The Probiotic Myth: Why “Good Bacteria” Aren’t Enough to Heal Your Gut

Unbalanced Microbiome Symptoms

I received an emailed ad for a new product that contains some data I had not seen before. Took me down an interesting path of discovery about which I will share more later.

Here is some of the ad and a link to the rest of it:

Discover the groundbreaking “phage” technology that succeeds where probiotics and restrictive diets fail – and can target bloating, constipation, and digestive distress in just hours.

If you’re like most people with chronic bloating, constipation, or other digestive woes, you’ve probably been told that probiotics are the answer.

Just flood your gut with “good bacteria,” they say, and watch your symptoms disappear.

But what if I told you that probiotics are not the gut-healing cure-all they’re cracked up to be?

In fact, for some people, they can actually make digestive issues worse.

The truth is, when it comes to lasting relief from gut distress, adding more bacteria – even the “good” kind – is like trying to weed an overgrown garden by planting more flowers.

It doesn’t directly address the root of the problem.

So what does?

Cutting-edge research has revealed a remarkable new approach that succeeds where probiotics and restrictive diets fail.

It’s called bacteriophage therapy, and it’s based on a simple but profound idea:

Instead of just adding more bacteria to your gut, what if you could precisely target and eliminate the “bad guys” causing all the trouble?

https://start.goodnesslover.com/bacteriophage-article-probiotics-25blackfriday/

What They Never Tell Us About Salt

Why natural salt is essential for health

A Midwestern Doctor

Story at a glance:

•For 50 years, medicine has waged a misguided war against critical sources of health like salt and sunlight while avoiding discussing the real causes of diseases. Because of this, the dangers of salt are relentlessly focused on despite evidence not supporting them.

•In parallel, the extreme dangers of consuming too little salt are rarely discussed in the medical field—despite dangerously low sodium being one of the most common conditions seen in hospitalized patients, and chronically low sodium greatly increasing one’s risk of dying.

•The war against salt originated from the belief salt raises blood pressure—despite the evidence showing it doesn’t.

•Many of the foundational beliefs around high blood pressure are not supported by the existing data, leading to situations where patients are routinely medicated to blood pressures far below what is safe, significantly reducing their quality of life and increasing their risk of severe injuries or death.

•Salt restriction creates many similar complications to dangerously low blood pressures (e.g., fatigue, lightheadedness, erectile dysfunction). Because of this, many find their health and energy dramatically improves once they start consuming healthy salts.

•This article will cover some of the key dangers associated with salt restriction and strategies for locating the healthiest natural salts.

Many medical policies are driven more by profit than by evidence of what truly benefits patients. Because of this, we frequently see medicine refuse to ever discuss the things that are making us sick (e.g., numerous studies show vaccines make children 2-10X more likely to develop chronic illnesses that are now widespread) while in tandem, we are relentlessly pressured to put all focus onto a few things which do not make enough money for lobbyists to defend them.

In this article, I will explore one of my key frustrations with this dynamic: the medical establishment’s ongoing war on salt. In this article, I will focus on one of my major frustrations with this medical paradigm—the war against salt.

Note: the war against salt began in 1977 when a Senate Committee published dietary guidelines arguing for reduced sodium consumption despite the existing evidence not supporting this. Since then, like many other bad policies, it has developed an nearly unstoppable inertia of its own.

The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. To learn more about this newsletter and how others have benefitted from it, click here!

Is Salt Bad For You?

Many people you ask, particularly those in the medical field will tell you salt is bad, and one of the most common pieces of health advice given both inside and outside of medicine is to eat less salt.

Over the years, I’ve heard two main arguments for why salt is bad for you.

First, salt raises blood pressure, and high blood pressure is deadly, so salt is too and should be avoided.

Second, with individuals who have heart failure, eating too many salty foods will create exacerbations of their condition, and as a result, after holidays where people eat those foods (e.g., the 4th of July) more heart failure patients will be admitted to hospitals for heart failure exacerbations.

Note: excessive sodium causes these exacerbations because if an excess amount of fluid accumulates in a compromised system (e.g., because the weakened heart can’t move enough blood to the kidneys to eliminate it), it then overloads other parts of the body (e.g., causing swelling and edema, which, if in the lungs, can be life threatening).

