Search This Blog

Thursday, 28 May 2020

Coronavirus COVID-19. Is a real health debate about this virus being stifled?

News and current affairs coverage has been little else but coronavirus COVID-19 for the past couple of months and more. It has been provided incessant, unrelenting wall-to-wall coverage. Yet there is no real health debate going on. How can this be? And what are the likely consequences?
  • We know there is a virus and what it is called.
  • We know it is affecting people around the world, and it's been designated a pandemic.
  • We know thousands of people are dying with it (although not of it).
  • We know most people who are dying die in hospital.
  • We know pharmaceutical medicine has no treatment for it - which is why people are dying.
  • We know about public health advice, washing our hands, social distance, lockdown, et al.
  • We know that the government was scare that it would overwhelm the NHS.
  • We know £billions have been spent propping up health care services.
  • We know normal social life has been severely disrupted.
  • We know that our economy has been devastated.
We know all this as we have been told about it, ad infinitum. And as the early weeks of the epidemic passed, and the number of people dying grew, it did appear that some debate did begin.
  • Did the government act quickly and consistently enough? 
  • Were they too slow to enforce public health measures rigorously enough?
Yet this is essentially a sterile debate. It is about 'the rules' that conventional medicine has dictated to governments, and how they were, and how they should have been enforced. The rules themselves have never been challenged or even debated. The application of these public health rules have led to serious social and economic mayhem; but as the rules were never questioned that is just 'unfortunate', unavoidable. They have led to nonsensical and laughable situations with little or no logical explanation; but they are the rules, as we must all abide by them.
  • the rules were made on the advice of medical science (and science is, of course, sacrosanct, unquestionable).
  • the government itself had no policy beyond this advice (perhaps their way of washing their hands).
  • and must all abide by the rules to protect the NHS, which would otherwise not be able to cope.

The science on which public health policy is now built is the same medical science that has told us routinely for the last 70-100 years that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are 'entirely safe'; and this is also not to be questioned. It is the same science that has been bought and controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, the science that tells us that the only 'scientific' approach to medical care, to combat illness and disease, is through their drugs. It is also the science that now dominates the way we think about health, and what we understand health to be. There is no vaccine available, and there will be no solution to coronavirus COVID-19 until we have one.
  • So if we are given rules that causes serous social disruption, and untold economic damage we must accept it. 
  • If a doctor diagnoses an illness, we have the illness, no questions are asked.
  • If then a doctor says we have to take a drug, or a vaccine, then that is exactly what we must do. 
  • If we are told there is no alternative then there is no alternative. 
If , in addition, we are all frightened out of our wits (as we have been about COVID-19) we become even more compliant to the mandatory advice of conventional medicine - supported by the government, and the mainstream media. There is no alternative, we must conform to the rules, otherwise we might die too. There is no treatment.

And mostly we do this because we now assume that conventional medicine has been 'proven' by medical science, and that no other medical treatment can work.

This is what stifles the health debate. Pharmaceutical medicine is too powerful, it does not want a debate. Why should it? A virus is causing death and it has no treatment. Would it really want government and media to discuss alternatives? The conventional medical establishment has a monopoly position in the NHS, and it wants to maintain it. It has used the vast and excessive wealth of the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that there is no debate. So neither the government nor the mainstream media can afford to do anything other than 'follow the money', and obey 'the science'. Both have become slaves to medical science.

How much simpler it would have been if our medical hierarchy had pursued a different, alternative health policy.
  • recognise that they had no medical treatment,
  • that it is farcical to chase a virus that cannot be seen, but which is everywhere, and that doing so leads to nonsensical social disruption and unnecessary economic harm,
  • to focus instead on the immune system, confirming that natural immunity is the best way we can each defend ourselves, to provide everyone with the best possible advice on how to support and augment personal immunity to the virus,
  • to focus support on those who immune systems are weak, protect them if we can by locking down,
  • to engage with natural medical therapies (as has been done in India and Cuba) to see (and study) what treatments they have to offer, and how safe, how effective, and how cost-efficient they are.
To discuss these issues would take us beyond 'the rules' to a real health debate, where conventional wisdom is questioned, where dominant views are challenged, and where conventional medical  assumptions are investigated.

