Allergy? A Medical Breakthrough? (when the principles of homeopathy are followed)!

Over the recent holiday weekend, the British mainstream media featured a strange story of a man who had injected himself with snake venom, and that his body was now "almost immune from it", and that "he was donating his blood to science".

The story was presented with incredulity; but the homeopathic community would not have thought it at all unusual! And his blood would not have been donated to science!

A similar story was featured by the BBC earlier that week: a man whose peanut allergy nearly killed him; but now he eats them every day for breakfast.

        "But then his mum heard about a clinical trial at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London that would change her son's life. It would test whether adults like Chris with serious peanut allergies could be desensitised by training their bodies to tolerate the very thing that could kill it, calming down the immune system when it would usually over-react".

Yet this 'new' treatment for nut allergy is not a 'new' treatment offered by conventional (drug-based) medicine. I wrote about this same 'breakthrough' in 2014 in this blog, again based on more 'incredulous' BBC reporting.

I wrote another blog, on a similar subject, in 2015 when conventional medicine announced (through the mainstream media) that it had found a 'new' treatment - this time for dust mite allergy.

In the same year, I wrote this blog about a 'new' conventional medical treatment for superbugs, notably C-Difficile.

And yet again, in 2016, I wrote this blog about a 'new' treatment for multiple sclerosis.

So what do all these 'conventional medical treatments have in common? As I said in those earlier blogs, what conventional medicine is doing is using the primary medical principle of homeopathy.

Homeopathy is based on the ancient principle of "Like Curing Like", that small, dilute amounts of a substance that is causing illness and disease can cure that same illness and disease. It was a principle used successfully in ancient Greece, and by many people throughout the ancient and medieval world. Homeopathy uses snake venoms as remedies - but not in doses that might be harmful or lethal to the patient. The contribution of homeopathy is that the dilution of substances strengthens, rather than weakens, the medical effect of the substance used. It cures, but does so safely.

Conventional, pharmaceutical medicine is based on drugs that kill (eg., pain killers), block (eg., beta blockers), inhibit (eg., ACE inhibitors), suppress (eg., appetite suppressants, immunosuppressants), and oppose (eg., antagonist drugs. The are all 'anti-...' drugs), anti- something that is happening to the body of a sick patient. This adversarial approach to the body does not work; it has never worked; and will never work. It is this approach to medicine that causes side effects (at best), adverse reactions (at least), and epidemic levels of chronic disease and death. It is why pharmaceutical medicine is failing - so badly.

The Conventional Medical Establishment has spent the last 30 years attacking Homeopathy: they say it does not work; it cannot work; it is placebo; it is quack medicine, and the like. It is denied to patients on the British NHS. It is denied to patients around the world in which drug companies have control of state-supported medicine.

Yet when conventional medicine stumbles on a treatment that is based on the principle of homeopathy, 'like curing like', it has the audacity to crow about it, to describe it as a 'breakthrough', and without acknowledging the source and inspiration of the 'new' treatment.

This is a dishonest approach to medicine; but then why should anyone (given the history of pharmaceutical medicine, outlined here) expect honesty from the conventional medical profession. To do so would surely be a triumph of hope over experience!

Sickle Cell Disease. A new treatment costing £1.65 million being offered by the NHS

Sickle Cell Disease is rightly considered to be a horrible condition. It is thought that about 15,000 people have the condition, in England alone, affecting people mainly of Black African and Caribbean heritage. It can cause intense, recurring pain, and it can be life-changing, and even life-threatening.

The NHS has announced that a new, "groundbreaking", individualised 'gene editing' therapy will be offered to patients in England on the National Health Service (NHS). Good news, then? 

The main problem is that the treatment is going to cost the already over-stretched, almost bankrupted NHS £1.65 million per patient. It is expected that 50 people per year will be offered the treatment - total expenditure of an astonishing £82.5 million per annum.

If the treatment works, this may represent excellent value - at least for 50 people every year. But the NHS spending this amount of money represents what is known, in economic jargon, as "an opportunity cost", that is, the opportunity to spend this money on other things.

Other things, for example, like spending money on the treatment of the remaining 14,950 people who currently suffer with sickle cell disease!

Conventional medicine always does this. It comes up with new, 'groundbreaking' treatments that are so expensive they are either not used, or used only by people wealthy enough to pay for their own treatment, or used with a tiny number of people at public expense.

So I have an alternative suggestion!

Earmark this £82.5 million for sickle cell disease. Divide the money between the 15,000 patients who suffer from the disease, and allow each patient to spend their £5,500 on homeopathic treatment!

Homeopathy has been treating Sickle Cell Disease for many, many years; often with complete success. Do a web search - "homeopathy, sickle cell", and see for yourself. Even if each consultation with a homeopath costs £100 per month (with remedies), not one of these 15,000 patients will have to spend more that £1,200 on their treatment. 

The remaining £4,300 could then be spent by the 15,000 sickle cell patients on celebrating their freedom from the disease.

It is time for some new, "groundbreaking" thinking about how the NHS spends public money - on treatment that actually works

Tess, Homeopathy, and Back Leg Weakness

Tess is my Labrador. She is 15 years old, a good age; and until recently she has been fit and well. She has never see a vet. She was treated homeopathically for all the canine ailments and did not have any vaccinations. She has been well exercised, well fed, and has become a much loved and treasured family pet.

Suddenly, a few of months ago, she lost control of her rear legs. She would collapse, and have difficult standing again. When she did walk she was limping, appeared lame, and had a slow, unstable gait.

I tried her with several homeopathic remedies, but she quickly got worse. She became lethargic, sleeping most of the time, and not engaging with anyone. She was eating (she is a Labrador)! But she was reluctant to go for a walk. One evening she was particularly bad, and I decided that this might be the end. I was not going to allow her to suffer more.

However, I decided to do a web search to see if anyone else had written about an elderly dog who had lost control of her hind legs, and how they could be treated with homeopathy. There were several websites, and all of them suggested the remedies that I had already tried. However, one discussion outlined how none of these remedies worked; and the homeopath, perhaps rather despairingly, had said, "Well, if none of those remedies have worked, you might try Calc Phos".

So I decided, as a last resort, to try Tess with Calc Phos. I looked up the remedy in the Materia Medica (which homeopaths use to link symptoms of illness with known remedy symptoms) and did not feel that the remedy was particularly relevant to her. But there was nothing else that came to mind.

Calc Phos worked wonders within a couple of days. It is several months on now, and there has been no trip to the vet! She remains an elderly Labrador. She does not walk quickly, or very far now. She still has difficulty walking on shiny flat floors in the house. But she is as well as anyone could expect of a 15 year old dog - and she is still enjoying life.

The remedy will not work for every dog with rear leg weakness, but it is a remedy that is certainly worth trying. I am so glad I stumbled upon it - it is what happens, sometimes, with homeopathy!

Homeopathy for Older People

People often link old age with illness. To be old is to be ill.  The two go together.  How often have people been told – “you must accept that when you get to your age”.  The ‘that’ can be almost anything!  The ‘your age’ can be anything over 30!  The medical profession is often the worst offender. 