Because of these two things, many in the medical field assume that salt must be bad for you and hence strongly urge patients to avoid it (to the point you often see an elderly patient who loves her salt be aggressively pushed into abandoning it). Unfortunately, the logic behind those two arguments’ logic is less solid than it appears.

The Great Blood Pressure Scam

Since medicine revolves around making money, patient care is often structured to be as profitable as possible. In turn, since recurring revenue is a foundational principle of successful businesses, a key goal in medicine often ends up being to have as many patients as possible on lifelong prescriptions.

In most cases, the drugs that are developed and approved have real value for specific situations, but those situations are not enough to cover the exorbitant cost it requires to get a drug to market. As a result, once drugs are approved, the industry will gradually come up with reasons to give them to more and more people and in turn quickly arrive at the point where many of their customers have greater harm than benefit from the pharmaceutical.

One classic way this is done is by creating a drug that treats a number, asserting that the number has to be within a certain range for someone to be healthy, and then once that is enshrined, narrow and narrow the acceptable range so less and less people are “healthy” and hence need the drug (e.g., this happened with cholesterol once statins were invested). Likewise, this characterizes the history of blood pressure management:

Because of this, many people (particularly the elderly) are frequently pushed to excessively low blood pressures which reduces critical blood perfusion for the organs—which particularly unfortunate as high blood pressure is often a symptom of poor circulation rather than its cause.

As such, reducing the remaining circulation by lowering blood pressure then makes them significantly more likely to get a variety of significant issues (e.g., kidney injuries, cognitive impairment, macular degeneration), the most studied of which is lightheadedness or fainting leading to (often devastating) falls. Additionally, blood pressure medications also often greatly reduce one’s quality of life (e.g., by causing fatigue or erectile dysfunction).

Note: for those interested in learning more about the great blood pressure scam (a lot of what we’re taught about blood pressure is less than accurate), it can be read here.

Low Sodium

A cornerstone of cementing the blood pressure market has been to make everyone terrified of salt (much in the same way making people terrified of the sun is a cornerstone of the lucrative skin cancer treatment market—despite the fact the deadly skin cancers are actually due to a lack of sunlight).

Remarkably, much like the great dermatology scam (which has been able to make a massive amount of money from removing cancers that almost never become life threatening) the link between blood pressure and salt consumption is actual quite tenuous.

For example, the most detailed review of this subject found that drastic salt reduction typically results in less than a 1% reduction in blood pressure. Likewise, doctors rarely recognize that patients in the hospital are routinely given large amounts of IV 0.9% sodium chloride, in many cases receiving ten times the daily recommended sodium chloride we are supposed to consume—yet their blood pressure often barely rises.

Note: some individuals and certain ethnicities are salt-sensitive. They may experience greater increases in blood pressure or worsening of other symptoms when consuming moderate amounts of salt (although this does not apply to the majority of the population).

Despite this, patients are often pushed to eliminate all (or almost all) salt from their life. Beyond this significantly reducing their quality of life (as people like salty foods) it can be dangerous. For example:

•A study of 181 countries found that countries with lower salt consumption have shorter life expectancies.

•Low sodium levels (hyponatremia) are strongly correlated with a risk of dying (e.g., the salt consumption target we are recommended to follow increases one’s risk of dying by 25%). Likewise, a common reason for hospital admissions, are symptoms resulting from hyponatremia (as once sodium levels get too low, it can be very dangerous), and 15-20% of hospitalized patients have low sodium levels at admission.

Note: mild hyponatremia is also associated with an increased risk of death.

•Reduced salt consumption, not surprisingly, increases one’s risk of hyponatremia (e.g., one study one study found salt restriction made hypertensive patients 9.9 times more likely to develop hyponatremia).

Note: many blood pressure and psychiatric medications put you at risk for dangerously low sodium levels (e.g., SSRI antidepressants make you 3.16 times more likely to develop hyponatremia). Additionally, certain patients (e.g., those with autonomic nervous issues) are much more sensitive to salt restriction causing hypotension (low blood pressure).

• Low dietary sodium intake causes a 34% increase in cardiovascular disease and death.

