Coronavirus. Does Conventional Medical Establishment prefer patients to die rather than offer them Natural Medical Treatment?

Does Conventional Medicine prefer patients to die rather than admit THEY have no effective treatment, especially when natural medicine does? The coronavirus epidemic is a case in point. Doctors, and other medical 'experts' when interviewed by the media, insist there is no treatment; and that prevention is about washing our hands, voluntary isolation, and compulsory quarantine.

At the time of writing (18th March 2020) there is a reported 8,423 people who have died, worldwide, as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic. It is anticipated that this figure will rise much higher, and there seems to be general acceptance that they have died because there is 'no treatment' for the disease.

In addition, there is widespread political acceptance that as a result of there being no effective treatment, national economies have to be shut down in order to prevent the spread of the virus. A worldwide recession is now imminent as a direct result of a pandemic - for which there is no treatment.

Together, this is a huge cost to pay; yet governments around the world are demonstrating that they are quite willing to pay this cost, and that there is no alternative to doing so. And most people appear to be willing to accept what they are being told - that many will die, lose their jobs, and will face serious social disruption; that companies and whole industries will fail, and the national economy will be devastated.

Yet there is an alternative explanation for what is happening, albeit an explanation that no-one is hearing - because it is not being told.


The conventional medical establishment is huge. It is dominated by the enormously wealthy and  powerful pharmaceutical industry which uses uses its influence to control not only national medical services, but politicians, governments, and the mainstream media. Could this powerful vested interest be withholding and denying information about the alternative medical choices that are available?

Most people do not realise just how influential, dominant and powerful the conventional medical establishment is, that it is capable of denying vital information about health, and patient choice.

So what are the natural and alternative treatments for coronavirus we are not hearing about? Here are just a few of them.

1. Vitamin C, or Ascorbic Acid. This is being used widely in China, the original source of the epidemic, and in countries like Korea, which has been badly hit.

The Chinese epidemic was intense, but is now virtually stopped. This slow down has been rapid, and has been described in this article in the Jerusalem Post by Israeli Nobel Prize winner, Michael Levitt.

               “The rate of infection of the virus in the Hubei province increased by 30% each day - that is a scary statistic. I am not an influenza expert but I can analyze numbers and that is exponential growth. Had the growth continued at that rate, the whole world would have become infected within 90 days." But as Levitt continued to process the numbers, the pattern changed. On February 1, when he first looked at the statistics, Hubei Province had 1,800 new cases a day. By February 6, that number had reached 4,700 new cases a day. But on February 7, something changed. “The number of new infections started to drop linearly and did not stop. "A week later, the same happened with the number of the deaths.

So what has caused this slow down? Allow the Chinese government (with all its many faults in the eyes of the western world) to tell us. It has announced its official recommentation that COVID-19 should be treated with high amounts of intravenous vitamin C.

          "On the afternoon of February 20, 2020, another 4 patients with severe new coronaviral pneumonia recovered from the C10 West Ward of Tongji Hospital. In the past 8 patients have been discharged from hospital. . . High-dose vitamin C achieved good results in clinical applications. We believe that for patients with severe neonatal pneumonia and critically ill patients, vitamin C treatment should be initiated as soon as possible after admission. . . Early application of large doses of vitamin C can have a strong antioxidant effect, reduce inflammatory responses, and improve endothelial function. . . Numerous studies have shown that the dose of vitamin C has a lot to do with the effect of treatment. . . High-dose vitamin C can not only improve antiviral levels, but more importantly, can prevent and treat acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress."

So why have we not been told about this? Why are we, in the 'advanced' west, not being encouraged to use vitamin C? Why are people being allowed to die with any mention, any use, or even any examination into these claims?

2. Homeopathy is being used within the Indian medical system, and in other countries too, such as Cuba

India is a huge country. In the eyes of many people in the western world, India is not an 'advanced' country, with an 'advanced' medical system. Indeed, it is too often denigrated as being poor and backward. So if the coronavirus death toll in China is 3,122, in Italy 2,503, in Iran 1,335, in Spain 623, in the UK 71, the death rate in India must be huge. Well, actually it is just 3.

So why have we not been told? Why are we, in the 'advanced' west, not using homeopathy? Why are people being allowed to die without any mention, any use, any examination into the value of homeopathy, and its claims for the effectiveness of many remedies that are known to be able to both prevent, and treat these viral epidemics?

Moreover, the use of homeopathy is simple, inexpensive and effective. There are many detailed articles on the internet at the moment about the homeopathic treatment of this coronavirus pandemic. For example, this one focuses on prevention; this one on treatment. Local homeopaths throughout the world will advise on remedies that will be helpful to you.

3. Hair Dryers and Hot Water
There are, however, many other treatments that are being discussed, outside the confines of the conventional medical establishment. I have selected this one, the use of Hair Dryers. Heat kills viruses, and today I saw this message from a homeopath, Chuck Solomon (who has asked that everyone passes it on).

               "The Coronavirus and many other pathogens are easily KILLED BY WARM AIR from your hair dryer. The virus simply falls apart from exposure to a little heat. These viruses start a colony and live only in the cooler areas just inside your nose and the fore part of your sinus. Your breathing keeps these area's cooler, as the virus prefers, rather than deeper area's of the body.