There is a story about a man who went to see his doctor because he had arthritis in his right knee. The doctor noted that he was 92 and suggested that he should accept some pain at his age.  However, the man reminded him he had another knee, the same age, which had not pain.  Perhaps the story is apocryphal, but it is an excellent point that he made.

Homeopathy considers that an illness is an illness regardless of age.  If it is treatable at 6 it is treatable at 60.  If it is treatable at 19 it is treatable at 90.  Often, age is used as an excuse for doing nothing, for fobbing people off, for laziness, or for having nothing more useful to offer.  It results from ageism, a means of discriminating against older people, undervaluing them, and not treating them on equal terms with younger people.

Of course, it is not quite as easy or straightforward as this.  Age increases our susceptibility to illness.  Ageing may mean that we may have ‘abused’ our body for longer, and it is now less able to cope – bad diet, too much stress, too much alcohol, and a host of other factors do take their toll in time.  If this is the cause of illness a change of lifestyle, and taking more care of the body, is as useful as homeopathy.

Homeopathy can treat all illnesses and disease. It can even help people to cope with the feelings of loneliness that so often affect older people. In doing so it works quite differently to conventional medicine. It works alongside the body, helping to support it in performing its normal functions, its natural ability to maintain itself.  

Conventional drugs tend to be grouped together until titles beginning with “anti-“ – anti-biotics, anti-histamines, etc; or it works to suppress or kill pain.  In other words it seeks to change the normal working of the body, to force it to do something it would not do itself.  The body usually struggles against this; so it overcomes pain killers, and bacteria becomes resistant to anti-biotics.  Ailments that are suppressed return, often in a more serious or more painful form. This often leads to an increasing dependence on drugs.

        “About half of all senior patients take several prescribed… drugs simultaneously, and frequently over prolonged periods.  Many conditions mistakenly considered new diseases are, in fact, unrecognised drug interactions.  Doctors then prescribe yet more drugs to solve the new problems, which only makes matters worse… The greatest overuse of medicine is among the institutionalised elderly.  The average nursing home patient received eight different drugs a day”.
What Doctor’s Don’t Tell You (April 2002)

Homeopathy is an alternative to conventional treatment.  It does not produce miracles but it can make people feel better when they have long believed that their illness is untreatable, or their pain an inevitable part of old age.  It is often more complicated treating older people, especially if there has been a long history of illness, drug taking, and operations.  This makes treatment a longer process, and often one that can only ameliorate pain and illness.  But this is often all that older people expect.  And the advantage of homeopathy is simply stated - it will not make matters worse.

Rehabilitating HRT. Pharmaceutical medicine continues the process.

Today, 2 February 2022, the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA, has suggested that Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) could become available over-the-counter without a doctor's prescription. The possibility was heralded by the BBC, always a great supporter of pharmaceutical drugs. The drug is Gina 10, or estadiol, and the BBC article goes to great lengths interviewing conventional medical practitioners, who provide reassurance about the safety of the drug. For example, they quote the NHS.

            "Some types of HRT slightly increase the risk of breast cancer and blood clots in some women, but the risks are small and usually outweighed by the benefits".

I have written before about the history of HRT drugs. In November 2015, for instance, I wrote an article entitled "Menopause Issues and NICE guidelines? HRT might cause cancer, heart problems and dementia, but what the hell, women should take it anyway! In this I quoted from the British Medical Journal in , 2007 (335: 239-44).

            "Eventually, several trials produced results that were so bad they had to be discontinued. In 2002, trials conducted by the Women’s Health Initiative in the USA, described as 'the largest and best designed federal studies of HRT'  was halted because women taking the hormones had a significantly increased risk of breast  and cervical cancer, heart attacks, stroke and blood clots. More trials were terminated in 2007, when a study of 5,692 women taking HRT raised similar concerns but added 'more definition to the health risks'.

At the time I suspected that this might prove to be the end of HRT, but I clearly underestimated the ability of the conventional medical establishment to promote and sell dangerous drugs.

My 2015 article now contains several subsequent postscripts about conventional medicine's attempts to 'rehabilitate' hormone replacement therapy. The BBC enumerates how successful this rehabilitation has been. From a complete ban on HRT drugs in 2007 it states that 150,000 women are now prescribed HRT.

 So perhaps Gina 10, or estadiol, is different, perhaps it is safer? The BBC certainly wants us to believe this. It quotes one doctor.

            "It's different to HRT and it doesn't reduce the health risks of the menopause, but it is very safe".

 Whenever I hear a conventional doctor saying that a pharmaceutical drug or vaccine is safe, I run for cover! So I went to the drugs.com website to check. It makes horrendous reading, and contains one of the longest "warning" boxes that I have ever seen. I will not reproduce it here, the above link can be easily accessed.

Yet any woman who is considering taking this drug, it is important to read this information before making their decision. An "informed decision" is only possible after reading it - as it is clear conventional medicine will never be honest about the safety of their medicines.

• The BBC, as usual, are willing to promote a pharmaceutical drug, regardless of how dangerous it might be. 
• Conventional medical doctors may be willing to toe the line, and call any pharmaceutical drug "safe".

But no patient should ever take any pharmaceutical drug without checking the known, or at least the admitted adverse reactions is can cause.

So what should a woman do, who is suffering from serious menopausal symptoms? Conventional medicine has nothing else to offer - which is one of the reasons HRT is being regularly rehabilitated by the NHS. Women should certainly not suffer in silence. There are alternative to conventional medical treatment, much safe, and more effective treatments offered by natural medical therapies.

Homeopathy is one of them, certainly the one that I would recommend.

Why Homeopathy? for Menopause.

If it does nothing else (and it will) it will protect you from the harm of pharmaceutical treatment.

 

See also my previous blogs on the dangers of Hormone Replacement Therapy.

August 2016.         HRT Treatment causes Cancer. Old News but New News.

October 2019.       BREAST CANCER. Why is it that conventional medicine does not understand that HRT is a significant cause of this? Who protects patients from harmful drugs?

November 2021.   The Menopause, HRT, and Breast Cancer.

 

 

 

Why do people support Norwich City Football Club? Why do people refuse to get vaccinated? How the mainstream media resolves these questions

Journalism always tackles difficult social questions. We rely on them for information on important issues. In recent years mainstream media journalists have developed a novel way of resolving them. It's brilliant. Where, once, they would have thoroughly investigated the issue, and talked to all sides of the argument. But now they adopt quite a different approach.

Why do people support Norwich City Football Club? (Why do people refuse to get vaccinated?)

(Note. If a journalist bothered to ask me, I would say that I was born in Norwich, I lived there for the first 18 years of my life. So they may lose every week in the Premier League, sometimes quite agonisingly. But it's the place of my birth; and I followed their progress in the FA Cup in 1958 when, as a 3rd tier club they reached the semi-final.)

But in today's journalism, no journalist would bother to ask me. It might go something like this!

"So why do people support NCFC? To find out we have invited a Chelsea supporter to tell us."

...................

"Well, that is very interesting. But we wanted to investigate further. What will this Manchester United supporter tell us?

..................