•Rapidly lowering blood sodium levels reduces cardiac output and blood pressure in a manner resembling traumatic shock (which frequently raises the heart rate as the heart tries to compensate for insufficient blood). Low salt consumption, in turn, has been repeatedly linked to tachycardia (and atrial fibrillation).

•Aging kidneys have a reduced ability to respond to changes in blood sodium levels (putting them at greater risk for hyponatremia following sodium deprivation).

Note: three of the most common symptoms of hyponatremia (which lead people to go to the Emergency Room) are fatigue, confusion and difficulty concentrating.

•Many have reported discovering low salt consumption was the cause of their fatigue and lightheadedness (which has also been proven in a clinical trial which treated postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome with increasing dietary sodium).

Note: chronically low blood pressure (e.g., POTS) has been shown to be one cause of chronic fatigue syndrome,1,2 and POTS is often treated with increased dietary sodium.

•Chronic sodium depletion has been linked to fatigue and insomnia.

•Many readers have shared with me that a variety of health issues improved once they began consuming natural salt (e.g., headaches, erectile dysfunction, waking up in the middle of the night or chronically elevated blood pressures).

Note: a variety of other health issues (e.g., worsening of diabetes or a stomach hydrochloric acid deficiency) have also been linked to insufficient dietary sodium.

U-Shaped Curves

Frequently in physiology, a number will be observed which, when improved, appears to correlate with improved health, leading to the assumption as much as possible should be done to improve that number. In many cases however, at some point, the effect reverses, and it becomes harmful to further increase or decrease that number. For example, with blood pressure, a few data points showed that if it’s too high, it increases one’s risk of death, so this was used to create a linear model which extrapolated that trend to much lower blood pressure values.

Yet, in real life, once blood pressure gets too low, the trend reverses and one’s risk of dying increases rather than decreases:

Risk Of Death Blood Pressure

Likewise, both high and low sodium diets have been shown to increase the risk of death. This U-shaped curve was best demonstrated in a study of chronic kidney disease and heart failure patients:

Serum Sodium U Curve

Note: due to excessive sodium consumption causing HF exacerbations, those patients are often told to avoid dietary sodium, yet there are many cases of them improving once they add some salt back into their diet (as they had been on the left side of this curve). While this has long been known within the integrative health field, in the last few years, data at last is emerging to support this,1,2,3 and Europe is beginning to rescind salt restriction recommendations for heart failure patients.

Zeta Potential Curves

When fluid contains suspended particles (which is true for most fluids in nature), those colloids can either have finely dispersed or clumped together particles. One of the primary determinants of this is the electrical repulsion or attraction between the particles, something quantified by a system’s zeta potential and heavily influenced by the charges present in a solution (e.g, too many positive charges will make fluid components like blood cells clump together and is why the aluminum in vaccinations frequently trigger microstrokes of varying severity). In turn, many diseases result from poor zeta potential, including poor circulation and fluid congestion or edema (e.g., that seen in heart failure).

One critical aspect of zeta potential is that it follows a U-shaped curve in relationship to the amount of a charged ion present, with both too little or too much of it being problematic.

Note: giving IV sodium infusions to hospital patients will frequently greatly improve their condition, something nonchalantly attributed to everyone being “dehydrated” but more accurately due to their blood sodium being too low to adequately support the physiologic zeta potential. Likewise, many people often feel much better after getting outpatient saline infusions at concierge hydration clinics.

This in turn helps to explain why too little salt (e.g., through intentional sodium restriction or unintentional sodium restriction through a diet that puts you into ketosis [which increases sodium excretion]) can be problematic while at the same time high salt diets can be problematic as well.

Healthy Salts

With high salt diets, I believe a few points are particularly important to recognize:

1. I’ve had multiple cases where I ate fairly salty foods right before bed, then woke up feeling extremely dry throughout my body with a fast heart rate. Through trial and error I figured out drinking high quality reverse osmosis water would help me feel better.

Later, from reading Thomas Riddick’s work on zeta potential, I understood what was happening and measured the conductivity in my urine, which showed that my kidneys indeed were trying to dump a large amount of sodium and restore my zeta potential. Riddick, tracked many cases where more severe versions of what I experienced resulted in cardiovascular incidents (as poor zeta potential causes blood to clot together and triggers heart arrhythmias as the heart struggles to push this congested blood).

