Organ Transplants and Limb Replacements. Medical triumph? Or Pharmaceutical Failure?

The pharmaceutical medical establishment are masters of turning failure into triumph. They have had lots of practice over the years.

• 'wonder' drugs' and 'miracle cures' that have had to be abandoned; but only (they say) because they have come up with something better to replace them,
• cancer, diabetes, dementia, autism, arthritis, heart disease, liver disease, kidney disease, and most other chronic diseases, have risen to epidemic levels; but people are surviving longer now with the disease.
  

Organ Transplantation and Limb Replacement surgery may be brilliant. But these operations are required only following years of failed medical treatment. 

Patients who require them will all have been treated with ineffective and toxic pharmaceutical drugs for years, often decades, during which time their condition have only worsened.

Indeed, most of the brilliant surgical operations that have been developed over the last 100 years or so have successfully protected conventional medicine from having to admit that much of its drug treatment is not only ineffective, but toxic, and unsafe, and usually exacerbates the original illness until it becomes a much more serious ill-health and disease.

I have written more about this medical failure in a chapter of my E-Book, "The Failure of Conventional Medicine".

There is only one way of avoiding the spiralling need for this kind of surgery, and that is to invest in a competent medical system that produces good patient outcomes.

• Investing in a medical system that can successfully treat hearts, kidneys, livers, and other organs before they need replacing, and which can help keep them functioning properly.
• Investing in a medical system that can deal with painful limbs without the patient having to take toxic painkillers for decades, drugs that eventually, inevitably, leads to limbs breaking down.

Only then will the need for transplantation gradually decrease, and at the same time, reduce the need to increase the number of organ donors.

Transplantation surgery are brilliant achievements. But they are needed only following years of failed medical treatment. And as pharmaceutical medicine continues to fail the only certainty is that the demand for transplantation will increase, as it has done during the last 50 years. 

Organ transplantation and limb replacement does not represent medical progress, it represents medical failure.

Covid-19. The Undermining of our personal freedom and liberty by government policy

This is a proforma letter, written by a lockdown sceptic, who has given permission for other people to use it. If you feel that our personal freedom and liberty is being unnecessarily sacrificed by government reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic (for all the reasons I have argue in other blog posts here) please feel free to write to your MP, or similar.

"I would like to be succinct and to the point, so I present to you a series of questions that I want you to consider carefully.

 
1) Are you feeling comfortable about the way things are going? Any sense of disquiet? Any worries that you might just be a participant in the biggest tyranny ever enacted in a previously free, liberal, democracy?

2) Do you have any sense that the absolute powers currently being wielded under the auspices of the 1984 Public Health Act are disproportionate to the threat, bereft of any mechanism of oversight, and in complete contradiction to the actual laws of the land and legal mechanisms established over centuries?

3) Are you comfortable with the increasingly maniacal power grabs of certain individuals within Government, in particular the Health Secretary, who seemingly has no regard for the actual health of the nation or what the word “health” even means in the wider context of mental, physical, emotional and social health. In the context of humanity?

4) Are you comfortable with the persons wielding this absolute power being enthralled to a small subset of unelected and unaccountable “Scientists”, whose models reside in crystal ball territory and whose paymasters are intertwined with powerful pharmaceutical lobbies?

5) Are you comfortable with the trashing of the economy, the destruction of jobs and businesses and the wreckage of lives both young and old?

6) Are you happy for your children to live in a country where they have no automatic rights to education, no freedom of association with their friends and peers, no pleasures of leisure time to enjoy – pubs, cinemas, leisure centres, bowling alleys, theatres, live music, travel – all gone?

7) Are you comfortable with forced quarantines of the healthy in holding facilities, and criminal sanctions up to and including long prison sentences against ordinary members of the public who choose to take a holiday? Are you comfortable that such sanctions are selective, as presumably they won’t apply to certain sectors of the population such as truck drivers, airline staff, elite sportspeople and undoubtedly high worth individuals and celebrities?

8) In your heart of hearts, do you honestly believe that a virus can’t mutate if we pretend to close the borders and throw a few dissenters in jail? Can a virus respect borders? Does it bend itself to futile Government interventions cooked up in the recesses of what appears to be the increasingly deluded mind of the Health Secretary? 

9) Do you have any reservations about the sinister media fear campaign still being waged against the British people, at great expense using our own hard earned money? Can you look me in the eye and tell me that it’s all been worth it? That the measures have saved more people from Covid than they’ve killed or will kill without Covid? That laying blame on the public for the virus is a reasonable thing to do, when the Government itself has failed so completely to protect those in care homes and hospitals? 

10) Finally, have you thought about how you feel about being associated with this tyrannical Government forevermore, with being a part of it all? Have you considered that by saying nothing, questioning nothing, you are complicit?
I really hope you can sleep at night. I can’t, and my conscience is clear.