Well, it seems fairly clear then - the team is just not very good, and the supporters are stupid. But let's ask this Liverpool supporter if he agrees with this.

..................

So for most modern journalists, working for the mainstream media, their investigation has made it quite clear that NCFC supporters have no good reason to support the club. This is what most football supporters believe. NCFC fans are not very bright, rather stupid, in fact. There is no good or logical reasons for people to support NCFC, especially when there are so many more fashionable teams to support, teams that win every week (and get very angry when they don't).

So what is the journalistic conclusion. NCFC fans, being as daft as they are, probably don't even get themselves vaccinated either. It is just plain stupidity on their part. 

And just to prove the point, without leaving any doubt, lets talk to this Arsenal supporter

................

Tomorrow, in this same programme, we will be asking the same question of Tottenham and Aston Villa fans.

And we will ask a very large group of conventional doctors and academics, all of whom support and profit from vaccines, why so many people wish to remain vaccine free, especially when we all know how safe and effective these new vaccines are, and how important it is for us all to get vaccinated.

And if we have time, we will also be asking why so many people use homeopathy for their medical treatment, when we all know that there is no scientific evidence to support it. So we will ask another large group of conventional medical doctors, and as many professors from universities with medical faculties paid for by the pharmaceutical industry, to tell us why this is the case.

So you have heard Homeopathy does not work! It is too bad for anyone who believes that.

Whenever I write about the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy in this blog, on social media, or in one of my free E-Books, I often receive one of these routine response.

• Homeopathy does not work.
• Homeopathy is bogus.
  
• Homeopathy is just placebo.
  
• Medical science has proven that it does not work.

These statements are so often made that many people believe them, or have a vested interested in promoting conventional medicine, and as a result, do not use homeopathy for their health care.

My response to people who make these remarks is simple - so much the worse for you! They believe that conventional medical treatment is honest and scientific, and that any other form of treatment cannot work, and cannot be effective. I presume, when they are ill, they will resort to pharmaceutical drug treatment, and all its inherent dangers.

For everyone else, especially those who believe such completely unsupported (and often abusive) statements, is that it is unfortunate, not least when they become sick or unwell. What it means is that they overlook, or refusing to consider a natural medical therapy that is both more effective, and much safer, in treating all forms of illness and disease, than conventional medicine. They are not making an informed decision about their health.

A Health Debate?

Any discussion about health has become a big problem around the world. There is no discussion within the mainstream media (MSM) which has given the floor exclusively to conventional medicine, and the naysayers of natural medicine. One journalist has recently explained the situation he is in, regarding the reporting of health information, blowing away any idea that we have a 'Free Media". The social media is going down the same road, censoring and banning information that is in any way critical of pharmaceutical medicine; or that suggests homeopathy, and other forms of natural medicine, is an alternative way of maintaining our health, and regaining it when we are sick.

The MSM, and the advertising industry, is even constructing rules that deny natural therapists the right to talk about what they do. We must not talk about treating illness and disease; we must not suggest that we can do so successfully; we cannot even provide the public with case examples of successfully treated patients.

George Orwell's 1984 has arrived! And just as with the society Orwell imagined, too many people have not yet realised what is happening to them. We are living in a medical version of Airstrip One. The 'Thought Police' are controlling what we can and cannot hear. Big Brother is the corporate world, representing the interests of Big Pharma. There a lots of 'Winston Smiths', democrats, opposing what is happening, in favour of informed choice in health treatment. Over 1 million people demonstrated recently in London - and event not mentioned by the MSM. But we remain a minority at the moment, there are not enough of us.

Yet as the incidence of chronic disease gets progressively worse, as it has done for decades now; as more people are being harmed by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines; as national health services fail to meet our health needs (and we have to protect health services by losing our freedoms); as we watch conventional medicine's damaging, hopeless and often ridiculous responses to Covid-19; and as we recognise that we are getting progressively sicker the more drugs and vaccines we take, more Winston Smiths' will gradually emerge.

In 20, 50, 100 years time we will be able look back at these times more dispassionately, we will be more able to see what a great disaster the dominance of conventional/pharmaceutical medicine has been to the human race. We will be able to see what a failure this dominant system of medicine has been. We will want to return to the days when people acted on the basis that "an apple a day kept the doctor away". In the meantime we are going to have to fight hard to preserve patient choice, and health freedom.

What is the difference between Medical Science and the Real World?

Conventional medical science is usually based on 'Randomised Controlled Trials' (RCT's), often described as by conventional medical practitioners as "the Gold Standard" of scientific investigation. What this means, in essence, is that medical scientists seek to fix two criteria, for example:

• on one side, the condition - obesity or weight loss, 
• on the other side, the medicine(s) used by complementary medicine for the treatment of obesity or weight loss.

The problem with this method is that in real life these two variables cannot be so easily 'fixed'. And when medical science tries to fix them, the method they choose usually has more to do with the outcome they want to achieve than any kind of scientific objectivity. (I have explored the bias of conventional medical science in more detail on this link). 

That's look at an example. BBC News has recently reported that a recent Australian study has found that complementary medicines for weight loss are 'not justified'. The story can be told simply, in the words of the BBC.

            "The first global review of complementary medicines for weight loss in 16 years suggests their use cannot be justified based on current evidence. Researchers found that while some herbal and dietary supplements resulted in marginal weight loss compared to a placebo, they did not benefit health."

In other words, the medicine's used by complementary, or natural medicine, do not work; yet (it emphasises) people are spending lots of money on them.

To come to this conclusion, the RCT studies that were reviewed would have (i) fixed the medicines, and (ii) the weight loss. They would have tried hard to eliminate all other external factor.

So the over-weight patient takes the medicine; and the study finds he/she does not lose weight.

What this ignores is the consultation, the skills of the therapist, and the 'holistic' nature of natural medical therapies. The RCT's studies might reflect the practice of pharmaceutical medicine (where usually 'the problem', once diagnosed, leads to the prescription of a pharmaceutical drug), but it does not reflect what happens in real life. The consultation, and the ingredients of the conversation between therapist and patient, cannot be eliminated. 

I have treated many overweight or obese patients and the process is much more complex, much more varied than than the selection of a 'medicine'. The consultation would take in account many factors, many 'variables' that medical science, and 'gold standard' RCT's, have to exclude. For example,

• Lifestyle
• Mental health factors
  
• Diet and nutrition
• Exercise

each one, in themselves, very complex, and very individual to the patient. The therapist would seek to clarify these factors, provide advice, and respond to the patient's response to this advice.  

This is what a 'holistic' approach is all about. 

It does not focus on medicines; it focuses on the patient. It takes into consideration a variety of complicated factors. After this, and only after this, does the therapist recommend a 'medicine' that might assist the patient in the process of losing weight. Yet the 'medicine' is only a small part of the treatment, compared to the patient making lifestyle changes in all the factors outlined above.

Homeopathy treats obesity, and can help patients lose weight. This website gives a detailed explanation of how homeopaths set about the task, and the variety of factors they take into account. Yet you will notice that the remedies commonly used with patients come last; and that the choice of remedy has more to do with the patient, the individual, than the condition. Obesity is not a simple, single condition.