Note: many have reported to me that zeta potential restoring protocols fixed their atrial fibrillation.

2 Riddick (and those who followed him) found that processed foods and many restaurant meals tended to be problematic for zeta potential and hence advised reducing the frequency of their consumption (e.g., I try to minimize eating out because of the congestion I feel after restaurant meals).

Note: since there are so many other harmful things in processed foods, it is very possible many of the issues associated with salty foods are due to something else that is present in it (e.g., seed oils or toxic additives).

3. Riddick believed one of our key issues with salt was that potassium was better for zeta potential than sodium, so by switching our potassium based sources of salt (e.g., vegetables) for highly salted foods, we were creating an unhealthy balance between the two. Likewise, modern research has shown adequate potassium alongside sodium is critical for cardiovascular health (e.g., normalizing blood pressure).

Note: potassium deficiency causes a variety of issues (e.g., fatigue and muscle cramps) and many practitioners over the years have found supplementary potassium greatly helps their patients.

4. In general, I noticed most of the salt overload issues individuals run into come from eating foods high in refined salt (e.g., salty processed foods) rather than those consuming natural salts. This has led me to suspect that a major issue with salt is either something else present in the processed foods or something specific to processed salts. At this point, my best guesses is that is due to refined salts:

•Lacking minerals we otherwise need for homeostasis.

•Containing other problematic additives (e.g., refined salt tends to clump together so it requires anti-caking agents, many of which adversely affect zeta potential).

•Having a refinement process that introduces unhealthy chemicals to the salt (e.g., sodium carbonate, sodium hydroxide, barium chloride or barium carbonate are used to remove minerals besides sodium from refined salt).

Note: their bleaching or heating may also be problematic.

As such, we always advise patients to consume natural salts and have found this helps patients while rarely causing issues.

Note: in many cases, the best results with a natural salt are gotten if a small amount is mixed into water drank throughout the day, something I believe is due to fully dispersed salts (e.g., those pre-dissolved in water) being the best for restoring the physiologic zeta potential.

Conclusion:

As medical approaches to treating disease often do not address the root causes of illness, this requires creating easy scapegoats (e.g., the sun, or saturated fat, or eggs) to blame for their treatment failures. This is particularly unfortunate as those scapegoats are often actually essential for health. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) our medical system is now bursting under the strain of the costs of those approaches and thanks to the ascendancy of the MAHA movement and the need to cut deficit spending, it is now becoming possible to re-examine the faulty assumptions public health rests upon.

We now have a real window to do this, and since there are so many different things that need to be seriously re-examined, my goal has been to do my part to help many of these things that have deeply frustrated me for decades at last be addressed. Fortunately, I am but one of many rising to the occasion, and I thank each of you for being part of that journey with me and doing what you can to bring health back to the world.

Author’s note: This is (reader requested) shortened version of a longer article that goes into more detail on the importance of salt and which natural salts are the healthiest for you. That article can be read here https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-truth-about-salt-efa, along with a companion article about the great blood pressure scam (which can be read here https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-great-blood-pressure-scam).

UK Government wins 2-year battle to withhold data linking COVID Vaccines to excess deaths

Covid Vials Union Jack

The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) is not required to publicize data that may link COVID-19 vaccines to an increase in excess deaths in the United Kingdom during the pandemic, following a ruling last week by the U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office.

The ruling, which concludes a two-year battle for the release of the data, has led to accusations of a “cover-up,” according to The Telegraph, which first reported the story.

In 2023, UsForThem, a nonprofit advocacy group, requested the data under the country’s freedom of information laws. However, UKHSA challenged the request, citing concerns that releasing the data could fuel “misinformation” and cause “distress” to the vaccine-injured.

https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/human-rights/uk-government-wins-2-year-battle-to-withhold-data-linking-covid-vaccines-to-excess-deaths/

Plastic Not So Fantastic

From a newsletter I received from someone selling ceramic cookware.

Every time you stir, flip, or roast on a scratched nonstick pan, tiny pieces of plastic are breaking off straight into your food.

No taste. No smell. No warning.