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (Acton)

And if you still think that the vaccines are going to get us out of this mess, well, you haven’t been paying attention.

 

Yours sincerely, etc.   "

Covid-19. BBC News continues to peddle propaganda rather than journalism. The Mainstream Media has failed us completely.

Several homeopathic colleagues awoke recently to a BBC news item on "Fake Covid-19 videos" that "will cost lives". It made us question the quality, and the purpose of journalism in Britain's 'public broadcaster. If you want to hear a short 6-minute piece of rank-bad journalism it is worth a listen. It arose who this.

               "The Royal College of Physicians is urging people not to share and "copycat" "dangerous" videos claiming steam inhalation can prevent Covid-19. The BBC has found that alternative coronavirus treatments are being sent on chat apps like WhatsApp, as well as being widely available on social media."

The video was 'dangerous', apparently, because it did not comply with government policy, or NHS treatment, for Covid-19, or the BBC's editorial policy of not allowing anything to be said or done that does not conform with either.

In truth it was typical of mainstream journalism throughout the Covid-19 crisis, which has been rather like reading/listening/watching the news on Russian newspapers, Izvestia or Pravda whilst growing up in the 1950's. Actually, I never read either paper but I do remember what the BBC, and the rest of the British journalism, said about those news agencies at the time. They were propaganda sheets, controlled by the Russian government, and the Communist party that controlled the government. They were allowed to say only what they were allowed to say. They could not report on anything critical, or question the competence of the government. The Russian people, the BBC said, were not being properly informed. Their journalism was controlled, completely different to 'free press' journalism in Britain.

The news item concerned a video circulating on social media about the treatment of Covid-19. The Royal College said was 'dangerous' because it was stopping black and minority ethic (BAME) communities from taking the new Covid-19 vaccines. This is a perfectly acceptable opinion about the video that suggested breathing in steam was an appropriate treatment. And it is, of course, an opinion shared by the British government, the conventional medical establishment (CME), and (quite clearly) BBC News too.

So how did the bastion of our "free media" deal with the subject? Was this an open and balanced debate? A courteous discussion about a doctor who was suggesting an alternative medical approach to the treatment of Covid-19? Remember (if you need to be reminded) that conventional medicine has had to admit that it had no effective treatment to offer anyone for the last 12 months, during which time over 113,000 people have died.

The piece was nothing of the sort, it was junk journalism, at its very worst. First, the journalist involved, Sima Kotecha, took up a firm and decisive position. It is a stance that has become typical of BBC health reporting: support the side of the dominant player; and attack the side the dominant player disagrees with. So although I am focusing on this one, short, 6 minute piece this is what BBC journalism has been doing for over a year, dealing with Covid-19, and for at least 20 years when dealing with medical issues.

First, the full frontal attack. A video of the doctor was played which showed him advising the inhalation of plain water steam. Immediately alarm bells sounded (literally), and warnings appeared on the screen about 'fake news'. The usual BBC impartiality!

Sima Kotecha then talked to her mother. "You don't believe it, do you?" No, she didn't, but apparently so many other people had received the message. She talked to someone who had tried steam as a treatment, and he thought that it worked. Sima wanted nothing to do with this, and she referred to doctors "around the world" who said steam inhalation was not a preventative measure. He thought that it worked, but he was wrong!

Sima Kotecha then asked three conventional doctors to confirm her view, which of course they did. One opined that such people should be arrested for spreading false news, and false hope. Another said that such messages should be removed from social media. And Sima proudly announced that Facebook had now removed the post, after she had alerted them to it.

So Sima Kotecha spoke to the offending doctor, asking him a loaded question. "Why was he spreading false information?" He tried to explain, but Sima told him that what he was saying was a lie - according to the doctors with whom she had sided, who also told her that he is "doing more harm than good".

So, given such a news item, whose side would you be on? There is, of course, only one answer. The Indian doctor is a charlatan, he is telling lies, and spreading false information. Sima doctors were, of course, speaking the truth, the only truth. 

Was the doctor's approach to breathing steam tested? Was it adequately discussed? Of course not. This was not a news item intended to develop our knowledge, and understanding of the treatment of Covid-19. Sima's doctors, who admit they have no treatment, and have watched on, helplessly, as 113,000 people have died in their hospitals, were correct. There was no treatment, and anyone who said otherwise was spreading misinformation.

And let us not be too critical. Just as with journalists who worked for Pravda and Izvestia, it is not Sima Kotecha's fault. Nor is it Nick Robinson's fault, who hosted the programme. They were both pursuing BBC health policy: support the government: support the conventional medical establishment: and attack anything that might suggest there is an alternative.