Unfortunately this is clearly NOT happening. Indeed, both government and mainstream media is not only refusing to discuss the efficacy of the conventional medical establishment, it is parroting their propaganda - describing these alternative medical approaches as 'fake news', 'dangerous misinformation', and attacking anyone who dares to mention them.

This is not what real science does - real science questions, challenges, investigates. And this is not what medical science would do - if it was genuinely independent of pharmaceutical medicine.

So we argue about whether a failed conventional medical policy could have been more successful if it had been implemented more effectively, and believe this to be a debate. Remember, we had a much more serious epidemic 100 years ago - Spanish flu. Similarly, conventional medicine had no effective treatment. Millions died despite the medical treatment available at the time. 100 years on we are experiencing exactly the same.

What will be the conventional medical response to another serious epidemic in another 100 years? Unless there is a real debate they will have learnt nothing, yet again, largely because it has stifled and prevented serious debate now?

Monday, 18 May 2020

The Politics of Coronavirus. The thin edge of hefty wedge? Mandatory drugging, Health Freedom & Patient Choice

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
These words of Benjamin Franklin need to be heeded. The Coronavirus panic is having serious political consequences which no-one is, at present, knowingly or willingly signing up for. We may think that what is happening in this coronavirus panic arises entirely from the nature of the epidemic itself - but this is not so.

The UK Government's "Coronavirus Act 2020 - has taken draconian powers that at any other time would have been unacceptable. Indeed, as part of the response to coronavirus, many democracies around the world have taken steps to protect public health by imposing a 'State of Emergency' and this has usually resulted in an expansion of central government's executive powers, with severe limitations being placed on individual and public rights and freedoms.


The British political system is unlikely to go totally down this road. Our history of confronting and opposing political tyranny is strong, and any such measures, passing into long term enactment, would be strongly challenged and prevented. The House of Commons has already opposed such powers lasting for two years, which is what the government originally asked for, insisting they they have to be renewed every 3 months. 

But what is happening in terms of health?
The conventional medical establishment (as stated in previous blogs) is panicking. It knows it has no effective treatment; thousands of people have died with doctors powerless; and it has its reputation to defend. We have been told consistently over the last 100 years that conventional medical science was winning the war against disease. So it has been busy creating an atmosphere of panic and hysteria in society generally, with the willing support of its allies in the political and media world. 

But pharmaceutical medicine clearly has a longer-term objective, and the message supporting this is already out here in the open, and it doesn't want to admit that it has lost this one. It is an argument that can, and almost certainly will be used again by doctors. We have all heard the argument in recent weeks, probably many, if not most people have already accepted it. But not many people will yet understand the real potential consequences for health freedom.

Mandatory Vaccination
It is not this coronavirus pandemic itself that will threaten health freedom, but the arguments being made about the transmission of coronavirus - which have been repeated time and time again over recent weeks. The argument goes like this.
  1. this viral infection is a threat to health - it can kill thousands
  2. we have to protect ourselves and we will ask the conventional health 'experts' to do so
  3. they say they have a vaccine which is the only answer; they will say it is safe and effective
  4. so doctors will tell us we all need to take the vaccine - to protect ourselves
  5. and additionally we all need to take the vaccine to protect other, more vulnerable people
The penultimate point leaves us with a choice - we can choose whether to take the vaccine because we believe it will protect us, or refuse to take it because we have no such confidence in either its safety or effectiveness. The final point , however, undermines this; it removes health freedom; it destroys patient choice. The need for a vaccine is not just to protect ourselves; its purpose is to protect everyone. So we must all have it, whether we want it or not. Otherwise we are putting 'vulnerable' people at risk.

It is a clever argument! It makes two important assumptions. First, that the vaccine is the solution to the problem; that the vaccine will be effective; and that it will be safe. And second, it is not an effective strategy to support and maintain our natural immunity as an alternative strategy.

And it is an argument that has been made so often in recent weeks many people will now believe that it must be correct.