One deep scratch in a nonstick pan can release 9,100 plastic particles. A worn one? 2.3 million per meal. (Luo et al., Science of the Total Environment, 2022)

Just millions of microscopic shards silently clinging to your stuffing, your gravy, your roasted vegetables, and heading directly into your body.

This isn’t a scare tactic. It’s confirmed science.

One pan scratch = 9,100 particles.
One old pan = 2.3 million+ particles in a single use.

See the problem?

If your cookware is coated in aging nonstick film (most likely PTFE, aka Teflon), then Thanksgiving isn’t just about turkey anymore.

It’s about how many plastic particles you’re accidentally serving.

Microplastics are not just a gut issue. They don’t get flushed out. They move.

A 2022 study found plastic particles in 80% of human blood samples. (Leslie et al., 2022, Environment International, 163).

Another recent study linked plastic particles in artery plaques to a 4.5x higher risk of heart attacks or strokes. (New England Journal of Medicine, 2024).

They’ve been found in lungs, placentas, even in brain tissue.

This isn’t fringe science anymore. It’s a full-blown health crisis, one that starts quietly in kitchens just like yours.

Because it’s not only the salt or sugar hurting your heart.
It’s what’s leaching off your cookware and getting into your bloodstream.

Original thinking is suppressed by the medical establishment

There’s no room for initiative and originality in modern medicine. On the contrary, both are actively suppressed. Dissent is officially stifled. Medicine today has become rigid, like other forms of science, and original thinking is as unacceptable today as it was in the days when Semmelweiss was vilified. Most people who work in medicine today don’t actually think any more. Oh, they think about what shirt or blouse to wear and they think about what new car to buy and they think about the money they can make but they don’t really think about basic, fundamental, important stuff. They don’t think about what they are doing with their lives, or why they are doing it or whether it is what they dreamt of doing when they joined the healing profession.

The medical establishment has never been enthusiastic about new ideas. After all, the medical establishment stoutly rejected anaesthesia and the principles of antisepsis and the brave physicians who promoted such ideas had to cope with rejection, cynicism and oppression.

Over the centuries, just about every major advance in medicine has come as a result of the work of eccentric, passionate, determined unclubbables who have fought the establishment and who would today almost certainly fail the newly introduced registration, licensing and revalidation procedures designed to ensure that only doctors who obey every rule of the establishment are allowed to practice medicine.

Finish reading: https://open.substack.com/pub/drvernoncoleman/p/original-thinking-is-suppressed-by

Nine things about vaccines that you should know but that no one else will tell you – Vernon Coleman

The following is taken from Dr Vernon Coleman’s long-term bestselling book `Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying: Here’s the Proof.’

1) The principle behind vaccination is superficially convincing. The theory is that when an individual is given a vaccine – which consists of a weakened or dead version of the disease against which protection is required – his or her body will be tricked into developing antibodies to the disease in exactly the same way that a body develops antibodies when it is exposed to the disease itself.

But in reality things aren’t quite so simple. How long do the antibodies last? Do they always work? What about those individuals who don’t produce antibodies at all? Vaccination, like so much of medicine, is a far more inexact science than doctors (and drug companies) would like us to think.

The truth is that it is a ruthless and self-serving lie to claim that vaccines have wiped out many diseases and have contributed hugely to the increase in life expectation we now enjoy. The evidence shows that the diseases which are supposed to have been wiped out by vaccines were disappearing long before vaccines were introduced. And the argument that we are living longer is a statistical myth which rests upon the fact that in the past the infant mortality rate was much higher than it is now (because of contaminated drinking water and other public health problems). When the infant mortality rate is high the average life expectation is low. When the infant mortality rate falls then the average life expectation rises. (If one person dies at the age of 1 and another dies at the age of 99 they have an average life span of 50 years. If the person who died prematurely lives longer then the average life span will be much longer).

2) All doctors have to do is to make a note of how many children who receive a vaccine develop a disease and then compare those results with the number of children who get the disease but haven’t had the vaccine. This will provide information showing that the vaccine is (or is not) effective.

And they could make a note of the number of vaccinated children who develop serious health problems after vaccination and then compare that number with the incidence of serious health problems among unvaccinated children. What could be easier than that?

