Search This Blog

Friday 10 August 2018

Shambo the bull is dead. What kind of medicine is it that has to kill its patients? Will the incompetence of conventional medicine lead ultimately to euthanasia?

Do you remember Shambo the bull? He belonged to the Hindu monks of the Skanda Vale temple in Carmarthenshire, West Wales. They considered the 6 year old Friesian bullock to be sacred but in 2007 it tested 'positive' for TB. For Shambo that was a death sentence, but the monks fought the decision, saying that they would guard against Shambo infecting other animals by keeping him in a separate pen.

This was not good enough for conventional veterinary practice, for Welch politicians, for local farmers who saw Shambo as a disease risk to their livestock, and ultimately for the legal system, which after initially reprieving him eventually ruled that he had to be killed.

I remember the whole affair well because it brought home to me the utter uselessness and incompetence of conventional veterinary practice, which had no effective treatment for many diseases, ultimately leading to the 'need' to kill the patient.

I recalled the British Foot and Mouth epidemic of 2001, during which over 6 million cows and sheep were killed. This had to be done, we were told, to stop the spread of the disease. It brought havoc to many parts of the country, closing public rights of way, and causing long-term harm to the tourist industry throughout England, but especially the Lake District.

I recalled the panic of the 1980's, which culminated in the 1990's, over 'mad cow' disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Again, the veterinary response was to cull the sick animals.

BSE itself was closely associated with Scrapie, a fatal degenerative disease that has been affecting sheep and goats for over 200 years.

Yet, for all these diseases, vets have developed no effective treatments - other than killing the patient. What kind of medicine is this? A medicine whose only course of action is culling thousands of animals?

It is a good job, perhaps, that conventional medicine do not have the same strategy for sick human patients! Yet, I do wonder, if this statement is more wishful thinking that a reality.

Conventional medical spokesperson can often be heard saying that there is 'no treatment' for this illness, or that disease. I started writing my "Why Homeopathy?" website several years ago now, in which I compare conventional and homeopathic treatments for specific diseases. I usually use the NHS Choices website for a description of conventional medical treatment and I have been amazed at how often it is admitted that there is 'no treatment' for a condition.

Part of this amazement is that many of these conditions are regularly treated with homeopathy, with considerable success, many for over 220 years.

When conventional medicine states that 'there is no treatment' for a disease what is meant is that there is no effective CONVENTIONAL medical treatment. For instance, this was the situation when I wrote the 'Why Homeopathy?'page on TB. Simply put, whilst there are many effective homeopathic remedies, used successfully for 200 years and more (Phosphorus, Calc Carb, Silicia, and the use of nosodes like Tuberculinum and Bacillinum) conventional medicine has only antibiotic drugs.
"Treatment for tuberculosis (TB) usually involves taking antibiotics for several months."

Yet, as we know, antibiotic drugs are coming to the end of their useful life, so soon the NHS Choices website will have to make their usual admission - there is no effective treatment for TB!

So what is the conventional medical response to patients who suffer from diseases for which there is no treatment or cure? In essence there are only four options.
  1. Amelioration is offered, such as painkillers for dealing with pain. 
  2. Or there are operations available - to remove or replace organs and limbs. 
  3. Or there is palliative, or end of life care.
  4. And in addition there is an increasing discussion of euthanasia.
Never does conventional medicine suggest that there may be other medical therapies that can offer more effective treatment for a sick, or even a dying patient. It seems that our doctors will do anything other than suggest that there are other, potentially effective treatment to their patients. They prefer that we remain sick, or in pain, or die, rather than admit that although they cannot help, other medical practitioners might be able to do so.

So what does conventional medicine do? What can they offer to their human patients? They can certainly offer more than Shambo got - amelioration, surgery, and palliative care. But the only other choice sick and incurable patients have is euthanasia. This remains controversial, but more people are opting for it (usually based on the understanding that there is no effective treatment for their illness, and there is more discussion about legalising it, and some countries have already done so.

Conventional medicine is dominant. If wants to become a monopoly. It attacks homeopathy and other medical therapies regularly and gratuitously. Yet conventional medicine is inept. What other word is there for a medical therapy that needs to, or allows, their patients to die?