Will the Strategy Work?
The conventional medical establishment is in a state of panic. The government has no policy, relying entirely (it says) on the advice of conventional medical science. The mainstream media is desperately supporting the creation of anxiety, total social and economic lockdown, and refuses to discuss anything else. There is no alternative strategy. And anyone who suggests one is not heard, but discounted and dismissed. The media always finds it difficult to challenge anything their main financial backers want them to say. 

This is not a new strategy but one the pharmaceutical industry has used for decades. For instance, a patient is given a drug, and if (s)he gets better, the drug has worked, so needs to continue taking the drug. If a patient is given a drug and (s)he does not get better it has not worked, so the drug is required in a stronger dose. Either way the drug works!

The same logic will apply to the coronavirus panic. If the epidemic settles down more quickly than feared, government/medical strategy will have worked, and we will all sit back in thankfulness and admiration. If, however, it goes on longer than expected, and kills even more people, the government will be criticised for not applying the policy earlier, or more quickly. Either way the medical strategy stands, unchallenged.

This is how the incompetent pharmaceutical medical system has always managed to convince us that it is successful! Most people believe it is competent, it knows what it is doing, regardless of outcome. Whether the epidemic is more or less lethal than thought, or continues longer than than expected, either way it can claim success.

Mandatory Vaccination
Later this year those of us who believe that conventional medicine, and pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines in particular, is both ineffective and dangerous, will be faced with a dilemma. We might  want to support and maintain our immune system as we understand that this is the only way we have to protect ourselves from 'germs', and keep ourselves healthy. We will not want to be vaccinated - not least because this is antipathetic to natural immunity.

But I predict that we will have government and the mainstream media both singing from the pharmaceutical industry's song sheet, telling us all that it is our duty to be vaccinated. Any idea that our body, well maintained and supported, will offer immunity from bacteria and viruses will be summarily dismissed. Medical science knows best. It cannot be questioned. It cannot be challenged. We must all obey. 1984 has arrived, rather later than Orwell predicted.
We should all be warned.
We are going to have a fight on our hands,
if we want to maintain our health freedom.

Coronavirus COVID-19. "Never have so few controlled the lives of so many"

This isn't a blog - it's a reference to a brilliant video, with transcript, from Rob Verklerk of the Alliance for Natural Health.

It takes just 20 minutes
> anyone with 20 minutes to spare should watch it
> anyone who does not have 20 minutes should MAKE TIME!

https://www.anhinternational.org/news/never-have-so-few-controlled-the-lives-of-so-many/?utm_source=The+Alliance+for+Natural+Health&utm_campaign=fb0835a5a0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_13_03_39&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_aea8a87544-fb0835a5a0-84972093

It puts into a nutshell why governments around the world have managed to get us to where we are - on the brink of sensationally mad social policies, and a once-per-century economic recession - mostly thanks to medical science.

So no blog - I couldn't improve on this!

Friday, 15 May 2020

Is there treatment for Coronavirus COVID-19? Or is it a closely guarded secret?

Someone on the Quora website has just asked this question - so I have provided an answer. Here it is (for what it's worth).

"Hush! 

I will send this to you secretly, so that no one else reads it. It’s information your doctor, your government, and our so-called ‘Free Press’, don’t want you to hear. So don’t share it with anyone.

Yes, there is treatment.

Millions are using it; but they are attacked viciously for doing so by pharmaceutical interests. Hence the need for great secrecy. Even some governments are the world have cottoned on to this treatment

But you really must not tell anyone else about this, otherwise you and I will be subject to attack from the conventional medical lobby (who clearly have got little to offer beyond washing our hands, and destroying national economies.

Still, even that’s better than the (non) treatment animals get when they contract an infection. Cows, whole herds, are killed when they get TB or Foot and Mouth; sheep are slaughtered when they get scrapie; and flocks of birds are killed when they get bird flu. All in the name of conventional medicine. So humanity is getting off lightly in comparison.

So I just daren’t tell you anything about the best treatment of COVID-19. It must stay a secret, sorry, as must our immune system, which seems to have been completely forgotten by the conventional medical establishment."

Perhaps homeopaths and other natural therapists should think about becoming a kind of secret society!