These would be easy and cheap trials to perform. They would simply require the collection of some basic information. And it would be vital to follow the children for at least 20 years to obtain useful information. A trial involving 100,000 children would be enough.

But I do not know of anyone who has done, or is doing, this simple research. Could it possibly be that no one does such basic research because the results might be embarrassing for those who want to sell vaccines?

3) As with whooping cough, tetanus and other diseases the incidence, and number of deaths from diphtheria, had been in decline long before the vaccine was introduced.

4) When the swine flu vaccine was first introduced it was said that it would prevent the disease. Then it was announced that it would shorten the duration of the disease. It was said that 159 deaths had occurred in Mexico as a result of the flu but this was later corrected to just seven deaths. Independent doctors warned that for children the side effects of the drug far outweighed the benefits and that one in twenty children was suffering from nausea or vomiting (severe enough to bring on dehydration) and also nightmares. The disease was being diagnosed on the NHS telephone line (provided as an alternative to a disappearing GP service) by telephone operators who were, presumably, satisfied that their diagnostic skills enabled them to differentiate between flu and early signs of other, more deadly disorders such as meningitis. (Making diagnoses on the telephone is a dangerous business even for a doctor.)

Senior politicians in Europe subsequently called H1N1 a faked pandemic and accused pharmaceutical companies (and their lackeys) of encouraging a false scare. Limited health resources had been wasted buying millions of doses of vaccine. And millions of healthy people had been needlessly exposed to the unknown side effects of vaccines that in my view had been insufficiently tested.

As always, vaccinations were given with greatest enthusiasm to children and the elderly – the most immunologically vulnerable and the easiest to damage with vaccines.

5) The first breakthrough in the development of a poliomyelitis vaccine was made in 1949 with the aid of a human tissue culture but when the first practical vaccine was prepared in the 1950’s monkey kidney tissue was used because that was standard laboratory practice. Researchers didn’t realise that one of the viruses commonly found in monkey kidney cells can cause cancer in humans.

If human cells had been used to prepare the vaccine (as they could and should have been and as they are now) the original poliomyelitis vaccine would have been much safer.

(As a side issue this is yet another example of the stupidity of using animal tissue in the treatment of human patients. The popularity of using transplants derived from animals suggests that doctors and scientists have learned nothing from this error. I sometimes despair of those who claim to be in the healing profession. Most members of the medical establishment don’t have the brains required for a career in street cleaning.)

Bone, brain, liver and lung cancers have all been linked to the monkey kidney virus SV40 and something like 17 million people who were given the polio vaccine in the 1950s and 1960s are probably now at risk (me included). Moreover, there now seems to be evidence that the virus may be passed on to the children of those who were given the contaminated vaccine. The SV40 virus from the polio vaccine has already been found in cancers which have developed both in individuals who were given the vaccine as protection against polio and in the children of individuals who were given the vaccine. It seems inconceivable that the virus could have got into the tumours other than through the polio vaccine.

The American Government was warned of this danger back in 1956 but the doctor who made the discovery was ignored and her laboratory was closed down. Surprise, surprise. It was five years after this discovery before drug companies started screening out the virus. And even then Britain had millions of doses of the infected polio vaccine in stock. There is no evidence that the Government withdrew the vaccine and so it was almost certainly just used until it had all gone. No one can be sure about this because in Britain the official records which would have identified those who had received the contaminated vaccine were all destroyed by the Department of Health in 1987. Oddly enough the destruction of those documents means that no one who develops cancer as a result of a vaccine they were given (and which was recommended to their parents by the Government) can take legal action against the Government. Gosh. The world is so full of surprises. My only remaining question is a simple one: How do these bastards sleep at night?

6) One of the medical professions greatest boasts is that it eradicated smallpox through the use of a vaccine. I myself believed this claim for many years. But it isn’t true.

One of the worst smallpox epidemics of all time took place in England between 1870 and 1872 – nearly two decades after compulsory vaccination was introduced. After this evidence that smallpox vaccination didn’t work the people of Leicester in the English Midlands refused to have the vaccine any more. When the next smallpox epidemic struck in the early 1890s the people of Leicester relied upon good sanitation and a system of quarantine. There was only one death from smallpox in Leicester during that epidemic. In contrast the citizens of other towns (who had been vaccinated) died in vast numbers.

