Search This Blog

Monday 27 April 2020

Coronavirus COVID-19. Germ Theory and Disease. The difference between a natural health approach & a pharmaceutical approach goes back 150 years

Science is the measure of all things. This is the age of science - it is all-knowing - it is not to be challenged - it has become God. Our government admits that it has no policy on coronavirus COVID-19 - above or beyond the advice given to them by medical science. It is science that drives medical strategy, all policy is driven by it. Government can do nothing without the express permission of these medical experts.

Medical science, of course, is drawn exclusively from within the confines of the pharmaceutical medical establishment. It is the science that has been bought and paid for by the pharmaceutical companies, and so is intent on promoting the value and importance of drugs and vaccines to our health.

But this particular criticism is not what this blog is about. What needs to be recognised is that governments around the world are reacting to the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with a scientific 'decision' that was taken between 130 to 150 years ago. This 'decision' was calamitous, and in large measure has driven the subsequent emergence of the pharmaceutical industry, its dominance within health provision, and what most people believe 'health' is all about.

Most people will have heard about Louis Pasteur, and his 'germ theory' of illness and disease. Very few people have heard about Antoine Béchamp, a highly respected scientist whose position on 'germs' differed from, and was a rival to Pasteurs. The subsequent 'triumph' of Pasteur's position, although now over 130 years ago, is one of the main reasons for conventional medicine's current reaction to the coronavirus COTID-19 pandemic. So what did the two scientists believe?

Louis Pasteur.
Pasteur's germ theory stated that “specific microscopic organisms are the cause of specific diseases,” a statement few people in the pharmaceutical medical establishment would now disagree. The threat of  'germs' to our health has become an all-pervasive belief, considered to be self-evidently true. It is, we are told, a scientific fact.
The germ theory pre-dated Pasteur, but he popularised the concept, and it gained widespread acceptance in the late 19th century. It reduced the idea of disease to a single, simple interaction between specific microorganisms and a host. It has minimized the role of what is often called 'the environment' in which these germs operate, such as life-style factors and the impact they have on our health. The problem is bacteria, and viruses; it has nothing to do with us, and what we do to our bodies. So Pasteur's theory also freed us from personal and social responsibility for creation of disease. 

Importantly, it also led to the idea, now dominant within conventional medicine, that health provision should be about protecting us from these germs - not least by vaccines.
This is why we are now engaged in a frantic war with coronavirus COVID-19. It is difficult because  we cannot see it. We don't know where it is. And it is difficult to kill. This is why governments around the world are so desperate, thrashing around like headless chickens, developing senseless policies that are not working, and why thousands of people are still dying around the world. 

The strategy of conventional medical is to focus on the germ, the bacteria, the virus; and to fight it, to hunt it down, to kill it - almost at any cost. This is why we are being urged
  • to spray and disinfect anything that moves, and many things that does not move too,
  • to wash our hands, for at least 20 seconds, frequently
This germ-centric view of health also means that we all have to defend and protect ourselves from an invisible enemy, to isolate ourselves from potential carriers of the germ, and to prevent its transmission. We believe that the germ can strike anywhere, at any time, and that it can affect everyone. We do not know who is infected, or who is carrying the germ. So everyone must be considered to be a carier, and it becomes essential for everyone to
  • avoid all social contact and maintain social distance,
  • wear masks, gloves, gowns in order to protect ourselves from the transmission of the germ,
  • impose strict social and economic lockdowns.
And we must do all this even though in doing so we might undermine the social fabric, destroy the national economy, jeopardise our mental health, and lose our jobs. This is all worthwhile - for as long as we believe that germs are so powerful.

This is what Pasteur thought, and what germ-based medicine believes. This is what medical science is at this very moment telling governments, what is forming policy, and why we are being subjected to the nonsense responses to coronavirus COVID-19.

Antoine Béchamp.