Thursday, 7 May 2020

Coronavirus COVID-19. A failure of medical science that has resulted in social and economic mayhem. "Save the NHS" or "Save Lives"?

Governments around the world have admitted they have no policy on the COVID-19 pandemic. They have made it clear that they have been guided by "the science" - conventional medical science. Initially this advice was trite - washing hands et al - but worrying because it demonstrated that 'medical science' had no effective treatment.

A contagious and lethal virus, combined with a lack of effective treatment, produced panic. Doctors had nothing to offer their patients. So in time 'the science' became more extreme; it moved to social distance, and the 'lock down'. Now, several weeks into the epidemic, we are beginning to learn about the personal, social and economic distress and mayhem that is being caused by this policy. The policy was given a mantra.

"Save the NHS. Save Lines"

Interesting that order - with 'saving the NHS' taking priority. Patients are, apparently, not the first consideration. Initially it is the NHS, and the medicine that dominates it, that must be saved. Otherwise our GP's and hospitals would be overwhelmed with sick patients and unable to cope. The whole system might disintegrate.

This was undoubtedly a reasonable assumption. Readers of this blog will know that every year since 1913 I have been publishing blog entitled "NHS in Crisis". It happens every year, each winter. And now there was this pandemic. The NHS could not be allowed to fail: too many people would be asking "Why?" If it had not been for the coronavirus panic this year, and the excuse and justification to spend additional £billions, the NHS would almost certainly have been in deep crisis, and those 'why' questions would be asked.

So, once again, money has been generously, but foolishly poured into a medical system that admits it has no treatment for the most serioius epidemic we have faced for over 100 years.

So the priority was to save the NHS; and then to save lives. Except, of course, that the NHS could not save lives - it had already admitted it had no treatment for coronavirus COVID-19. So if there was no treatment perhaps, instead, we could be asked to praise the staff, who were putting their lives at risk by caring for us. We all did so, and quite rightly so. The primary response to this pandemic has been led by nurses, other hospital staff, residential and home care staff, and (where lockdown has allowed) by the family. It has certainly not been led by the doctors, and their medicine.
  • So let's praise what needs to be praised - the staff and care workers, mostly on low, often minimum wages, providing sick people and families with whatever support they could, and putting themselves at risk doing so. Let's praise their courage and commitment; but not the medicine they are obliged to practice.
  • Instead, let's question the failure of those who determined that 'there is no treatment' for this virus; usually well paid and influential health 'experts' and scientists, all part of the conventional medical establishment; who have been advising our governments.
Medical scientific advice has been not only trite and crass; but wrong. It has demonstrated that conventional medical science has come a long way during the 70-100 years of its increasing influence, and now its dominance. The journey has all been done in reverse! I suggest that my mother was more knowledgeable, a better scientist ( although she would have been amused at any such suggestion) as she did know better than medical science appears to know today.
  • she, along with other parents, took me to a measles party - to ensure that I picked up the infection. Like most parents of her generation she understood the importance of a strong immune system, and the natural immunity that getting an infection gives the child.
  • perhaps she, and her generation, were lucky - there were no vaccines to promote then.
During this entire crisis there has been little mention of the importance of our immune system. The absurd term 'herd immunity' has been mentioned; but this concept has more to do with persuading us all that we must get ourselves vaccinated "to protect others" than any close relationship to natural immunity.

