The Health System has lost its soul: Medicide+Pharmicide=Democide?

Our corrupted health and medical institutions have been repurposed by those whose aims are unthinkably dark. Is the medi-pharma industry now the number 1 cause of death?

The Health System has lost it's soul

Both medicide and pharmicide are occasionally used terms, though they’re not widely recognised in official medical or pharmaceutical literature and although they may lack formal definitions in most dictionaries, I believe they should be used more often. Medicide refers to the act of causing death under the guise of medical care, often linked to euthanasia or medically-assisted death. It's used in discussions around ethics in healthcare, especially where medical intervention intentionally leads to the end of life. Pharmicide suggests death or harm caused by pharmaceutical interventions, often in contexts critical of the pharmaceutical industry or modern drug practices. It can imply negligent or reckless medication use, potentially leading to serious harm or death.

Both terms carry a critical connotation, typically used in discussions around the ethics of medicine and pharmaceutical practices. They’re informal but resonate in discourse on medical ethics, especially among those concerned about overreach in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries.

Medicide sometimes appears in critiques of practices like assisted suicide, euthanasia, or situations where medical interventions prioritise ending suffering over prolonging life. For instance, it’s been used in debates about the moral and ethical boundaries in end-of-life care. Critics argue that in some cases, medicide may blur the line between compassionate care and an overstep of medical authority in determining a patient's end-of-life course. The term may also be used by those who believe certain healthcare practices intentionally or unintentionally lead to death, either through error or policy decisions that deprioritise patient welfare.

Pharmicide is often employed in a more critical stance towards the pharmaceutical industry, particularly where pharmaceuticals might be seen as prioritising profit over patient safety. This term might be invoked by individuals who are concerned about the rising influence of “Big Pharma,” especially in relation to drugs that may have been rushed to market, prescribed excessively, or inadequately studied, leading to adverse effects. It’s also relevant in discussions of overmedication, where patients receive multiple drugs that may not all be necessary or beneficial, potentially leading to harmful interactions.

Both terms resonate in circles that are concerned with the ethical responsibilities of the medical and pharmaceutical fields, particularly within alternative and integrative medicine communities or among critics of mainstream medical and pharmaceutical practices. They serve as shorthand for the belief that certain actions or neglect within these fields have deadly consequences.

Overall, while medicide and pharmicide lack formal recognition in academic and clinical contexts, they are powerful rhetorical terms and should now be a part of our lexicon. They highlight genuine concerns about ethical boundaries, responsibility, and the unintended consequences of medical and pharmaceutical practices and interventions, good and bad,  in modern healthcare.

As the world navigates the complexities of modern medicine, healthcare systems must face immense scrutiny, especially so since the cataclysmic covid debacle. In particular, terms like medicide and pharmicide have emerged as powerful rhetorical tools to critique and challenge the ethics and practices of modern healthcare and pharmaceutical industries on a global scale. Although not officially recognised in medical or pharmaceutical lexicons, these terms convey a strong message, questioning the ethical boundaries of care and the potentially harmful effects of industry practices. Their intentional use in public discourse reflects a broader societal concern: are current healthcare systems, medical interventions, and pharmaceutical policies more harmful than healing?

The term medicide, combining ‘medicine’ and ‘-cide’ (from Latin, meaning “to kill”), suggests a lethal aspect to medical intervention. Its intentional use serves to highlight concerns that the very practice meant to save lives might, under certain ideologies or systems, lead to death. While historically associated with debates around euthanasia and assisted suicide, medicide has broadened to critique any medical intervention where death may be the foreseen or inevitable outcome, intentional or not.

In global debates, medicide questions whether certain medical practices prioritise suffering alleviation over the sanctity of life itself. For instance, in countries where euthanasia and physician-assisted death are legalised, opponents of these policies argue that the role of a healthcare provider should never cross into life-ending actions, which they see as violating core medical ethics. Meanwhile, proponents defend these practices as compassionate, emphasising patient autonomy and dignity. Here, medicide has become a symbol of ethical debate over life and death.

On a larger scale, medicide can refer to practices that unintentionally lead to increased mortality, such as inadequate patient care, error-prone hospital protocols, or biased medical policies that restrict access to critical life-saving resources. This critique resonates strongly in regions where systemic healthcare failures—due to factors like overburdened hospitals, inadequate training, or financial strain—have devastating consequences. For example, in low-income countries or regions with limited access to medical resources, policies that implicitly allow for neglect of vulnerable populations can be viewed as a form of medicide, where lack of access to proper care indirectly leads to death.

Pharmicide, a blend of ‘pharmaceutical’ and ‘-cide’, critiques the pharmaceutical industry for practices that may be seen as harmful to public health. This term is intentionally provocative, targeting an industry perceived as prioritising profit over patients. It suggests that certain pharmaceuticals, either by design or by mismanagement, contribute to significant health risks and, in extreme cases, death. With the immense growth of “Big Pharma,” public trust in the pharmaceutical industry has been eroded to an all time low, especially where drugs that have been rushed to market, mRNA gene therapy, or inadequately tested, mRNA gene therapy, result in death.

Global debates on pharmicide are often tied to the impact of pharmaceutical giants on healthcare policy, research agendas, and patient care. For instance, critics argue that profit motives influence drug approval processes, where financial incentives may lead to the underreporting of adverse effects or the over-marketing of drugs with limited benefits. A prominent example is the opioid crisis in the United States, where overprescription and aggressive marketing of opioids led to addiction and a massive public health crisis negatively affecting the economy. Advocates for reform argue that this crisis is a form of pharmicide, where corporate interests took precedence over patient well-being, with fatal outcomes.