• Vaccines are good, and it's important that everyone is vaccinated, including the BAME community who are refusing the vaccine in large numbers,
  
• If there is an alternative treatment it must be dismissed as it might encourage vaccine 'hesitancy', which cannot be supported, and must be attacked.
  

So, unlike the BBC, let's ask a question. Is inhaling steam such a crazy idea? As a young boy my mother would always get me to inhale steam whenever I seemed to be contracting a cold or cough. I think she would put Vic (?) into the water. And are we not aware that Covid-19 virus function better in the cold, and less well in warmth? And that Covid affects mainly our ability to breath?

Another question.... Is steam dangerous? Certainly not in itself! Certainly it is no more dangerous than washing our hands, and less emotionally, socially, and economically dangerous than social distancing and lockdown.

One more..... Why is the BAME community reluctant to accept the Covid-19 vaccines? Is it really thoughtlessness, ignorance, the inability to make up their mind because of the influence on social media videos? Or has it something to do with the failure of conventional medicine to deliver treatment without it causing harm, and more harm to BAME communities?

And yet another. Is there any science to support steam inhalation? Conventional medicine likes to consider itself to be 'scientific'. And medical science is, allegedly, at the heart of BBC's unbounded support for conventional medicine. So where is the science? Has any been done? And if not, why not? Why is the BBC not challenging medical science to do the science? 

And finally, why slag off an Indian doctor who stated that he is only trying to help his patients, perhaps in contradistinction to more conventional doctors who appear content to watch them die, whilst wringing their hands in despair because they have no effective treatment? And is his claim that none of his patients, or his team, has suffered seriously from Covid-19 not worth some consideration?

The role of good journalism is not to support one side of any argument. This is propaganda rather than journalism, particularly when it sides with government and/or the dominant medical establishment. Good journalism is open-mined, it asks questions of both sides, it delves deeper, it investigates, it informs. Unfortunately the BBC, as with Pravda and Izvestia in Soviet Union times, do not appear to be prepared to do this - at least not as far as health issues are concerned.

This is why our mainstream media have failed us over Covid-19. They have not been prepared to question the dominant narrative presented by government and conventional medicine. Instead they have preferred to constantly and unquestioningly repeat their rather hopeless and forlorn message. 

• Why has natural immunity been almost totally neglected? 
• Why has supporting and strengthening our immune system not been central to the advice we have been given to protect ourselves? 
• Why have natural therapists been working in isolation, locked down with the rest of us? 
• What results have they been having with their patients?

The BBC, and the mainstream media generally, have never asked these, and a host of other important and relevant questions. They have sided with a failed, often shambolic government policy, based as it is on a failed medical science, and a dominant medical elite that has always admitted it has no treatment to offer.

What is a Safe Medicine? Seeking Conventional Medicine's concept of safety

The Conventional Medical Establishment (CME) is telling us all, through national governments, conventional doctors, national and international medical organisations, and the mainstream media (MSM) that the Covid-19 vaccines are safe, entirely safe, usually without any reservation or caveat.

At the same time there are a number of internet websites that are reporting serious adverse reactions, including deaths, which have been attributed to these same vaccines. Indeed, reports of vaccine harm are commonplace on the internet - here are just two of these.

501 Deaths + 10,748 other injuries reported to official CDC 'Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System' (VAERS).

This website has attempted to keep an ongoing record of all reports of serious adverse reactions to these vaccines.

So what is becoming increasingly clear is that these two narratives about the safety of Covid-19 vaccines are mutually inconsistent - they cannot both be true!

The central question is how the Conventional Medical Establishment (ConMed) can continue to make their unreserved claims that Covid-19 vaccines are safe refuting these reports. Do they know about these worldwide reports of patient harm? Are they ignoring them deliberately? Surely, if such reports are untrue, the CME would be refuting them?

Regular readers of this blog will know that there is a credibility gap between the efficacy claims of pharmaceutical medicine, and its actual performance. CME has always made claims about the safety of its drugs and vaccines, and their value for patient health. So the claims about Covid-19 vaccine safety, and their tenuous connection with reality, is not new. It is a well-used, well-rehearsed CME strategy. 

Proxy Advertising

In the advertising industry it is well known that if people/customers are told, frequently enough, that a product is effective and safe it will be believed, and the product will sell. So in order to sell drugs and vaccines it is important that drug companies state that they are safe. So, of course, they do. And every sector of society under the control of the CME, including national governments, world and national health agencies, and the mainstream media (MSM), fully support these assertion. 

Indeed, all the CME does more than merely support the pharmaceutical industry. They provide the advertising for the drug companies. When was the last time you heard the MSM being critical of a drug or vaccine? When was the last time you heard a spokesman from a drug company defending the safety of a drug or vaccine? The pharmaceutical industry is being provided with not only free advertising, but more credible promotion from a supposedly 'independent' source.