How much easier it would have been if our medical system had focused on our ability, as individuals, to withstand and overcome infection. There would have been no need to panic, in a desperate attempt to kill an invisible enemy that could attack, and potentially kill, everyone. One moments reflection would have told us - no epidemic throughout world history has ever come close to doing that!
  • We needed to do was to protect the vulnerable - not everyone. 
  • It was the vulnerable who needed 'social distance' and all the other protections. 
  • There was no need to lock down social life, and potentially wreck the world's economy.
  • We needed to test our immune systems; not the presence or absence of a virus.
Instead of panic, the NHS could more usefully have spent time and money teaching all of us how to support and strengthen our immune systems.
  • the food we should be eating, the vitamins and supplements we should be taking, how we should exercise, the lifestyle habits we should be avoiding.
  • the natural medical therapies that had preventative treatments, and treatments for the disease itself.
  • the use of homeopathy in Cuba, India, and elsewhere, could have been examined, and indeed offered to patients who wanted to use it for themselves. 
  • patient outcome studies could have been conducted which assessed the value of natural therapies, for future reference.
But, of course, none of this fits with the objectives of the conventional/pharmaceutical medical establishment. A crucial part of their strategy is to preserve their monopoly within the NHS, and other national health services. What if these alternative treatments did work? What if they saved life? People must never know. Much better for them to use their dominance of medical 'science', their control of the NHS, their unrestrained influence over government, and their financial control of the mainstream media, to ensure that no-one knows about these things. Otherwise they might have to admit there was an alternative to the knowledge and expertise of conventional medical science.
  • Much better to allow people to contract COVID-19,
  • better to let them die without any knowledge of effective treatment,
  • better to stop the routine treatment of cancer, kidney disease, et al, patients.
  • better to close down social life,
  • better to wreck the national economy,
  • and the economy of the world.
Medical science, and the pharmaceutical medical establishment, have failed. What has happened to medicine during the last 70-100 years may be likened to allowing 'flat earthers' to dominate and control all navigation across the world. No one would ever get anywhere.

Conventional medicine, and the financial interests that control it, has been, and is leading us in completely the wrong direction. So perhaps the most important outcome of this coronavirus COVID-19 panic will be to recognise this - and to do something about it.

Monday, 4 May 2020

Coronavirus COVID-19. Will it lead to a re-assessment of a system of medical care that kills, or allows patients to die, destroys economies, and social life, as the result of an infectious disease?

Amidst the panic of coronavirus COVID-19, there is a recognition that nothing will ever be quite the same again. This infectious disease, and the way it has been dealt with by government, conventional medical health services, and the mainstream media, has certainly raised important issues - although unfortunately the most fundamental issues have not been identified, or even ascertained by any of these bodies.

A moment's reflection, the kind of reflection possible only if we are prepared to step outside conventional medical wisdom, will provide a very different picture to the one we are currently being presented with.
  • the conventional medical establishment, with its monopoly position within most national health services around the world, has no effective treatment to offer. This has never been denied.
  • it bemoans the fact that it has no preventative vaccine, which it sees as the only possible solution to the problem; although it seems confident it will have soon, most likely after the pandemic has run its course!
  • government policy has responded to the pandemic by slavishly conforming to the best scientific advice, all of this emanating from the conventional medical establishment. Above and beyond this government appears to have no independent policy.
  • the mainstream media has never seriously questioned this position, and have certainly not investigated any alternative explanation about what is happening. Meekly, it has never bothered to look outside the information government, and medical science, has told it.
The result is that there has been no independent thinking throughout the crisis, no alternative voice beyond what conventional medical science wants us to know. Medical science has dominated government thinking. It is totally dominant within mainstream medical services. And it dominates and controls the mainstream media. So everything we are being told comes from a single, unquestioned, and uninvestigated  source.

For many years I have wondered what pharmaceutical medicine would do if and when a serious infectious disease threatened humanity. I have watched what conventional medicine does when such diseases affects animals, and/or plant life.
  • When cows and sheep contract Foot & Mouth the herds and flocks are slaughtered, usually in vast numbers; and this is called medical treatment!
  • When a cow contracts TB it is slaughtered, along with the rest of the herd; and more recently the local badger population too. This is done in the name of medical treatment!
  • When sheep contract scrapie there is no treatment available so they are usually destroyed too. Perhaps as an alternative to medical treatment!
  • Avian flu outbreaks amongst domestic birds, chickens, turkeys, ducks, et al, is 'treated' by the culling entire infected flocks. This is the prescribed medical treatment!
  • When a tree is diagnosed with a disease it is usually destroyed, chopped down. There is no medical treatment available!
  • and so on, ad infinitum.
Conventional medicine is ruthless in its response to infectious disease, especially when it has no effective treatment - which unfortunately seems to be more often the case than not. So what would happen if an infectious disease, for which there was no conventional medical treatment, threatened humanity. How would medical science respond? Well, after COVID-19, we now know!
  • Conventional medicine is prepared to spend any amount of taxpayers money to prevent the disease from spreading, to develop new vaccines, or to come up with drugs that have the smallest imaginable chance of having any impact on the disease.
  • Conventional medicine is prepared to put at risk, and potentially to ruin entire national economies around the world.
  • Conventional medicine is prepared to destroy people's lives and livelihoods, indeed, the very fabric of social life.
  • Conventional medicine is prepared to allow people to die rather than look outside its own resources and territory for possible treatments.
More people are now prepared to speak out, still voices in the wilderness, stating that such a policy is ridiculous, senseless, and self-destructive.