Obligatory vaccination against smallpox was introduced in Germany as a result of state by-laws, but these vaccination programmes had no influence on the incidence of the disease. On the contrary, the smallpox epidemic continued to grow and in 1870 Germany had the gravest smallpox epidemic in its history. At that point the new German Reich introduced a new national law making vaccination against smallpox an even stricter legal requirement. The police were given the power to enforce the new law.

German doctors (and medical students) are taught that it was the Reich Vaccination Law which led to a dramatic reduction in the incidence of smallpox in Germany. But a close look at the figures shows that the incidence of smallpox had already started to fall before the law came into action. And the legally enforced national smallpox vaccination programme did not eradicate the disease.

Doctors and drug companies may not like it but the truth is that surveillance, quarantine and better living conditions got rid of smallpox – not the smallpox vaccine.

When the international campaign to rid the world of smallpox was at its height the number of cases of smallpox went up each time there was a large scale (and expensive) mass vaccination of populations in susceptible countries. As a result of this the strategy was changed. Mass vaccination programmes were abandoned and replaced with surveillance, isolation and quarantine.

The myth that smallpox was eradicated through a mass vaccination programme is just that – a myth. Smallpox was eradicated through identifying and isolating patients with the disease.

7) It was noticed decades ago that in the lung sanatoriums that specialised in the treatment of TB patients there was no difference in the survival rates of patients who had been `protected’ against TB with BCG vaccination when compared to the survival rates of patients who had received no such `protection’.

8) Although official spokesmen claim otherwise, I don’t believe the whooping cough vaccine has ever had a significant influence on the number of children dying from whooping cough. The dramatic fall in the number of deaths caused by the disease came well before the vaccine was widely available and was, historians agree, the result of improved public health measures and the use of antibiotics.

It was in 1957 that the whooping cough vaccine was first introduced nationally in Britain – although the vaccine was tried out in the late 1940s and the early 1950s. But the incidence of whooping cough, and the number of children dying from the disease, had both fallen very considerably well before 1957. So, for example, while doctors reported 170,000 cases of whooping cough in 1950 they reported only about 80,000 cases in 1955. The introduction of the vaccine really didn’t make very much, if any, difference to the fall in the incidence of the disease. Thirty years after the introduction of the vaccine, whooping cough cases were still running at about 1,000 a week in Britain.

Similarly, the figures show that the introduction of the vaccine had no effect on the number of children dying from whooping cough. The mortality rate associated with the disease had been falling appreciably since the early part of the 20th century and rapidly since the 1930s and 1940s – showing a particularly steep decline after the introduction of the sulphonamide drugs. Whooping cough is undoubtedly an extremely unpleasant disease but it has not been a major killer for many years. Successive governments have frequently forecast fresh whooping cough epidemics but none of the forecast epidemics has produced the devastation predicted.

My second point is that the whooping cough vaccine is neither very efficient nor is it safe. The efficiency of the vaccine is of subsidiary interest – although thousands of children who have been vaccinated do still get the disease – for the greatest controversy surrounds the safety of the vaccine. The DHSS has always claimed that serious adverse reactions to the whooping cough vaccine are extremely rare and the official suggestion has been that the risk of a child being brain damaged by the vaccine is no higher than one in 100,000. Leaving aside the fact that I find a risk of one in 100,000 unacceptable, it is interesting to examine this figure a little more closely, for after a little research work it becomes clear that the figure of one in 100,000 is a guess.

Numerous researchers have studied the risks of brain damage following whooping cough vaccination and their results make fascinating reading. Between 1960 and 1981, for example, nine reports were published showing that the risk of brain damage varied between one in 6,000 and one in 100,000. The average was a risk of one in 50,000. It is clear from these figures that the Government simply chose the figure which showed the whooping cough vaccine to be least risky. Moreover, the one in 100,000 figure was itself an estimate – a guess.

Although the British Government consistently claims that whooping cough is a dangerous disease, the figures show that it is not the indiscriminate killer it is made out to be. Whooping cough causes very few deaths a year in Britain. Many more deaths are caused by tuberculosis and meningitis.

