from getting in.

          “What can you do to reduce insulin resistance, lower your blood sugar levels – and thus protect your endothelium?

          “Well, whatever the underlying cause, there are essentially two ways to get the blood sugar level down and keep it down.

          “* Burn up the stores of sugar in your body.

          “* Avoid refilling the stores”.

          – “The Clot Thickens”, page 223 near the bottom.

          As you would expect of Dr Kendrick, marvellously simple, straightforward, and without qualifications or reservations.

          Reply
  3. lorrainecleaver7

    I rather optimistically signed up to be a stakeholder in the new NICE guidelines on thyroid disease. Schlepped all the way to London by trains, planes and automobiles only to discover it’s as pointless, nefarious and mind boggingly dull as you say. And entirely on purpose. Look over there, not over here. I could actually smell the foregone conclusion as I entered the room. The sandwiches were the only thing going for it.

    Reply
    1. Steph

      The way that thyroid patients are treated in this country is beyond despicable, especially if they do not respond when treated with levothyroxine alone. I am one of those who was “advised ” to by my own liothyronine from the internet as it was far too expensive for the NHS to prescribe, ( currently around £90 per month ).
      I have a defective gene which results in me being able to convert Levothyroxine into the active hormone , liothyronine, my consultant knows this and my GP knows this but neither will agree to prescribe it for me due to first cost and secondly belligerence ( because I bought it for myself, on the suggestion of the consultant .)
      NHS consultants started de-prescribing this medication when the pharmaceutical inflate the price by around 6000%, and despite the price falling from around £300 per month to around £90 per month ( still extortionate for a drug that can be bought over the counter in pharmacies in Europe for around 3-4 Euros per month) consultants still will not prescribe .
      The whole system in this country stinks, I have no more words for the parlous situation we are in at present, I am beginning to think that there must be a shed load of money being made in keeping us ill.

      Reply
      1. lorrainecleaver7

        I hear you Steph. On the other hand, the beauty of us being treated so horrifically with thyroid disease is that, when the plandemic rolled around, we were more than ready to see through the machinations…I certainly was. I’m dismayed at the thousands of thyroid patients I helped, who knew the system was corrupt, yet run to the queue for an emergency use vaccine for a disease they were at scant risk from. It was ever thus.

        Reply
        1. Harry de Boer

          Exactly this. Having experienced a crisis in the trust in the medical system is very helpful in recognising the games they are playing over and over again.

          Reply
      2. barovsky

        I too am one of the minority 1/3rd or so who don’t convert T4 to T3 too well but can’t get T3 (or NDT) via the NHS tho the NHS claim 3-5,000 patients do, we’re just not one them. It’s a gigantic ripoff even tho, the cost of T3 is well below the £30,000 annual ceiling on drug costs according to QALY. What’s that all about?

        Reply
    2. Ben the Layabout

      Sounds sort of like jury duty in America. I believe we got a sandwich, a can of soda and $15. I hadn’t worked for fifteen years and one obligatory day of paid work blew a perfect record 😏

      Reply
  4. Frederica Huxley

    I would imagine that a substantial amount of funding for NICE, as for FDA, comes from the pharmaceutical companies. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.

    Reply
  5. David Webb

    As ever, very enlightening. I am interested to know what Dr Kendrick think of Whitty’s comments today, in respect of excess heart failure in middle age folk being down to not having access to Statins during the lock down.

    Reply
    1. Ben the Layabout

      That is a new one on me. I guess inability or fear to seek routine care, climate change, winter vagina, institutional racism, and digging in the garden no longer were working, eh? (I may have missed a few.)

      Reply
    2. Jennifer price

      Even more what Dr Malhotra thinks of witless comments. How to get the Mob called to account is the biggest question now.

      Reply
    3. Joyce

      Hopefully it’ll deflect attention away from fact that an excessive number of unexplained deaths, (way above average) , have been attributed to certain virtually untested vaccines. Beginning to think I’m living in fantasy land! Maybe it’s just the after effects of last night lol.

      Reply
  6. VeryVer

    Thanks Malcolm, I always look forward to “hearing” from you. I’ll put in another plug here for publishing this blog on Substack –primarily because the comment section is so much more user friendly. It’s free, but it also has the ability for you to charge for subscriptions should you become unemployed, AND it’s where all the very coolest “conspiracy theorists” hang out.

    WordPress will send me an email if ANYONE comments on the blog, which is just hundreds and hundreds of emails…Therefore I don’t use that function, and i miss out…Substack has the ability to send an email if there is a comment to just one of my own comments — much more manageable.

    Reply
    1. cavenewt

      I second the recommendation to use Substack.

      As for non-Substack comment notifications, I get notified of changes to a specific page – in this case Malcolm’s article page which also includes the comments — via blogtrottr.com. It also works well for Google blogs like Hyperlipid.

      Reply
    1. Paul Fruitbat

      When you think about it (for about 5 seconds) you realise that “value for money” is more or less the exact inverse of profit.

      Therefore Big Pharma prefers the lowest value for money it can get away with.

      Of course, for those many drugs that do more harm than good, “value for money” is always negative.

      Reply
  7. Dave

    Wonderful post Malcolm. One other snippet I have observed. Some of the officials in these outfits like NICE do very occasionally raise their concerns, but it is usually when they are safe from reprisals that otherwise surely follow. I noted that the last head of NICE posted a paper as or shortly after he retired. In summary, it said that he was concerned at the excessive control that big Pharma had over NICE (the organisation he was in charge of until very recently). I won’t spelt out what I think of such a position; everyone can take their own personal view (at least for a while until the thought police outlaw such things). To support this comment with evidence, I wanted to find the article/paper but have been unable. As I recall, it was published or I read it shortly before the nonsense started in late 2019 or early 2020. I would love it if anyone could find that source

    Reply
    1. Paul Fruitbat

      Yes. “Retirement Truth Syndrome” is definitely a thing nowadays. Retired executives, scientists, doctors, generals, admirals, civil servants, and politicians are good – though intermittent and unreliable – sources of inconvenient truth.

      Reply
  8. Shaun Clark

    The lunatics are running the asylum(s), and Parliament, Congress, the Senate, Russia etc., etc. We will not get it back. Well, not in our lifetime. The chancers have all become beholden to the Gatesian WEF death-cult’s, and the sleazy binding strings of world-wide gravy-trains. Epstein? Who?

    Reply
  9. Paul Fruitbat

    In effect, what it boils down to is that we – the British public – are being asked (told) to trust NICE.

    I would rather trust a hungry crocodile with a sniper rifle.

    Reply
    1. Paul Fruitbat

      John, your comment highlights one of the worst dilemmas of our time: to do unto, or to be done unto.

      The New Testament tells us that it is far better to be done unto, and I must admit to revulsion at the thought of joining the looters, cheats and robbers.

      Mind you, the Old Testament advises us to get our retaliation in first.

      Reply
  10. dearieme

    The great trouble I have with this sort of blog post is which bookmark folder to assign it to. I have settled for “Doctors and bureaucrats and frauds doing harm”.

    One thought: doesn’t the sort of nonsense you describe tend to corrupt the people who work for pharma companies, government regulators, and so on? How can they live with themselves? When everything is a scam how can you avoid becoming a scammer?

    Reply
    1. robertL

      How can they live with themselves?
      That is a good question.
      Perhaps because the money is good too? or perhaps “… … too good?”

      Reply
      1. Ben the Layabout

        “What have the preachers of morality not dreamt concerning the inner ‘misery’ of evil men! What lies have they not told us about the misfortunes of impassioned men! Yes, lying is here the right world: they were only too well aware of the overflowing happiness of this kind of man…”
        — Nietzche, from The Joyful Wisdom

        Reply
    2. Paul Fruitbat

      “One thought: doesn’t the sort of nonsense you describe tend to corrupt the people who work for pharma companies, government regulators, and so on?”

      That would be like moistening the ocean, or corrupting a century-old corpse.

      As the highly intelligent and perceptive SF writer Frank Herbert observed in “Chapterhouse Dune”,

      “All governments suffer a recurring problem: [p]ower attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted”.

      That of course applies equally to corporations, which governments are rapidly coming to resemble.

      Reply
  11. Jeremy May

    Terrific and terrifying.

    Are you saying Statins are the best, most cost-effective drug, in the few instances where they may actually do any good?

    Reply
    1. 186no

      I think Dr MK says it all with this comment from above: “In my opinion, nothing is more effective than statins. So, use nothing”

      His skill in irony is undiminished methinks

      Reply
      1. Gary Ogden

        186no: I must say, this is one of Dr. Kendrick’s best. The sparkle in his eye is back! The Augean stables every bit as filthy as ever, but now the stench is worldwide.