This is what holistic medical therapies do. It is not just about 'medicine'. Conventional medicine does NOT do this; certainly it is not done in medical science or via RCT studies. Natural therapy focuses on the individual, in all his/her complexity; it does not impose any 'controls' on what is considered important. It is holistic. It takes everything into account; and only at the very end comes up with medicine.

Conventional medicine fixes the condition (that is, obesity is the same problem with each and every individual), and then fixes the medicine (an 'off-the-shelf' solution to the over-simplified, over-generalised condition).

What this piece of conventional medical 'science' indicates is just confined and restricted conventional  medical science is. It explains why conventional medicine has little or no medical solution to the problem of obesity; and perhaps why, to cover up its inadequacy, it wants to dismiss 'complementary medicine'. It seeks to make the point that it natural medicine is no more effective than pharmaceutical medicine.

And for obesity, any other illness/disease can be substituted - the same general principle applies. 

The successful treatment of any sickness or disease is not simple or straightforward; it cannot be simplified by 'scientic methodology'.

Medical treatment must always be measured in terms of 'patient outcomes' - not medical science. 

Long Covid and Homeopathy

Everyone's experience of Covid-19 will be a personal one, largely depending on their general health, and the strength of our immune system. Some people can be ill for a few weeks; others will feel better within a few days; many will barely know that they have contracted the virus. However, for a few people Covid-19 can cause symptoms that last for months. Conventional medicine is calling this 'Long Covid'.

Patients who complain of 'long Covid' report many symptoms, such as sore throat, fatigue, shortness of breath, chest pain, problems with memory and concentration, insomnia, heart palpitations, fever, dizziness, joint pain, anxiety and depression, tinnitus, loss of appetite, nausea, stomach pain, diarrhoea.

One question, or clarification about 'Long Covid' is rarely, if ever, asked. Is 'Long Covid' just someone struggling to recover from the virus? Or is this a patient who went down with the Covid-19 virus seriously enough to be given a cocktail of pharmaceutical drugs, and is actually suffering from the aftermath of adverse drug reactions? 

Post Script 2025: there is now good evidence that the cause of Long Covid has more to do with the recovery from the vaccines than the virus - read here.

I have written before about the awful drugs given to patients placed on ventilators: so how many people suffering from "Long Covid" were patients who were placed on a ventilator; or were vaccinated?

In homeopathy we have always had a word or phrase for these 'lingering' illnesses - "never well since" - as homeopaths recognise that this is a common experience - the difficulty in overcoming an illness or disease, or even a shock or life trauma.

For instance, the symptom"never well since influenza" comes up with a single remedy (in the repertory I usually use) = Gelsenium, a remedy frequently with patients with influenza, as well as those struggling to recover full health following influenza. It would certainly be one of the remedies I would first think of  first if faced with a "Long Covid" patient, although I would want to do more reseach before settling on this remedy. Another top would be Arsenicum Album, which has been widely used by the Indian government's medical health service in both the prevention and treatment of Covid-19. But there are many more remedies to consider.

Homeopaths around the world are are busy treating Covid-19, and also Long Covid too. We do this quietly, in part to avoid being attacked by the conventional medical establishment, as in this recent Daily Mail article demonstrates. So, very quietly, for anyone who has an open mind, suffers from Long Covid, and has discovered that conventional medicine has little or no treatment, let's inform you about what homeopathy is actually doing.

First, we are treating Covid-19 according to its symptoms, not its conventional diagnosis. We always do this - with any illness. And what we know is that Covid-19 symptoms are similar, if not identical, to influenza symptoms. We ask the patient about his/her symptoms, and then match the patient with a remedy we know to have similar symptoms. As the Faculty of Homeopathy states, homeopathy has been using remedies extensively for flu-like symptoms. and in epidemics around the world. Indeed, it has been doing so for over 220 years. The Faculty mentions two remedies, Gelsemium 30c and Bryonia 30c which have been "commonly used for flu-like symptoms and have a long-established, traditional usage over many years". 

Without doubt this is the other benefit of homeopathy. Not only does it work, homeopathy does not have to 're-invent the wheel' every time a new virus appears.

So as conventional medicine has little or no treatment treatment for Long Covid (although it does have a complicated and long-winded 5-point plan for Long Covid support) perhaps you might like to pursue the possibilities of using homeopathy to treat Long Covid.

There are now a number of websites that deal with the homeopathic treatment of Covid-19, and as the symptoms of Long Covid as similar/identical the same remedies will be effective for either - if the symptoms match the remedy will work. 

Both first, all these sources of homeopathic information emphasise the importance of natural immunity, and supporting the immune system; by eating a healthy diet, with particular attention being paid to vitamins C and D, and zinc supplementation, by regular exercise, by getting sufficient sleep, and so on. Both then they go on to provide short remedy descriptions that mirror the symptoms of Covid-19, and 'Long Covid'. Here, I am using two of these sources

This remedy descriptions emanate from from Robin Murphy, a world famous homeopath, who has made an extensive study of respiratory illness. He recommends these remedies - when the symptoms match.

Antomonium Arsenicosum: Lung, disorders. Emphysema with excessive dyspnea and cough; shallow breathing. Dyspnea, worse on eating and lying down. Loss of appetite. General sick feeling. Anxiety about health. Fear of death. Restlessness. Tickling dry cough. Coughs are worse by eating and on lying down.

Antomonium Tartaricum: Rattling Mucus, Great dyspnea and fits of suffocation. Oppressive breathing, must sit up. Snoring and difficult breathing. Pneumonia with extreme prostration, bedridden with exhaustion.Lungs are congested. Rattling of mucus, Thick white mucus. 

Camphora: Sudden sinking of strength, pulse small and weak. Limbs cold with cramps. Icy coldness of the whole body, sudden sinking of strength, pulse small and weak. Wants covers off and then on alternately with internal burning heat and anxiousness. Extreme prostration, bedridden with exhaustion. Low blood pressure, Low body temperature.  

Carbo Veg: Craves fresh air, and wants to be fanned all the time. Panting and Gasping for air. Icy coldness of the whole body, sudden sinking of strength, pulse small and weak. Apathetic. Anxious, Delirium. Distressed. Listless. Coma. Prostration. Unresponsive. Cough worse in evening, going from a warm to cold place, in bed. Great weakness on exertion. Extreme prostration, bedridden with exhaustion. Low blood pressure, Low body temperature. 

China Officinalis: Dehydration, Dizziness, Fainting. Weakness. Blood, loss. Anaemia. Worse from sweat or diarrhoea. Better from hard pressure, warmth. Better from loosening the clothes. Intermittent fever, chills. Influenza. Feels worse after mental exertion, emotional upset or loss of vital fluids. Sensitive to the cold wind and drafts. Diarrhoea. Bloated abdomen, flatulence, colic. Edoema. Food tastes bitter. Belches a lot which tastes bitter. 

Fatigue after the virus, or 'long covid'. Many people report a sense of fatigue that lasts long after the other symptoms have gone. This can happen after the common flu and it is called CFS or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Many cases of ME I have seen started right after a particularly bad bout of flu. There are a few remedies that help with this:

Phosphoric Acid, Sulphur or China. China has nausea as well, the difference with the other two remedies depends on the individual’s symptoms.

