Has Medical Science Rediscovered the Immune System?

 "Scientists discover new part of the immune system"

These were the headlines of several British mainstream media outlets on 6 March 2025. The Israeli researchers said that what they had discovered "transforms our understanding of how we are protected against infection".

Of course, we have known that it is our immune system is what keeps us healthy for a very long time, although pharmaceutical medicine in recent years have been telling us that only their drugs and vaccines can keep us safe. But followers of natural medical therapies have always known about the importance of the immune system. This is how the BBC article on the discovery explains the new discovery.

        "A new part of the immune system has been discovered and it is a goldmine of potential antibiotics. (Scientists have) shown a part of the body known to recycle proteins has a secret mode that can spew out an arsenal of bacteria-killing chemicals. The researchers in Israel say it transforms our understanding of how we are protected against infection".

Well, this is brilliant! Isn't it? Perhaps we should all have known how special our immune system is in protecting us from illness and disease: but this discovery demonstrates just how clever the body is in achieving this remarkable feat, unaided, undirected. 

Apparently the discovery centres on the proteasome, described as "a tiny structure found in every cell of the body". Its main role is to "chop up old proteins into smaller chunks so they can be recycled to make new ones".  But now a series of scientific experiments (detailed in the Journal 'Nature') shows the proteasome detects when a cell has been infected by bacteria, and can then change its structure and role. "It begins to transform old proteins into weapons that can rip open the outer layer of bacteria to kill them".

The brilliance of our immune system is the reason why most people who follow natural medicine are content to rely on it to keep us fit and healthy. We certainly need to support and strengthen our immune system all the time but if we do this the secret of staying healthy, and recovering from sickness, is to rely upon it.

But this is not what conventional, drug-based medicine does. So the Guardian's article on the research adds to the headline: ... "and it could help solve our antibiotics crisis".

The antibiotic crisis to which they refer is, of course, that the pharmaceutical industry have been producing antibiotic drugs for nearly 100 years; and each one of them, in turn, has led to (i) resistance, and (ii) the development of superbugs. So pharmaceutical medicine has effectively stopped trying to replace the antibiotics as they no longer work. So an "Antibiotic Apocalypse" has been widely predicted within conventional medicine - the drugs on which they have relied for so long are no longer working, and are not going to be replaced.

So apparently medical 'science' sees this new scientific understanding of how the immune system works to be an opportunity to produce new and different antibiotic drugs! Prompted and assisted, of course, by this new knowledge about our immune system. Presumably the new drugs that might emerge can be patented by pharmaceutical companies (in order to ensure and boost profits), and to market them to an increasingly sick population.

But wait? Isn't the body already producing these 'new' antibiotics? Is it not doing so on the basis of the actual bacterial 'threat' to the health of each one of us as individuals? The research suggests that the proteasome, present in each cell, can detect a new 'problem', and reacts to it accordingly by producing a new and appropriately antibiotic? So if our body is capable of doing this for itself, why does conventional medicine need to intervene and produce its own?

This question represents the difference between pharmaceutical medicine and natural medical therapies (homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism, acupuncture, et al). The latter seek, each in their different ways, to support and strengthen the functioning of the immune system. By contrast, conventional medicine seeks to interfere with the immune system with drugs - on the basis that 'it' knows best what our body needs.

And, in fact, this is the choice that we all have, as patients. 

    When we are fit and healthy do we have confidence in our immune system to keep us so? 

    When we are sick do we have confidence that our immune system is working to make us better? And that it needs to be supported, and left alone in order to do so?

If, as this research seems to demonstrate, that our body is capable of recognising a problem, and then can produce an 'antibiotic' capable of responding to it, why would we want a conventional doctor to 'second-guess' this natural process. 

Do we really believe that a doctor can do it better? 

Or should we not just leave well alone?

Covid-19. What any competent medical system would have done to avoid social distancing, face masks, lockdowns, and all the damage associated with these policies

We have suffered two awful years with the Covid-19 pandemic - and still it continues. The awfulness has not been so much about the infection, or the illness, or the grossly exaggerated death toll: it has been the dreadful policies that government has pursued in order to combat it. Governments around the world pursued these policies at the behest of medical science, and the pharmaceutical industry that controls them both. 

Social distancing, face masks, lockdown, all of which have led to so much damage to our personal, social, and economic lives. And this is not to mention the vaccines, which government data now shows to have caused so much patient harm. This is now a matter of record, even though most people still don't realise just how damaging they have been - they have not been told.

• So was there a better policy to pursue, one which would have done less harm? 
• Perhaps Natural Medicine would have come up with different ideas.... 

1.    Do not chase the virus. The virus is not really the problem. It only affects people who are vulnerable or susceptible to the virus, the potential host. Social distancing, face masks, and lockdowns are all policies that seek to chase, or more accurately to run away from the invisible enemy. We cannot see the virus; we do not know where it is; so we were told that we have seek it everywhere, to avoid everything in order to make sure we don't come into contact with it, or to pass it on to others. This was wasted effort. For most people it was not necessary.