               "So here's what to do: cool your face and outside of your nose with a spray or splash of water. Select the lowest warm temperature on your hair dryer and carefully blow some warm air into your nose and breathe it in. Do this for about 5 minutes, occasionally moving the hair dryer aside if it gets too hot. Air temperature of 133 degrees Fahrenheit (56 degrees Celsius), or warmer, will cause the virus cell-wall to break down so the virus dies. Use the air temp as warm as you can comfortably tolerate it. Repeat the heat treatment a couple of times a day to prevent infection by coronavirus, many other viruses and colds. If you start to feel like you are catching something, repeat the treatment 5 times per day.

There has been wall-to-wall coverage of coronvirus for weeks now. So why have we not been told about these treatments? Do they work? Why are people being allowed to die with any mention, any use, any examination of its value in treating viral outbreaks?

When I mentioned this to a homeopath-colleague she said that this is what our mothers and grandmothers did, getting a flu sufferer to breathe over a bowl of steaming hot water, with a towel covering the head. I had not made the connection, but this is exactly what my mother did for me.

Perhaps it is too much of an "old wives tale", lacking the imagination, wizardry and sophistication of modern pharmaceutical medicine. Except that it has shown no imagination, wizardry or sophistication in the treatment of this pandemic? Instead, perhaps, it signifies just how far we have regressed in medical know-how during the last 100 years of conventional medicine's domination.

The Body Healing Itself - Conventional Medicine stopping it
A fever is the body's natural means of killing viruses. Even conventional doctors occasionally acknowledge this. A fever is what our body does to overcome a viral attack.

So what does conventional medicine do? It seeks to reduce or stop fever, it works to prevent the body's natural response to viral attacks. Doing so is known to be seriously counter-productive. Even parts of the conventional medical establishment realise this. The World Health Organization has backed calls to avoid ibuprofen for coronavirus. Yet there are other parts of the conventional medical establishment that disagrees. And conventional doctors, it seems, have had to be reminded that it is "sensible to avoid ibuprofen for coronavirus" presumably because many of them did not know.

What this demonstrates is that pharmaceutical medicine is all over the place. It does not know what it's doing. During the Spanish flu outbreak in 1918 it did not know what it was doing, and many accounts are clear - it was the pharmaceutical drugs used then that probably killed more people then the flu itself. 100 years on it still has little to offer, except panic.

Yet conventional medicine does NOT want us to know that there are other ways of preventing and treating this coronavirus epidemic.

There are many other means of preventing and treating epidemics like Coronavirus COVID-19, some of them are very simple indeed, simplistic even. This article, for instance, At-Home Wellness Guide to Staying Healthy During COVID-19, describes just 5 of them - keeping it simple, eating healthy, drinking water, taking a walk, getting enough sleep.

So for weeks now the mainstream media has talked of little else other than the coronavirus pandemic, in panic mood. Yet it has done little to support these simple treatments, leave alone suggest that vitamins, and natural medicine might be able to help.

• Should they be tried?
• Should we meekly accept what conventional medicine tells us - that there is 'no alternative'?
• Should they be discussed?
• Should we get to know about them?
• Should they be subject to trials and studies?
• Should we have the right to choose how we are treated, based on full and proper information?

Certainly, when we are told that there is no treatment it means nothing more than that there is no CONVENTIONAL medical treatment. The treatments that are available are not profitable. And if they work they will inform too many people - that pharmaceutical medicine does not work, has not answers - but nutrition, natural health therapies, and even "old wives tales" are more helpful.

So people are dying in their thousands around the world - without any knowledge of vitamin C, or homeopathy, hair dryers, or inhaling steaming hot water. National economies are being jeopardised.

And conventional medicine would prefer this to admitting that there are non-conventional treatments. They are they scared that people might realise just how bare their medical cupboard is, and discover that other cupboards exist that are full of potentially effective treatments.

In other words, they would rather we died!

The Coronavirus Panic. What every sensible and informed person should be doing

The UK Government has announced that the Coronavirus is now "a serious and imminent threat" to public health. This will lead to them taking new powers in a frantic effort to stop the spread of the virus. The panic is necessary, and is caused by two factors.

1. One single medical system dominates the UK's health system.
2. This health system is unable to prevent people contracting the coronavirus, and unable to treat it effectively, without people dying, once someone has contracted it.

I wrote about the panic in a blog posted ten days ago, "The Coronavirus Panic. Just how dangerous is this new virus?" which said that the panic was only necessary when someone continued to rely on pharmaceutical medicine.

Anyone concerned about the new virus might also like to look at this excellent link
https://www.iqhomeopathy.com/coronavirus-homeopathic-care-2020/

There is homeopathic prevention. 

AND there is homeopathic treatment.