The second link offers a "short guide ... to help you choose the right remedy for friends and family". It suggests remedies that might be appropriate in each stage of the Covid virus.

In the early stages try the remedy Aconite. It can often prevent an infection getting established by stimulating the immune system to react. It may be needed in later stages if the person is very tense and afraid of dying.

Stage II. For the stage where the infection has taken hold but the person is not severely ill these are a few of the possibilities:

Phosphorus. There may be  hard exhausting cough with burning in the chest. Phosporus types can be fearful when alone and want company, maybe someone to hold their hand. They may need cold drinks and can crave ice-cream. Lying on the left side makes their problems worse. Most of the cases of coronavirus I have treated so far have recovered after this remedy.

Bryonia
The person may hold their chest when coughing, because in Bryonia any movement tends to be painful, or make them worse. Dry painful cough. The patient is dry and very thirsty. 9pm is their worst time. They want to be left alone and keep still.

Gelsenium
Gelsemium types are weak and sleepy and can’t keep their eyes open. Nervous trembling. Paralysed by fear. Not thirsty.

Stage III. If the person is seriously ill with lung problems consider these remedies:

Ant Tart
In these cases you may hear rattling in the chest but the cough doesn’t have the power to raise the mucus. Drowning in mucus. The person is often sleepy and weak, maybe with blue lips and a white tongue. (But blueness (cyanosis) can indicate other remedies too.)

Ars Alb
The person is usually very chilly and restless and wanting someone near, and wanting sips of water. Often worse around midnight to 2am.

Bryonia
See notes in stage II above

Camphor
This remedy and Conium are often needed for the elderly. In camphor the patient is in a state of collapse and is very cold, but may not want covers. They may be hardly breathing, nearly fainting, and snoring as they breathe. Not many of you will have this remedy at home, but it is an important one for coronavirus.

Conium
In Conium the patient sometimes has to sit up in a hurry straight after lying because of the cough, especially in the evening.. The cough may be triggered by a tickle in the larynx (other remedies too), or a part of the body getting cold.

Hepar Sulph
If the person has lost their sense of smell and taste consider this remedy. The person is very chilly and keeps every bit of themselves well covered. They may cough more if they uncover even part of the body. Sudden attacks of breathlessness.  Generally hypersensitive. Purulent mucus, offensive perspiration.

Ipecac
Unlike most of the other remedies this one is worse from warmth. Also they are not thirsty. They can feel sick or be vomiting, but the tongue is clean. There may be choking, gasping, or retching.

Kali Carb
Often this person wants to sit leaning forward as this position helps their breathing and their cough (Ars Alb also). They are often worse around 3am. Thick mucus. Stitching pains. They may hate draughts. Possibly easily startled. Sometimes a remedy has some strange features in its "symptom picture". In kali carb one of the strange things is swollen upper eyelids. Such features of the patient make it easier to see what remedy to give.

Nux Vom
Nux vomica people are often irritable. They can feel chilled just by moving around under their covers. Many people’s coughs and breathing problems can be worse, like nux vomica's, at around 3am. But the nux vomica cough can be worse from midnight until morning, or first thing in the morning, on waking.

Phosphorus
See notes in stage II above. Also: the coronavirus pneumonia usually affects both lungs, but in phosphorus the left lung can be the worst. Blood in the sputum.

Spongia
In Spongia the cough has a sawing sound and can be better from warm drinks or eating and worse from talking. The throat is sometimes dry and tight. Bending the head forward or backward can help. Spongia problems are often worse on waking up.

These remedies can be obtained from Homeopathic Pharmacies. But to be more certain of the good match it is usually better to contact a qualified homeopathic practitioner.

Homeopathy. Why do people pay for it when they can get free medical treatment?

Homeopathy is not provided within most national health schemes around the world. Most national medical services are dominated by conventional, or pharmaceutical medicine which is either 'free at the point of need', or heavily subsidised, or available through an insurance scheme.

In the UK, for example, homeopathy has been largely excluded from the NHS whilst conventional treatment is entirely free. As a result, any patient can visit their doctor, or their hospital, and not face a large bill.

Yet many people who become ill still prefer to book an appointment with a local homeopath, and pay for homeopathic treatment. Is this irrational? Or are there good reasons for doing so?

Effectiveness. Many patients using homeopathy will have already had conventional medical treatment, and it did not work. Many may have been treated with pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines for many years, without success. Or, more usually, their condition will have got worse over time.

• So many people will have begun using homeopathy because of a friend, or colleague, or acquaintance, who has discovered that homeopathy worked; and they turned to homeopathy to see if would work for them too.
• Then, when homeopathy does work for them, they are hooked; and in future they will prefer to buy medical treatment that works rather than something free which is inferior.
  

Safety. Many patients seeking homeopathy will have experienced harm caused by conventional medical treatment, perhaps an adverse drug effect which has led to worsening the condition, or actually creates a new illness. Or they may have friends, colleagues or acquaintances who have suffered harm at the hands of conventional medicine, and advised them against this kind of treatment.

• The decision to use homeopathy rather than conventional treatment is done on the understanding that homeopathy does not, and indeed cannot produce serious or harmful side effects. Initially, there is nothing to lose; so people just try it to see if it works for them.
  

It makes sense! Often, when the principles of homeopathy are explained to people, the response is - "Yes, I understand that, that makes sense to me". Often this happens when a homeopath explains that the only thing that will help them recover from illness is their own body, their natural immunity, the functioning of a strong immune system; and that all homeopathic treatment does is to help the body heal itself. This has proven to be a 'Eureka' moment for so many people.

• More people are beginning to realise that 'health' and 'wellness' does not come from a packet of drugs, or an armful of vaccine; it cannot be imposed from without, it has to happen from within. 
• The Covid-19 situation has been particularly helpful to homeopathy in that respect as people have recognised that it makes little sense 'chasing the virus' when the best strategy, the best treatment, is to maintain and strengthen natural immunity. Covid-19 has highlighted the fundamental difference between conventional medicine and homeopathy, and natural medical therapies generally.
  

It is not expensive. There are only two things that patients pay for when they see a homeopath. The remedy or remedies, which are all very inexpensive; homeopathic remedies cost a tiny fraction of pharmaceutical drugs. And the time and expertise of the homeopath. Moreover, significant progress can usually be made with even the most difficult and long-standing health conditions within 3-4 consultations, so the number of consultations are usually limited.

• There are usually no elaborate and time-consuming medical tests that need to be done, or referral to 'specialists' or 'consultants' - just a description of the patients symptoms, and matching these with an appropriate remedy.

Conclusion. People choose to use homeopathy, and pay for it, for all these reasons. It is about patient choice that follows a cost/benefit analysis. It is similar to the choices we all make every day when we decide to buy something - we have to decide whether to buy a cheaper, or a more expensive product. Our decision is usually based on our perception of value for money, the quality of the product, and more specifically in this choice, about favourable patient outcome.