        Reply
      2. Ben the Layabout

        I admire his droll humor. If it got any drier we’d all be desiccated to dust and swept away by the next breeze. You UKans have the gift of a tart tongue.
        Countless examples exist. One of my favorites is from one of The Who’s recordings. They were on, I think, the Ed Sullivan show and Ed asks Keith Moon something like “Are you Keith?” His reply is “My friends call me Keith, you can call me John.” 🤩

        Reply
        1. Paul Fruitbat

          Dr Kendrick’s humour reminds me of Jonathan Swift, Tom Lehrer, Gore Vidal… and a number of other great satirists. As Alexander Pope put it in his “Essay on Criticism”,

          “True wit is nature to advantage dressed,
          What oft was thought, but ne’er so well expressed”.

          Reply
    2. Ben the Layabout

      You dare desecrate one of the most profitable to Pharma
      widely used public health interventions in the world, that can boast extending the average patient’s lifespan by as much as several days? 🤡

      Reply
  12. Jackie Defelice

    Thanks for that insight, I think. I don’t know anyone who will get in to a conversation abour your blogs but I love them and appreciate your dedication. We, the general public carry on life oblivious, such mere mortals know nothing, except for those of us following you 🙂 Corruption to the core of society, power, greed and wastefulness. It’s mind boggling and more to come.

    Reply
  13. Gary Ogden

    Thank you, Dr. Kendrick. Even the speed bumps are gone now, and the skids are greased. What would we do without Pharma keeping us so healthy? The consequences would be dire. By the way, it is the “Food and Drug Administration,” not that it matters a whit. We could laugh them into oblivion, but they’ve killed comedy. We can’t throw them out of office because we didn’t put them there in the first place. We’re screwed. Might as well eat, drink, and be merry.

    Reply
  14. squirrel pie

    This article reminds me of another related issue – research ethics committees.
    You might expect reviews of proposed medical experiments to be public, and especially perhaps the decisions as to who may or may not be allowed on clinical trials. But not only are such reviews not published, but pretty much everything to do with the committees is secret. Why? Oh, that’s secret!

    Reply
      1. Marcia T

        dearieme – That must be how Fauci’s wife managed to get any sleep during the last – what? – 45 years while married to Tony. She is, after all:
        Christine Grady . . . the chief of the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center.
        Talk about gobsmacked!

        Reply
    1. johnsymes

      Secrecy is not really the main issue with ethics committees. As the name suggests, the main function is concerns is the ethics of what is proposed. Contrary to what you might suggest by ‘allowed onto clinical trials’ all the participants will be voluntary and have to give consent. The design of the trial will almost certainly specify the entry criteria, mainly to remove potential confounding factors and variation. The drawback is that the tighter the restriction for admission, the less generalisable will be the results and conclusion.
      First problem I found with some ethics committees, but not all, is whether they should assess the scientific validity of the study, ie will it produce any useful results at all. This may be because it is just such a trivial question, incorrect statistics, inadequate power etc.
      Second, and a much greater problem in the past, is that ethics committees assessing drug company trials did not insist that the investigators completely own the data, the data would be always be published and the company had no oversight at all. The main way the medical evidence base was corrupted was missing data – the company would do a trial, not like the outcome and then just bury the data. The involvement of the patients who gave their consent to augment the medical data base were basically mislead.

      Reply
      1. cavenewt

        I’m currently reading Bad Pharma, and the entire first chapter is about missing data, in which ethics committees play a significant part. The author Ben Goldacre gives many examples.

        Bad PharmaI was published in 2012. I can’t help thinking that Covid has been like gasoline on a fire, and it would be nice to see an updated edition.

        Reply
  15. Jerome savage

    June Raine of the medicines & health regulatory agency, not so much admitted, more boasted, that their job was to “enable” entry to the market of new chemicals from the pharmaceutical industry. But, she added, they were very thorough in their examination of the said products before they licensed them. Dr Dean Patterson cardiologist & head of the medical specialist group referred to licensing fee income from pharma amounting to 85% of MHRA income – on the richie allen radio programme recently.
    What ever happened to conflict of interest ?

    Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      Jerome: Is Ms. Raines admitting to having read all 162 gazillion pages of the product submissions? If so, she has certainly earned her salary, but, unfortunately, not our trust. She must be a glutton for punishment.

      Reply
      1. Jerome savage

        I suspect Gary, that the hard work of checking all that data will hav been entrusted to her dedicated staff who in turn will trust their paymasters, sorry – licensees. Delegation as a cover for abdication, no doubt.

        Reply
        1. Gary Ogden

          Jerome: I suspect the only folks who read that crap are those who wrote it (and little bits of it, Dr. Kendrick to make a point). Think of the trees who gave their lives for all that paper!

          Reply
  16. AhNotepad

    It’s comforting to know there are bodies such as the FDA and NICE (such a nice name too) ensuring that the drug manufacturers’ private commercial information is protected. We can surely trust them to do everything necessary to ensure they are not disturbed from their feeding frenzy.

    Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      AhNotepad: It just dawned on me, shouldn’T NICE actually be NICHE? Is it because NICE sounds NICER? The funniest but creepiest part of this post is that EVERYTHING is redacted! Is this national defense information? Secrets of the Realm (well, yes)?

      Reply
      1. Dave

        Well if you look on other blogs the COVID response seems to be directed by the US DoD and not by pharma, CDC or FDA.

        In the UK, a ‘Health Security Agency’ replaced ‘Public Health England’ in 2021. Equally fishy?

        Not so much the ‘deep state’ to me as an all-embracing fascist state. Simon Elmer, who’s written a book on this, gave a good interview to James Delingpole. Maybe Dr Kendrick should do the same, because I’m not sure JD is fully aware of the medical angle to this.

        Reply
        1. Gary Ogden

          Dave: My current view about the clown show is that it is a Pentagon operation gone awry (they are just as good as any other agency at shooting themselves in the foot; actually, better because they have more sophisticated weapons). We do know two things factually: 1. The DoD contracted with Pfizer and Moderna to produce this poison, and they (the DoD) retain ownership of the vials until they are empty; and 2. Fauci redirected his second-in-command, who was on his way to Japan for a conference in February, 2020, to go to China instead. He, in turn came back and told Fauci we should copy the CCP response. Very interesting conversation recently on Rounding the Earth between Mathew Crawford (RTE) and Jonathan Cooey (biologist). It seems that “gain-of-function” is biologically impossible, and what Ralph Baric at UNC did a decade or more ago was to figure out “gain-of-purity,” making the coronavirus more infectious after being released into populations (though not necessarily more lethal).

          Reply
      2. Mike C

        Erm… actually it would be NIHCE.

        Another question would be for which Nation is it the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence?

        (For the avoidance of doubt I’m poking fun at the ridiculous divisions between the health and other systems of the Nations which make up the United Kingdom.)

        Many thanks for another informative blog post Dr Kendrick

        Reply
        1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

          It began life as the National Institute for Cost Effectiveness. But that seemed a bit cold-hearted. So it turned into the National Institute for Care Excellence. Not a lot of people know that. But I do. I put together their first web site for them. There was a time when I thought that NICE could be a good thing. Then I realised that it could not.

          Reply
    2. Aileen

      AhNotepad, there was another NICE (actually not very nice) in CS Lewis’ “That Hideous Strength”, written in the ’50s. It foreshadows rather a lot of today’s shenanigans.

      Reply
  17. Susan

    Thank you for this article Dr. Kendrick. It is thanks to you over these many years, that I have managed to escape the allure of of some of the “medicines” that are supposed to benefit me. You, primarily, are the writer who has moved me to question and research my physician’s pharmaceutical suggestions, and I have often declined their “expert” advice. I read all the medical inserts before taking any medications. As there was no insert provided for the Covid vaccine I was not inclined to submit to that experiment. Also, you make reading any medical article from you enjoyable. Have a splendid week, and I look forward to your next installment.

    Reply
  18. Steph

    Many thanks Dr Kendrick for your astute observations, wishing you and yours a great 2023, keep your posts coming they are a respite in this insane world of modern medicine.

    Reply
  19. klbosse88

    Great article and good work reporting it to us … the victims of Pharma. I have to fight off Cholesterol Drugs at each office visit to Cardiology. My answer is NO every time. I got kicked out of one Cardio Practice for no reason at all. My complaint to the proper abency went on deft ears. At the present time I am upset about Xarelto because of Afib, I am taking that faulty research, expensive pill every day. I am at witts end over the whole Pharma Business. Thanks again for your fine report .. I am in your court. Kathryn Bosse Gilbert AZ USA

    Reply
    1. Baillsruth

      Mind boggling. Thank you once again for your informative blog. Shocking what these evil people are getting away with and as a result destroying peoples lives, one pill or jab at a time.

      Reply
  20. Sharon

    A fellow warrior

    Just in case you haven’t connected.
    I do look forward to your monthly missive. Thank you for your dauntlessness.
    Happy New Year from Canada

    Reply
  21. Iain

    The redacted report is by a Government agency. Surely a Freedman of Information request for the report in full would be released. If anything is in the public interest this must be it.