As I said in my previous blog, homeopathy is an effective medical therapy, although of course there are no guarantees of effectiveness. But anyone in the UK who is alarmed, and feel they need protection, this is the time to take action, either by purchasing a preventative flu remedy (Influenzinum, or Oscillococinum) from a homeopathic pharmacy, (go to this link, the pharmacies will post the remedy to you quickly), or to contact a local homeopath for possible treatment. A local homeopathy can be found by going the the 'findahomeopath' website, here.

https://www.findahomeopath.org/

One warning. There are many homeopathy trolls around who are prepared to attack homeopathy at any stage, so anyone you telephone will be naturally suspicious, and will be very cautious about responding to you. So you may have to take time to ensure them that you are making a genuine enquiry.

STATIN DRUGS. Doctors are prescribing them for healthy people they consider in danger of heart disease. But a study has found they have little benefit. However, the serious side effects remain!

NICE encourages doctors to prescribe statin drugs to patients considered to have just a 10% risk threshold for heart disease. Many doctors feel that this uses up vast amounts of clinical time when waiting times to see a doctor continues to increase. They have been reducing these threshold (that is, increasingly the number of well people who are told to take statins) for decades.

The reason for this is simple. Conventional medicine believes that (i) statin drugs reduce the risk of heart problems; and (ii) the drugs are 'entirely safe'.

Safety.
I have written several blogs over the last 10 years about the assumed safety of statin drugs (do a search on 'statins', above to see them all). You will see that they are now known to cause serious disease, such as diabetes, prostate cancer. arthritis, structural muscle damage, serious skin disease, prostate cancer, and even heart disease (yes really!) The most recent serious disease found to be caused by statins is confusion - so these 'safe'  drugs may well be an important factor in the epidemic tise in levels of dementia/alzheimers that we are now experiencing.

Effectiveness
The assumption about statin drugs (as with all pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines) is that they are effective. This is surely necessary to counteract the harm they are now known to cause - that they are, at the very least, effective - they actually do what doctors have told us for so long they do!

But they don't! Like every drug you might care to mention, when they are first marketed we are told that they are (i) safe, and (ii) effective, only to find out later that they are neither.

               "The benefits of statins for primary prevention in healthy patients is unclear and in some cases a ’waste of healthcare resources’.

This is according to a study published in the British Medical Journal in October 2019.The study was conducted by the National University of Ireland, Galway. Researchers drew upon primary prevention data drawn on the findings of three recent peer reviewed papers on statin drugs, and they concluded that the benefits of statins to this group....

               "were not statistically significant when the baseline risk of developing a cardiovascular disease was factored in, raising uncertainty about the benefits of statins for primary prevention."

This was reported in the GP magazine, Pulse, which quoted one of the researchers saying that the use of statins for primary prevention ‘may be an example of low value care and, in some cases, represent a waste of healthcare resources’.

And Pulse provided these statistics.

               "Although the benefits of statins among healthy patients remains unclear, the study also showed that the proportion of over-50s eligible for statins increased from 8% in 1987 to 61% in 2016 due to a change in guidelines on cardiovascular disease." (my emphasis).


So whilst increasingly 'lower risk' patients became eligible for statin treatment, "none of those patients ... would reach acceptable levels of risk reduction to justify taking a daily statin."

So will patients be informed of this?

• Will this study have any impact on conventional medicine's approach?
• Will healthy statin users, considered to be low and medium risk, be told about this? 
• Will the media pick up the study, and inform the public?

It is would seem that the answer to all these questions is a definite "NO"! Pulse quoted the response of Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard, chair of the Royal College of GPs, which showed of the usual defensiveness about pharmaceutical drugs.

               "Evidence has shown that statins are safe drugs and an effective preventative measure against heart conditions when prescribed and used appropriately. Nevertheless, the College has previously voiced concern around lowering the threshold for initiating statin therapy, which has significantly increased the number of patients eligible, due to the potential for over-diagnosis. Patients certainly have the right to question whether statins are the best course of therapy for them - as they do with any prescribed medication - and as with any long-term medication, it’s important that regular reviews are undertaken to determine if they are proving beneficial for the patient, based on their current circumstances." (my emphasis).

In other words, nothing is likely to happen. The study will be ignored because Statins are both safe, and effective. There is no suggestion that the threshold for giving healthy patients statin drugs should be raised. There is no suggestions that patients should be told. So whilst patients may have "the right to question"  how, when, and by whom will they be told? How will they find out about this new information?


In the meantime, as Pulse points out, the NHS is currently considering allowing a range of professionals to prescribe ‘low-risk’ medicines to patients. More 'primary prevention' without any evidence that it has any benefits.

Both the BMJ and Pulse articles are suggesting that there is a need for more information. As the study said, "we need to assess and understand the evidence underlying these trends." However, this is clearly not what the drug companies want to do. After all, statin drugs are one of the most commonly prescribed medicines in the world, with estimated sales said to be approaching $1 trillion by 2020. So, as is made clear in the article, the pharmaceutical industry is not playing the game!

               "Yet despite calls to make access to full clinical trial data a legal, regulatory, or ethical requirement, key statin trial data remain unavailable for independent analysis." (my emphasis).

So what are patients on statin drugs to do? Even if they do get to know? The study says that "we need to assess and understand the evidence underlying these trends" but conventional medicine will not agree to this. The drug companies don't want them to have access to important information that might affect their profitability.

So patients - carry on taking the Statins! Even if no-one knows exactly how safe, or how effective they are. Pharmaceutical profits are, after all, more important than our health!