Béchamp’s view was quite different, and have been summed up under these eight headings: (with my emphasis).
  1. Disease arises from micro-organisms within the cells of the body
  2. These intracellular microorganisms normally function to build and assist in the metabolic processes of the body
  3. The function of these organisms changes to assist in the disintegration processes of the host organism when that organism dies or is injured, which may be chemical as well as mechanical
  4. Microrganisms change their shapes and colours to reflect the medium
  5. Every disease is associated with a particular condition
  6. Microorganisms become “pathogenic” as the health of the host organism deteriorates. Hence, the condition of the host organism is the primary causal agent
  7. Disease is built by unhealthy conditions
  8. To prevent disease we have to create health.
               “The microzyma (a term describing minute particles common to all living things) is at the beginning and end of all organization. It is the fundamental anatomical element whereby the cellules, the tissues, the organs, the whole of an organism are constituted".
In brief, Béchamp believed that disease developed within an unhealthy environment, caused by a body that was in an unbalanced state. He taught that disease could not take hold without a pre-existing weakness in the host, that germs did not cause disease, but instead gravitated to weaker, or diseased people. Essentially, germs were scavengers that fed on dead tissue.
As Rudolf Virchow, a contemporary German physician, often known as 'the father of modern pathology', stated 

               “If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat - diseased tissues - rather than causing disease.”

So Béchamp's focus was not invisible germs, it was the weakened hosts on which they preyed. If the body was not in a weakened state the germs would not cause disease. This view continues to be the basis of all natural medical therapies. The centre of medical concern is NOT the germ, it is the host upon which the germ is able to prey. 

Moreover, the host is observable, its state of health known. The focus is moved from the germ to the body's immune system, which is ultimately the best, perhaps the only protection we have from an invasion of germs.

It is noticeable that in the present pandemic there is little mention of the need to support the immune system.
  • little mention of the importance of good diet and nutrition,
  • the importance to the immune system of vitamin C, and D, and zinc - et al,
  • exercise is something we want to do, not something we need to do because it is protective,
  • no mention of the harm caused by life-style factors such as smoking, and drinking too much alcohol,
  • no mention of natural medical therapists who are treating their patients,
  • little mention whatever of the 'underlying health conditions' that are actually killing people,
  • absolutely no mention that some of these 'underlying health conditions are actually caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines,
  • no mention that the conventional medical experts who are dictating government policy favour 'immunosupressive' treatments' that intentionally undermine our immune system.
Instead, governments, advised by medical science, seems to believe that the only solution to COVID-19 is the development of a vaccine, so it is ploughing £millions$ into the pharmaceutical industry to deliver one. 

Béchamp's view of germs, if he had prevailed, would have led to a different kind of health service, one that was not so desperate to destroy bacteria and viruses, but which focused instead on helping us defend ourselves. We would have a health service that supported the immune system, emphasised its importance, and advised us about all the things we can do - the importance of underlying health, a strong immune system, healthy life-style habits, the role of diet, nutrition, exercise, the use of natural medical therapies like homeopathy, naturopathy, herbal medicine, and many

Although this is now beginning to happen in a few countries, like Cuba and India, they have been heavily criticised for doing so - by the pharmaceutical medical establishment!

The problem with such an approach is, of course, that the pharmaceutical industry would not make £billions$ from vaccine research, and vaccine sales - or getting indemnity from government for the damage all vaccines do to patients.

Wherever conventional medicine is dominant, government policies are not working. The medical experts on whom they rely have no treatment to offer. Hence, the main reason given for the hugely damaging social and economic lockdown is the need to 'protect' health services from the pressure of sick patients!
The pharmaceutical industry is a hopeless monopoly whose only role is to oversee the process of patients dying, whilst using its medical 'expertise' to advise the governments on policy. 
  • What can we expect of a medical system that kills the cow, and its herd, when it contracts TB, or Food & Mouth? 
  • What can we expect of a medical system that responds to bird influenza by killing the entire flock? 
  • What can we expect from a medical system that diagnosis a tree with a disease and chops it down? 
Pasteur's triumph over Béchamp was a pyrrhic victory, one that has inflicted a devastating toll on the quality and relevance of health provision. The victor, and his 'science' has directed us to where we are. It is time Béchamp was reinstated. It is his insight that reflects more accurately the world in which we live, and which we are now observing. His reinstatement would transform our thinking about what health is (and what is not), and bring back a vestige on sanity into the operation of our health system.

Saturday 25 April 2020

Coronanvirus COVID-19 & Immunosuppression. Who are these people with 'underlying health conditions' who are dying?

At the time I started writing this blog (yesterday) there were 191,900 deaths associated with the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. Yet few of these deaths have been the result of the virus itself, but the "underlying health conditions" that most of the people who died suffered from prior to contracting it. So what exactly are these "underlying health conditions"? And what have caused them?