And adherents of natural medicine, who espouse the importance of natural immunity, and maintaining health through strengthening our immune system, have look on incredulous at the non-sense of what is happening, the sheer absurdity of conventional medicine's fear of germs.

When considering the current state of affairs we must remember that it is the pharmaceutical medical system that claims to have defeated infectious diseases, from smallpox, to measles, mumps, rubella, and much else. Over the years it has successfully wrestled the credit for this achievement from vital public health policy, increased affluence, improved living circumstances, et al. The actual performance of conventional medicine has never matched their claims, and COVID-19, if it has done anything, has demonstrated that such claims are a lie.

Indeed, given the performance of conventional medicine in response to this epidemic it is no better, no more effective than it was 102 years ago - with the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic.

Hitherto, as regular readers will know, my main concern about pharmaceutical medicine has been about chronic diseases, such as allergy, dementia, arthritis, asthma, autism, autoimmune disease, COPD, chronic fatigue syndrome, diabetes, epilepsy, heart disease, kidney disease, liver disease, and many, many others - including mental health conditions. They have all, at least in part, been caused by the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that conventional medicine have been prescribing to us now for decades.

Now, following COVID-19, acute disease has been highlighted as another cause for serious concern about the validity and usefulness of conventional medicine - and the urgent need to rethink our approach to health care.

After some 70-100 years of dominating health care services around the world pharmaceutical medicine has not been improved health - it has massively increased the amount of illness and disease from which we suffer.
  • all chronic disease is now running at unprecedented epidemic levels, and increasing.
  • every chronic disease is known to be caused by pharmaceutical drugs and/or conventional medical treatment, not by allegation, but by reference to conventional medicine's own medical literature.
  • there has been a long history of pharmaceutical drugs that have been withdrawn, or banned, following the harm they have caused to patients, often over decades.
  • all currently used pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are known to have seriously damaging side effects, again referred to in conventional medical literature
  • even former 'wonder' drugs, not least antibiotics, are failing, and will soon be worthless.
The situation will not improve until we completely rethink our understanding of health, what health is, our attitude to illness and disease, what illness and disease is, and where they come from. And most important, the way we can actively improve our wellness and well-being without resorting to toxic pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Central to doing this will be two things.

First, there must be a new focus on natural immunity, our immune systems, and how we can best keep them functioning in order to protect us from bacterial and viral infections. This alone would lead to a different approach to staying well, as so brilliantly outlined recently in this Arnica Parents Support Network leaflet, Ideas to Avoid Viral Infections and to Support Recovery naturally. Anyone who is interested in looking at what 'natural health' is all about should read this leaflet.
  • No more chasing after invisible viruses, or trying to kill 'problem' bacteria; and being scared stiff that they might randomly attack us. Just the simpler, more straightforward task of ensuring we are all taking personal responsibility for our health, and that our body is ready to face the trials and tribulations of living in the real world.
Second, that medical intervention should not seek to second-guess our immune system, not to tinker and interfere with it, or close it down. All medical treatment should support the body in its primary task of keeping itself well, to cease using drugs to 'kill' pain, or to 'block' or 'inhibit' some natural bodily process. We must move to natural therapies which believe in the body's ability to maintain its own health, and to get better when it becomes sick; and when sick to use medical therapies that do not cause us harm.
  • No more thinking that good health comes from a bottle of pills, or a vaccine injected into our bloodstream. Just the understanding that we have everything within us to protect us from illness, so long as our lifestyle choices maintains it rather than undermine it.
Many people have already arrived at this brave new world. Many more people are joining us every day.
And after this epidemic those numbers will only increase.