    Reply
  22. GeB

    Well, the latest BNF will tell you how cost effective treatments really are, especially those for Ca and HIV… I remember looking up, 10 years ago, a drug (pure poison imo)given to a patient at the stroke unit, who was so out of it and could not give consent about anything and had “tested” positive for HIV- a little bottle IV 100mls of it cost over £3000 and they had been prescribed 2 a day for g to he rest of their days.
    God help those who end up in a hospital, it has really turned into Hell there 💔

    Reply
  23. An Italian Australian at the Tropics

    Is there a way to subscribe to the comments without having to leave a silly comment like this one? 🙂

    Reply
      1. An Italian Australian at the Tropics

        Thank you, I’m already using a software for RSS feeds, and I get the new posts, but I can’t find a way to subscribe to new comments on posts without leaving a comment myself.

        Most of the time this only adds to the noise, I don’t really have anything meaningful to say.

        I’ll just write a comment with “thank you”, probably.

        Reply
        1. cavenewt

          Blogtrottr is *based* on RSS, but it’s different from an RSS feed. I can subscribe to just the comments on just this blog post, for example, without having had to make a comment first.

          The notifications come in the form of an email and can be real time or digest form.

          Reply
  24. Allan Donkin

    Dr. Malcolm, It seems Science has morphed into a nasty monster called Scientism which is money driven. I don’t know whether you have come across Dr. David Eifrig before, he was a practising eye surgeon in USA but now writes investment letters along with health advice. His views align strongly with yours as far as statins & cholesterol go. Attached is a link to his latest publication on heart disease: The Real Reason for Your Heart Disease Risk – Health and Wealth Bulletin

    | | | | | |

    |

    | | | | The Real Reason for Your Heart Disease Risk – Health and Wealth Bulletin

    Doc’s note: Heart disease is the leading cause of death among men and women in the… |

    |

    |

    Regards, Allan Donk

    Reply
      1. Wendy Armstrong

        Brilliant blog as always Dr K. Sadly even if we got them to pay attention I fear (am sure) politicians are infiltrated by big pharma too. The odd good guy like Andrew Bridgen will be dealt with. We need a grass roots movement and your articles are perfect for sharing and helping people wake up to the BS (bad science AND bullshit). Thank you for everything you do.

        Reply
        1. Mr Chris

          Wendy
          I am not opening a non sequitur here, but would be interested to hear why you think Andrew Bridgend is a good guy?

          Reply
          1. AhNotepad

            I don’t speak for Wendy, but I think Andrew Bridgend is a good guy as he has stood up to question, in parliament, the lies and deceit of the establishment via the politicians. The politicians who are largely blackmailed to do the bidding of the deep state, corporations, WEF and any number of others.

            Now, those who would have supported such biddings are calling on the deceived population to “rebuild trust in……………” (fill blanks with your choice). This is naive, it’s trust that has caused the problem. If people were not so trusting, and more questioning, we might not be in this mess.

            The Office of National Statistics has published information indicating 1 in 73 jabbed have died compared to 1 in 172 unjabbed. That’s quite a difference, and still we have captured celebrities labelling those who did not consent to get injected with a known toxic protein as criminal. https://expose-news.com/2022/10/12/government-publishes-horrifying-figures-on-covid-vaccine-deaths/

      2. Steve

        Just look at what happened with covid and how many people are now on statins. ‘They’ still trust politicians and the MSM and the powers that be know this.
        We care and we know what is happening but we are conspiracy nuts and will be ignored.
        We used to march and man barricades, things that really frighten politicians, but now we are all passive, writing letters and tweeting and other pointless activities.

        Reply
      3. Paul Fruitbat

        A reasonable reply if you accept the illusion of politics as it is given to us. However,

        1. Writing to MPs is useless. You may get a polite letter back, explaining (as if to a retarded 6-year-old) what the government policy is.

        2. Even if you could get an MP wholly on your side, she would be unable to get anything done. (Except to get herself deselected at the next election).

        3. Even if you could bring about the overhtrow of the government, all that would happen would be that it would be replaced by the “opposition”. Whose relevant policies are identical.

        I don’t like to be a wet blanket, but one must start with reality as it is. The political parties are in fact corporations with their own financial interests, which are served by doing the bidding of their paymasters – including Big Pharma. While I wouldn’t go quite as far as C. J. Hopkins, for example, we do live in a world ruled by corporate power.

        Reply
        1. Eggs ‘n beer

          Unfortunately yes, yes and yes.

          Knowing what the responses would be, but so that nobody could accuse me of not trying, I emailed my local member and the PM asking about the science behind the lockdowns and masks. The local member’s sidekick (a failed politician herself, mental age appears to be about six) replied with a pile of links to various studies and articles. When I replied that these links actually support my views, not the government’s, the reply was that if I don’t believe in their ‘science’, go away. After eight weeks I finally got a standard letter from the office of the deputy PM “Thank you for your enquiry blah blah etc rhubarb…” Rule 1. You cannot talk to anyone in charge. They are well protected by bureaucrats.

          Even when I managed to speak to my federal MP at a free coffee morning, he was attended by a trained medical practitioner who, to his credit, agreed that the each shot had a higher risk of an adverse event than the previous one, which visibly shook the MP. But when I started talking about the results of the clinical trials, he leapt in with their unreliability as a source of data …. ah yes, follow the science.

          For 2), try the House of Lords. They’re not prone to deselection, can say what they like to an empty house but at least it gets recorded in Hansard. Like Australia’s Senate which, although it’s an elected body, nobody understands the election process so you get all sorts of interesting people there.

          3) Yes. “It doesn’t matter who they vote for, a lizard always wins” Douglas Adams.

          How do we fix this?

          Eat sensibly. Fresh meat and vegetables. This harms the big food corporations like MacDonalds, Nestlé, Mars, Pepsi, Tate and Lyle, Mondalez (Cadbury Schweppes) etc.

          After three months of eating sensibly you’ll find you can probably give up your medications, or most of them. Which sticks it to Pfizer, AstraZeneca, J&J, Merck etc.

          Reply
          1. barovsky

            Our ‘democracy’ is irretrievably broken. It’s compromised not only by money but by the simple fact that the political class, the MPS and their handlers, are a business and their business is neoiberal capitalism. Thus the MPs by virtue of the simple fact that their ‘jobs’ depend on patronage, can’t perform their roles as representaives of the people. The entire edifice needs to be swept away but we know what that entails. William Morris had it right 130 years ago:

            “There — it sickens one to have to wade through this grimy sea of opportunism. What a spectacle of shuffling, lies, vacillation and imbecility does this Game Political offer to us? I cannot conclude without an earnest appeal to those Socialists, of whatever section, who may be drawn towards the vortex of Parliamentarism, to think better of it while there is yet time.

            “If we ally ourselves to any of the presen[t] parties they will only use us as a cat’s-paw; and on the other hand, if by any chance a Socialist slips through into Parliament, he will do so at the expense of leaving his principles behind him; he will certainly not be returned as a Socialist, but as something else; what else is hard to say. As I have written before in these columns, Parliament is going just the way we would have it go. Our masters are feeling very uncomfortable under the awkward burden of GOVERNMENT, and do not know what to do, since their sole aim is to govern from above. Do not let us help them by taking part in their game. Whatever concessions may be necessary to the progress of the Revolution can be wrung out of them at least as easily by extra-Parliamentary pressure, which can be exercised without losing one particle of those principles which are the treasure and hope of Revolutionary Socialists.” — William Morris, the Commonweal, Volume 1, Number 10, November 1885, p. 93.

      4. Joyce

        Many people care Malcolm. However, many more simply cannot digest the fact that those supposed to be our protectors, (for want of a better word) could possibly be lying to us. Who do we trust, when those we are brought up to respect, refuse point blank to demand PROOF of the safety of these vaccines they constantly demand we pump into our bodies? People are afraid and confused, hence the conflicting opinions, which in turn is causing the apathy. I see it more simply. If you research, and produce a “wonder drug”, surely having all the data, you are in a perfect position to PROVE its safety. This current lack of transparency says it all to me!
        Politicians? As trustworthy as Double Glazing Salesmen.

        Reply
      5. Roland Ayers

        Unfortunately, it is possible to gain social capital by declaring allegiance to supposedly caring institutions, without incurring any of the costs of actually caring. This is a phenomenon known as virtue signalling.

        Reply
    1. Geoff

      It appears that “this” is terminally corrupt and is well beyond fixing; somewhat akin to believing we could, or (should), attempt to revive week-old roadkill. Therefore, it may be more productive to ask what we can do to protect ourselves from the stench and filth, and I think that by engaging one another on forums like this and supporting each other and the likes of Dr K, we’re beginning to take steps to deal effectively with the situation.

      Here’s more of what we probably should be doing.

