Mankind has always suffered from epidemics of infectious disease. Each infection has killed countless people, some killing large sections of the populations. They have always caused panic. Until the 19th century there was no treatment for them. So when people contracted the illness they either died, or they recovered - with friends and family watching on, scared and helpless.
Conventional or pharmaceutical medicine still has never had treatment for these epidemics. Medical science has been able to explain their cause for the last 100-150 years; but the coronavirus COVID-19 has demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that it still has no treatment to offer. Those who have contracted the virus have either died or recovered
- with friends and family watching on, scared and helpless. The conventional medical establishment has always admitted that this is so.
Washing hand, social distancing, social and economic lockdown - these are not treatments: they are responses seeking to reduce the transmission of the infection - nothing more than this.
I have just listened to a BBC programme that discussed two flu epidemics in Tudor England. The first was in 1551, known as "The Sweat", thought to be a virulent form of influenza where people were well in the morning, and dead by the evening. It caused a huge death toll, and caused great terror. There was no explanation for it. This was time of protestant reformation when the government was involved in asset stripping the Church; so the reason for the epidemic was explained in moral terms, it was a religious judgement on the political changes of the time - one way or the other.
In 1558 there was another flu epidemic which reputedly killed at least 1/5th of the population. Edward VI and Mary were now dead; Elizabeth was Queen; and it was mainly the old Catholic ruling classes, the nobility, bishops, priests, and justices, who suffered badly. The epidemic was described as "a huge gift to protestantism". But again, other than this, there was no explanation of the cause; and there was, of course, no treatment.
The conventional medical establishment continued in this vein for the next 300 years. By the mid 19th century some explanation of causation was forthcoming: but a further 160 years went by without effective treatment. Even the horrors of 'Spanish Flu' in 1918 did not lead to finding conventional medical treatment. This was a vicious form of influenza that affected over 500 million people around the world, and killed over 100 million of them - mainly in the age group 20 to 40 years old. Again, conventional medicine was helpless; doctors had no treatment: nurses helped care for the victims as they died. So it was said, correctly, that nurses were more helpful to patients than doctors; and this has proven to be the case more recently with coronavirus CPVID-19.
Indeed, so great was the catastrophe of 1918, following on as it did from the World War, governments around the world began to introduce health ministries; the political pressure for better treatment began. The pharmaceutical industry, encouraged by government money, tried hard to discover effective treatment. When another serious epidemic arose there was a determination that this would not happen again. A vaccine was introduced in 1930's; but there has been little else; and when COVID-19 came, there was no treatment available - not even a vaccine.
Conventional medicine must be the only industry, and only business, that can survive for over 500 years without a viable product to offer us when we need it.
In contrast, homeopathy was only mooted in 1793. It developed quickly during the 19th century, and during this time, it consistently outperformed conventional medicine in the event of regular infectious epidemics around the world. Julian Winston researched this, and some of his finding have been written here. He made use of Thomas Lindsley Bradford, MD, book called "The Logic of
Figures" in which he collected statistics that compared outcome of conventional medicine and homeopathy in the treatment of 19th century epidemics.
"From its earliest days, homeopathy has been able to treat epidemic
diseases with a substantial rate of success, when compared to
conventional treatments. It was these successes that placed the practice
of homeopathy so firmly in the consciousness of people world-wide."
I have outlined some of these epidemics, and the statistics about treatment, in a previous blog, Infectious Disease and Medical Treatment. A brief history arising from Coronavirus COVID-19. 19th century evidence clearly and regularly indicated that homeopathy outperformed conventional medicine; not difficult, perhaps, when we realise that, then as now, it had no treatment available to treat any of them. Conventional medicine did not like this, and soon they made their first attempt to hide their own incompetence from the public view.
Cholera 1954. An epidemic of cholera in London was notable in that this was the first time the medical community was able to trace the outbreak to a source (a public
water pump), and when the pump was closed, the epidemic ceased. However, it was significant for another reason. It was the first time conventional medicine sought to repress the success of homeopathy.
"The House of Commons asked for a report about the various methods of
treating the epidemic. When the report was issued, the homeopathic
figures were not included. The House of Lords asked for an explanation,
and it was admitted that if the homeopathic figures were to be included
in the report, it would "skew the results."
Indeed they certainly did 'skew' the results!
"The suppressed report
revealed that under allopathic care the mortality was 59.2% while under
homeopathic care the mortality was only 9%."
It should be noted that, like conventional medicine, homeopathy knew nothing about the 'public water pump', but it was still able to treat the disease successfully. And homeopathy continued to develop an outstanding record of success from that time onwards, and in particular, for the deadly 1918 Spanish flu epidemic. Conventional doctors
lost 28% of their influenza patients to death, whilst homeopathic doctors
lost only 2%.
One reason for this ongoing ability to treat new epidemics, and new germs, is that whilst pharmaceutical medicine needs to know about 'the virus', 'the bacteria', 'the micro-organism', and how it operates, homeopathy doesn't. And as each new epidemic is usually based on new germs, conventional medicine has always found that it is unable to provide treatment. This has been the case with COVID-19; and the same will apply with any new infectious epidemic, however far into the future it might appear.
By contrast, homeopathy treats illness according to the principle of 'like curing like', so all the homeopath has to know, when faced with any 'new' epidemic, is the patient's symptoms so that a matching remedy can be identified. This is what homeopaths do all the time, and have been doing during the COVID panic, with great success, throughout the world, and particularly in Cuba and parts of India, where governments are favourably disposed to non-conventional treatments.
By contrast, conventional science once again had to panic. It has no treatment. So it is busy chasing a virus it cannot see, through non-treatments like hand washing, social distancing, and social and economic lockdown. The nonsense, and the cruelty of these 'non-treatments' are now leading to many people asking important questions.
- why is there no treatment?
- why can't people see their parent is residential care?
- why are people dying in hospital with relatives unable to see them?
- why can't I attend the wedding of good friends and relatives?
- why, if children go to school, do pubs have to shut down?
- why are masks necessary now when they were not a few months ago?
Non-sense inputs produce non-sense outputs. As long as out trust is place in this failed system of medicine it will continue to be so. It is time we learnt from history.