 

NHS prevention plan aims to boost life expectancy

The NHS has announced a new strategy for health care in the UK. It is to move away from its current 'treatment' based approach to a more 'preventative' approach. The new Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, is developing his long-term plans for the NHS and it will focus on the prevention rather than the treatment of illness (5th November 2018).

Well, something certainly has to happen. The NHS is not coping with the demands being made on it by growing number of sick patients who seem to get progressively sick the more treatment they receive, and so requiring more a more treatment. Hancock says that 10 times more money is now being spent on treatment than prevention, and this, he says, "does not stack up". He says that there needs to be a shift in culture of the NHS, and in the way resources are balanced.

Hancock wants people to have 5 more years of healthy, independent life by 2035. To achieve this he is encouraging people to take more responsibility for their own health - to look after themselves better, staying acting longer, quitting smoking, making better life choices by limiting their consumption of alcohol, sugar, salt and fat."

               "For too long the NHS has seen itself as essentially the National Hospital Service, with primary care and GPs round the side."

So has the Health Secretary discovered the root cause of NHS failure, or more importantly, the failure of conventional medicine to make us better? My major doubt about his plan is that before illness can be PREVENTED, the CAUSE of illness has first to be correctly identified.

What Hancock seems to be proposing is that patients begin to do the things the NHS has been asking us to do for a very long time! There is nothing new about asking people to change their life style habits for healthier ones. Doctors have been doing it for decades - usually either just before or after handing out a prescription for pharmaceutical drugs. Clearly, there is nothing wrong with a better diet, more exercise, less smoking, et al. But just how exactly is this going to be achieved when it has never been achieved before?

So what about more primary medical care, using GP's rather than hospitals? Certainly it is important to know exactly what Hancock believes to be 'preventative' medicine. For instance, many of the drugs currently prescribed by doctors in massive quantities are already prescribed on the basis that they can prevent illness and disease.

Statin drugs, are perhaps a case in point. They have been, and continue to be prescribed to prevent heart attacks and strokes. So is this the kind of 'preventative medicine' Hancock is talking about? Two things if it is...

1. Since Statins have been given to patients there has been no decrease, but rather a massive increase in the number of heart attacks and strokes. Indeed, all chronic disease is now running at epidemic levels.
2. And Statins are now known to cause serious health side effects - muscle weakness, cataracts, liver dysfunction, kidney disease, diabetes, dementia et al. So this is one 'preventative' drug that is almost certainly adding to number of cases having to be treated by the NHS.

Vaccines are also widely used by the NHS with the express purpose of 'preventing' disease. Children are subject to a plethora of vaccines for a wide number of (quite minor) illnesses, and although this will be vehemently denied, there is little doubt that they cause (more serious) illness. Swopping measles for autism, or diphtheria for seizures, is not a good deal for patients, or the NHS. Similarly, older people are asked every year to swop influenza for dementia. 

So as far as prevention is concerned, vaccines are not a good deal for the NHS either. And before anyone accuses me of being 'anti-vaccine' let me suggest another description for my vaccine stance. I am pro-Hippocrates. FIRST, DO NO HARM!

Yet herein lies the problem at the very heart of the NHS, which is now completely dominated by the conventional medical establishment, and by the pharmaceutical industry.

It means that the NHS is unable to identify one of the main problems that underlays rising health demand, and rising NHS costs. It refuses to identify one important cause for increased levels of demand that is threatening to bankrupt the NHS. Let me explain why this is.

• Doctors prescribe pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines (often to prevent disease).
• These all cause side effects, often very serious side effects, which are, in effect, new and serious illnesses in their own right.
• And because it is conventional medicine that has caused the problem it is unable to admit it. This is one major consequence conventional medicine - it is, itself, creating disease.

So I suspect it is not possible for conventional medicine to do anything about it. I have been writing my DIE's website now for several years, describing how specific pharmaceutical drugs are known to cause specific diseases. One discovery I have made it that when the NHS describes the causes of each illness, the role played by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are rarely mentioned as a possible cause. Yet medical literature demonstrates that the NHS DOES know that their drugs cause disease. The NHS Choices website, for example, frequently states that the cause of a disease is 'unknown' rather than admit that it can be caused by pharmaceuticals!

The point is that it is difficult to prevent illness if one of the major causes is routinely denied. Put in another way, preventative medicine is only possible if we can identify, openly and honestly, all the factors that cause illness. And conventional medicine refuses to do this.

Preventative medicine is a good idea. Homeopathy does it all the time, as do other natural therapies, all of which treat patients without causing harm. Conventional medicine causes a large amount of additional sickness, and by doing so (as I blogged recently), this produces enormous secondary costs for society.

These secondary costs are certainly preventable. But first there has to be an honest admission - that conventional medicine, even when it is claiming to be preventing illness, is actually creating more illness and disease. Then the prevention of large amounts of illness and disease becomes eminently possible - through one simple process.

STOP USING PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND VACCINES THAT CAUSE ILLNESS!