      “You people, you with your big titles and podium, you in the health agencies who made policies, in academia with your corrupted research, knew all you said and did, all your COVID policies had zero, none, nothing, no scientific basis. Were specious. No data to support it yet you did it. You were drunk on power and lunacy and IMO, malfeasance. We need to investigate why.”

      https://palexander.substack.com/p/the-dirty-dozen-we-start-with-fauci

      Additionally, we must avoid panic, the lure of panaceas and quick, easy solutions, and keep reminding ourselves to question everything, especially when it spews from some soi disant authority.

      I also recommend reading the old satirists like Aristophanes, Lucian of Samosata, and Juvenal, to name just a few. There are many reasons for recommending that but one of the main ones is to recognize that humankind has been down the same road countless times before…

      Reply
  25. cavenewt

    And of course all the politicians are dependent on pharmaceutical money too, which is why there is no enforcement, or attempt to provide more transparency, by legal means. *All* our institutions have been captured.

    Is grassroots education the only alternative? Just Say No to Drugs?

    Reply
    1. Sue

      Much like they depend on money from the food industry so don’t take any measures to reduce consumption of harmful ‘foods’ or subsidise healthy products.

      Reply
  26. Roger Murphy

    Happy new year Malcolm..keep them coming..your voice and those like it are becoming more and more valuable ..much respect sir !

    Reply
  27. rickk

    Statins Given for 5 Years for Heart Disease Prevention (With Known Heart Disease)
    Benefits in NNT
    1 in 83 were helped (life saved)
    1 in 39 were helped (preventing non-fatal heart attack)
    1 in 125 were helped (preventing stroke)
    —————
    Harms in NNT
    1 in 50 were harmed (develop diabetes*)
    1 in 10 were harmed (muscle damage)
    ————–
    https://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-with-known-heart-disease/

    (nothing on PCSK-9 drug yet )

    Reply
    1. Jerome savage

      Extracts worth noting
      “Caveats: Virtually all of the major statin studies were paid for and conducted by their respective pharmaceutical company” and
      “suggests that statins may have an identifiable effect, because while the chances of any one individual being affected are small (19 out of 20 people who took the drugs for five years saw no effect), when one million people take them roughly 45,000 people saw some benefit, while another 6,000 may see a harm.”
      No reference to “brain fog” or liver damage.

      Reply
    2. cavenewt

      Those benefit numbers look awfully generous compared to the stuff I’ve looked at in the past (raw data in clinical trials), but even if they’re accurate, as you point out the harms are much worse.

      Reply
    3. Steve

      Homework:
      Read Dr Kendrick’s excellent books to get a detailed picture of the lies and corruption associated with the Statin industry.
      Carry out a random survey of your friends, family and colleagues who take Statins. See how many are on them, why they are on them, how long they’ve been on them, then see how many say they have had side effects.

      Reply
    1. Mike C

      ‘“PROC MIANALYZE procedure” refers to a built in function within the SAS/STATS software’.

      ‘…We use this expensive software so that smaller research organisations can’t duplicate/check our findings.’

      OK: Yes, I made that up…

      I used to work for a pharmaceutical company in the 1980s and we used SAS to process data gathered through the drug monitoring process. Of course, nobody could ever produce misleading results using such magnificently expensive software.

      Reply
  28. Geoff

    Another excellent article by Dr K.

    “To quote from Forbes magazine – as far back as 2015 ‘The FDA Is Basically Approving Everything. Here’s The Data To Prove It.’ 1”

    The author of this book does a fine job of fleshing out that idea.:

    The truth about the drug companies : how they deceive us and what to do about it

    by Angell, Marcia, 2004

    https://archive.org/details/truthaboutdrugco00ange

    * I have no financial interest in promoting this book.

    Reply
  29. Martin Back

    I wonder of Dr. Kendrick is aware of a theory that laboratory mice might be specifically bred to give positive results in drug trials.

    This snippet is from the video Bret Weinstein Speaks with Dr. Aseem Malhotra on the Darkhorse Podcast. It is nearly two hours long and most of it would be familiar to readers of this blog, but this section from 48:34 onwards was new to me. Bret, a former professor of evolutionary biology, is speaking (YouTube transcript, punctuated for clarity)–

    “….in almost every Cancer known the enzyme telomerase is active. This is an enzyme that elongates a repetitive sequence at the ends of our chromosomes. And at the same time another group was working on the fact that the erosion of our telomeres seems to cause our cells to stop reproducing, and that this was implicated in our growing uh decrepit with age. I put these two things together with an evolutionary theory that already existed, a theory called antagonistic pleiotropy by the great evolutionary biologist George Williams, and I had a very elegant uh novel description of the mechanism of human aging and the reason that selection has tolerated it. But it ran into a problem, and the problem was there was one glaring piece of evidence that did not fit my uh my hypothesis, and that glaring piece of evidence was that mice were known to have Ultra long telomeres but obviously had very short lives. Their telomeres were in fact 10 times the length of human telomeres, which made no sense in light of my hypothesis.”

    The upshot was, he contacted a telomere researcher who said that laboratory mice certainly had very long telomeres, but the length varied considerably, and effectively all laboratory mice died of tumors if you give them a chance. They then tested wild mice and found their telomeres were short, as Weinstein’s hypothesis would have predicted due to their short life span.

    So why would a cancer-causing feature not be bred out of the mice? According to antagonistic pleiotropy, animals can possess genes that enhance fitness early in life although they diminish it in later life.

    Weinstein again: “…the reason that they would be prone to tumors according to to my hypothesis was that the tissues that they have have no brake on their capacity for repair, and so these animals are also terrifically resistant, according to this hypothesis, to damage. Any damage that doesn’t outright kill them is relatively easy for them to fix. So what that means is they make terrible models for drug safety because you can give them a toxic insult — and in fact we see a very odd result which is well explained by my hypothesis — which is that if you give them a toxic drug that does not outright kill them, it may extend their lives because it functions as chemotherapy slowing down their tumors.”

    In other words, laboratory mice, by accident or by design, could be giving a very false signal as to the safety of a drug being tested. So what happened?

    As Weinstein wryly comments: “…upon discovering that we had this flaw in our drug safety system and that in fact our scientific literature was polluted by this broken model, I expected there would be a scandal, there would be a rush to fix the problem, and that we would end up having to retest many drugs that uh would many of them would turn out not to be safe, but that you know a few years down the road we would have uh gotten back on track. I tried to raise the alarm for a decade. I published my work. I attempted to call the attention of fellow scientists, doctors, journalists. It’s the bell that wouldn’t ring. And to this day I do not believe we have fixed this problem. What we have done is obscure it.”

    Reply
    1. Geoff

      Thanks for that. Ya gotta love this stuff; the authors were not only sharp but masters of understatement.:

      “Objective The FOURIER trial showed a benefit of the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab over placebo with respect to cardiovascular outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. However, we observed some inconsistencies…”

      Then they go on to show that the original claim of benefit was the opposite of the truth, something which appears to happen with enough frequency as to be the norm.

      Reply
  30. Penny

    Dear Dr Kendrick, I would like to wish you and yours a Healthy and Happy New Year.

    On another note, I read “ …Nowadays, the tentacles of the pharmaceutical (and medical devices industry) wrap around far more agencies than just the FDA and EMA. And is not just NICE…” and in my haste substituted “testicles” for “tentacles”.

    Reply
  31. Corinna Lennox-Kerr

    As always, eloquently written and easy to understand.

    Along with our good Dr we now have two other credible folk, Dr Aseem Malhotra and our outspoken MP Andrew Bridgen coming to the fore and pulling more than a white rabbit from out of the hat.

    Thank you for your continued time and investigation in laying bare the truth.

    Reply
    1. Steve

      Although Bridgen is getting a lot of publicity for his conversion on the road to Damnation, it’s also important to remember that it is Sir Christopher Chope who has been the consistent, long term, driving force questioning the gene jabs and the damage they cause.

      Reply
    2. Paul Fruitbat

      There are a LOT more than two or three “credible folk”. In June 1961 I made a partial list of those whom I knew to be thoroughly qualified and experienced who had spoke out loudly and repeatedly against the Covid folly. There will, of course, have been many more who have emerged since June 1961.