There are two broad ways of dealing with an infection. One is to rely on pharmaceutical medicine to kill the bacteria, or the virus causing it. This is what conventional medicine tries to do, but with the current coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic it is struggling. It has no effective preventative or treatment options. In any future epidemics it will struggling again, because of the impending demise of antibiotic drugs; and the ineffectiveness, and many serious side effects, of antiviral drugs.

The other way of dealing with infections is to rely on the body's own natural immune system, boasting and supporting it in a variety of ways. This is what all natural medical therapies seek to do.

The difference between these two medical strategies is important, because it is what differentiates conventional medicine and natural medicine.

Underlying health conditions are often mentioned on national media, but not often described or listed. I have gleaned the following information from various websites on the internet.
  • Blood disorders, for example, sickle cell disease. 
  • Chronic kidney disease, including patients who are receiving dialysis.
  • Chronic liver disease, such as cirrhosis and chronic hepatitis.
  • Current or recent pregnancy.
  • Endocrine disorders such as diabetes mellitus.
  • Metabolic disorders such as inherited metabolic disorders and mitochondrial disorders.
  • Heart disease, including congenital heart disease, congestive heart failure and coronary artery disease. 
  • Lung diseases like asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease , includingchronic bronchitis or emphysema, and other chronic conditions associated with impaired lung function. 
  • Neurological, neurologic and neurodevelopment conditions, which include brain disorders, and disorders of the spinal cord, the peripheral nerves and muscle, such as cerebral palsy, all seizure disorders including epilepsy, stroke, intellectual disability, developmental delay, muscular dystrophy, or spinal cord injury. 
  • Compromised immune system, including those being treated for cancer with chemotherapy or radiation, and those who have had an organ, limb or bone marrow transplant.
Everyone who suffers from any of these "underlying health conditions" will have been receiving pharmaceutical medical treatment, most of them for many years, and many for decades. In the wake of this epidemic some patients have been advised to come off these drugs to protect them from COVID-19. If we look at the health conditions listed above it is not unreasonable to ask whether pharmaceutical drugs have played an important causal role in their development of the 'underlying conditions.
  • Blood disorders. Apparently this term applies to any of the many patients who are now taking pharmaceutical blood thinners, like Warfarin, Predaxa, Plavix, Elequis, Xarelto, Plavix, Prasugral, Brilinta, Cilostaxol, Aggrenox, and even Aspirin. 
  • Chronic kidney disease. Patients are apparently are being told to avoid, or reduce the dose of pharmaceutical drugs they have been taking for kidney disease, and/or for kidney dialysis.
  •  Chronic liver disease. Cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis patients have been told to avoid, or reduce, the dose of drugs taken for liver disease.
Yet it is the mention of "compromised immune systems" that should really attract our attention in this context - but this is (perhaps predictably) being ignored.
Anyone who receives an organ transplant must take immunosuppressant drugs. Otherwise the immune system will view a transplanted organ as a foreign object, and will try to reject it, causing serious damage to the new organ. Pharmaceutical medicine has now developed many immunosuppressant drugs for this purpose. The initial objective of these drugs was to develop transplantation. Little attention was paid to the importance of the immune system in maintaining our general health.
And there was certainly no recognition that the need for organ (and limb) transplantation is the result of pharmaceutical failure - the failure to treat diseased organs (and painful limbs) safely and effectively in order to avoid the need for replacements!

But then conventional medicine came up with an extraordinary notion - that there were certain diseases that were caused by the immune system ‘turning in on itself’, and actually harming its own tissues. There are now over 100 of these 'autoimmune diseases. They include lupus, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, Inflammatory bowel disease, Diabetes mellitus, MS (Multiple Sclerosis), Psoriasis - and many of these 'underlying health conditions'.

So immunosuppressant drugs have been used increasingly to treat all these diseases, and so they are now prescribed to an ever-increasing number of patients.

So why does the immune system ‘turn in on itself’? Conventional medicine does not appear to understand this. The American College of Rheumatology talks about “when our immune system gets confused, it can mistakenly target normal tissue causing damage and disease”. So it is all about confusion, a mistake! The Health Line website says that “doctors don’t know exactly what causes the immune-system misfire”.

The mystery might be solved if time was taken to look at the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that are known to cause these autoimmune diseases through their side effects (check for yourself here).

