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?

Culling Badgers and TB

Domestic cows are contracting TB (tuberculosis). Responsibility for this has been attributed to the gentle badger, which carries the disease, and they are charged with the responsibility for passing it on to cattle.

• The cows that contract TB are slaughtered. This, it is said, is the best way to eradicate the disease!
• And farmers have been given permission to cull badgers in two areas of England, something that is already happening in several other parts of Europe.

Will this lethal medical strategy work? This is currently the subject of a lively political debate.

Farmers, who insist on feeding cows on grain rather than grass, keeping them confined indoors rather than in fields, and milking them to sheer exhaustion in the interests of productivity, think it will.

Those opposing the cull believe that the evidence, including the science, does not support the cull as an effective stratetgy. They claim that vaccination is the way forward. This position might, at best, be considered a triumph of hope over experience, given the damage conventional vaccines have had on us. I have visions of inattentive, wandering cows with Autism; and their young calves dying of 'sudden calf-death-syndrome'.

The government supports the cull, as usual supporting the views of the largest vested-interest involved in the debate. Scientists say the evidence suggests that culling will not work. And so all is confusion!

So please excuse me if I deviate somewhat from the political argument, and introduce a new topic to the general discussion on badger culling.

What sort of medical system advocates a policy of killing rather than a policy of treatment when an animal contracts a disease?

The answer is a failing system, and system of medicine that whilst claiming great competence, delivers little in the way of effective treatment of serious (and less serious) diseases. Conventional medical practice has a history of doing so. The most notable, perhaps, was the Foot and Mouth epidemic of 2001, during which conventional medicine slaughtered millions of cows - as a treatment!

Now they acquiesce to the slaughter of badgers - because they have nothing else to offer. The conventional medical establishment tells us, so regularly and frequently, that ‘nothing else can be done’. Although what this actually means is that conventional medicine can do nothing more, for any other medical therapy to suggest that it can leads to them being lampooned, attacked, ridiculed and threatened by the ConMed Establishment, and even by the law, for doing so.

Not even humans are safe from butchery. Faced with the possibility of breast cancer, some women are now choosing to have their breasts removed, rather than face the prospect of relying on conventional medical treatment, in which many women, quite clearly, now have little confidence. And perhaps it is with some justification that, faced with a terminal illness, many people are now seeking legalisation to allow voluntary, or assisted euthanasia.

So let’s invite some lampooning from the supporters of Big Pharma drugs and vaccines! 

How exactly would a Homeopath, or an Alternative Therapist, approach the problem of TB (tuberculosis) in badgers. I see a classic homeopathic consultation, that starts from lifestyle factors, and moves on to treatment!

Alternative Therapist (AT). Are you eating a good, healthy, species-friendly diet?

Cow. No, I am being fed on corn, and I have little opportunity to eat grass

AT. Do you get adequate exercise?

Cow. No, I am kept in a confined space, and not allowed to wander far.

AT. Are you living in a healthy, natural environment?

Cow. No, I rarely if ever see a field. I have to live with many other cows. We are usually indoors now, but this is not a natural environment for us cattle.

AT. Are you under stress? Are you able to relax?

Cow. No. I am expected to provide ever increasing amounts of milk, and I am kept constantly in this state.

AT. Are you getting plenty of Vitamin D (several studies have shown that this is a preventative measure for TB).

Cow. No, it has never been suggested to me. I thought the best source of Vitamin D is sunshine, and I rarely see the sun now, of course.

AT. Has Homeopathic treatment, or any other treatment, ever been mentioned?

Cow. No.

AT. Have you ever been given any Homeopathic remedies, like Phosphorus been given to you?

Cow. Not to my knowledge, the farmer and his vet do not believe in such things, but he is always complaining about badgers.

So it's a precarious life being a cow, living increasingly unnatural lives, and relying as they do on conventional medical treatment. If they get ill, because of the life-style they are expected to endure, they are slaughtered!

And it is a precarious life for badgers too. Whether they carry TB or not, and whether they are troubled by it or not, they are accused of passing the disease to cows, and as a consequence, run the risk of being shot.

But then, as we see so often on this  blog, it is a precarious life being a human, contracting diseases that are often caused by conventional medical treatment, and treated by drugs and vaccines that are usually ineffective and dangerous to our future health. There is nothing we can do, we are told. Just keep taking the medicine.

Indeed, it’s a badgers life!

Vaccinations. Useless as well as dangerous!

Vaccines are not only dangerous, they are useless. The dangers of vaccines are well publicised in the non-mainstream media, where we regularly hear of individual lives destroyed in an attempt to seek protection from diseases most of which are innocuous.

Ivan Illich, as long ago as 1976, was first to provide the evidence - in his book 'Limits to Medicine: Medical nemesis, the expropriation of health'. Indeed, he was the first to argue that conventional medicine provided 'Useless Medical Treatment'. This is what he said.

            "The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough, and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90% of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization".

There are now many graphs available that demonstrate that the decline in diseases such as measles, pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, scurvy, TB, scarlet fever, influenza and others all took place long before vaccinations were introduced. The graphs are very instructive, especially for anyone who continues to believe that conventional medicine has been instrumental in "saving" us from these diseases.

 

It is all pharmaceutical propaganda!