2. Look after the host. For some people the Covid-19 virus was nasty, and caused them serious problems. Many died from the virus - although nowhere near the 160,000+ that conventional medicine claims. The fact is that most people, most potential hosts, had little or no problem with the virus. They were able to cope with it, without any need for the 'protection' these policies allegedly provided.

3. Protect the potential host via the host's immune system. We live with bacteria and viruses all the time. Our bodies are riddled with them! And, most of the time, our immune system protects us from serious harm.

What we needed, when the 'pandemic' began, was a reliable test able to gauge the strength of our individual's immune system. The New Scientists informed us in September 2021 that there was a cheap Covid-19 antibody test shows that would have informed us about the strength of our personal immunity, and done so within 5 minutes! It was never used because we were too busy "chasing the virus", and protecting people who did not need to be protected!

The NHS website told us that there was a test to check whether someone had already had Covid-19 (and so had a natural immunity to the virus). Go to that website now and you will see that the service was closed down in March 2022 - presumably because the vaccine had been so successful in stopping the spread, and re-spread of the virus!

4.    A Public Campaign to support and strengthen the immune system. The public health campaign we suffered seemed more designed to spread panic about the dangers of the virus than to help anyone protect themselves. We could only flee from the virus, whilst we were waiting for the vaccine - only the vaccine could save us!

This is palpably untrue, and medicine has known this to be untrue for a very long time now. Conventional medicine clearly wanted to re-educate us. Only the vaccine could save us. It was almost as if the immune system no longer existed!

So there was no public campaign to tell everyone what we could all do, in terms of diet, exercise, etc., easily, routinely and cheaply, for ourselves, to protect us from the virus. This is something that I blogged about in March 2021, and was advising from the very start of the pandemic. Conventional medicine ignored our personal responsibility for our own health, to support and strengthen our immunity - we all had to wait, patiently, in fear and isolation, for the vaccine.

5.    Protecting those who need to be protected. In the early stages of the pandemic there was some recognition that there were people with weakened immune systems (not least those patients who were taking immunosuppressant drugs) who had to be protected. This was soon lost behind the new 'understanding' - that we all had to be protected, regardless of the state of our immune system. We all had to lockdown, to wear masks. It was the only way to protect ourselves!

In doing so, in agreeing to the 'solutions' of conventional medical science, we set about destroying our emotional, social and economic lives. In concurring with shutting down normal life in fear of the the virus we mistook two things. It was not the virus that threatened our lives, it was the policies pursued by conventional medicine that did so. We did not have to do it, we should not have done it! There was a more sensible route to protecting ourselves, our society and economy, from the virus.

6.     Keep society running. Keep hospitals, residential homes, schools and workplaces open. Those people who had confidence in their natural immunity should have been allowed to continue living their lives as normal, except perhaps when, and if, they came into contact with vulnerable people who need special protection. That was when we all had a responsibility to keep them safe.

Yet even here, in such situations, some kind of sensible and rational judgement should have been permitted. Was it really necessary for people to die alone, lonely and abandoned? Or to allow them to enter deeper into dementia, never knowing why they had been deserted by loved ones? Or to allow young children to live in a world where they had limited access to education, and where they could not see people's faces?

7.    Prevention. It is important to point out that during the pandemic natural medical therapists, like homeopaths, naturopaths, et al, continued to treat their patients. Indeed, it was a busy, busy time when they had to respond to their patients who were being scared out of their wits by the public campaign of hysteria and fear. The use of natural medical therapies is anathema to the conventional medical establishment, even when the CME had no means of preventing or treating Covid-19. They preferred that everyone waited for the development of the vaccines. They were the only thing that could save us! 

Those of us who knew this was nonsense were able to ignore such self-interested myopia. Most people believed what they were told by the 'experts', the conventional medical establishment, the 'medical science', politicians, governments, conventional medical 'authorities', and the mainstream media - all united together to convey to us the official Covid-19 narrative.

We do no have a medical system that believes in anything other than pharmaceutical medicine. There was no interest in comparing medical therapies, to see which worked best, which had the best outcomes. So the experience and expertise that could have been offered by natural medical therapies were sidelined, locked down alongside everyone else, and ignored.

8.    Treatment. Conventional medicine had no treatment. Once some had contracted the virus it was a matter of 'waiting to see', 'time would tell'. And it was not just the use of natural medical therapies that could have been called upon. Conventional medicine, and medical science knew that only the vaccine would save us. They had not other treatment, so we all had to wait.

Yet even that was untrue! Some conventional medical doctors said that some of their old drugs, like Ivermectin and the cheap steriod drug, dexamethasone were effective treatments. So, as thousands died, waiting for the vaccine, were these drugs used? They were not! At least not outside a small section of the conventional  medical fraternity who did not buy into the official narrative.

So there were alternatives. The government selected the policies, and imposed them on everyone. Anyone with a different view were expected to conform, threatened with legal penalties if they didn't, and not only were given no voice, but were completely censored in the mainstream media, and on social media too.

We are now paying the price of misguided policies.

In so many different ways.

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.