If a washing machine manufacturer told us their washing machines were safe and effective we might all say - "well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" We would be sceptical, we would check, we would compare. And we would also assume that if the claims being made were untrue we would be warned about it, by government agencies, consumer groups, the MSM, and the like.

With the pharmaceutical industry, and its drugs and vaccines, this is just not happening.

The Credibility of Medical Science

Allegedly, the proof of the safety of pharmaceutical medicine is medical science. We are told all the time - conventional medicine works because it is based on science. The safety of Covid-19 vaccines are based on the scientific testing programmes to which they have been subjected, rushed maybe, but scientific, and therefore unchallengeable. Just mention the word - "science" - and it must be true - it cannot be questioned, leave alone challenged!

I have argued many times that medical science has become a scion of the pharmaceutical industry, part of the CME, a 'science' that has been bought and paid for, to deliver what its paymaster wants it to deliver - not least of which is that scientific testing has shown a drug, or a vaccine to be safe.

Drug Regulation and Medical Science - why conventional medicine is not scientific

The Credibility of Doctors

Doctors have become one of the most respected of all professions. Gone is the 19th century idea that "an apple a day keeps the doctor away", even though a fruit-rich diet would certainly have had more impact on Covid-19 than any treatment conventional medicine has had available to treat it! Doctors are the experts we see at our surgeries, they are paraded on our television night-after-night, their task to reassure us that a particular pharmaceutical drug or vaccine is safe. They are used by the CME to reinforce the safety message, in a variety of ways.

• The drug/vaccine has been proven to be "entirely safe" for patients. The drug/vaccine is "well tolerated" by patients.
  

Yet this routine reassurance is usually contradicted by the Patient Information Leaflet, which legally has to accompany each drug, and outline all the known adverse reactions the drug or vaccine is known to produce. In other words, what doctors tell us is invariably contradicted by CME's own medical literature.

• If the safety message is challenged, conventional medicine's spokespersons will usually tell us that the benefits of the drug/vaccine outweighs any possible dangers.
  

Suddenly, patient harm is admitted; but instantly discounted. The drug/vaccine is so effective we should not be concerned about the side effects. Who makes this judgement? Who does the 'cost/benefit' analysis? The CME, specifically medical science, of course. Where is it published? Nowhere. It is merely an assertion. This washing machine is safe - because we are telling you it is safe.

The effects of the 'safety' message

Doctors are expected to reassure their patients, just as washing machine salesmen are supposed to reassure their customers. It is safe, there is no need for concern, just don't worry. Listen to what you are being told. In medicine this safety message can, and often does, have consequences far beyond just taking the pill. 

    a) the patient suffers an adverse reaction to the drug/vaccine, but as (s)he had been assured by the doctor it was "entirely safe", it could not possibly have been a side effect. So the patient will often not bother to report the side effect to the doctor. The harm goes unrecognised, either by patient or doctor.

    b) A patient takes a drug/vaccine - and suffers an adverse reaction - and does report it to the doctor. Clearly the complain will cause some embarrassment. to the doctor. "You told me it was safe, you did not warn me it might do this". So the doctor finds it difficult to accept, or just won't accept, that his/her patient has been damaged by a prescribed drug/vaccine. So perhaps it wasn't really a side effect. Perhaps it was just coincidence, or part of the initial illness, nothing to do with the drug/vaccine. So the side effect is not reported, an easier position for the doctor to assume.

So the patient is reassured, it wasn't the drug, it must have been something else. How unfortunate, what bad luck!

Reporting Side Effects

Studies have regularly shown that less that 1% of drug/vaccine side effects are ever reported to drug regulators. It is the national drug regulator who examine reports of side effects, and in face of this under-reporting they can come to the conclusion that the drug/vaccine only affects a very small number of people, especially when compared to the number of people who have received the drug/vaccine. 

So the drug regulator publishes the side effects they have received, as they are legally required to do, but they can 'legitimately' describe them as 'uncommon' or 'rare'.

So in terms of the cost-benefit analysis, the benefits of the drug/vaccine, over-emphasised by a compliant medical science, are not outweighed by the disadvantages, the adverse reactions, which are under-emphasised by the reporting system.

So playing the game of Russian Roulette with adverse drug/vaccine reactions suddenly becomes more acceptable - to both the CME and the patient.

There is a vicious circularity about this situation. A drug/vaccine is safe; and because it is proclaimed as being safe its safety is never seriously questioned or investigated.

CME - don't break ranks - or else

 The CME is powerful, but at its centre is the PME, the pharmaceutical drug companies that generate huge profits (it is by far the most profitable industry in the world) which are spent on controlling the different constituent parts of the CME.