We should remember that the conventional medical establishment has made extravagant promises over the years about the effectiveness of its treatments; 'wonder drugs', 'miracle cures', 'game changing' new treatments, and 'winning the war' against disease. It has never delivered on these promises. We are sicker now than we have ever been. We suffer from more chronic disease than ever before. And Covid-19 have demonstrated its total inability to cope with viral infections and acute diseases.

So is it any wonder that more people are choosing to buy into homeopathy, and other natural medical therapies.

Conventional medicine may still be dominant within most national health provision, but it is failing, and an increasing number of people are recognising that it is failing. And it is these people who are prepared to pay for medical treatment which they know is both safe and effective. They are turning their backs on a medical system, even when it is free; they are putting their money where their mouth is.

Think about that. When a patient chooses homeopathy over conventional medicine it is a choice that costs them; they are aware that it costs them; but they are still willing to pay that cost because homeopathy is something that works so well for them.

The Covid-19 Pandemic. A Medical Fiasco! What NHS Policy could have been if it embraced Natural Medical Therapies

The health system in most countries is now dominated, if not entirely monopolised by the Pharmaceutical Medicine Establishment. It certainly is in Britain's NHS (National Health Service) where natural medical therapies have little or no place within it; indeed the NHS is led by people who are positively, and often gratuitously hostile towards it.

This should not be the case. The NHS should be embracing health freedom, offering patient choice, and organising itself according to the current government's 2010 manifesto which stated "No treatment for me without me". Indeed, the original constitution of the NHS included the commitment to offer patients "the best available treatment"but it now excludes what many people, an increasing number of people, consider to be 'the best available treatment'.

So let's consider what might have happened in 2020, at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, if the NHS had been open to natural medicine, its ideas and principles?

Let us imagine that within the NHS two separate sections had developed alongside each other, each one offering its distinct brand of medicine and patient care. 

• Conventional medicine would have focus, as it did focus on its fight with illness and disease mainly through its pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, its diagnostic testing, and all the other features we all know well. 
• The other section would have had an entirely different approach to health, one which focused on the immune system, and the need to support natural immunity. It would include many natural medical therapies, including homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism, acupuncture, osteopathy, chiropractor, and many more. These therapies, in their different ways, all work alongside the body and its natural defences against illness and disease.

If such a structure had existed within the NHS there would have immediately been a different response from the two sections at the beginning of the pandemic. 

• Conventional medicine (ConMed) would have admitted that it had no vaccine to prevent patients contracting the infection, and no treatment if they contracted it. 
• The Natural Medicine section (NatMed) would have offered several possibilities of treatment through several therapies.

Homeopathy would have offered both preventative and treatment options based on the remedies that homeopaths have used for influenza, and influenza-type illnesses, for over 220 years now. Indeed, this has happened in countries like Cuba and India, and by homeopaths practising privately throughout the world, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Naturopathy would have also been able to offer a positive response. It quickly came up with at least 12 rapid reviews to the treatment of acute respiratory tract infections which informed naturopathic practitioners with respect to Covid-19 pandemic. As with homeopathy, if they had a voice within the NHS, these treatments would have been made readily available to patients.

Herbalism, similarly, came up with treatment options soon after the pandemic broke. The National Institute of Medical Herbalists, for instance, prepared a statement about the treatment of the Covid-19 infection in March 2020. This was also information the NHS denied itself in favour of their unitary pharmaceutical approach.

Acupuncture, alongside herbs and moxibustion, have also been active, finding effective treatment for Covid-19 that produced "significant outcomes for patients". Again, it is unfortunate that these were not outcomes offered to NHS patients. They could have been, had the NHS had been a more open and flexible approach to the provision of health care.

Now a disclaimer. There are probably many other natural medical therapies that have been able to contribute to the treatment of Covid-19, but were kept outside the NHS monopoly. However, these four therapies indicate the potential benefit to the NHS, and to all those patients who suffered and died with the virus - had the NatMed section been in existence.

If NatMed had existed it would immediately have been able to offer patients a choice of both preventative and treatment options. Indeed, it would have been tasked with offering them, and allowing patients to make their own informed choice of the treatment they want. The panic created by the NHS, with the support of government, conventional medical science, and the mainstream media (MSM), would not have been unnecessary, nor would the despair, and the growing anger, about ConMed's hopeless response to the pandemic.

So in early 2020 ConMed would have informed us, just as the NHS did, that it had no treatment other than the rather hopeless and forlorn task of ‘chasing’, 'subduing', and 'destroying' the virus. It would have suggested what it did suggest, that hand washing, social distancing, wearing masks (eventually) and lockdown might be effective, and that in the longer term the pharmaceutical industry might develop a vaccine.

Nat Med, however, would have recommended a different strategy. It would not chase the virus, but instead seek to support and strengthen the immune system, based on its belief that natural immunity was the best defence to any viral threat, including Covid-10. It would have supported the importance of hand washing and social distancing as temporary, initial responses, and if necessary, lockdown too. But it would have been able to offer treatment, which in itself would have offered hope and positivity, and engaged everyone in the positive task of protecting themselves. The 'Big Brother' approach of a deeply paternalistic government would not have been necessary; the individual patient would have been encouraged to take responsibility for his own health. How would this have happened?

The first task of the NatMed section of the NHS would have been to help each individual assess the strength of their immune system. Initially this may have been done through self assessment, a questionnaire, perhaps, that asked questions about the person's life style, diet and nutrition, their fitness, their general susceptibility to infections generally. In addition, it would have asked about the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines people were taking, as it is known that the 'side effects' of many of these are known compromise natural immunity. In particular, it would have wanted to identify those patients who were taking immunosuppressant drugs. Then, treatment would have been individualised.

People with good immunity would be asked to respect those people with compromised immunity, but otherwise to get on with their lives, as normal, albeit with greater care and awareness of other people with weaker immunity. In doing so they would have been advised about natural prophylactic treatments, for example, the regular use of homeopathic remedies, like Anas Barb and Arsenicum Alb.

People with lower, or poor immunity would have been identified, and asked to isolate themselves whilst their immunity was professionally tested and assessed. Techniques of testing the immune system already exist but would have been reviewed, refined, and professionally applied to anyone with compromised immunity. Natural prophylaxis would have been offered, and treatment would then depend on the individualised assessment of the immune system. They would have been asked to socially distance, and/or lockdown accordingly whilst awaiting treatment.

In this way social distancing, self isolation and lockdown, would have been individual decisions, not decisions imposed upon entire communities.

Information Campaigns. NatMed treatment would have focused on the support and strengthening of natural immunity. There would, no doubt, have been a nationwide information campaign aimed at informing everyone about how they could enhance their immune systems. It would, therefore, have been a campaign that would went much further than hand washing, the wearing of masks, social distancing and lockdown.

Life Style Advice. NatMed would have given general advice to everyone; and specific advice to each person with compromised immunity. This would have involved advice regarding possible life-style improvements (relating, for instance, to alcohol, smoking and taking pharmaceutical drugs), diet and nutrition (with particular attention to foods rich in vitamins and minerals), developing a sensible exercise regime, and stressing the importance of Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and other dietary supplements.