So autoimmune diseases might be, and probably are, diseases caused by pharmaceutical medicine. And when these diseases are created by drugs, more drugs are then used to ‘treat’ them. And these drugs
  • close down our natural immunity to dangerous infections
  • make us more susceptible to infections, such as coronavirus COVID-19!
Immunosuppressant drugs may be capable of doing what they are intended to do, to prevent the immune system rejecting a transplanted ‘foreign’ organ. But the conventional medical establishment understand full well that they make patients vulnerable to serious infections. This is what the Very Well Health website says about immunosuppressant drugs:

               “Immunosuppression means that your immune system is not functioning as it should. This can be caused by disease, but it is more often induced by medications such as chemotherapy and immunosuppressants (my emphasis). Some (medical) procedures can cause immunosuppression too..... Without an intact immune system, infections can become very aggressive, and may even be fatal (my emphasis). Immunosuppression also increases the risk of cancer, because the immune system helps protect the body from cancer.”
As a result, doctors are advising anyone taking immunosuppressant drugs to take great take care to avoid an infection. Patients are advised to avoid close contact with other people, and to wash their hands frequently. Does this sound familiar?

When someone’s health has declined to the point when one or more of their organs can no longer function, or sustain life, conventional medicine can now transplant a new organ. This appears at first glance to be a wonderful thing, but is actually the result of conventional medical failure, the failure over many years to return deceased organs to health.

Similarly their use as a treatment for autoimmune disease also arises from a failure properly to identify the cause of these illnesses. And as the most likely cause is pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines it might be safer, and more effective, to withdraw or ban these drugs rather than to introduce immunosuppressant drugs treat them. But this is not how conventional medicine works, or why pharmaceutical companies are so profitable!

All forms of natural medicine recognise the importance of the immune system, each, in their own way seeking to support and boost it. They do this, ultimately, because they recognise that it is our immune system that is the only thing that will keep our body healthy, fight off infections, to overcome infections illness if we succumb to it, and to recover.

Pharmaceutical, or conventional medicine is the only medical discipline that actually seeks to interfere, to tamper with our immune system, and in the case of immunosuppressive drugs (often called immunotherapy), actually tries to shut it down. It can only do so at extreme cost to our health, our ability to ward off infection and disease.

So COVID-19 has not been the direct cause of death in most cases; the virus has merely been able to gain hold of someone whose health has already been seriously compromised - by pharmaceutical medicine. "Underlying health conditions" have been the cause of most deaths; but most of these have themselves been caused by years of failed conventional medical treatment.

When I finished writing this blog there were 197,859 deaths, worldwide, associated with the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic - increase of over 5,000 in just one day. No doubt the underlying reason for most of these additional deaths is not the virus itself, but the 'underlying health conditions', and the pharmaceutical drugs people have be prescribed which have compromised their immune system, leading directly to their inability to deal with it.

Friday 24 April 2020

Coronavirus COVID-19. The panic and hysteria is going to lead to Mandatory Vaccination. The Nuremberg Code, and the Hippocrtic Oath, tells us why we should resist this.

The panic over the Coronavirus COVID-19 situation begs many unasked and unanswered questions. One of them is the reason for this pandemic being escalated and exaggerated to the extent it has been, leading to such wholescale social fear and panic. Three features of the incessant government, medical and media campaign has been:
  • we need to protect ourselves from the virus
  • we also need to protect others
  • we need a vaccine
The first is sensible, leaving the means of protection entirely a matter for individual choice.
The third is fine, for those of us who believe that vaccines are either effective, or safe.
The second has an ominous ring, with possible future repercussion for health freedom and patient choice.
  • We need to wash our hands - to safeguard others.
  • We need to maintain social distance - in order to safeguard others.
  • We need to lockdown families, and the entire economy - in order to safeguard others.
Most people have accepted all three concepts, quite willingly. And given the obvious inability of conventional medicine to provide people with any hope of prevention, treatment, or assistance in speedy recover from the virus, this is perhaps understandable.

But what happens when there is a vaccine, perhaps in a few months time? How much pressure will be placed on everyone to go along with the second concept - we must all get vaccinated - in order to protect the vulnerable? Those of us who know the evidence, and understand that vaccines are neither effective or safe, will be expected to take the vaccine? So will it be made mandatory? Will there be and issue of 'health passports", with ongoing restrictions placed on those who refuse the vaccine?

This feature of the coronavirus campaign, the need to protect the weak and vulnerable, is a Trojan horse. People who do not want the vaccine will be pressurised into taking it. To refuse the vaccine will be described as 'selfish'. Patient choice will end. Health freedom will become a thing of the past.