Doctors owe their status and position to the ongoing success of the CME. To break ranks is taboo, and results in the severest of punishments. Medical staff who act as 'whistleblowers', anyone who questions the safety of pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines, is putting himself/herself in professional jeopardy. Dr Andrew Wakefield is perhaps the most notable case in recent years, when he questioned the safety of a vaccine, and had his mainstream medical career destroyed as a direct result.

In any Establishments members expected to close ranks, especially in adversity. This is why the secrecy and lack of transparency within Britain's National Health Service (NHS) has been regularly criticised when it has tried to cover up medical errors, bad practice, and is asked to explain the harm done to its patients. 

At the very heart of this medical secrecy are issues of patient safety, and the safety of the treatments they have been given. 

The routine denial of patient harm has become endemic within the NHS because of the need to defend the safety of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, the very backbone of conventional medical treatment.

But breaking ranks is not reserved for medical staff, it also applies to constituent parts of the CME most people would not think of being part of the CME.

National Governments

The CME needs government backing because they are vitally influential in providing health services to their populations. So they fund politicians and political campaigns. They lobby parliaments. They make huge investments within economies that depend on them. And in return CME expects to receive political support for their medical treatments. Many national governments have become as beholden to the future of the CME as any doctor.

The MSM

The mainstream media is also vitally important to the CME. The MSM controls what the public are told about health, and what they know and understand about medical treatment.

It would have been difficult for the CME is control the Covid-19 agenda without both the support of governments, and the MSM. Remember, it had no treatment, and no prevention to offer patients: yet the competence of conventional medicine has never been seriously questioned. 

Hand washing, masks, social distancing, lockdown have had devastating effects on our emotional, social, recreational and economic lives; but the adequacy and relevance of these policies have never been seriously examined or challenged, nor the immense harm it has done, and is doing to our emotional, social and economic life. 

The CME agenda for Covid-19 did not include any reference to natural immunity. The importance of the immune system has rarely been mentioned, and natural medical therapies have been totally excluded from any discussion.

None of this would have been possible had it not been for the compliant silence of both government and the MSM.

Yet the control of government and MSM has one further major benefit for the CME. Medical claims (perhaps more accurately called lies?) about the safety of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are further safeguarded. They are all safe because there is no-one left to tell us they are not safe.

Claims of Medical Safety

Government and MSM compliance to the pharmaceutical medical agenda reinforces the message about the safety of drugs and vaccines. Doctors and other medical staff are able to tell us they are "entirely safe" because they know they will never be challenged about the veracity of such claims. Doctors can parade these views directly with the MSM, and the main journalistic response is usually "that really is good news, thanks for reassuring us". Just as James Bond has a license to kill, doctors have a license to lie about the safety of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. There is no questioning, no investigation into what they actually mean by 'safe' and 'safety'.

And just as in the doctor-patient relationship, the government-citizen and MSM-public relationship has, as a result, become a hostage to fortune. 

• Government and MSM have repeatedly said that Covid vaccines would be our salvation; in much the same ways they have heralded each new 'wonder drug', or 'miracle cure', as something that would soon "win conventional medicine's war" against disease.
  
• Both have welcomed the arrival of Covid-19 vaccines as "good news, the best possible news", without reservation, without question or restraint; just as they have welcomed new conventional treatments that would "transform our experience" of a particular disease.
• At the same time both have ignored any issue that has been vaguely critical of conventional medicine; that pharmaceutical drugs/vaccines cause serious adverse reactions; the fraudulent activities of medical science; the prosecution of drug companies for serious criminal offences; et al.
• And they have even dutifully attacked the opposition, natural medical therapies, and removed them from any significant role within the NHS.
  

So how can they now admit that there are real safety issues with pharmaceutical medicine when they have supported and praised all their treatments over the decades? 

In order to do so they would have to admit they had been wrong? They had both failed to ask relevant questions. They had failed to investigate the claims of the CME. Their politics were corrupt. Their journalism incompetent. For decades, both had misled the people to whom they had both a duty of care, and a responsibility to inform and protect.

Safe is what we tell you is safe!

So the concept of safety within convention medicine is very different to the kind of safety most people would recognise as 'safe'. Crossing a motorway on foot might be described as 'safe' in the context of the concept of medical safety! You are safe because we would get away with it much of the time, but not all the time. In much the same way conventional medicine can say their drugs and vaccines are safe. 

• The CME might know they cause serious adverse reactions, that they harm patients. It is, after all, in the medical literature, available to doctors, governments and the MSM. But the CME won't openly and transparently admit to it; and there is no-one to tell patients unless the patients look for themselves.
• Government agencies might regularly pay out large sums of money for those patients who have been able to prove they have been harmed by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines; but responsibility for the damage caused is not formally recognised, and certainly not connected or compared with the CME's 'vaccines are safe' mantra.
  