      Sorry it’s so long, but here it is:

      Dr Mike Yeadon
      Professor Michael Levitt
      Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg
      Dr Peter McCullough
      Dr Roger Hodkinson
      Dr Andrew Kaufman
      Dr Stephanie Seneff
      Dr Sucharit Bhakdi
      Dr Geert Vanden Bossche
      Dr Vernon Coleman
      Dr Judy Mikovits
      Professor Dolores Cahill
      Dr John Ioannidis
      Dr. Martin Kulldorff
      Dr Kary Mullis
      Dr David Grimes
      Dr Clare Craig
      Dr Tom Jefferson
      Professor Carl Heneghan
      Dr Tom Cowan
      Dr Karol Sikora
      Dr Jean-François Toussaint
      Dr Priyad Ariyaratnam
      Dr Martin Feeley
      Dr Beda M. Stadler
      Dr Stefan Hockertz
      Dr John Lee
      Dr. John Oxford
      Prof Knut Wittkowski
      Dr Klaus Püschel
      Dr Alexander Kekulé
      Dr Claus Köhnlein
      Dr Gérard Krause
      Dr Gerd Gigerenzer
      Dr Pietro Vernazza
      Dr. Sunetra Gupta (and team at Oxford)
      Dr Karin Möllin
      Dr Anders Tegnell
      Dr Pablo Goldschmidt
      Dr Eran Bendavid
      Dr Jay Bhattacharya
      Dr Richard Schabas
      Dr Joel Kettner
      Dr Yoram Lass
      Frank Ulrich Montgomery
      Prof. Hendrik Streeck
      Dr Yanis Roussel (and team at Marseille)
      Dr. David Katz
      Michael T. Osterholm
      Dr Peter Götzsche
      Dr Lee Merritt
      Dr Denis Rancourt
      Dr Sheri Tenpenny
      Dr Sebastian Rushworth
      Dr Stoian Alexov
      Dr Mikko Paunio
      Dr Marcos Nogueira Eberlin
      Dr Johan Giesecke
      Dr Russell Blaylock
      Dr. Peter Schirmacher
      Dr Thomas Binder
      Dr Michael Palmer
      Dr Arne Burkhardt

      Doctors for Covid Ethics
      HART
      United Health Professionals
      World Doctors Alliance
      University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine
      Docs4OpenDebate
      German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine
      America’s Frontline Doctors

      Also lawyers, journalists, etc.:
      Dr Rainer Füllmich (lawyer)
      German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss
      Beate Bahner (lawyer)
      Robert F Kennedy, Jr.
      Ron Unz
      Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter
      Helen Buyniski
      Peter Andrews
      Roger W. Koops
      Kit Knightly
      Iain Davis

      Reply
        1. Paul Fruitbat

          Sorry everyone – “New Year Syndrome”! At my age it sometimes takes you back centuries rather than just years…

          Reply
      1. Corinna Lennox-Kerr

        Apologies, as I do very much appreciate that there is a very long list of those who have spoken out since just about the off. On Metatron@substack.com (Dead Man Talking/Joel Smalley) you will see that on 15th Jan 2023 there is a Covid19 Global Debate Event where over 200 people are listed and invited to join the Against -v- over 300 people listed and invited to join the Narrative. It will be interesting to see who joins the debate out of all the invitations issued and I think it speaks volumes that more people who are for the Narrative have been invited as we can imagine can’t we, that any of those who do join the debate for the Narrative don’t have the data to back them up?

        I just felt elated and more optimistic that at least Andrew Bridgen was able to speak out publicly with the possibility of creating a turn in the tide for us.

        Reply
      2. cavenewt

        Assuming you mean 2021…

        Kary Mullis died in August 2019. He had spoken out about the inappropriate use of PCR for diagnostic testing. I’m so sorry he left us when he did; it would’ve been really interesting to see his reaction to the whole Covid fiasco.

        Reply
  32. Tom

    These drug approval agencies sure know how to do a great “fade to black” rendition. I will gladly assume that there are very bad “numbers and things” that if printed would make these drugs look critically horrible. These are the same shenanigans pulled off to get mRNA gene altering injections approved. This nonsense is exactly why I trust no big pharma drugs.

    Reply
  33. Darag Rennie

    Love it Malcolm. I’m glad you have the strength to look through all those pages. But I guess they’ve just made your job easier with all those redacted lines. Soon all science we pay for and ‘they’ own will look like this.

    Reply
  34. Richard Goldby

    Apropos not very much, in 1967 the Small Faces recorded a song called ‘Here Come The Nice’. It was about a drug dealer.

    Reply
  35. Jerome savage

    Not entirely off topic, maybe very much on topic.
    “A LEADING vascular surgeon, whose research review concluded cholesterol-lowering medicines may do more harm than good for many otherwise healthy people, has been gagged by the Health Service Executive. IRL
    Sherif Sultan, a senior medic at University College Hospital, Galway, reviewed a range of studies of statins and found a lack of evidence to show they should be given as a means of prevention to healthy people with high cholesterol but no heart disease.
    Mr Sultan and his surgeon colleague Niamh Hynes said lifestyle changes to reduce cholesterol were better because this allowed people to avoid the risk of statins’ side effects.”
    https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/hse-gags-surgeon-after-cholesterol-drug-claims-29636095.html?s=09

    Reply
      1. Jerome savage

        AHN I see crimes everywhere right now. To think that one time I believed the government & its media. Nothing can be taken at face value – on MSM that is. Is the opposition tokenism (controlled not being too far fetched a description) actually worse, in terms of capacity for deceit. ?

        Reply
        1. AhNotepad

          “Opposition tokenism “?

          Sorry, you’ll have to use plain English, otherwise we get into the same empty phrases the MSM use.

          Reply
          1. Jerome savage

            Lol Thanks for pointing out my lapse in to ….. oh never mind – am liable to lapse again so, very simply, it is said and i believe, that much of the opposition, be it politicial or media that pretends to oppose the mainstream, is in fact just tokenism. (Or tactical even)
            Lenin said “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves” apparently.
            Reading a book right now which goes in to some detail on how the British establishment contrived to get the US in to the 1st WW. Its an eye opener, – Whitehall appears to have led the opposition, in the particular scenario subject of the book, & succeeded & divided a US politicial movement against the war. That talent seems to hav been fine tuned since.

      1. Jerome savage

        Why indeed. My thinking is that our bodies do not produce cholesterol in all its different forms if it hadnt good reason to do so. Dr kendrick tells us that for someone who has suffered a heart attack, tens of years of statin use can add a few days to someone’s life – (given no change in lifestyle I take it) but the benefit is down to the nitric oxide in the statin.
        I believe any consultant coming to a radical conclusion will automatically pull their punches so it won’t be dismissed out of hand. IMHO

        Reply
  36. Irene Wood

    Happy New Year Dr. McKendrick!
    Thanks for this one! Good to start the year with a long laugh ======== (no thick black line key on my keyboard)

    Reply
  37. Jeremy May

    Off at a bit of a tangent…

    I love Canada, I lived there for a while and love the people; I’m in awe of the landscape, particularly in the west. Then, from News Uncut, this…

    “ON November 24, British Columbia in Canada passed Bill 36 into law – meaning health care workers must take a Covid jab or lose their licence, receive a heavy fine or be sent to prison.”

    It’s positively tyrannical.

    Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      Jeremy: Yes, Canada is lovely, and so are the people. But their government has been taken over by the WEF. Fudeau, dumb brick that he is, seems to have taken root in Ottawa, but a bright light has begun to shine in Alberta. This should give us hope.

      Reply
    2. Steve

      Moi aussi.
      I have family members who have actually lost their jobs in Ontario for not having the jab.
      Then there is the recent updates to euthanasia in Canada – medical assistance in dying (MAID) – where disabled people in poverty are choosing assisted death.
      And, the recent truckers protests against the Covid regime where their bank accounts were frozen.
      Canada has become an extremist regime where the only personal rights you appear to have is to kill yourself.

      Reply
      1. Baillsruth

        So sad. Only right is the right to kill yourself. Here in Australia babies are aborted full term for “social reasons” and left to die in pain, nit pallative care or comfort what so ever. Shocking that our world has come to.

        Reply
    3. Eggs ‘n beer

      Bit behind the times, aren’t they? We’ve had that is Australia since 2021. In Queensland that includes the police force and, for a while, teachers. But I guess too many teachers left, and they had to rescind that one. Interestingly trade school teachers were not included in the mandates, as 50% refused to take the jab. The firemen weren’t having it either. 22 coppers were sacked for refusing the totally safe and effective vaccine, according to that paragon of health expertise, Chief Commissioner Carroll.

      Oh, and for some reason it’s becoming almost impossible to find a GP taking new patients …..

      Reply
      1. Geoff

        Thanks for that info. Good to hear.

        My wife, a nurse at a universtiy hospital, also lost her job for refusing the jab. Her employers encouraged her to apply for a religious exemption but she refused to play that game and left. After the “mandates” (dictates) were eased, they wanted to hire her back but she refused.

        Sadly, most of the workers here in the US probably went along with the dangerous scam, including teachers and health “care” personnel. Shameful but revealing.

        We always wondered how several “safe” injections could have been developed so quickly and at virtually the same time while the developers were so conveniently immune from liability. Thanks to the “covid” frauds I’ve been converted from a vaccine accepter to a firm anti-vaxxer. My position is that in general, our own immune systems, given proper nutrition and freedom from toxins, have to be superior to some concoctions dreamed up, developed and marketed by scoundrels with a long history of quackery and worse, containing several, if not numerous, toxins.