Yellow Fever. Treatment and Prevention

There is an epidemic of Yellow Fever in Brazil that is causing some panic. It is claimed that the epidemic started with the deaths last year of hundreds of monkeys in the rain forest in the states of Rio de Janeiro, Espirito Santo and Sao Paulo, and then began to affect the human population. In January WHO confirmed that the number of confirmed cases has tripled in January and is advising that foreign travellers get vaccinated before visiting. The timing is interesting, just weeks before the annual Carnival which attracts thousands of tourists to the country.

Brazilians, too, are lining up for the yellow fever vaccination, alarmed by the increase in the number of fatal cases of infection. Yellow fever is a viral disease transmitted by mosquitoes in tropical regions, and continues to be a major killer in Africa and other parts of the world. During the 19th century, when Yellow Fever epidemics were often experienced, homeopathy had the best record of treating it. Conventional medicine had little to offer.

And conventional medicine still has little to offer. Web MD says this, admitting not only that there is no treatment, but even the drugs used to treat the external symptoms come with inherent dangers to patient health:

                "Because there is no cure for the viral infection itself, medical treatment of yellow fever focuses on easing symptoms such as fever, muscle pain, and dehydration. Because of the risk of internal bleeding, avoid aspirin and other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs if you suspect you have yellow fever. Hospitalization is often needed."

So it is little wonder that the Brazilian epidemic has produced panic, and a call for people to get vaccinated. NHS Choices says this about the yellow fever vaccine.

               "There's a very effective vaccine that can stop you getting yellow fever if you're travelling to an area where the infection is found."

Very effective? But even NHS Choices admits that it cannot be given to babies under nine months of age, pregnant and breastfeeding women, people over the age of 60, people with weakened immune systems, and people who are allergic to any of the ingredients in the vaccine, including people with an egg allergy. So for all these people there is no treatment, and no vaccine!

Which leads to the question, why are these people unable to have the vaccine. The reason, of course, is that it is not safe - it comes with a whole host of serious adverse vaccine reactions which are listed on the Drugs.com website.

• Confusion
• convulsions (seizures)
• coughing
• difficulty with breathing or swallowing
• fast heartbeat
• feeling of burning, crawling, or tingling of the skin
• nervousness or irritability
• reddening of the skin
• severe headache
• skin rash or itching
• sneezing
• stiff neck
• throbbing in the ears
• unusual tiredness or weakness
• vomiting
• Difficulty with moving
• joint pain
• muscle aching or cramping
• muscle pains or stiffness
• pain at the injection site
• swollen joints

Well, to be fair, NHS Choices did not actually say the vaccine was safe! However, it was only prepared to admit that the vaccine had a few 'minor' side effects - a headache, muscle pain, a mild fever and soreness at the injection site, which would soon go away anyway! This is not exactly a lie, just the omission of the whole truth! Dishonest perhaps?

Yet is the vaccine the best option, as there is no treatment? Well, not exactly, homeopathy was able successfully to treat 19th century epidemics of Yellow Fever - so is it able to treat the disease now? Well, yes it is; but no-one should not expect to find this mentioned by the conventional medical establishment. And certainly it is not being mentioned to Brazilians, or to anyone planning to visit Brazil for the Carnival.

So I am now off to write another page in my "Why Homeopathy?" website on the treatment of Yellow Fever. It is available at this link - see you there!

Protect yourself from flu

This is a simple, short blog, with a simple, short message.

The NHS has announced that there has been a large increase in flu since the beginning of the year, creating a 4-fold increase in GP visits, and very high rates of hospital admission. The incidence of flu is worse than for any time since 2010-2011.

Clearly the flu vaccine is not working, and no doubt many of those contracting flu have already been given the vaccine.

The Flu Vaccine just does not work!

So rather than visiting a doctor, or a hospital for conventional treatment, the best advice is to use homeopathy - the both prevention and treatment.

For prevention, get yourself the homeopathic remedy Oscillococinum 30c. It can be purchased from any of these homeopathic pharmacies all of which will get the remedy to you overnight. Then take one daily for 3 days, and then weekly for the rest of the flu season. Make sure that your friends and family do the same.

For treatment, have a look at this website.

Now Malaria Drugs are failing!

The effectiveness of conventional medicine is suffering another blow. Today, 31st January 2017, most mainstream media sources have carried the story that malaria is becoming drug resistant. The main drugs, used  in combination, to treat patients in the UK failed for four patients who had the tropical disease on returning to Britain. Although they worked, initially, all four were readmitted to hospital when the disease returned. They had to be treated with the antimalarial drug combination of artemether and lumefantrine.

The treatment of malaria has become a highly publicised issue in recent years, not least because the conventional medical establishment (and their friends in the organisation 'Sense about Science') objected to homeopathy treating the condition. It needed, they said in the words of Kirsty Wark, to be treated with 'proper' medicine! Well, it looks as though 'proper medicine is failing. I wrote about the homeopathic prevention and treatment of malaria in 2012

There appears to be no panic within conventional medical circles at the moment. The news release clearly says that conventional medicine has lots of other alternative drug treatment. Yet if this entirely true? Wikipedia talks about resistance to antimalerial drugs (all of them, not just this combination) and comments, simply, straightforwardly, that "Antimalarial resistance is common". So are we facing yet another group of pharmaceutical drugs that are becoming useless?