First do no harm

Since Hippocrates, in 4th century bce Greece, this principle is supposed to underlie all medical practice.  The CME is certainly aware of the the principle, but its concept of safety allows it to deny it is causing harm to patients. So the CME is in trouble; and the more people who recognise that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines cause harm, the more trouble it will be in. This is why reports of patient harm caused by its new Covid-19 vaccines are so important to ignore, discount and deny.

The future of pharmaceutical medicine depends on its ability 

to maintain its concept of medical safety.

 

DIE's. The Disease Inducing Effects of Pharmaceutical Drugs and Vaccines

For a broader, more direct insight into how pharmaceutical drug and vaccine treatment causes patient harm (and are therefore not safe by any normal definition of safety) this E-Book links the drugs and vaccines that are known to be associated with a wide variety of illnesses and diseases.

The Covid-19 Pandemic. A Medical Fiasco! What NHS Policy could have been if it embraced Natural Medical Therapies

The health system in most countries is now dominated, if not entirely monopolised by the Pharmaceutical Medicine Establishment. It certainly is in Britain's NHS (National Health Service) where natural medical therapies have little or no place within it; indeed the NHS is led by people who are positively, and often gratuitously hostile towards it.

This should not be the case. The NHS should be embracing health freedom, offering patient choice, and organising itself according to the current government's 2010 manifesto which stated "No treatment for me without me". Indeed, the original constitution of the NHS included the commitment to offer patients "the best available treatment"but it now excludes what many people, an increasing number of people, consider to be 'the best available treatment'.

So let's consider what might have happened in 2020, at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, if the NHS had been open to natural medicine, its ideas and principles?

Let us imagine that within the NHS two separate sections had developed alongside each other, each one offering its distinct brand of medicine and patient care. 

• Conventional medicine would have focus, as it did focus on its fight with illness and disease mainly through its pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, its diagnostic testing, and all the other features we all know well. 
• The other section would have had an entirely different approach to health, one which focused on the immune system, and the need to support natural immunity. It would include many natural medical therapies, including homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism, acupuncture, osteopathy, chiropractor, and many more. These therapies, in their different ways, all work alongside the body and its natural defences against illness and disease.

If such a structure had existed within the NHS there would have immediately been a different response from the two sections at the beginning of the pandemic. 

• Conventional medicine (ConMed) would have admitted that it had no vaccine to prevent patients contracting the infection, and no treatment if they contracted it. 
• The Natural Medicine section (NatMed) would have offered several possibilities of treatment through several therapies.

Homeopathy would have offered both preventative and treatment options based on the remedies that homeopaths have used for influenza, and influenza-type illnesses, for over 220 years now. Indeed, this has happened in countries like Cuba and India, and by homeopaths practising privately throughout the world, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Naturopathy would have also been able to offer a positive response. It quickly came up with at least 12 rapid reviews to the treatment of acute respiratory tract infections which informed naturopathic practitioners with respect to Covid-19 pandemic. As with homeopathy, if they had a voice within the NHS, these treatments would have been made readily available to patients.

Herbalism, similarly, came up with treatment options soon after the pandemic broke. The National Institute of Medical Herbalists, for instance, prepared a statement about the treatment of the Covid-19 infection in March 2020. This was also information the NHS denied itself in favour of their unitary pharmaceutical approach.

Acupuncture, alongside herbs and moxibustion, have also been active, finding effective treatment for Covid-19 that produced "significant outcomes for patients". Again, it is unfortunate that these were not outcomes offered to NHS patients. They could have been, had the NHS had been a more open and flexible approach to the provision of health care.

Now a disclaimer. There are probably many other natural medical therapies that have been able to contribute to the treatment of Covid-19, but were kept outside the NHS monopoly. However, these four therapies indicate the potential benefit to the NHS, and to all those patients who suffered and died with the virus - had the NatMed section been in existence.

If NatMed had existed it would immediately have been able to offer patients a choice of both preventative and treatment options. Indeed, it would have been tasked with offering them, and allowing patients to make their own informed choice of the treatment they want. The panic created by the NHS, with the support of government, conventional medical science, and the mainstream media (MSM), would not have been unnecessary, nor would the despair, and the growing anger, about ConMed's hopeless response to the pandemic.

So in early 2020 ConMed would have informed us, just as the NHS did, that it had no treatment other than the rather hopeless and forlorn task of ‘chasing’, 'subduing', and 'destroying' the virus. It would have suggested what it did suggest, that hand washing, social distancing, wearing masks (eventually) and lockdown might be effective, and that in the longer term the pharmaceutical industry might develop a vaccine.