The decision to take a vaccine is akin to playing a game of Russian roulette. Will you, or will you not die; suffer paralysis, or brain damage, and all the other known 'side effects' of vaccines that have been outline by the USA's CDC (Centers for Disease Control), even though it is deeply inbedded within the pharmaceutical medical establishment. Read this long, horrendous list yourself - and decide if YOU want YOUR government to force YOU to take it.

Each new vaccine is a medical experiment. Conventional medicine does not know who will be harmed of who wil be able to cope. It will be the same as other conventional medical experiment that have gone so wrong - the thousands of drugs and vaccines that have been withdrawn and/or banned when doctors can no longer pretend that they were either effective, or safe.

If anyone doubts this they should look at the Patient Information Leaflets that come with each and every vaccine. They make horrific reading.

Moreover, the new 'coronavirus vaccines' that are being rushed into being. Even the inadequate 'safeguards' that medical science, and drug regulatory agencies provide, all of which have proven in the past not to be no safeguards at all, have been abandoned. So any new vaccine will be an experiment on a huge scale, akin perhaps to the Swine Flu vaccine that was developed during a similar influenza panic in 2009. The result of that vaccine was that the British government had to pay compensation of over £60 million to patients who suffered brain damage. And, of course, we were all told this vaccine was 'safe' too!

The ten points of the Nuremberg code were given in the section of the verdict entitled "Permissible Medical Experiments”. They are as follows:
  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
The Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) that come with all vaccines is the official literature of the pharmaceutical medical establishment. They show that ALL vaccines are unsafe, that each and every vaccine can give rise to serious adverse health reactions. Although this 'official' evidence is routinely denied, or at least discounted by the conventional medical establishment, by most political parties, and certainly by the mainstream media, these PILs are an official record of vaccine dangers.

And in addition, the dangerousness of vaccines is demonstrated by the compensation payments that regularly and routinely have to be made to the victims of vaccination.

So vaccination programme continue to be an 'experiment', and so should come under the Nuremberg code. Many people, including myself, are not prepared to be part of this experiment; and an increasing number of people are becoming impervious to the oft-repeated claims by conventional medical spokespeople that vaccines are ‘safe’. It may be the message they want us to hear. But vaccine outcomes consistently contradicts this.

If there is a risk with any medication, the Nuremberg Code should apply. If vaccination is imposed upon any individual, or their children, against their will, it constitutes a crime against human rights, and civil rights too. The 10th point is particularly important. If a vaccine’s PIL can state that death is one of the side effects (as several do) it is a demonstrable crime that medical scientists decide to continue with the vaccine 'experiment' at all.

There is also the matter of the Hippocratic Oath, which makes a very specific demand on all doctors. First do no harm. 
This is a statement of principle that cannot, under any stretch of the imagination, apply to the widespread use of vaccines, and certainly not when there is a threat of the mandatory enforcement of vaccination.

Thursday 23 April 2020

A "Safe Vaccine" is an Oxymoron. The two words cannot be combined with honesty

Listen to conventional medical 'experts', government spokesmen, politicians, and the mainstream media, and the term "safe vaccine" is routinely trotted out. Yet combining these two words is dishonest, it is an oxymoron (defined by Merriam-Webster as "a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (such as cruel kindness); broadly: something (such as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements").

Of course, putting 'safe' and 'vaccine' together in this constant, repetitive way, is a well known advertising technique; that is, say something often enough and people will believe it. And most people DO believe that there are 'safe vaccines' - regardless of the evidence to the contrary.

Regular readers of this blog will know that there is no such thing as a 'safe vaccine'; there never was, and never has been. Yet here we are, in the middle of a new infectious influenza epidemic, and all we are being told is that the only solution is a 'safe vaccine'. The government is putting £millions into the development of a new vaccine. And not doubt medical science and the pharmaceutical companies are busy ensuring with government gives them immunity from an compensation arising from the patient damage it will almost inevitably cause.

Where is the evidence for this statement? It is in the conventional medical literature, contained within the Patient Information Leaflets (PIL's) that come with each and every vaccine (but are rarely shown to patiewnts. I have written about some of these PIL's, included with the most used and harmful vaccines, before. These are the links.
Even the influential CDC (Centers for Disease Control) in the USA, deeply inbedded within the pharmaceutical medical establishment, has listed some of the known adverse reactions to vaccination.

Children's Medical Defense has published a brilliant and detailed list reveals hundreds of serious medical conditions that are clearly linked to vaccines - from within these Pil's.