The truth about the whooping cough vaccine is that it has, in the past, been a disaster. The vaccine has been withdrawn in some countries because of the amount of brain damage associated with its use. In Japan, Sweden and West Germany the vaccine has, in the past, been omitted from regular vaccination schedules. In America, some years ago, two out of three whooping cough vaccine manufacturers stopped making the vaccine because of the cost of lawsuits. On 6th December 1985 the Journal of the American Medical Association published a major report showing that the whooping cough vaccine was, without doubt, linked to the development of serious brain damage.

The final nail in the coffin lid is the fact that the British Government quietly paid out compensation to the parents of hundreds of children who had been brain damaged by the whooping cough vaccine. Some parents who accepted damages in the early years were given as little as £10,000.

My startling conclusion is that for many years now the whooping cough vaccine has been killing or severely injuring more children than the disease itself. In the decade after 1979, around 800 children (or their parents) received money from the Government as compensation for vaccine produced brain damage. In the same period less than 100 children were killed by whooping cough. I think that made the vaccine more dangerous than the disease. And that, surely is quite unacceptable. So, why did the British Government continue to encourage doctors to use the vaccine?

9) It is well known that people who are healthy are more resistant to disease. For example, infectious diseases are least likely to affect (and to kill) those who have healthy immune systems. Sadly, and annoyingly, we still don’t know precisely how immunity works and if we still don’t know precisely how immunity works, it is difficult to see how can we possibly know exactly how vaccines might work – and what damage they might do. However, this is a potentially embarrassing and inconvenient problem and so it is an issue that is not discussed within the medical establishment.

What we do know is that since vaccines are usually given by injection they by-pass the body’s normal defence systems. Inevitably, therefore, vaccination is an extremely unnatural process. (The words `extremely unnatural process’ should worry anyone concerned about long term consequences.)

The good news is that we can improve our immunity to disease by eating wisely, by not becoming overweight, by taking regular gentle exercise and by avoiding regular contact with toxins and carcinogens (such as tobacco smoke and the carcinogens in meat). If doctors gave advice on these issues, and explained what is known about the immune system, they could without doubt save many lives. But where’s the profit in giving such simple advice? Drug companies can’t make any money out of it. And neither can doctors.

That isn’t cynicism or scepticism, by the way. It’s straightforward, plain, unvarnished, ungarnished truth.

I no longer believe that vaccines have any role to play in the protection of the community or the individual. Vaccines may be profitable but, in my view, they are neither safe nor effective. I prefer to put my trust in building up my immune system.

Taken from `Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying’ by Vernon Coleman – which is available via the bookshop on www.vernoncoleman.com

Copyright Vernon Coleman 2025

Two thirds of health care workers say NO to vaccines – leaving pro vaxxers in a minority

Curiously, the majority of GPs in Britain didn’t have the covid-19 vaccine. And this week it was quietly revealed that two thirds of health care staff refused to have the annual flu vaccine. The word is spreading and now there are clearly more anti-vaxxers than pro-vaxxers working in health care in the UK. Something to celebrate. It’s just surprising that there are so many pro-vaxxers left since they are clearly ignorant members of a diminishing cult.

https://open.substack.com/pub/drvernoncoleman/p/two-thirds-of-health-care-workers

Revisiting Depression — Dopamine-Serotonin Balance Gains Attention for Treatment-Resistant Depression

Dopamine Seratonin

  • A major clinical trial in The Lancet Psychiatry found that boosting dopamine with pramipexole improved symptoms in treatment-resistant depression. This challenges the long-dominant serotonin deficiency theory
  • Supporting those findings, another study showed that agomelatine, a serotonin-blocking drug, consistently reduced anxiety and depression in multiple placebo-controlled trials
  • Research shows polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats (PUFs and MUFs) directly trigger platelet aggregation and serotonin release, while saturated fats do not, linking modern diets to serotonin excess
  • Studies confirm that combinations of unsaturated fats amplify serotonin release even at sub-threshold levels, making everyday dietary choices especially relevant to serotonin-driven health risks and mood instability
  • Increasing GABA helps your body break down serotonin, restoring calm, better sleep, and mood stability without SSRI side effects, making it a safer alternative for addressing depression and anxiety

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/11/10/dopamine-serotonin-treatment-resistant-depression.aspx