Nat Med, however, would have recommended a different strategy. It would not chase the virus, but instead seek to support and strengthen the immune system, based on its belief that natural immunity was the best defence to any viral threat, including Covid-10. It would have supported the importance of hand washing and social distancing as temporary, initial responses, and if necessary, lockdown too. But it would have been able to offer treatment, which in itself would have offered hope and positivity, and engaged everyone in the positive task of protecting themselves. The 'Big Brother' approach of a deeply paternalistic government would not have been necessary; the individual patient would have been encouraged to take responsibility for his own health. How would this have happened?

The first task of the NatMed section of the NHS would have been to help each individual assess the strength of their immune system. Initially this may have been done through self assessment, a questionnaire, perhaps, that asked questions about the person's life style, diet and nutrition, their fitness, their general susceptibility to infections generally. In addition, it would have asked about the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines people were taking, as it is known that the 'side effects' of many of these are known compromise natural immunity. In particular, it would have wanted to identify those patients who were taking immunosuppressant drugs. Then, treatment would have been individualised.

People with good immunity would be asked to respect those people with compromised immunity, but otherwise to get on with their lives, as normal, albeit with greater care and awareness of other people with weaker immunity. In doing so they would have been advised about natural prophylactic treatments, for example, the regular use of homeopathic remedies, like Anas Barb and Arsenicum Alb.

People with lower, or poor immunity would have been identified, and asked to isolate themselves whilst their immunity was professionally tested and assessed. Techniques of testing the immune system already exist but would have been reviewed, refined, and professionally applied to anyone with compromised immunity. Natural prophylaxis would have been offered, and treatment would then depend on the individualised assessment of the immune system. They would have been asked to socially distance, and/or lockdown accordingly whilst awaiting treatment.

In this way social distancing, self isolation and lockdown, would have been individual decisions, not decisions imposed upon entire communities.

Information Campaigns. NatMed treatment would have focused on the support and strengthening of natural immunity. There would, no doubt, have been a nationwide information campaign aimed at informing everyone about how they could enhance their immune systems. It would, therefore, have been a campaign that would went much further than hand washing, the wearing of masks, social distancing and lockdown.

Life Style Advice. NatMed would have given general advice to everyone; and specific advice to each person with compromised immunity. This would have involved advice regarding possible life-style improvements (relating, for instance, to alcohol, smoking and taking pharmaceutical drugs), diet and nutrition (with particular attention to foods rich in vitamins and minerals), developing a sensible exercise regime, and stressing the importance of Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and other dietary supplements.

Treatment. NatMed treatment options would then have been offered to each patient with compromised immunity, and they would  have been asked to make informed personal choice. As the treatment programme progressed their immune system would have been regularly retested improvements noted, and treatment modified accordingly.

The outcomes of each treatment, including conventional medical treatment, would have been studied for its efficacy, and comparisons made. The safest and most effective treatments would inform future advice to patients.

Recognising Dangers and Personal Responsibility. The NatMed approach to Covid-19 would have one further difference to the ConMed approach. The dangers, and the possible deaths, that the virus would cause would have been openly recognised. Epidemics always cause death, with people with a compromised or poor immune system were particularly at risk. But the focus would not be on the NHS, or the government, to assume responsibility for saving us. Or for me saving you; or you saving me. Everyone had a personal responsibility to save themselves. Everyone would be entitled to the treatment of their choice; but everyone likewise had things they could do to protect themselves.

Social, Emotional and Economic Outcomes. The NatMed approach to Covid-19 would have been a more realistic approach to the Covid-19 pandemic, but also one that would have avoided the government taking on powers that have constrained our personal freedoms and liberty, to act in ways that have caused so much distress in our social and emotional lives, which have damaged mental health of so many people, destroyed viable jobs and livelihoods, and probably wrecked the national economy.

Patient Choice. Many people may have preferred to go along with the ConMed approach, and that would have been perfectly possible, even though it has had so little to offer or to recommend it. People could have been given the option to lockdown, whilst allowing others to get on with their lives, albeit with the support of NatMed.

What would the outcome have been had NatMed being in place during 2020? The question many people will ask is which section of this imagined NHS would have been more successful. The sadness is, of course, that this is an imagined scenario. If it had been in place in 2020 patient outcomes could have been measured, and we would have known more about the relative efficacy of each approach. 

However, as a homeopath, and listening to what homeopaths have been doing throughout the world to deal with this pandemic, I have little doubt that we would not be looking at a death toll of over 100,000 British citizens, and the chaos and nonsense that we have had to endure at the behest of the conventional medical establishment (which has led and controlled government policy). Moreover, we would all know much more about what we could do for ourselves in order to maintain and improve our health.

Are the Covid-19 vaccines working? Are they reducing the number of cases yet?

I have consulted my crystal ball in order to answer this question. In terms of the present situation the question has already been answered in another blog; but what of the future? The Covid-19 epidemic has been with us for over a year now. The new vaccines have been with us for just a few weeks, and many millions of people throughout the world have already received the vaccination. 