Monday, 27 April 2020

Coronavirus COVID-19. Germ Theory and Disease. The difference between a natural health approach & a pharmaceutical approach goes back 150 years

Science is the measure of all things. This is the age of science - it is all-knowing - it is not to be challenged - it has become God. Our government admits that it has no policy on coronavirus COVID-19 - above or beyond the advice given to them by medical science. It is science that drives medical strategy, all policy is driven by it. Government can do nothing without the express permission of these medical experts.

Medical science, of course, is drawn exclusively from within the confines of the pharmaceutical medical establishment. It is the science that has been bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies, and so is intent on promoting the value and importance of drugs and vaccines to our health.

But this particular criticism is not what this blog is about. What needs to be recognised is that governments around the world are reacting to the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with a scientific 'decision' that was taken between 130 to 150 years ago. This 'decision' was calamitous, and in large measure has driven the subsequent emergence of the pharmaceutical industry, its dominance within health provision, and what most people believe 'health' is all about.

Most people will have heard about Louis Pasteur, and his 'germ theory' of illness and disease. Very few people have heard about Antoine Béchamp, a highly respected scientist whose position on 'germs' differed from, and was a rival to Pasteurs. The subsequent 'triumph' of Pasteur's position, although now over 130 years ago, is one of the main reasons for conventional medicine's current reaction to the coronavirus COTID-19 pandemic. So what did the two scientists believe?

Louis Pasteur.
Pasteur's germ theory stated that “specific microscopic organisms are the cause of specific diseases,” a statement few people in the pharmaceutical medical establishment would now disagree. The threat of  'germs' to our health has become an all-pervasive belief, considered to be self-evidently true. It is, we are told, a scientific fact.
The germ theory pre-dated Pasteur, but he popularised the concept, and it gained widespread acceptance in the late 19th century. It reduced the idea of disease to a single, simple interaction between specific microorganisms and a host. It has minimized the role of what is often called 'the environment' in which these germs operate, such as life-style factors and the impact they have on our health. The problem is bacteria, and viruses; it has nothing to do with us, and what we do to our bodies. So Pasteur's theory also freed us from personal and social responsibility for creation of disease. 

Importantly, it also led to the idea, now dominant within conventional medicine, that health provision should be about protecting us from these germs - not least by vaccines.
This is why we are now engaged in a frantic war with coronavirus COVID-19. It is difficult because  we cannot see it. We don't know where it is. And it is difficult to kill. This is why governments around the world are so desperate, thrashing around like headless chickens, developing senseless policies that are not working, and why thousands of people are still dying around the world. 

The strategy of conventional medical is to focus on the germ, the bacteria, the virus; and to fight it, to hunt it down, to kill it - almost at any cost. This is why we are being urged
  • to spray and disinfect anything that moves, and many things that does not move too,
  • to wash our hands, for at least 20 seconds, frequently
This germ-centric view of health also means that we all have to defend and protect ourselves from an invisible enemy, to isolate ourselves from potential carriers of the germ, and to prevent its transmission. We believe that the germ can strike anywhere, at any time, and that it can affect everyone. We do not know who is infected, or who is carrying the germ. So everyone must be considered to be a carier, and it becomes essential for everyone to
  • avoid all social contact and maintain social distance,
  • wear masks, gloves, gowns in order to protect ourselves from the transmission of the germ,
  • impose strict social and economic lockdowns.
And we must do all this even though in doing so we might undermine the social fabric, destroy the national economy, jeopardise our mental health, and lose our jobs. This is all worthwhile - for as long as we believe that germs are so powerful.

This is what Pasteur thought, and what germ-based medicine believes. This is what medical science is at this very moment telling governments, what is forming policy, and why we are being subjected to the nonsense responses to coronavirus COVID-19.

Antoine Béchamp.