Yet in addition, all antimalerial drugs come with the most dreadful side effects. This particular combination, however, is apparently the treatment of choice. So let's examine the side effects of this 'treatment of choice' (taken from the Drugs.com website)

• Abdominal or stomach pain
• chills
• cough
• fast, irregular, pounding, or racing heartbeat or pulse
• fever
• headache
• muscle aches
• pale skin
• right upper abdominal or stomach pain and fullness
• sore throat
• stuffy or runny nose
• troubled breathing with exertion
• unusual bleeding or bruising
• unusual tiredness or weakness
• Accumulation of pus
• acid or sour stomach
• belching
• black, tarry stools
• bladder pain
• blood in the urine
• bloody or cloudy urine
• body aches or pain
• change in hearing
• chest pain
• cloudy urine
• convulsions
• cough producing mucus
• decreased urine
• diarrhea
• difficult, burning, or painful urination
• difficulty with breathing
• difficulty with swallowing
• dizziness
• dry mouth
• ear congestion
• ear drainage
• earache or pain in the ear
• frequent urge to urinate
• general feeling of discomfort or illness
• heartburn
• increased thirst
• indigestion
• joint pain
• loss of appetite
• loss of voice
• lower back or side pain
• mood changes
• muscle pain or cramps
• nasal congestion
• nausea or vomiting
• noisy breathing
• numbness or tingling in the hands, feet, or lips
• red rash with watery, yellow-colored, or pus filled blisters
• shivering
• shortness of breath
• sneezing
• sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
• stomach discomfort, upset, or pain
• sweating
• swollen glands
• swollen, red, tender area of infection
• thick yellow to honey-colored crusts
• tightness in the chest
• troubled with sleeping
• Incidence not known:
• Large, hive-like swelling on the face, eyelids, lips, tongue, throat, hands, legs, feet, or sex organs

If you examine the alternative drugs available to conventional medicine there are equally long and worrying lists of side effects to be found. In August 2013, the FDA announced that the antimalarial drug, mefloquine hydrochloride, is now known to cause "serious psychiatric and nerve side-effects". These can last for 'months to years' after taking the drug, and although the drug has not been withdrawn it now has 'Black Box' warning labels.

This is not good news for those people living in over 100 countries in Africa, Asia and Central America, or the 14 million people affected with malaria, or and 438,000 who died from it in 2015. Or, indeed, the 1,500 travellers who are diagnosed with it every year.

So the conventional medical treatment of malaria appears not only to be failing because of resistance. It is not, as Kirsty Wark would have had us believe in her notorious Newsnight programme in January 2012, "proper medicine". It is dangerous and failed medicine!

And Homeopathy, the medicine that Kirsty Wark, and the BBC attacked so vehemently, is still being used, throughout the world, still as safely and effectively as before. This should not come as a surprise. Homeopathy has been treating malaria for over 200 years, with no 'resistance' to the remedies that have been used during all that time.

To compare the homeopathic and conventional treatment of malaria, visit this 'Why Homeopathy?' webpage.

Anti-Malarial drug, Lariam. So after all this time it IS dangerous!

Lariam, or Mefloquine, or any one of the different names the conventional medical establishment has chosen to call it, has (at last) been recognised as being dangerous. It has taken a long time! The drug was developed by the USA army in the 1970's, and marketed from the mid-1980's. So it has taken over 30 years to come to this conclusion. Except, of course, that even now it is only the conclusion of the UK parliamentary defence committee - the Ministry of Defence still insists that it is a useful drug "as a last resort", the NHS remain silent, and the drug companies, predictably, continue to sell the drug to anyone foolish enough, or sufficiently ill-informed to know about its dangers. So the saga will no doubt continue for many more years to come.

Malaria is a dangerous and potentially fatal disease. Yet the prevention and treatment of Malaria does not require the use of dangerous pharmaceutical drugs like Lariam. I wrote about this in my blog "The Prevention and Treatment of Malaria with Homeopathy" in November 2012, pointing out the grave dangers of anti-malarial drugs, and the safety of homeopathy. I added a postscript to this blog in August 2013 after FDA Drug Safety Communication announced that the antimalarial drug, mefloquine hydrochloride is now known to cause "serious psychiatric and nerve side-effects" which can last for months, even years.

Yet Lariam continues to survive. It has become yet another drug that proves an important point about the pharmaceutical industry, that they produce only two types of drug:

• those drugs that are known and accepted to be dangerous, and have consequently been withdrawn or banned.
• drugs that a waiting to be withdrawn or banned because the conventional medical establishment is not prepared to recognise their dangers to patients.

The 'public service' broadcaster, BBC News, has picked up on this story, most unusually for a company that routinely perpetuates a slavishly supportive of the pharmaceutical industry, and the conventional medical 'wisdom'. It is not long ago, January 2011, that Kirsty Wark, presenting the BBC 'Newsnight' programme, attacked homeopathy for daring to say that it could prevent and treat malaria, and for diverting patients away from what she called 'real medicine'. This 'real medicine', of course, included the use of Lariam!