So what of the future? How will the pandemic be viewed in terms of what saved us from the terrible ravages of Covid-19?

Of one thing we can all be absolutely certain - that the number of new cases, hospitalisations, and deaths, will all reduce over the coming weeks and months.

Why am I so certain of this? Because in the historial past this is what has exactly what has happened in any and every epidemic there has ever been! An epidemic starts, suddenly, it causes death (usually amongst those people who less able to cope with the virus, or the bacteria), and just as suddenly it goes away. This has always been so, and unless someone can tell me why this pandemic is any different, Covid-19 will do exactly the same.

But there will be a twist as far as Covid-19 is concerned. People are now getting vaccinated in their millions. We already know the vaccines are causing harm, and killing people around the world. This website is seeking to collate the damage that has been reported, thus far. But no matter. As the number of new cases, hospitalisations, and deaths decline (as they inevitably will), the conventional medical establishment will take the credit for this reduction; they always try to claim the credit now, for example, as they have done so brilliantly with measles.

So we will overcome Covid-19 in the weeks and months to come, and we will be told that our immunity has been entirely the result of the new vaccines. It will have nothing to do with the natural immunity gained by the millions of people who contracted the virus, and survived; or the many more millions who had a strong immune system capable of dealing with the virus either without any symptoms, or without getting seriously sick.

Perhaps this is why the World Health Organisation (WHO), a creature of the conventional medical establishment, has recently changed its definition of 'Herd Immunity'. Herd immunity occurs when sufficient people acquire immunity to an infections disease so that it no longer spreads widely in the community. This definition was once supported by WHO, but in October 2020 it quietly revised the definition to remove natural immunity, and immunity through infection, in favour of vaccine protection. As the Dr Mercola link above states, "immunity developed through previous infection is the way it has worked since humans have been alive" but in the modern world of conventional medicine this no longer applies.

            "This perversion of science implies that the only way to achieve herd immunity is via vaccination, which is blatantly untrue."

The perverse logic is that all those people who survived the Spanish ‘flu outbreak in 1918 did so because of a vaccine - that did not exist at the time! Our survival had nothing to do with natural immunity. Similarly, all those people who survived the Black Death in the 14th century, or the Great Plague of the 1660’s, did so because of a non-existent vaccine! This is ludicrous, of course, but it is a message that we will all be hearing soon.

We will be deluged by claims of vaccine effectiveness, offered to us by our governments, the conventional medical establishment, the NHS, and the pharmaceutical industry. And the mainstream media (MSM) will go along with this medical nonsense, as meekly and compliantly as they always do now with any claims being made by conventional medicine.

The question is - will we be naive enough to believe it? 

Are the Covid-19 vaccines working? Are they reducing the number of cases yet?

This is the answer to a question above, asked on the Quora website, and answered by Sean Ballington. I have asked his permission to publish it on my blog - as it is not only a brilliant answer - it is entirely accurate.

According to the government...

If I get vaccinated:

1.- Can I stop wearing the mask?

        Government Response - No

2.- Can they reopen restaurants, pubs, bars etc and everyone work normally?

        Government Response - No

3.- Will I be resistant to covid?

        Government Response - Maybe, but we don't know exactly, it probably won't stop you getting it

4.- At least I won't be contagious to others anymore?

        Government Response - No you can still pass it on, possibly, nobody knows.

5.- If we vaccinate all children, will school resume normally?

        Government Response - No

6.- If I am vaccinated, can I stop social distancing?

        Government Response - No

7.- If I am vaccinated, can I stop disinfecting my hands?

        Government Response - No

8.- If I vaccinate myself and my grandfather, can we hug each other?

        Government Response - No

9.- Will cinemas, theatres and stadiums be reopened thanks to vaccines?

        Government Response - No

10.- Will the vaccinated be able to gather?

        Government Response - No

11.- What is the real benefit of vaccination?

        Government Response - The virus won't kill you.

12.- Are you sure it won't kill me?

        Government Response - No

13.- If statistically the virus won't kill me anyway ... Why would I get vaccinated?"

        Government Response - To protect others.

14.- So if I get vaccinated, the others are 100% sure I'm not infecting them?

        Government Response - No

So to summarise, the Covid19 vaccine...

• Does not give immunity.

• Does not eliminate the virus.

• Does not prevent death.

• Does not guarantee you won’t get it.

• Does not prevent you from getting it.

• Does not stop you passing it on

• Does not eliminate the need for travel bans.

• Does not eliminate the need for business closures.

• Does not eliminate the need for lockdowns.

• Does not eliminate the need for masking.

• So...what the fook is it actually doing?

So according to Sean the vaccines are a waste of time and public money. I could not agree with him more!