Treatment. NatMed treatment options would then have been offered to each patient with compromised immunity, and they would  have been asked to make informed personal choice. As the treatment programme progressed their immune system would have been regularly retested improvements noted, and treatment modified accordingly.

The outcomes of each treatment, including conventional medical treatment, would have been studied for its efficacy, and comparisons made. The safest and most effective treatments would inform future advice to patients.

Recognising Dangers and Personal Responsibility. The NatMed approach to Covid-19 would have one further difference to the ConMed approach. The dangers, and the possible deaths, that the virus would cause would have been openly recognised. Epidemics always cause death, with people with a compromised or poor immune system were particularly at risk. But the focus would not be on the NHS, or the government, to assume responsibility for saving us. Or for me saving you; or you saving me. Everyone had a personal responsibility to save themselves. Everyone would be entitled to the treatment of their choice; but everyone likewise had things they could do to protect themselves.

Social, Emotional and Economic Outcomes. The NatMed approach to Covid-19 would have been a more realistic approach to the Covid-19 pandemic, but also one that would have avoided the government taking on powers that have constrained our personal freedoms and liberty, to act in ways that have caused so much distress in our social and emotional lives, which have damaged mental health of so many people, destroyed viable jobs and livelihoods, and probably wrecked the national economy.

Patient Choice. Many people may have preferred to go along with the ConMed approach, and that would have been perfectly possible, even though it has had so little to offer or to recommend it. People could have been given the option to lockdown, whilst allowing others to get on with their lives, albeit with the support of NatMed.

What would the outcome have been had NatMed being in place during 2020? The question many people will ask is which section of this imagined NHS would have been more successful. The sadness is, of course, that this is an imagined scenario. If it had been in place in 2020 patient outcomes could have been measured, and we would have known more about the relative efficacy of each approach. 

However, as a homeopath, and listening to what homeopaths have been doing throughout the world to deal with this pandemic, I have little doubt that we would not be looking at a death toll of over 100,000 British citizens, and the chaos and nonsense that we have had to endure at the behest of the conventional medical establishment (which has led and controlled government policy). Moreover, we would all know much more about what we could do for ourselves in order to maintain and improve our health.

NHS Boss Attacks Homeopathy: it is putting people at risk: meanwhile he watches on, helpless, as 104,000 people die with Covid-19

Sir Simon Stevens is the National Health Service (NHS) Chief Executive in England, an organisation that is now close to collapse. Indeed, for the last year we have all been asked to 'Save the NHS' because it cannot save itself, allegedly as a result of the Covid pandemic. Yet, in fact, the NHS crisis this winter is not significantly worse than the crises that we have been witnessing now every winter for decades (go to 'search' at the top of this page; type in 'NHS Crisis' to find all my previous blogs on this subject, dating back to 2012).

So Sir Simon Stevens has the responsibility for saving the NHS, and one strategy he has adopted for doing so is to embark upon a gratuitous attack on homeopathy through the pages of the Sunday Telegraph (25th January 2021).

            "The head of NHS England last night warned that homeopaths had 'crossed the line' after a Sunday Telegraph investigation disclosed some were peddling myths that taking duck extract was as effective as the coronavirus vaccines. (He) said that people taking their advice from homeopathy were putting themselves at risk, and warned they would slow down the nation's vaccine efforts".

Before responding to this let's be absolutely clear. The NHS has had little or nothing to offer patients who have contracted the Covid virus throughout 2021. NHS nursing and care staff have done sterling work for patients, and this needs to be applauded. Yet there has been no medical treatment. At the time of writing the NHS claims the Covid-19 pandemic has killed over 104,000 people (and rising) in Britain, and during all this time the NHS has been able only to watch over them as they died.

The reason is that the NHS has become totally dependent on a single form of medicine, conventional medicine, dominated as it is by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Other medical therapies, including natural therapies like homeopathy, have been deliberately excluded from the NHS. Stephens has been at the helm whilst the pharmaceutical monopoly has been established. At the beginning of the Covid crisis the conventional medical establishment had to admit that it had no treatment, and it has subsequently been in a state of panic ever since, as more and more people have died with the virus.

So what does Stevens do? He continues to place his reliance, totally, on conventional medicine, and he continues to exclude and gratuitously attack any medical therapy that is not beholden to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

So what has pharmaceutical medicine achieved since the inauguration of the NHS in 1948? There have been promises that it is "winning the war" against illness and disease. New drugs and vaccines have regularly been presented to us as 'miracle cures', 'wonder drugs' that will "transform medical treatment". Illness and disease would be eradicated because of the wisdom of conventional medical science. There has been no transformation, no eradication. The outcome of all these many NHS promises has been quite different:

• Infectious Disease. The Covid-19 outcome has not only been a medical disaster; it has been a social, emotional, and economic disaster too. It's ability to deal with viral epidemics is no better now than it was in 1918 when conventional medicine was faced with the so-called Spanish Flu.
• Chronic Diseases. Almost any form of chronic disease anyone could possibly mention (arthritis, asthma, autism, cancer, dementia, diabetes, eczema, mental health, et al) have increased from 1948 levels and risen to new epidemic proportions; and they continue to increase.
• Pharmaceutical Drugs and Vaccines. Thousands of new drugs have been brought to the market, many as wonder drugs, prescribed to patients, only to be found to be ineffective, harmful, or both, with most of them eventually either abandoned or banned.
• Covid-19 Vaccines. This is an outcome that will become more apparent in future months. These vaccines, that Stevens believes to be so important to bring us out of the pandemic, are already known to be causing serious patient harm, including death.
  

And yet Sir Simon Stevens refuses to look inwardly at the possible reasons for conventional medical failure. He steadfastly refuses to look outside the box to see if there might be alternative treatments that might help the patients who are dying under his care, and make life easier for his exhausted nursing and care staff - even when he has had to continue admitting that his NHS has no effective treatment available!

And then he has the audacity to attack homeopathy!

It is fortunate for Stevens that he faces only an obedient and compliant 'free' media, which either cannot, or will not, question him about NHS failure, and why, year in, year out, the organisation that he leads finds itself in an ever-deepening financial crisis. As I have said many times before, on this blog, the crisis is NOT financial, it is MEDICAL. The NHS is investing in a failed medical system. And the more Stevens spends on pharmaceutical medicine the deeper the NHS crisis becomes.

Other national health services, notably in India and Cuba (and more recently, it seems, in Bavaria, Germany) are now investing in homeopathy. In addition, homeopaths around the world, including in Britain, are working with their patients, seeking to protect them from Covid, and to treat them if they contract it.

Does it work? The homeopathic community, patients and practitioners, thinks so. Stevens does not even want to look, preferring to continue on his myopic path, and attacking anything that lay outside his experience.

And Stevens is right about one this. Homeopaths are, indeed, using 'duck extract'! For anyone who is interested in safe and effective protection from this Covid-19 pandemic, and can consider with an open mind, free from bias or vested interests, it is an alternative that NHS patients could very well do with at the moment. It is a remedy called Anas Barbariae, otherwise known at Oscillococcinum, made from the diseased liver of a duck. I have used it as prophylaxis (prevention) of 'flu now for many winters, as have many of my family and former patients. It rarely seems to fail to protect us. It is disappointing that Stevens is unable to consider it, that he does not make it readily available on the NHS. But homeopathy is available to anyone with a more open mind.

