Does conventional medicine prefer patients to die rather than refer them to Homeopathy?
Does conventional medicine prefer patients to suffer rather than offer them another treatment?
This might appear to be an extreme question, perhaps even a silly one to some people. Yet any cursory examination of conventional medical practice has to answer with a clear and definite "Yes".
So let's examine the evidence. During the past few months I have been writing my Why Homeopathy? e-book, which seeks to compare conventional with homeopathic treatment of a variety of illnesses and diseases. Although when setting out on the project I knew that conventional medicine had little to offer when compared with homeopathy, I did not expect to find, time and time again, illness after illness, that conventional medicine frequently and openly states
- that it does not know what causes a particular illness or disease
- and that they have no treatment for so many of these!
On each page of the book I always use the NHS Choices website to ascertain what conventional treatment is for each of the illnesses I research. This is a highly reputable agency within the UK's conventional medical establishment so its descriptions are authentic, definitive statements.
- ADHD. "there is no cure for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder".
- Ankylosing Spondylitis. “There is no cure for ankylosing spondylitis..."
- Arthritis. "Osteoarthritis cannot be cured...."
- Autism. "There is no cure for the condition...."
- Blepharitis. "The condition cannot usually be cured...."
And so it continues, for an amazing number of illnesses that have now been covered in 'Why Homeopathy?'. All conventional medicine can claim to do for so many of these conditions is to enable the patient to live with it, or to treat specific symptoms, or to provide pharmaceutical drugs, with all their inherent dangers, for the rest of our lives.
Given that homeopathy can treat and cure almost any condition I was surprised to discover the extent of this failure. But then I began to wonder about more deadly diseases, ones that ended, inevitably, in the death of the patient? I cast my mind back to a situation that occurred soon after I had qualified as a homeopath. A man had contracted Rabies, and this made national news headlines. This is what I wrote about the situation soon afterwards.
A Case of Rabies
I remember in about 2002 listening to news story about the man in Dundee who contracted Rabies from a bat. He was treated in hospital, presumably by conventional medicine, and it was reported that 'there was no cure' for this condition, but they were making him "as comfortable as possible".
I wrote to the Department of Health asking whether anyone within the health service in Dundee had bothered to see whether there was any traditional therapy for the condition, and in particular, whether they had contacted a homeopath in the area. I pointed out that homeopathy treats 'like with like' using substances in high dilution/potency, and that the remedy Lyssinum was made from the saliva of a rabid dog. I said that, if asked, any homeopath could have tried this remedy, or indeed several others used by homeopaths for the treatment of this disease.
The response I received was that was a matter of patient confidentiality, and the could not give me the information I required.
The man’s death was announced a few days later.
It is extremely unlikely that any homeopathic treatment was requested or tried in this case, despite the fact that homeopathy is used regularly to treat rabies in Eastern Europe, and elsewhere in the world.
The only assumption I could draw then, and now, was that when people contract illnesses that conventional medicine cannot cure, absolutely no effort is made to check with other medical therapies about whether they are able to treat the condition – even when, as in this case, death was the outcome!
There are probably not many people in Britain who die of rabies, but there are many serious illnesses and diseases that do kill patients, many of them conditions for which conventional medicine has no successful treatment.
- Cholera, where treatment is limited to oral rehydration.
- Haemophilia. "There is no cure for haemophilia..."
- and many others.
In addition, there are many other deadly conditions that are only treated with antibiotic drugs, resistance to which is rapidly becoming total. Or treated with drugs with dangerous side effects. When this happens, the conventional medical establishment just throw in the towel.
- Doctors tell us that an illness is 'terminal', that the patient will die.
- There is nothing further that can be done for them.
As I have often said, such statements mean only that there is nothing further conventional medicine can do for the patient. So when this happens, do conventional doctors refer patients on to other medical therapies, such as homeopathy? Never. As with the man who contracted rabies and died, patients with terminal illness are left to die. There is an assumption that if conventional medicine cannot cure an illness, no-one else can!
This is lethal medical arrogance! They might be correct, after all we all die, eventually, of something. And no medical therapy can save everyone from everything at all times. Yet homeopathy has the distinct advantage of recognising the principle of 'treating like with like'. So to make a homeopathic remedy with the saliva of a rabid dog is a potential cure for rabies. But apparently it is not one that conventional medicine is prepared to offer its patients.
In fact, there are several remedies that homeopaths have used for the treatment of rabies, and some of these remedies are outlined in the Dr Makkar Family Clinic website.
For any doctor, or any medical system, to claim that they have a monopoly on effective medical treatment, for any illness, is unacceptable. For anyone to do so, especially when they realise that they have nothing else to offer a patient, especially when that patient will die, is inexcusable.
Nor is it just death. It is also conditions that cause constant, permanent discomfort and pain. It is conditions that patients have to suffer from, for a lifetime, without the prospect of relief. Maybe there is nothing further that conventional medicine can offer for these patients, but quite clearly it is not prepared to offer anything else, even when that 'something else' might be more successful.
Perhaps especially if that 'something else' might be more successful. Conventional medicine never offers itself up for comparison. It has a dominant role in most health services around the world. If homeopathy did, actually, cure a case of rabies, when conventional medicine couldn't what would this tell people? It is best that people are allowed to die!
Yet this is what conventional medicine does, throughout the world. They tell us that their medical system is the only one based on 'science'. They tell us they are winning the 'war' against disease. They announce new wonder drugs, miracle cures, almost every week. It is as if conventional medicine cannot admit failure, or even take a chance that another medical therapy might be able to do something they cannot do! So patients suffer and die without any thought of referring them on.
