If we believe that the strategy of lockdown is effective, that it is keeping us safe from the COVID-10 pandemic, and then it does not work (as it very clearly does not), we will continue to want more of the same, stricter lockdown.
Lockdown was never meant to keep us safe, it is not a treatment. It was only ever meant to reduce the number of COVID-19 cases at any one time by spreading them out over a longer period of time. We were told we had to do this in order to 'save the NHS' which has no effective treatment for the virus.
We appear to have forgotten this early message; in much the same way we have forgotten we were told face masks were ineffective.
And very clearly lockdowns (and face masks) are not working. The original lockdown did what it was supposed to do. It helped to reduce new cases of COVID-19, and this was further assisted by the fine summer weather. But once lockdown was relaxed the people who were susceptible to the disease, but had been protected, contracted it. This was always going to happen; it was what was meant to happen. But by this time conventional medicine had transformed a public health strategy into a medical treatment - which it never was, and was never intended to be.
So, unless we were paying attention, we are left scratching our head. Everyone has been telling us that washing hands, social distancing, masks and lockdown work. So when they do not work we are puzzled. Conventional medicine have never been asked "why is lockdown not working?". Everyone has assumed that they will work, and that we just need more of it.
Conventional medicine has always used this strategy. The response to COVID-19 is a time-honoured sleight of hand. It is how pharmaceutical medicine
has tried for decades to convince us that it provides effective medicine. So how does this work?
- If
conventional medical science can convince us that a new pharmaceutical drug works, a miracle cure that is effective and safe in treating
an illness, but then doesn't work, we will be told to continue to using the drug, if necessary
forever; or that we need more of it, in stronger doses. We do this rather than ask the obvious questions - "Why are they not working?" and "Is there any point continuing with the same failed medicine?"
So lockdown follows lockdown, perhaps in a different form; and we assume that life will never return to normal again
WHAT WE HAVE LEARNT AND UNLEARNT ABOUT EPIDEMICS
Nor is this COVID-19 epidemic different to any other epidemic in our history, whether Spanish Flu, the Bubonic Plague, or the Black Death - it has always, invariably, been the same process.
- There is a bacteria, or a virus, which causes a lot of people to get ill, some seriously ill, and many will die. Some people stay well, many who were sick would survive. It has always been thus. And there was a time when we understood what this meant; that those with a stronger immune system survived, those with a weakened immune system did not.
- Epidemics have always been time-limited, this is a matter of historical fact! They appear suddenly, reach a crescendo, subside, and then go away. This happened whether there was, or was not preventative or curative medical treatment available. And there was a time when we understood why this was; that the population that survived had developed a natural immunity to the germ.
- In by-gone centuries people did not understand that it was 'germs' that caused epidemics. Louis Pasteur discovered and described the role of germs. It was his work that enabled 'germ warfare' to begin, in earnest, in all its many forms. Although people had always 'locked-down' during an epidemic, now we knew who 'the enemy' was, what lockdown was protecting us from.
- So with COVD-19 lockdown successfully controlled the impact of the
pandemic in that it has spread the incidence over a longer period of time. People who would
otherwise have contracted the disease didn't do so immediately; but those who were susceptible remained susceptibility; they would inevitably contract it later, at some time.
- Yet the germ was clearly not the only active player in this epidemic. Knowing about the germ did not explain why some people died and others survived. This knowledge also came from the 19th century study of epidemiology, and it was Antoine Bechamp who explained this, and in doing so greatly expanded our knowledge and understanding of natural immunity, and the importance of the immune system.
- Conventional medicine has remember Pasteur but forgotten Bechamp.
- So when COVID-19 struck the virus was identified we chased the invisible virus. People got sick, and some died. Others contracted the virus but were 'a-symptomatic'. And many (most) people who became ill have survived.
So we should not believe that human history, and certainly not medical history, is a process in which we (i) learn, (ii) remember, and (iii) progress - all along an upward linear line. And an examination of how conventional medicine, the dominant medical system, has reacted to COVID-19, should demonstrate this.
Medical science is not taking us on a journey from ignorance to wisdom.
On the one hand we know so much more about germs than we have ever known before. We can identify them, test for them, even differentiate their subtle variations over time. And pharmaceutical medicine prides itself in its ability to kill germs, with their antibiotics and antiviral drugs.
Yet this is knowledge without wisdom.
1. GERMS ARE NOT THE ENEMY
Pasteur identified germs as 'the enemy', and as a result we chase them, hide from them, and seek to kill them.
- The knowledge upon which such information is undoubtedly brilliant science.
- The ability this knowledge gives us to do anything effective about germs is limited.
Why? We have forgotten Bechamp, who recognised that we live alongside germs all the time, we are made up of bacteria, viruses and other 'germs; and for most of that time they are not a danger to us - as long as we keep our immune systems strong so that it is able to maintain a natural balance. It is the host that is important. If the host has strong natural immunity, if the host is not weakened in some way, than the germs can become a problem.
Lockdown might have been more successful IF we had used the time to support and strengthen our immune systems
- Yet conventional medical advice about how we can support and strengthen our immune system has been conspicuous only by its absence.
2. THE IMMUNE SYSTEM IS WHAT PROTECTS US
The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that conventional medicine follows Pasteur and has forgotten Bechamp. It has good reason for doing so. There is profit to be made from drugs that kills germs. There is no profit to supporting and enhancing natural immunity.
There is a further consequence. Conventional medicine believes that it has to protect everyone when in fact relatively few of us need protecting. Medical testing should have been concerned with an assessment of individual immunity. This would have allowed us to protect the vulnerable whilst allowing allow the fit to continue their lives. We did not need to destroy the economy, destroy livelihoods, destroy social life and interaction.
Again, though, there are good reasons for conventional medicine's failure to do this. During the last 70-100 years, pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have done much to undermine our immune systems. Some drugs, actually called immunosuppressant drugs, undermine natural immunity - and they do so intentionally. The epidemic is killing very few people who do not have "underlying health conditions", and most of these conditions conditions demonstrate our immune systems are not working properly to protect us. And most of these 'underlying' diseases have been caused by, and/or treated with drugs and vaccines known to undermine natural immunity.
The people who are vulnerable to COVID-19, the people who have died, those who have suffered most, are the people who have been made vulnerable by the conventional medicine, the medical system that now totally dominates NHS health care.
3. THE PANDEMIC WILL PASS
Every time someone tests 'positive' for COVID-19, and survives, (s)he becomes immune from it in the disease in future. I am aware that conventional medical science claims it no longer knows this, they say they do not have 'evidence' to demonstrate this, but they knew it once. But it is what our immune system does, what it is designed to do. Natural medicine still knows, and they base treatment on supporting and strengthening our immunity.
Conventional medicine puts its trust in vaccine immunity, not natural immunity. So we have had to wait for the vaccines. They are (we are told) our only hope. They will save the world from COVID-19. And no doubt this is what they will be seen to do. The pandemic will pass. They always do. We develop our immunity. But when this one passes the conventional medical establishment will claim the credit. It's what they always do - regardless of the absence of any evidence to support the claim.
For another view on the failure of lockdown policy go to this link "Why Lockdowns don't work and hurt the most vulnerable".