This is the problem for patients, anyone seeking conventional medical assistance. They are not being told the truth about pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. The prescription of these drug multiplies, whilst the dangers of doing so are hidden.

• Drug companies continue to market and profit from them.
• Doctors continue to prescribe them, and tell us they are safe, because they have nothing else to offer us.
• The NHS is dominated the the conventional medical establishment, committed to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and unable to admit that they are harming patients.
• Governments and politicians look to the pharmaceutical companies for what they consider to be important commercial investment, and employment, and the financing of their political campaigns.
• The mainstream media is beholden to the pharmaceutical companies for their advertising, and the boards of both industries are cross-fertilised, and inter-dependent on each other.
• The BBC, particularly its health and science correspondents, have been infiltrated by proponents of organisation such as 'Sense about Science'.

What this means is that there is little examination, little investigation into what the conventional medical establishment is doing, and why it is doing it, and the harmful consequences on patients of what they are doing. So patients remain misinformed, if not totally ignorant about the damage pharmaceutical drugs can have on their health. 

Note that this new development did not arise from investigative journalism, from the government, the NHS, the conventional medical establishment, or the drugs companies. It came from a Defence Committee, concerned about the safety of their soldiers.

Soldiers have been reporting the serious side-effects of anti-malarial drugs, including Lariam, for decades. But, of course, this is considered to be only 'circumstantial', or 'anacdotal' evidence. It is not 'scientific'. And the medical profession is keen to tell us that there is no 'science' to support the claims that these drugs, that any pharmaceutical drug or vaccine, are dangerous. 

We live in a world where medicine does not listen to patient experience, they listen to the scientists who undertake their RCT studies, in the pay of the pharmaceutical companies.

So whilst this development is being treated as a news story today (24th May 2016), it is really history that we are being told about. There is nothing new about what is being revealed about Lariam, or anti-malarial drugs generally, or pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines as a whole. The real story about 'real medicine' is that it is dangerous, it is harming patients, and because of this, it is failing.

Why, when we have been spending more and more every year on conventional health treatment are we getting sicker? Why are we facing epidemic levels of physical and mental illness? Why are national health services around the world unable to cope within the huge budgets they are given year by year? It is the use of dangerous drugs, like Lariam, that is the real explanation.

The Prevention and Treatment of Malaria with Homeopathy

The treatment and prevention of Malaria by Homeopathy has become a highly controversial subject, largely due to the nefarious activities of 'Sense about Science', a so-called 'charity' funded largely by large pharmaceutical companies. BBC News, who always meekly and cravenly support conventional, drug-based medicine, have broadcast several programmes attacking homeopathy for 'daring' to treat the disease! As a Homeopath (who incidentally has never been asked to treat malaria) I decided to look into the subject in order to compare what homeopathy and ConMed can offer the patient.

The first thing to say is that Homeopathy has been treating Malaria for a very long time. Sue Young has done research into this in her blog "A Homeopathic History of Malaria". Indeed, as she explains, it was Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of Homeopathy, who first looked into it. So it was Hahnemann

          "During the translation of a book by William Cullen, the leading physiologist of that time, Samuel Hahnemann noted that William Cullen asserted that Peruvian bark was an effective drug for malaria because of its bitter and astringent properties."

          "Samuel Hahnemann thought this a peculiar statement because he knew other bitter and astringent medicines that provided no benefit in the treatment of malaria. He then conducted an experiment upon himself, taking this herb twice a day until he developed symptoms of its toxicology, and here he discovered that it created a fever with chills as well as other symptoms that mimicked malaria".

So it was Hahnemann, in the very early days of homeopathy, who proposed that Peruvian Bark (which contains quinine) might be effective for treating people with Malaria. He did so, of course, on the bias of the principle tenet of Homeopathy - that "Like cures Like".

Sue Young's blog goes on to list a series of recorded events in which homeopathy was used to treat Malaria, including many individual cures, and its use in outbreaks in various parts of the world. It also traces the work of Homeopaths who developed the homeopathic treatment of Malaria from 1826 to the present day.

Theresa Partington, in her article in Homeopathy in Practice, Spring 2006, outlined some of the current projects that are using homeopathy to both prevent and treat malaria. One conclusion she reached, after speaking with several Homeopaths, involved in the practical, face to face treatment of malaria in coutries were the disease is rife, was as follows:

          "All our practitioners found that malaria responds well in the acute phase, the chronic state proving more difficult, often being complicated by other diseases, poor living conditions, reinfection etc. All will use support remedies for the liver and the spleen (generally recommending Chelidonium and Cean). Of the non-homeopathic treatments for prophylaxis and treatment of acute and chronic states, Neem tea was strongly recommended by the two Kenya practitioners.

Homeopathy is a practical rather than a theoretical medical therapy. It seeks to treat people suffering from disease on the basis of identifying a 'similar' remedy to the symptoms of an individual suffering from the disease, and then observing whether it is effective. Theresa's article demonstrates this well. Homeopaths are active in many parts of the world where Malaria is common, and its benefits are clear to those who can see what is happening on the ground. 

