If the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic has proven one thing it is that conventional medicine has no effective treatment for infectious disease. To their credit medical science has not denied this, admitting it almost as soon as the epidemic started in Wuhan, China.
So instead of medical treatment we have all had to endure fear and panic; the constant urging to wash our hands; to keep social distance; to close down normal social relationships; and through lockdown policies, to do untold harm to national and local economies.
Regular readers will know I have written extensively about the futility, and the ludicrous nonsense of the conventional medical response that have resulted. Links to all these articles, published in April and May, can be found on the column to the right of this text. Altogether these articles have highlighted an ongoing picture of abject medical failure; and the complete refusal to look at, or even talk about natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, that could have helped (if asked), and could have saved thousands of lives.
On what basis do I make these claims?
The history of the medical treatment of infectious disease over the last 200 years demonstrates not just the hopeless incompetence of conventional medicine, but the comparative success of homeopathy.
"From its earliest days, homeopathy has been able to treat epidemic diseases with a substantial rate of success, when compared to conventional treatments. It was these successes that placed the practice of homeopathy so firmly in the consciousness of people world-wide"
These are the words of Julian Wilson, a homeopath who, before his death in 2005, researched the comparative success of homeopathy in the treatment of infectious epidemics.
Julian's article, the result of his extensive research, has been reproduced in a fuller form on this 'Butterfly Expressions' website. In it he describes the treatment of 19th century epidemics, and in particular, he compared the comparative mortality rates of patients given conventional and homeopathic treatment. These figures are provided here, but for a description of the epidemics go to the above link.
1813. Typhus Fever. Napoleonic War.
So instead of medical treatment we have all had to endure fear and panic; the constant urging to wash our hands; to keep social distance; to close down normal social relationships; and through lockdown policies, to do untold harm to national and local economies.
Regular readers will know I have written extensively about the futility, and the ludicrous nonsense of the conventional medical response that have resulted. Links to all these articles, published in April and May, can be found on the column to the right of this text. Altogether these articles have highlighted an ongoing picture of abject medical failure; and the complete refusal to look at, or even talk about natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, that could have helped (if asked), and could have saved thousands of lives.
On what basis do I make these claims?
The history of the medical treatment of infectious disease over the last 200 years demonstrates not just the hopeless incompetence of conventional medicine, but the comparative success of homeopathy.
"From its earliest days, homeopathy has been able to treat epidemic diseases with a substantial rate of success, when compared to conventional treatments. It was these successes that placed the practice of homeopathy so firmly in the consciousness of people world-wide"
These are the words of Julian Wilson, a homeopath who, before his death in 2005, researched the comparative success of homeopathy in the treatment of infectious epidemics.
Julian's article, the result of his extensive research, has been reproduced in a fuller form on this 'Butterfly Expressions' website. In it he describes the treatment of 19th century epidemics, and in particular, he compared the comparative mortality rates of patients given conventional and homeopathic treatment. These figures are provided here, but for a description of the epidemics go to the above link.
1813. Typhus Fever. Napoleonic War.
- Conventional Medicine. 30%+ mortality
- Homeopathic treatment. 1% mortality
- Conventional Medicine. 40% to 80% mortality
- Homeopathic treatment. 7% to 9% mortality
- Conventional Medicine. 15% to 85% mortality
- Homeopathic treatment. 5.6% to 6.4% mortality
- Conventional Medicine. 83.6%+ mortality
- Homeopathic treatment. 16.48% mortality
1854. Cholera in London
This epidemic is notable in that it was one of the earliest examples of conventional medicine seeking to hide the poor performance of conventional medicine, and prevent direct comparisons with homeopathic treatment.- Conventional Medicine. 52.9% mortality
- Homeopathic treatment. 9% mortality
"The House of Commons asked for a report about the various methods of treating the epidemic. When the report was issued, the homeopathic figures were not included. The House of Lords asked for an explanation, and it was admitted that if the homeopathic figures were to be included in the report, it would 'skew the results.'"
1878. Yellow Fever, New Orleans
1878. Yellow Fever, New Orleans
- Conventional Medicine. 50% mortality
- Homeopathic treatment. 5.6% mortality
- Conventional Medicine. 42%+ mortality
- Homeopathic treatment. 15.5% mortality
The Butterfly Expressions website asks why similar comparative statistics were not available for the rest of the 20th century, and in doing so discusses the machinations of the AMA, clinical accountability, and the suppression of statistics. Nor are their any comparative statistics available for the 2020 coronavirus COVID-19 epidemic, although homeopathy has been widely used in Cuba, and parts of India.
Conventional medicine does not like such comparison - perhaps for obvious reasons. They appear to have two strategies.
- The first is to ignore all 'unfavourable' statistics, or comparisons with other medical therapies, no doubt on the basis that discussing your own abject failure only serves to highlight that failure, as well as advertising the fact that there are safer and more effective medical therapies available.
- The second is to deny and undermine any unfavourable evidence. I have seen this in response to Julian Wilson's work - questioning the validity, the accuracy, or the objectivity of the research. It is what conventional medicine does whenever it faces evidence of successful medical treatment that does not involve pharmaceutical drugs.
So how can the unbiased and enquiring mind be made up? Who is right?
There is one simple test. To scrutinise the claims of homeopathy. To challenge homeopathy. Do it again, reproduce the results. This is surely the scientific thing to do, and conventional medicine always calls itself 'scientific'. Indeed, it claims to be the only medicine that is scientific, the only medicine with an 'evidence base'. So why not test the evidence in a real, live, current situation.
Why not? Why, for example, has homeopathy not been tested during the last three months? The conventional medical establishment has admitted it has no treatment, and during the pandemic over 400,000 people have died, most of them in hospital care, with the best available conventional medical care. Yet all, or nearly all of them have died without being offered homeopathy - they have been allowed to die on the basis of the statement "there is no treatment available".
Homeopathy is willing to take part in comparative studies.
Pharmaceutical medicine is not - it has just too much to lose.