Béchamp’s view was quite different, and have been summed up under these eight headings: (with my emphasis).
  1. Disease arises from micro-organisms within the cells of the body
  2. These intracellular microorganisms normally function to build and assist in the metabolic processes of the body
  3. The function of these organisms changes to assist in the disintegration processes of the host organism when that organism dies or is injured, which may be chemical as well as mechanical
  4. Microrganisms change their shapes and colours to reflect the medium
  5. Every disease is associated with a particular condition
  6. Microorganisms become “pathogenic” as the health of the host organism deteriorates. Hence, the condition of the host organism is the primary causal agent
  7. Disease is built by unhealthy conditions
  8. To prevent disease we have to create health.
               “The microzyma (a term describing minute particles common to all living things) is at the beginning and end of all organization. It is the fundamental anatomical element whereby the cellules, the tissues, the organs, the whole of an organism are constituted".
In brief, Béchamp believed that disease developed within an unhealthy environment, caused by a body that was in an unbalanced state. He taught that disease could not take hold without a pre-existing weakness in the host, that germs did not cause disease, but instead gravitated to weaker, or diseased people. Essentially, germs were scavengers that fed on dead tissue.
As Rudolf Virchow, a contemporary German physician, often known as 'the father of modern pathology', stated 

               “If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat - diseased tissues - rather than causing disease.”

So Béchamp's focus was not invisible germs, it was the weakened hosts on which they preyed. If the body was not in a weakened state the germs would not cause disease. This view continues to be the basis of all natural medical therapies. The centre of medical concern is NOT the germ, it is the host upon which the germ is able to prey. 

Moreover, the host is observable, its state of health known. The focus is moved from the germ to the body's immune system, which is ultimately the best, perhaps the only protection we have from an invasion of germs.

It is noticeable that in the present pandemic there is little mention of the need to support the immune system.
  • little mention of the importance of good diet and nutrition,
  • the importance to the immune system of vitamin C, and D, and zinc - et al,
  • exercise is something we want to do, not something we need to do because it is protective,
  • no mention of the harm caused by life-style factors such as smoking, and drinking too much alcohol,
  • no mention of natural medical therapists who are treating their patients,
  • little mention whatever of the 'underlying health conditions' that are actually killing people,
  • absolutely no mention that some of these 'underlying health conditions are actually caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines,
  • no mention that the conventional medical experts who are dictating government policy favour 'immunosupressive' treatments' that intentionally undermine our immune system.
Instead, governments, advised by medical science, seems to believe that the only solution to COVID-19 is the development of a vaccine, so it is ploughing £millions$ into the pharmaceutical industry to deliver one. 

Béchamp's view of germs, if he had prevailed, would have led to a different kind of health service, one that was not so desperate to destroy bacteria and viruses, but which focused instead on helping us defend ourselves. We would have a health service that supported the immune system, emphasised its importance, and advised us about all the things we can do - the importance of underlying health, a strong immune system, healthy life-style habits, the role of diet, nutrition, exercise, the use of natural medical therapies like homeopathy, naturopathy, herbal medicine, and many

Although this is now beginning to happen in a few countries, like Cuba and India, they have been heavily criticised for doing so - by the pharmaceutical medical establishment!

The problem with such an approach is, of course, that the pharmaceutical industry would not make £billions$ from vaccine research, and vaccine sales - or getting indemnity from government for the damage all vaccines do to patients.

Wherever conventional medicine is dominant, government policies are not working. The medical experts on whom they rely have no treatment to offer. Hence, the main reason given for the hugely damaging social and economic lockdown is the need to 'protect' health services from the pressure of sick patients!
 
The pharmaceutical industry is a hopeless monopoly whose only role is to oversee the process of patients dying, whilst using its medical 'expertise' to advise the governments on policy. 
  • What can we expect of a medical system that kills the cow, and its herd, when it contracts TB, or Food & Mouth? 
  • What can we expect of a medical system that responds to bird influenza by killing the entire flock? 
  • What can we expect from a medical system that diagnosis a tree with a disease and chops it down? 
Pasteur's triumph over Béchamp was a pyrrhic victory, one that has inflicted a devastating toll on the quality and relevance of health provision. The victor, and his 'science' has directed us to where we are. It is time Béchamp was reinstated. It is his insight that reflects more accurately the world in which we live, and which we are now observing. His reinstatement would transform our thinking about what health is (and what is not), and bring back a vestige on sanity into the operation of our health system.