The dangerousness of vaccines is also the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the massive compensation claims regularly and routinely paid to victims of vaccination in many countries over the years.

If vaccines are safe, why are hefty compensation payments being made to people who have been damaged by them?

Yet doctors continue to claim that all vaccines are safe; that medical science is able to develop a new vaccine for COVID-19; that it will be safe, and will be the ultimate solution to the current coronavirus panic.

It is the ultimate triumph 
of hope over experience!

Wednesday 22 April 2020

Coronavitus COVID-19. A slow recovery? Why not try this remedy.

Most people survive coronavirus COVID-19. Yet recovery can be slow, and just a conventional medicine has no preventative treatment, no treatment for the illness itself, it has no treatment that aids recovery.

Boris Johnson, our British Prime Minister, is one such case. He has been out of hospital now for 10 days now, at the time of writing, and he is still not sufficiently fit to be back at work. That is, apparently not unusual; and it is no reflection on him. Just a reflection on a medical system whose medical cupboard is bare.

For anyone who wants to get better homeopathy is a positive alternative.

Homeopaths has a phrase used often in our repertory of remedies - "not been well since...." I checked it out today for "not been well since influenza; and in the repertory I use there is just one remedy.


It is a remedy that is known, and is often used, to help people recover from a bad bout of influenza.

Why not check it out? Contact a homeopathic pharmacy and order a bottle of Gelsenium 30c and see it it works for you.

Friday 17 April 2020

Coronavirus COVID-19 in India & Cuba. Is Homeopathy the answer that the pharmaceutical establishment has to deny?

  • Conventional medicine says that coronovirus COVID-19 is a new virus, they are dealing with the unknown, and they have limited knowledge about it,
  • The pharmaceutical industry admits it has no treatment, beyond hand washing, social isolation and testing (none of which constitutes treatment),
  • Medical science is being paid £$ billions to develop a vaccine, which (we are told by doctors) is ultimately the only answer to the pandemic.
So, is this all there is? Certainly this is all conventional medicine has to offer.

Yet perhaps there is something else going on in the world that conventional medicine can learn and benefit from. After all, conventional medicine always prides itself as being based on medical science. And science always seeks to learn and develop their understanding of what is going on by observing the world.

The answer is yes, there is something that can be observed. But medical science is choosing to ignore it. Indeed, it has been ignoring it now for the best part of the last century, and particularly during the last 20 years. Let's look at what is happening in two countries, India and Cuba.

A Microsoft News article (16th April 2020) asked the question "Why does India have so few coronavirus Covid-19 cases and deaths?" As it states,

               "India is four times more populous than the US, but has just 2% the number of cases and only 1.5% of the number of Covid-19 deaths. How has the country, whose per capita income is just a tenth of the US, avoided being flattened by the pandemic?"

Four possible explanations are offered. It might be that the epidemic has started late; that its lockdown has been successful; that it is doing more testing; and that India might have 'protective characteristics' against the virus. Each explanation is systematically rejected in the article, so it fails to answer the question it posed. But as MSN (like most mainstream media platforms) is part and parcel of the conventional medical establishment, it misses one important, and very obvious explanation.

This fact fails to get even a cursory mention in the MSN article. In India it is estimated that about 100 million people are totally dependent on homeopathic treatment. In the very early stages of the epidemic, the Indian government, and its health agency, AYUSH, announced that it was using a simple, inexpensive homeopathic remedy as preventative to the virus. And it was roundly condemned for doing so by the conventional medical establishment. I mentioned this in a blog written in early March.

Now, at the time of writing, 6 weeks later, this is conveniently ignored. Whilst in the USA 34,641 people have died, representing 105 people per million population; and in Britain 14,476 people have died, representing 215 people per million population; in India just 452 people have died, representing just 0.3 deaths per million population.
  • The conventional medical establishment will, of course, trot out all the arguments why such numbers are not relevant, cannot be trusted, and should be dismissed.
  • They will not look seriously at the figures to examine, study and test whether homeopathy has played a role - and whether it might be able to play a role in the advanced 'western' world, with its sophisticated, scientifically based medical system.
An article (7th April 2020) in the Miami Herald (just across the Caribbean from Cuba) makes a statement: "Cuba promotes homeopathy as an effective ‘weapon’ against the coronavirus". 