Anas Barbariae is available from all homeopathic pharmacies around the world. For instance, a small bottle costs £4.50 from Helios. Every pharmacy will advice you (but be forewarned, they are currently extremely cautious about giving any advice on the telephone, in case the Sunday Telegraph, or similar, are embarking on another scam attack on homeopathy). I usually take one remedy, each month, during the flu season, although during this Covid-19 pandemic I am taking a weekly dose.

Just think how easily Sir Simon Stevens could find out whether this is a useful, inexpensive, safe, effective alternative to vaccination. His NHS could easily undertake a study to compare the outcomes of this, and other natural treatments, with conventional medicine. Instead he clearly prefers to attack any medical therapy other than the one he supports.

Moreover, this is not all that homeopathy does. The main strategy of homeopathy is to support the immune system, to enhance our natural immunity from infectious disease. This is something the Stevens-led NHS has never told us about during the last year - diet, nutrition, exercise, life-style choices. But turning to this strategy is a choice we all have. 

I only wish more people would observe the chaos that controls the NHS, 

and begin to question whether there are not better alternatives.

Homeopathy and Wellness. Why be sick? Decide to become an insider?

The homeopathic community works like a secret society

- it has to!

Homeopathy is everywhere under attack; certainly here in Britain; certainly in the rest of Europe, certainly in the United States; indeed, in most countries around the world where pharmaceutical (or conventional) medicine is dominant.

Can you remember? When did you last heard your government, or your doctor, or your national health service, or your news provider, have a good word to say about homeopathy? If homeopathy is mentioned at all by any of these sources it is invariably to denigrate it.

It's not that we don't try to get our message across (not least on this blog); but particularly in the last 20 years this has not been possible. All sources of health information have been taken over by the financial might of the pharmaceutical industry, and the conventional medical establishment. Even the internet is changing, with You Tube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other major social networks now blocking information about homeopathy. So the dominant message is constant and persistent.

• Pharmaceutical drugs are winning the war against disease.
• Drugs and vaccines are entirely safe, side effects are rarely mentioned.

Yet everywhere people are sick; and we are getting sicker. 

• Any chronic disease you might like to mention is running at record levels, and continue to rise; and we can all see how effective conventional medical treatment is when faced with an infectious pandemic!
• A multitude of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have been withdrawn over the years because of their side effects; because the are not safe; because they are harming patients.
  

And the conventional medical establishment routinely insists that homeopathy does not work, cannot work, that there is no scientific basis for science.

This forces the homeopathic community to operate in the manner of 'secret societies'. There is no alternative. We know that pharmaceutical medicine is ineffective and dangerous; we want nothing to do with it. And we know that homeopathy is safe and effective; so we want to get on and use it when we need to.

I have probably known this for a long time, but recently I published a blog about the busy-busy world of homeopathy throughout the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, and realised that very few people knew anything like this was happening.

The Secret World of Homeopathy 

During the 19th century, even into the first part of the 20th century, homeopathy rivalled conventional medicine in popularity and public esteem. The 20th century, however, produced a wave of optimism for conventional medicine. If science could lead to the development of automobiles, telephones, aeroplanes, and the like, it would surely be able to overcome illness and disease. For a time this seemed feasible. Anaesthesia opened up the possibility of surgical intervention. Antibiotics seemed able to cope with microbial infections. And the pharmaceutical industry regularly introduced new 'wonder' drugs, telling us that they would soon overcome disease.

By the 1970's pharmaceutical medicine had gained the ascendency, and homeopathy was perhaps at its very lowest ebb. It survived for two reasons. 

1. More people began to realise that the new 'wonder' drugs neither worked very well, and their side effects were harming patients; more recently resistance to antibiotics made their future uncertain, and now untenable; and more perceptive people realised that surgery usually came only at the very end of illness, after years of failing to treat it successfully.
2. The need for a safer and more effective medical therapy slowly began to re-emerge.

Yet the loss of confidence in pharmaceutical medicine, and its decline; plus the gradual re-emergence of homeopathy (alongside many other natural therapies) was something the profitable and influential drug companies were not going to accept. A new strategy emerged: it moved away from treating illness and disease with failed drugs and failing vaccines; and instead to protect their dominance, their wealth and their influence by attacking and undermining natural medical therapies, especially homeopathy. 

So for the last 20-30 years politicians and governments have been lobbied; health agencies have been taken over; news agencies have become financially dependent on advertising revenues. Until now - when every source of health information is effectively under the control of the pharmaceutical industry.

So if you were unaware of the busy-busy world of homeopathy this is the reason. If you, your family and friends, could have benefited from being part of the homeopathic community the information you required to make that choice was not available to you. If you have had friends or relatives who have all you have been able to do is to watch, just as doctors watched, as they died. The nursing and the care they were given may have been brilliant; the nurses have deserved their applause; but the doctors have had no treatment to offer. And no-one was going to suggest that homeopathy might be an alternative.

The Homeopathic Community - and Coronavirus COVID-19

 I discovered homeopathy when I was 28 or 29. I was previously a sceptic. The realisation that pharmaceutical medicine was dangerous was a slightly longer process, but when I was in my early 50's (and working with elderly people, many of them sick, and under conventional medical treatment) I decided that I wanted to avoid being dependent on pharmaceutical drugs when I grew older. So I progressed from being a patient, and became a member of the homeopathic community, an insider; part of the 'secret' society.

I have never regretted it. Now in my mid-70's I have had no worries about COVID-19. I understand, as do many 'insiders', the importance of the immune system. I knew about the preventative remedies that support the immune system which were available to homeopaths. And I know about the homeopathic remedies that can help the immune overcome treat the illness should I contract it.

Outside this secret world I hear the panic and fear that coronavirus COVID-19 has produced in so many people; I have been delighted to be free from it. 

• I have watched as social relationships have been harmed by the government's health policies; with older people dying alone; funerals that friends are not allowed to attend; young couples postponing their marriages; pregnant women giving birth without their partners; school children having their education harmed; and much more.
• I have watched as people's jobs and livelihoods, in viable sectors of the economy, have been destroyed by the failure of conventional medicine to cope with this not-too-infectious, and not-too-deadly coronavirus.
• I have watched as the national economy is gradually destroyed because of 'public health' policies of social distancing and lockdown that are not working because 'chasing the virus' is a futile activity.

So I eat another orange, or go out into the sun, pleased that I am part of the homeopathic community, an insider, with full access to the knowledge of this wonderful 'secret' society.

Yet in fact, homeopathy is not so secret. Anyone can join. It is not exclusive. Sometimes it is frustrating, listening to conventional medicine telling us through the mainstream media that homeopathy does not work, cannot work, that there is not scientific evidence that it works. But as an insider I can just smile, take my remedy Oscillococinum (which I've done now for the last 20 flu-free years) and get on with living, free from fear, or being sickened by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

WHY NOT COME AND JOIN US?