        Reply
        1. Gary Ogden

          Geoff: A vaccine so safe the government has to coerce us to take it for a disease so deadly you have to take a test to know if you have it.

          Reply
    1. Gary Ogden

      Anthony: Correct. FDA stands for Food and Drug Administration. Not as much money to be made on food, though, so their meddling here is not so deadly.

      Reply
      1. cavenewt

        Oh, I’m not sure I would say that. Things the FDA does affect things that USDA does, and voilà! The Food Pyramid, which is arguably a major culprit in our current epidemic of obesity and chronic disease, and the concomitant spigot of money to treat the symptoms thereof.

        It’s all connected.

        Reply
        1. Gary Ogden

          cavenewt: Certainly the primary cause of the chronic diseases burdening Americans is the state-sponsored and -promoted garbage they too-often shove into the pie hole. My point was that Rockefeller medicine kills more and kills them faster, and is more profitable, especially since the industry has fully captured governments, seemingly world wide.

          Reply
  38. Steve

    Slightly off Piste, although IMO related through the general corruption pervading the medical profession …

    I was shouting at the TV the other night watching the excellent Neil Oliver on GBNews. He was discussing the push by various Branch Covidians to get us masked up again. In the ‘for’ corner he had some dckhd from Exeter University, a Dr David Strain, who explained it was the responsible thing to do if you’re sick. The good Dr. had made the effort to dress up in his best doctor outfit and have his certificates prominently displayed on his wall !
    All his BS made me think of an anomaly that seems to me to prove that masks and distancing are total b0llix ?
    Throughout my 40 year working life, mostly in open plan offices, I have noticed that when Colds and Flu strike not everyone in the office is affected, regardless of proximity. Recently, myself and a number (~6) of close, sporting, colleagues were hit by a bad chest cold. Affects ranging from a cough, a couple of days in bed through to pneumonia. Here’s the thing … Our partners were not affected, at all, even though we were sharing sofa’s, meals and beds. Obviously, distancing and masks wouldn’t have changed a thing, our partners were NOT affected.
    How does this work ? Do we really understand how colds and Flu are actually spread ?

    Reply
      1. Steve

        Thanks Doc. I am genuinely interested. My examples would seem, to me, to indicate that aerosolised particles and surface contacts are not the method of spreading !

        Reply
        1. barovsky

          Re spreading: Hasn’t it also got something to do with the actual volume of inhaled viruses and where they end up in the body, ie the nose, the upper or lower throat and where in the lungs they end up? Odds are, everyone of us different in some respect else, we’d all catch every virus that comes along.

          Reply
      2. Jerome savage

        We had a retired GP no stranger to controversy speaking to our group on Friday and among other things, put it that viruses do not exist. It was towards the end of the talk & she was challenged by just one attendee, privately, who made the point that we couldn’t possibly hav so many virologists studying & producing reports if they didn’t exist. She stuck to her guns anyway, and I was left none the wiser. The debate rages on with no end in sight. Your points made on this blog, on this subject, I hav collated, for future reference. In meantime I came across Dr Stefan Lanka- a German “virus denier”
        https://greatreject.org/dr-stefan-lanka-claims-about-viruses-are-false/
        Can you say if you are aware of him and if so, are you aware if he is discredited ?

        Reply
        1. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

          I have heard of him. Viruses/virology seems a very complicated area to me. A case can be made that there are no such thing a viruses. Peraonally, I don’t believe it. We have cases in the UK where young people with haemophilia, who were given transfusions of facotor VIII ended up with hepatitis C and HIV, and many of them died. [At that time blood donors were not screened for these two ‘viruses’] Many of them died, of diseases that are defined as Hep C and HIV. So, whatever got passed to them, caused disease.

          So ‘something’ clearly passed, via blood products, from one person to another. Then, in many cases, killed them. So there is clerly a very small, difficult to detect, agent that can transmit disease from one person to another.

          However, when you start looking into retroviruses, and viruses that can linger on the human body for decadese e.g. herpes zoster, and suddenly sping to life. Causing, say, shingles It is clear that things are exceedingly bloody complicated. A gret deal of our genome is made from ‘viruses.’ Our very existence is highly intertwined with viruses.

          They are, proably, how a great deal of DNA got transferred about, allowing for more rapid evolution and development of different species. [This is my view anyyay]. Viruses are certanly not, all bad. Those that transfer from one species to another can be very deadly.

          Returning to the original quesiton. Yes, I am 99% certain that viruses exist. It would take an interesting revelation to get me to change these odds back to below 50%.

          Reply
          1. Mark Gobell

            Re: Evolution …

            I hope you find this stimulates the neurons …

            Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

    1. barovsky

      Why doesn’t everybody get infected?

      There’s this thing called NATURAL IMMUNITY. Myself as an example I haven’t caught the flu in 46 years and I never get colds, so either my immune system is intervening before I get symptoms or I’m not getting infected at all and I’m surely not the only one.

      Reply
      1. Steve

        Nah.
        I find it hard to believe there is some sort of super elites who never catch colds or flu – maybe there is ! But, after all the ‘virus’, if that’s what it is, regularly mutates so at some point your natural immunity will be less effective. I haven’t had the flu for about 15 years and I haven’t had a cold for probably five or more years. I dose up daily on Vit C and D. My point was, I caught a bad cold but my wife didn’t – our general health is very similar but she doesn’t take vitamins.

        Reply
        1. barovsky

          Super elites? Where does that come from? No, I’m suggesting effective immune system, though when I last caught the flu 47 years ago, I’d not long been in NYC for the first time (I was 30) and I got a really nasty version that laid me low for several weeks and since then, nothing. So I can only conclude that my immune system got a stiff lesson, no change of diet. I occasionally come down with the beginning of an infection but it never lasts more than a couple of days, reinforcing my view that I have a really good immune system, what else explains it?

          Reply
          1. Steve

            Apologies wasn’t trying to be rude. If you are correct then you are in fact part of an ‘elite’ group who aren’t unduly affected by colds and flu. That’s not the case with the general population, I would suggest ?
            An interesting thought is that in the UK we used to have the common colds research unit (CCRU) [1], conveniently situated literally next door to the Porton Down government Lab. They operated for 43 years but no cure for the common cold was ever found. It sort of highlights the BS pushed in regard to the Covid industry !

            [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Cold_Unit

          2. barovsky

            Yes I remember the CCU, you could volunteer for a week of sniffles and sneezes and as you say, no cure was ever found. I had no idea it had been wound up. Isn’t C19 of the same family of viruses?

          3. An Italian Australian at the Tropics

            I was always very healthy, never had the flu (only exception at 40 when the government offered me a free flu shot, the following week my wife an I were sick as we’ve never been in our life), but once or twice a year the occasional stomach “bug” or a cold.

            Once changed my diet to a ketogenic one (15 years ago) no more colds, non more “bugs”. All my friends and my neighbours got covid, most of them twice, a couple three times, and even now that they aren’t isolating anymore and we socialize, I still don’t get sick.

        2. Eggs ‘n beer

          I think that one aspect of natural immunity is that if it is strong, it can deal with almost anything, including new bugs let alone mutations of old ones.

          For your body to maintain immunity it must be continually attacked, so that the defences are kept on tip-top alert. How many of the six wives look after kids? Their immune systems will be under constant attack from child care, schools, kids playing with other kids etc.

          Not that I can place any credibility on any data out of China, but the stories of massive death numbers ties in with three years of lockdowns, isolation suits, chemical sprays etc. The immune systems have become weak through lack of exercise, and cannot respond, whether it’s covid, the ‘flu, bacterial infections, galloping dandruff…..

          Reply
      2. cavenewt

        It’s a common anecdote in the low-carb world that once you change your lifestyle you tend to not get sick anymore. That’s certainly what happened to me. Before 2010 when I changed my diet, I would regularly get several colds a year, along with my partner and our school-age offspring.

        After 2010? I’ve only had one URI try to get me, after a visit to a crowded movie theater where everybody else was hacking and sneezing. I just had slightly swollen glands in my neck overnight which went away, interpreted to mean I had successfully fended off the evil bug. Aside from that? Nothing in 12 years, despite the other family members being sick just as much as before.

        Knock on wood, I haven’t yet managed to get Covid despite not trying not to.

        Reply
        1. Jerome savage

          My experiences convince me that exercise, enough to make me sweat plus relaxing moments at end of the day play a part in avoiding colds & flu. I assume exercise causes blood to move around the body at a greater rate than normal bringing extra benefits. Relaxation reduces stress

          Reply
          1. cavenewt

            There are a lot of factors. Anything that contributes to your general good health is bound to contribute to a healthy immune system.

      1. AhNotepad

        “The responsible thing to do if you’re sick is to stay home in bed.”

        Depending on the reason for the sickness, it may be the responsible thing to stay home, but this assumes the germ theory for disease transmission, but as has been pointed out,and. I have seen it too, if someone sick comes to work in an open plan office, most, if not all the other people do not get sick as a result.