               "As scientists around the world speed up clinical trials to find a cure or vaccine for the coronavirus, the Cuban government will begin distributing a homeopathic remedy to the elderly and other vulnerable people to “prevent” the spread of the disease, a top health official said. Dr. Francisco Durán, national director of Epidemiology at the Ministry of Public Health, said in a press conference on Sunday that “sublingual drops” of the compound PrevengHo-Vir “prevent different diseases such as influenza, the common cold, dengue, and emerging viral infections such as this one.”

Homeopathy became popular in Cuba in the 1990's when it could not afford the prohibitively expensive pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines it was using at the time, and so tried homeopathy instead. In particular, it began to treat its annual leptospirosis epidemic, which regularly each year killed hundreds of people. I have blogged about this before, in March 2010, February 2011, May 2011, and December 2016.

Homeopathic treatment for leptospirosis proved to be remarkably successful, and has been used ever since. The Cuban Regulatory Authority, CECMED, said that it had approved a homeopathic remedy to combat the coronavirus COVID-19 epidemic “as an alternative for the prevention of influenza, flu, dengue, and emerging viral infections.” It confirmed that it had previously approved similar homeopathy remedies as a preventative for dengue and cholera, and cited a 2009 World Health Organization resolution, presented by China, that recognizes homeopathy as a component of traditional medicine.

The Miami Herald is presumably a small, local publication which, like all USA mainstream media publications, is controlled by, and part of the pharmaceutical medical establishment. So perhaps quite naturally the rest of its article casts doubt on the use of homeopathy, utilising the usual mantras.
  • there is no scientific evidence to support homeopathy,
  • the 'controversial' principle of 'like curing like',
  • the FDA has not approved any homeopathic remedy for any medical use,
  • the National Institutes of Health caution that there is little evidence to support homeopathy as an effective treatment for any specific health condition,
  • it quotes local people, clearly opposed to homeopathy - but fails to quote anyone who is in favour.
Cuban statistics provide a picture similar to India. It has registered just 27 deaths, which represents just 2 in every million people.

So in both India and Cuba a decision has been taken to use homeopathic treatment both to prevent and treat coronavirus COVID-19. The response of the pharmaceutical medical establishment, and its scion, medical science, has been to ignore this completely, and where possible to attack it. The result of their non-observation has ensured that their myopic faith in pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines has not been shaken. It demonstrates that conventional medicine has no interest in finding solutions to this pandemic outside their domain, they have taken a decision not to investigate further, they refuse to test the hypothesis that homeopathy might be a viable and useful alternative to having no treatment whatsoever. They make no suggestion that that 'misinformation' coming from India and Cuba might be tested by setting up randomised controlled studies.

Which means, essentially, that conventional medicine, dominated as it is by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, is not interested in any kind of medical treatment outside the confines of their own self interest. As I mentioned in a previous blog, our 'scientific' medical system prefers that people die rather than admit that another medical therapy has better, more effective, and considerably less expensive  medical treatment for this epidemic.

It is, after all, an admission that would do irreparable harm to the future of immensely rich and powerful industrial interests.

Addendum 29th April 2020
Facebook Censorship
Homeopathy Plus updated the work being done with homeopathy in India. The article can be found here.

It is worth reading for its content - but also to indicate that Facebook is censoring this kind of evidence, and that it is in the hands of, and under the control, of the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment

Homeopathy. Do people like it once they have tried it?


This is the page that is being censored by Facebook. It can be read in full here 

When I try to post this message on Facebook this is what I am being told
Your content couldn't be shared, because this link goes against our Community Standards
If you think that this doesn't go against our Community Standards, let us know.

I have let them know that I do not think that this link should 'go against' any standards, and I have indeed let them know this. So far there has been no response.

This is a simple, uncontroversial webpage that has been published by an important homeopathic website. It contains a large number of comments from people who use homeopathy, and found it to be useful and helpful.
  • there is no trolling, no hate, no criticism - nothing that any reasonable person should not be able to read.
  • Facebook may be opposed to homeopathy, as clearly they are, but not allowing a link to their platform for something as innocent, and innocuous as this, is pure censorship.
Many other people and organisations are finding that these social media platforms are being subjected to censorship. Facebook is not alone, but it is certainly at the forefront of undermining free speech, and can certainly be considered to be part of the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment.

It is a growing trend, and I urge anyone who wishes to have their information uncensored to sign up to this, and other websites, that seek to put forward an alternative view on health issues before they become out of reach to you.

Please, look down the left hand column of this website, and click on "Follow".