Internationally, the concern over pharmicide is also linked to access and affordability of essential medications. In developing countries, patented drugs are often priced prohibitively, leaving populations without necessary treatments. This financial barrier, critics contend, amounts to a form of systemic harm by depriving millions of life-saving medications—a pharmaceutical form of neglect that could be termed pharmicide. In wealthier nations, critics argue that overprescription and the influence of pharmaceutical companies on doctors’ prescribing habits create an environment where patients are subjected to unnecessary, and potentially harmful, medications.

The deliberate use of terms like medicide and pharmicide has not only brought attention to these issues but has also influenced policy reform and public awareness globally. These terms serve as a rallying cry for those advocating for patient-centred care and ethical responsibility within the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. Organisations pushing for reform use medicide and pharmicide to underscore the potential dangers of unchecked power in these industries. These terms are often invoked in petitions, media campaigns, and policy discussions to hold corporations, healthcare providers, and policymakers accountable. By framing their critiques around life-and-death consequences, advocates aim to force a re-evaluation of practices that may inadvertently harm or exploit vulnerable populations.

Some governments and advocacy groups are responding to these concerns. For instance, regulatory bodies in the United States, the European Union, Australia and other regions have implemented stricter drug approval processes and post-market surveillance to reduce instances of harmful drugs reaching consumers. Additionally, there was a growing movement toward empowering patients with transparent information about the risks associated with medications and treatments until the advent of covid and the mRNA injections.

If high ethical standards in healthcare and pharmaceuticals are twisted to serve the agenda of a group of global elites—those who might wield the power of eugenics in a calculated bid to reduce the global population—the outcome is nothing short of a dystopian horror. Such a betrayal of medicine’s core mission would transform a system of healing into a murderous machine of calculated suffering and oppression, blurring the line between healthcare and a mechanised cruelty masquerading as progress. Under this chilling vision, I see the very institutions trusted to preserve life and dignity becoming instruments of control, wielded with ruthless precision by those who view human lives as dispensable resources as do many of those identifying as globlalists.

Imagine a world where the vocabulary of compassion—phrases like “quality of life,” “sustainability,” and “health equity”—is commandeered by those who see humanity as a hierarchy, where the “fit” are preserved, and the “unfit” are eliminated, their existence deemed an inconvenience to the grand designs of an elite few. It has happened before. In this twisted lexicon, medicine’s purpose is inverted: instead of healing, it serves as a scalpel that ruthlessly carves out segments of the population deemed “undesirable” under the guise of public health initiatives, pharmaceutical policies, and healthcare reforms. This is not healthcare; it is a meticulously orchestrated program of population control, weaponising science to execute a vision of social engineering at a catastrophic scale.

In such a nightmare, the medicide and pharmicide described becomes systemic and relentless, driven by profit and ideology rather than any commitment to the well-being of individuals. Under the pretence of “safeguarding the future,” healthcare becomes a selective gauntlet, where the vulnerable, the disabled, the marginalised, perhaps the entire population under certain circumstances, find their access to care deliberately restricted, their survival deemed expendable. Medications and treatments—once symbols of medical advancement—would become instruments of selection, with access and quality of care determined by factors invisible to the public, for example unaccountable medical bureaucrats, and calculated with chilling precision by those in power.

When, not if, a globalist elite were to take control of these systems, the spectre of eugenics would not come in the form of overt, brutal force, but in a far subtler, more insidious way, cloaked in the language of science, efficiency, and benevolence. Under this regime, public health measures could subtly prioritise the lives of some while disregarding or even sacrificing others. Such a strategy would be terrifying in its efficiency, hidden behind a polished facade of global health initiatives, social equity programs, and “innovative” pharmaceutical solutions. In reality, it would be a controlled erosion of the populations deemed “excessive” or “less desirable” by those who believe they have the moral authority to reshape humanity according to their own values.

This grim future would also exploit the vulnerabilities in public trust. Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers, under the influence of powerful, unaccountable global interests, could be directed to develop treatments or interventions that subtly undermine the health and longevity of populations deemed inconvenient. Medical ethics would become a hollow echo, as the very frameworks designed to ensure patient safety and dignity are re-engineered to rationalise and conceal these new, covert practices of population reduction.

Pharmicide and medicide would take on new, horrific meanings, no longer simply as accidents of negligence or the byproducts of profit-driven medicine, but as tools of a deliberate, unrelenting campaign. It would be a silent war, waged through healthcare policy, pharmaceutical innovation, and medical protocols, that replace individualised care. Those impacted would rarely see the forces against them, only feeling the effects in the form of denied or fdifficult medical access and treatments, overpriced life-saving medications, and health interventions designed with hidden purposes in mind. Meanwhile, propaganda and misinformation would convince the public that these are mere challenges of an overburdened system, hiding the reality of a meticulous design by those who see themselves as humanity’s noble and righteous “architects.”

In this bleak scenario, the principles of compassion, equality, and care that once defined healthcare would be subverted, becoming little more than cynical tools in a blueprint for controlled depopulation. The very foundations of trust in medicine and science would be eroded, revealing a medical system that has lost its soul, commandeered by those for whom ethics and morality are mere obstacles to their ambition. It would no longer be healthcare; it would be population engineering through medicine—the ‘New World Order’s travesty cloaked in the veneer of progress.’

This imagined future stands as a stark warning of what could happen if the sacred trust of medicine is corrupted by ideologies of supremacy and control, transforming what should be instruments of hope and healing into mechanisms of selection, devaluation, and erasure. It is a call to vigilance, a reminder that as a society, we must guard fiercely the integrity of our healthcare and eliminate the corrupted institutions, lest they be repurposed by those who would misuse them for aims unthinkably dark.

Ian Brighthope