        As for staying in bed, that is one sure way to continue feeing unwell. I get up get dressed, and then do what the circumstances allow. It may be just sitting quietly with a warm drink, or wandering about the garden.

        Reply
      2. Steve

        Agreed, but there are many people who cannot afford to do that. That’s the reality of the sick world we live in.

        Reply
    2. Tish

      Spending a day in a room with a substantial build up of germs, eg. an office or pub with lots of infected people, might result in a big initial intake of a virus. Then going back to a house that is free of the virus might enable a wife (or husband) to more easily combat a small amount of initial exposure since it has only come from you and will be less concentrated, at least initially? A possible contributory factor?

      Reply
      1. Steve

        Anything is possible, I guess, since obviously no-one understands how these things really work. But where I believe I caught the bug was a well ventilated sports facility and with no-one else exhibiting signs of sickness. (My instructor is very Corona paranoid.) His wife ended up with pneumonia but he was fine, they train together. When I was at my most contagious, at home, I still didn’t manage to infect my wife. My sister, elsewhere in the country, caught the bug, possibly, from her grandchildren, her husband didn’t. It’s an interesting anomaly, to me. Also, my wife and I are unjabbed, all the others in this story are fully jabbed, I believe.

        Reply
        1. AhNotepad

          …….since obviously no-one understands how these things really work.

          I think you were correct at the beginning. All the rest was just conjecture.

          Reply
        2. cavenewt

          Frequently we hear people say they caught a bug in one place or another place, but actually it’s almost impossible to know, except in the circumstance where a bunch of people who attended the same event get sick about the same time. Possible variations in incubation period will make it even harder.

          Reply
          1. barovsky

            Isn’t the air saturated with viruses and always has been? Aren’t they one of oldest living organisms on the planet? Don’t we have the most amazing immune system to deal with them? I get the impression that the powers that be would have us believe that viruses travel around in gangs just waiting to infect us, to leap on unsuspecting people who haven’t sealed themselves off from the environment. Just look at the TV commercials that talk about germs ‘lurking’ on surfaces waiting to infect us!

            I came down with a ‘bug’ yesterday, scratchy throat, a niggling cough and felt a little under the weather. Undoubtedly I’d pick up something and probably because I’m tired because I haven’t been sleeping properly (stress?), so I went to bed early and slept fairly well, woke up and although the ‘bug’ was obviously still active in my system, I felt better even though I still had an ‘off’ feeling. No doubt by tomorrow, I’ll be back to ‘normal’. I get these infections perhaps once a year and never take anything for them. They rarely last more than 48 hours.

          2. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

            Viruses cannot replicate unless within a host organism. So, I presume that host organisms e.g. bacteria must have existed before there can have been any viruses. It is well known that bacteria transfer DNA/RNA between them, using plasmids. Which, I have always assumed, were the ancestors of viruses.

          3. barovsky

            Okay, then you’re saying that if viruses can’t exist outside a host then it follows that they can’t travel between hosts unless carried by bacteria?

          4. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

            Um no. Viruses clearly can travel between hosts. I am only suggesting that bacteria – which I believe must have come before viruses – transfer nucleara materials between each other using things called plasmids (mainly). It was these plasmids that becamse/transformed into viruses. Ergo, bacteria – living things – came first. Viruses came afterwards, proably though the evolution of plasmids.

          5. barovsky

            Then what is the role and nature of plasmids and why do they exist? Nature never seems to do things without a reason, even if we don’t know what the reason is, thus viruses, plasmids, must have a function in the scheme of things?

          6. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

            Plasmids exists to allow bacteria to swap genetic material. This, for example, allow them to become resitatnt to various antibiotics. It was probably the pirmary mechanism by which bacteria evovled. So, yes, they have a key purpose.

          7. Gary Ogden

            I may be wrong, but it seems to me I’ve read that animal cells do this as well–transfer RNA/DNA between cells, in the form of exosomes. How little we know about this teeny-weeny stuff, because it is so teeny-weeny.

          8. barovsky

            Well if they replicate, then they must be alive surely? If by life you confine yourself to complex organisms that have genes and chromosomes, then you’re confining life to a very narrow spectrum given that bacteria and viruses exist in far greater numbers and seem to be first ‘life’ on the planet?

          9. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

            Well bactria have genes and chromosones and suchlike, and they can self replicate. I would never suggest a bacteira was not a llving thing, nor did I. Viruses, however, cannot self-replicate, they need to take over the replication mechanims of other organisms. So, if viruses came before any other life form, whse replications systems they need to take over, it is tricky to understand how they managed to grow, evolve, and prosper. Perhaps you have an explantion?

          10. barovsky

            Hmmm… where, in the scheme of things then, do viruses sit? What is their purpose? It seems to me that they’re a byproduct of life itself given that they seem to ‘piggyback’ on more complex organisms. Do we know when they came about and why? Bacteria seem to be the oldest living organisms on the planet and if, as you say, it’s bacteria that carry viruses between organisms, are viruses an ‘accidental’ product of life itself?

          11. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Post author

            No, it is not bacteria that carry viruses between organisms. Not any more. But, I assume that must be how virus transmission started as, in the begnning, there were bacteria – and nothing else. So, the only possible thing for viruses to ‘infect’ and grow within, were bacteria.

          12. barovsky

            Okay, I accept the idea that bacteria came first but it still doesn’t explain the evolutionary reason for viruses, especially as they seem to be an evolutionary step ‘backward’s’, in other words, what function do they fulfill in maintaining the balance of life? Everything has a niche in Nature’s scheme. Bacteria for example, are the first forms of organised life on our planet even if they no longer perform the same function that they did in the beginning but obviously, they’re still around.

          13. Gary Ogden

            barovsky: I think it correct to say that cells in multi-cellular organisms must communicate with each other. This would explain the evolution of plasmids, as a means of communication.

          14. barovsky

            Dear Dr Kendrick, you’re asking me when I’m asking you! I suppose viruses are just proof of the fecundity of life, a response to the opportunity to replicate regardless?

          15. Gary Ogden

            barovsky: Could it be that the cells viruses enter cause them to replicate, and the viruses be passive slaves to the cell? Alternatively, viruses hijack the replication mechanism of the cell to increase their numbers, but that would imply intention on the part of the virus, which sounds ridiculous, or an oops moment for the cell. I think it reasonable to surmise that cells screw up at times, just like humans. The immune system is absurdly complex, but works remarkably well most of the time.

          16. cavenewt

            Whether or not viruses are ‘alive’ has been an ongoing debate for many years. It all depends on how you define “life”. I remember reading an article in a 1930s Old Farmers Almanac arguing that fire is a form of life according to one set of definitional rules. It all comes down to semantics.

            I’ve been reading origin of life stuff (largely Nick Lane) and did see somewhere that there are signs of viruses, or proto-viruses, in either primitive bacteria or even fossilized bacteria. I can’t remember the details. The point being that viruses have been around for a very long time. Bacteria definitely came first.

          17. giampaolominetti

            viruses are kind of parasites. all organisms have to deal with their own specific viruses, evolving in parallel with the evolution of life on earth. Bacteria have viruses (called bacteriophages) that can only replicate inside bacteria. Bacteria are by far the most varied form of life on this planet asstarted evolving about 3.5 billion years ago and still going. Eukaryotic cells, from where higher organsims have evolved, including plants and animals, have emerged “only” 1.5 billion years ago. A good 2 billion years for unicellular bacterial cells to explore all kind of biochemistries and metabolisms. Insects have their own viruses, i.a. the baculovirus, infectng moths and butterflies and many other insects. One hundred different virus species among this group alone. Plants have their own specific viruses, tobacco mosaic virus for example. A problem may occur when one of these species-specific viruses tries and jumps to another species, as we have been told happening with Sars-CoV-2 (or a new bug produced in the lab?).

            There is nothing one can do: once nature has evolved this extraordinary machine for self-replication, molecules that have this ability cannot help but self-replicate just for the sake of it, exploiting whatever machinery is available for doing so. It’s a way of keeping the wheel spinning and propagating only the most succesful genes. Somehow related with the “selfish gene” concept by Richard Dawkins where the center is genes that must move on in evolution, and do so by all means, incLuding the individual organisms in wihch they happen to be located as mere machines for their propagation. The individual organisms can be anything, including the minimal viruse, which can only work by exploiting more complex and independent organisms. Are viruses living organisms? Probably just a moot question.

