¹³For You formed my inward parts; You wove me together in the womb of my mother. 14I will praise You, for I am fearfully, wonderfully made.

Psalm 139: 13-14 – The Keys of the Kingdom Holy Bible

¹⁶Surely you know that you are God’s temple, where the spirit of God dwells. ¹⁷Anyone who destroys God’s temple will himself be destroyed by God, for the temple of God is holy and you are that temple.

1 Corinthians 3: 16-17 – The Revised English Bible

Photo courtesy of Nataliya Vaitkevich

My last post was about sewage sludge and some of the questions that arise from it being spread on our fields. I’ve been struck by how many of my readers were completely unaware of this practice, until reading my article; several have challenged whether the practice is illegal (it isn’t, at least not in the UK). I now want to follow up that post with one about health. The connection between the two is, I hope, self-evident.

I’ve often reflected on the fact that when I was a boy, although I knew a number of people who suffered from eczema, I knew not one single person who suffered from gluten intolerance (which ‘took off’ in about 2010), peanut intolerance (which grew sixfold between 2000 and 2015), or dairy intolerance (which now affects almost a third of the UK population and is again massively increasing). The rise in food intolerance has been described as ‘an epidemic’ by one expert. So, what might have caused these changes?

I think the first thing to admit is that this area is incredibly complex, as there are so many factors that might have contributed to impacts on the health of the population. And it’s probably worth saying that the use of sewage sludge, even if it has contributed to the rise, is unlikely to have had a large, let alone sole, impact. I’ve been unable to find out when the practice first started, but it’s not long enough ago for this to have been a big factor. But the use of agrichemicals and other farming practices may be playing a part; I’m proposing to explore food and farming and their part in these issues more in my next post.

If you look up the ‘official, government’ causes of ill health, you will find that the following are listed: Diet, Exercise, Smoking, Alcohol. So far, so good; I’m sure not many of us would disagree with these. The problem is that there are many additional factors which are not mentioned; secondly, the diet issue is multi-layered and the diet advice given by official sources has often been completely and hopelessly wrong; an issue I’ll cover in my next post.

Let’s start at the beginning. This article is headed ‘Why the facts show that we don’t care about our health!’ How disgraceful! How could I believe such a thing! Well, one of the phrases that I heard a few years ago for the first time and which had a huge impact on me, was this:

“Nobody studies health in this country. What they study is medicine.”

Can this statement be justified? If you look at what doctors do, they react to problems, mainly by prescribing drugs of one kind or another, or they do tests (on blood etc or by scans etc) and then treat the discovered problems, again mostly with pharmaceuticals, or with expensive operations. Is it unfair to point out that one potentially hugely damaging side-effect of this, is that the entire medical community has a large financial incentive for people to be ill and therefore in need of ‘medical treatment’? One of the advertisements that I seem to bump into often, recommending tests for prostate cancer, states that many of those in the target group ‘have no symptoms.’ I know that it’s important to catch cancer early, but has the NHS really so little to do, that it’s keen to find and treat people with no symptoms?

There are some additional facts that I’d like to share with you. How many of you knew that Doctors are no longer required to sign up to the Hippocratic Oath? This legal commitment, which was developed possibly 250 years before Christ, is summarised this way:

“First, do no harm.”

The thought behind such an oath would seem to be so obvious that it’s impossible to understand what could have led to its removal as a requirement for all doctors. It would appear that this change took place many decades ago; I’ve been unable to find the exact date, but it may be as long ago as 1948. The only reason for removing the requirement, that I’ve been able to find, is the bland statement that: ‘It’s no longer relevant in today’s world’. My own view would be that in an era of vastly increased medical interventions, it’s needed more than it ever has been in history!

The second issue that’s worthy of discussion concerns how much we actually know about our bodies and what affects them. It is, of course, true that we know a massive amount more than we did historically. It’s not that many centuries ago that the answer to almost every medical disorder was to ‘bleed’ the patient. But surely the period of COVID from 2020 onward has proved to us (if nothing else) that we only understand a tiny fraction of what needs to be understood, to treat people effectively? You don’t agree with me? Well then, consider these issues:

• When COVID first appeared, a mere four and a bit years ago, it was suggested that it could be caught off surfaces (the so-called ‘fomite transmission’), which is why all the gin distilleries were diverted to making monstrous quantities of disinfectant sprays and liquids, etc. Then, just as suddenly, it was decided that it could only be caught via aerosols. So, the conclusion we must reach is that four years ago, we didn’t know how any viruses were transmitted. Isn’t this ‘step one’ in any understanding of any disease? Are we any the wiser now? Really?
• When the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ (which wasn’t a vaccine at all, as traditionally defined, which is why I’ve put it into inverted commas) was first rolled out, it was stated that it had to be stored at minus 80 degrees C, which was going to make its roll-out more challenging, as not many surgeries had the ability to store at this temperature. The government purchased huge quantities of deep freezes (what happened to them all?). Then, just as suddenly and only a few weeks later, it was decided that this was not a requirement, and it could be held at room temperature, as long as it wasn’t for more than 24 hours. This change, presumably, resulted from detailed study and research over those few short weeks. Really?
• It was also stated at the time that it was not acceptable for ‘vaccines’ to be mixed. If you’d had a first dose of Astra-Zeneca, then you had to continue with A-Z. Then, just as suddenly, it became perfectly OK to mix the different products. Had any testing at all been done to ensure compatibility? I wish I could believe that.
• Ever since the framing of the ‘Nuremburg Code’ after the war, the principle of ‘informed consent’ has been absolutely essential, as part of delivering any pharmaceutical product. In view of the fact that all the major ‘vaccine’ producers absolutely refused to disclose what the ingredients of their particular vaccine were, because of ‘commercial confidentiality’, how could those administering the ‘vaccines’ have been able to claim that they were providing these products with ‘informed consent’? It seems that the NHS then provided guidance to medics that if you had turned up at a ‘vaccine centre’, then that, on its own, fulfilled the requirement for ‘informed consent.’ Really? How many of those being jabbed were actually told even what the manufacturer’s leaflet said (one small example being that it should not be taken with any other pharmaceutical product)?
• As if the above were not an issue, it’s not generally known among the general public that the third most common cause of death in the USA, behind cancer and heart disease, is medical error. How could this be, if we know so much?

 These, and other issues over the last few years have, I’m very sorry to say, hugely dented my confidence in our medical fraternity and in particular our public health community. Am I very unusual? I wonder.

The last, and perhaps killer question, is how much do we understand about the precise root causes of ill health? That’s the issue that I’d like to explore next.

The Psalmist, quoted above, refers to how ‘fearfully and wonderfully made’ we are as human beings. It’s a lovely, poetic expression, but I think it’s also hugely relevant to our age. Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, one of the world’s leading experts in immunology, has stated that our immune systems are ‘a miracle.’ I must stress that I’m not a medical expert, but my understanding is that we acquire our immune systems as soon as we’re born. The way it works, I believe, is that our bodies, via several complex mechanisms, gain an ability to identify what is ‘self’ and what is ‘not-self,’ and attack ruthlessly anything that’s identified as ‘not-self.’ But what about the way in which the COVID ‘vaccines’ are designed to work, ie to create (and continue to create) the ‘Spike protein’, in order to encourage the body’s natural immune systems then to attack it? Spike protein, by definition, is ‘not-self,’ which may be why Dr Bhakdi has asked: ‘Why we would we wish to destroy our natural immune system?’ And Dr Robert Malone, who invented MRNA ‘vaccines’ in 1989 and spent almost a decade trying to solve their natural toxicity[1], without success, has said: ‘MRNA technology is immune-suppressive by intent and design.’ Are we surprised that there has been such a huge number of reported problems following the world-wide, mass-scale rollout of these products? And, bear in mind that the MRNA ‘industry’ has estimated that the value of the market for MRNA products is now ‘several trillion dollars’ per year, globally. Are the producers likely to allow reported problems or objections to stand in their way, in view of the almost unlimited potential for profit? Quite. Sometimes the expression ‘Follow the money’ seems to shout at us.

There is, very sadly, increasing evidence that our bodies are learning to attack themselves following the use of these products. The evidence is all around us, in sick people queueing up for medical attention in an increasingly dysfunctional National Health Service. And it’s disconcerting that the Office for National Statistics data (and equivalent bodies in other countries) clearly show that there was no excess mortality in 2020, when COVID was at its peak, but large excess mortality has appeared in 2021 and every year since. Why does no-one in government wish to investigate what might be causing this? It’s mainly for these reasons that I believe that it’s hard to dispute that the ‘authorities’ don’t show much concern about our health, ie how to keep us healthy and prevent disease.

COVID and the associated ‘vaccines’ are not the only health issue, any more than sewage sludge might be. Like many complex questions, the answers, I suspect, are many. My next article will look at farming, food, water, diet mental health and other issues, and their impact on our physical health.

Heavenly Father, when we suffer, you suffer alongside us. Help us to take more responsibility for our own health and to question what needs to be questioned. And help us to challenge, politely but firmly, those who may have different motives for encouraging, or even coercing us to take particular products. Amen

---

[1] Said in a conversation with Dr Ahmed Malik, see https://substack.com/@docmalik