    1. MarciaT

      I heard a long interview with Brook Jackson when she was first fired; one of the more appalling things she talked about was the fact that the receptionist at that company was administering some of the shots. Not sure she was qualified . . . but as Malcolm says, if you’re a company doing trials for a pharmaceutical company, it’s certainly in your interest to come up with “good results,”

      Reply
  39. Jerome savage

    It’s now an us V them (no not USA V the world – much bigger than that) There are 2 camps regarding germ theory and viruses and the business of cross contamination.
    Within these two camps, one is saying the terrain is everything the other saying its contamination by way of close proximity. The government* & orthodox medicine favour the second as does the pharmaceutical conglomerates.
    Now for the lay person there is not much difference between germs (are these bacteria?) and viruses – heresy I imagine for any medically qualified person. The “extremists” on the terrain side shout there are no such thing as viruses, it’s a natural shedding of bodily toxins, just as a tree sheds it’s leaves in winter. Others including Dr kendrick will say no & not at all, viruses are active little so n so’s that will take us down but a good immune system will help keep them at bay.
    Such narratives as the following are referred to by the terrain people (for want of a better description)
    “”Dismantling Germ Theory falsehood:
    In 1923, Ludvig Hektoen MD published a paper in JAMA titled “The History of Experimental Scarlet Fever in Man”. In this paper, Hektoen reviewed the human experiments attempting to transmit Scarlet Fever between sick people and healthy people. He concluded:
    “This brief review of the recorded attempts to produce Scarlet Fever experimentally in man reveals that it is exceedingly doubtful whether a single positive case has been obtained. In view of the ease with which Scarlet Fever appears to be transmitted under natural conditions, the failure of the efforts at experimental transmission is a perplexing puzzle that awaits solution”. 

    So if Scarlet Fever wasn’t contagious then how come so many people were diagnosed for it and died even?
    Simple: these same people were exposed to a toxic concoction either by injections or environmentally prior. We’d bet that they had received vaccine/s for another nonexistent virus prior, causing a Terrain Cleanse in body.””

    I am puzzled as a lay man to understand this complicated and even controversial subject given all the different opinions out there. Someone with the skills possessed by our good doctor K would do me and many others a distinct favour by putting this to bed or at least sending it bedroom direction.
    * The present irish prime minister (taoiseach) and WEF trail blazer (not heterosexual) seemed to pose for the camera in a night club before going facial (definitely less than 2mm never mind 2 mtrs) with a young man not his husband. Poor example indeed for all sorts if reasons but the big issue was not his behaviour but the need to curtail social media as it interfered with his personal life – so said the deputy PM . Hypocrisy on steroids methinks.

    Reply
    1. barovsky

      Re Scarlet Fever

      I caught it when I was 10 yrs old, from a young girl in the same house as me, along with a bunch of cousins and adults. My father had just died so I assume my immune system was depressed somewhat. Aside from the girl who I caught it from (I assume), nobody else in the house contracted it (this was in Abergavenny in Wales in 1956, in a rural setting).

      Reply
        1. barovsky

          Jabs? Hmmm… I don’t think so, I was born in 1945 in South London at Weir Road Maternity Hospital, and according to my mum, I was jabbed with a bent needle which got stuck in me and gave me phobia about men in white coats but I have no idea what the jab was for, perhaps someone here knows what babies were inoculated for in 1945? Oh and I was circumcised, a nice Russian Jewish boy.

          Reply
          1. Jerome savage

            Found this in a red Cross site that heaps praise on vaccines & tolerates no criticism theron –
            “During the Second World War, British Red Cross volunteers helped give diphtheria vaccines to families evacuated from their homes due to bombing.”
            Another site – “The childhood vaccination programme expanded in the NHS era after 1948”

          2. Gary Ogden

            barovsky: The pertussis jab was developed in 1923, and I seem to recall some form of DPT was in use as early as the ’30’s. Smallpox we got (I was born in ’49), and both the polio jab and the polio sugar cube (the LSD sugar cube came much later).

          3. barovsky

            Gary,
            I got the polio jab at high school, 56 or 57 and I think BCG (TB?) around the same time. I have no idea if I got the pertusis or smallpox jab.

      1. Frederica Huxley

        I caught scarlet fever same year as you, when I was 9, but it was in Massachusetts. I was very impressed that there was a large sign ‘Under Quarantine’ posted on our door.

        Reply
        1. barovsky

          Yes, a quaint ‘lockdown’. Mine consisted of a blanket soaked in disinfectant, draped over the door to my bedroom. I spent a couple of weeks on my own with only a windup record player and one 78rpm record for company, I can’t remember what song it was. Strangely, in a house full of children with Communist parents (my auntie Phyliss and uncle Ray), I don’t remember being given anything to read. When we got back to London, I still wasn’t allowed back to school and I can remember looking through the iron gate into the playground and talking to the children inside. Of course, back then, at least as late as the 1930s, Scarlet Fever was a genuine killer, mostly from other causes that the SF made you vulnerable to, so I assume the precautions were understandable.

          Reply
    2. Steve

      On this subject and with reference to the Common Cold Research Unit (CCRU) I mention above, it would be interesting to know how successful the unit was in infecting people. A cousin who took part in the testing informed me that there was much exchanging of nasal swabs during her stay there. One would think that although a cure was not found there might be conclusions on infection rates and methods. Apparently over 1,000 papers were issued from the unit but I have no idea where these would reside. A link to UK Gov gives a 404 error relating to the papers.

      Reply
        1. Steve

          Not really. This was about 40 years ago and based on a conversation with my cousin at that time. As I recall, I was told that initially the people were infected, or not, via a nasal swab, then they were monitored with samples being taken daily again via swabs. This occurred over 10-14 days while the volunteers were kept in isolation on full bed and board at the unit. That’s all I know and I assume it was accurate. There is some limited information on line if you search.

          Reply
          1. Steve

            ?
            Jerome, I have done a bit of digging and found this really excellent Paper by Dr Tyrrell, he essentially set-up and run the CCRU: “A View from the Common Cold Unit”
            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016635429290032Z
            The paper gives a history of common cold research in the UK from around 1940 – 1990. It’s very well written and covers technical developments as well as an overview of some of the achievements of the research unit.
            This is an example of those halcyon days when the British Government actually funded scientific research without undue interference by Big Pharma.

    1. Mr Chris

      Steve
      Two ways of looking at the news about Andrew Bridgen, one is he is a fighter for truth, but that view would have to be tinged with what a judge said about his truthfulness, or that he is an opportunist jumping on a vote gathering bandwagon.

      Reply
      1. barovsky

        Yes, given that he was devout supporter of jabs, lockdowns et al just a short while ago would lend credence to the view that he says whatever he thinks will advance his career [sic] or, the guy is totally clueless about anything and his being a Tory MP kinda supports the latter doncha think?

        Reply
        1. Jerome savage

          Dr asseem malhotra and John campbell (a doctor not a med doctor) also had Damascus road moments. As this unfolds – I expect ther might be many more DMR’s (Damascus Road Moments)

          Reply
      2. Jerome savage

        How many honest politicians are there ? Seems to be a trademark to spin & duck & dive and deceive. Going against the government agenda cannot be a good career move. So in this case he has made up for any perceived untruths.
        PS How honest are judges? Past miscarriages of justice in the legal system at the very top, do not offer us much comfort. The problem with some of the MSM fellows is that they focused on his past court case rather than on what he said. Ad hominem attack we might say.

        Reply
      3. Steve

        You’re right but his main crime was putting his head above the parapet and mentioning that the emperor has no clothes. He was a marked man when he spoke out and anti-Semitism is the weapon of choice of the establishment.

        Reply
        1. cavenewt

          I have to say that’s the way I’m thinking after having read a couple of articles about it.

          Not being a Brit, I don’t know the ins and outs of his other political stands, but from observing current culture on a wider scale, critics will grab anything even peripherally related to race or antisemitism and latch onto that as an angle of attack.

          Reply
          1. Jerome savage

            Bridgen quoted leading cardiologist Asseem malhotra comparing the vax rollout to the Holocaust.
            That was his sin – Rishi sunak said it was anti semitic and the Jews had put up with enough the past 2 years (presumably unlike everyone else who had a jolly good time) and he was determined to stamp out anti semitism once & for all. This passes for debate.

      1. Steve

        The New World Order has several new religions that cannot be questioned or critiqued: NHS, Covid, Holocaust/Zionism, Ukraine, Climate. Questioning these religions is blasphemy and free speech is certainly not permitted by the inquisitors.
        We don’t know what affect Bridgen was aiming for, so we don’t really know if being thrown out of the corrupt tory party was good or bad for him. IMO it is good.

        Reply
  40. Geoff

    Here’s another glimpse of how the regulatory system functions.:

    From: The Hideous Corruption Of Scott Gottlieb [Former head of the FDA]

    Summary: Brett Giroir, MD, a former head of the FDA Tweeted that natural immunity is superior to jab immunity and for that, inter alia, another former head of the FDA Scott Gottlieb, MD pressured Twitter to censor Giroir and to downplay the efficacy of natural immunity.

    Fun Note: Around 8:00 minutes into the vid, Ron Paul MD, says, “Amazing though, how gullible…the doctors are who go through with that thing … I can’t believe how stupid!!!!”

    Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-hideous-corruption-of-scott-gottlieb/

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s