I am aware of several projects, doing practical work with people who live in parts of the world that has a high incidence of Malaria. One such project as asked that their work is not highlighted, fearing attack from Homeopathy Denialists, BBC News, the Guardian, and other supporters of conventional medical treatment, and Big Pharma drugs. The conclusion this project has reached, after working many years with Malaria, is simple:

          "Homeopathy does indeed work for malaria. Homeopaths should not be afraid of this disease, nor prevented from treating it".

This kind of practical, no nonsense treatment of disease is anathema to the opponents of Homeopathy, and the supporters of Big Pharma. In their craven support of ConMed treatment the Conventional Medial Establishment, and its Media allies, appear willing to summarily dismiss, without the least thought or consideration, any evidence that Homeopathy may work with sick people! This is particularly indefensible as there has also been research done into the homeopathic treatment of malaria too - which is usually studiously ignored!

"Effects of homeopathic medications Eupatorium perfoliatum and Arsenicum album on parasitemia of Plasmodium berghei-infected mice" was a study undertaken in 2006. It reached the following conclusion:

          "We found significant inhibitory effect on parasite multiplication with both medications with a level of 60% for Eupatorium perfoliatum at a 30 CH potency. Arsenicum album 0/6 gave 70% inhibition but this was less stable than Eupatorium perfoliatum. The number of schizonts was higher in animals treated with homeopathic medications.

Another 'open study' and 'double blind randomised clinical trial' was undertaken in Ghana in 1993, using just three homeopathic remedies, Arsenicum Album, Natrum Mur and Pulsatilla. I am not sure why the study was restricted to these three remedies. The conclusion was that the results obtained  were at least as good as the main conventional drug used, and probably better.

          "The only conclusion that can be drawn is that homeopathy has an effect, comparable with and slightly (non-significantly) better than chloroquine. The effect of chloroquine might be difficult to calibrate as the level of resistance against chloroquine is not known in the population studied". 

Another study was undertaken in Tanzania (after 2004, date unclear) using a single remedy made from the Neen tree, which was apparently known by local tradition in the area to be an effective treatment for Malaria. The conclusion of this study was as follows: 

          "The homeopathic neem preparation has shown to be effective for the reduction of malaria attacks in a highly endemic area for plasmodium falciparum. The treatment is safe in the short term and the low cost of manufacturing renders this treatment especially attractive for developing countries as the purchase cost is well within the range of an average household budget.

The success of homeopathy is treating Malaria is recognised in many parts of the world, less under the perverse influence of the Big Pharma companies. Earlier this year (2012), the Madhya Pradesh announced that it was initiating a major campaign to prevent Malaria. The Times of India announced the practical evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy in the prevention of Malaria.

Under the campaign launched by the state government, homoeopathic medicines will be administered door-to-door. The decision to distribute homeopathic was taken as it has provided effective in prevention of malaria. (My emphasis).

So whilst I am aware that this evidence will be summarily dismissed by Homeopathy Denialists, and their colleagues at BBC News (and, indeed, the mainstream media generally), Homeopaths must insist that this evidence is taken into consideration before routinely condemning homeopathy. 

BBC News's unbalanced and biased coverage of anything to do with homeopathy is well known. This particular subject was dealt with in the now infamous Newsnight programme, broadcast on 4th January 2011. It began with someone approaching a Homeopath to ask what she recommended for travelling to a part of the world where Malaria was rife. It went on to attack the homeopathic treatment of Malaria because (they claimed) there was 'no evidence' of its effectiveness, and to drive home the point, BBC News asked a series of ConMed trained 'experts' to support the attack on homeopathy.

What the programme failed to ask was why people should want to ask a Homeopath about Malaria treatment - especially when they could access conventional advice, and get conventional drugs, free of charge from their NHS doctor.

People come to Homeopaths for treatment, including treatment related to Malaria, because they want an alternative to conventional, drug-based medicine. Indeed, when we examine what ConMed, and Big Pharma drugs, have to offer to people looking for Malaria protection (and what they will 'miss out' on if they choose Homeopathy) is quite awful, and does not make easy reading.

First, there is growing resistance to the Big Pharma drugs. In other words, they are no longer working as effectively as once they did (and how well they have ever worked is certainly highly debatable).

Second, the drugs give rise to quite horrendous adverse reactions. Conventional medication includes quinine based drugs, such as Chloroquine, and Artemisia-based drugs, such as Lariam. These produce severe adverse reactions, ranging from skin symptoms to organ failure. As I have said many time before elsewhere, the impact of these drugs are not 'side-effects' - the are fully blown, life-threatening diseases!


Lariam, for example, perhaps the most well-known Malaria drug, is known to cause adverse heart, kidney, liver, skin, and central nervous system problems, as well as causing serious psychiatric issues. Lariam was investigated by the FDA as long ago as 2003 when some returning US troops, who had received the drug, committed suicide or murder. In other words, Lariam shows the same kind of disease-inducing effects that are associated with most, if not all ConMed medication. In the same year, 2003, the magazine WDDTY said that Lariam "poses a serious and public health concern", and this, perhaps, is a good summary of most conventional Malarial drugs. 

Nor are any new Big Pharma treatments appearing on the horizon. WDDTY reported in August 2012 that two new Malaria vaccines, "medicine's great hope in combating the disease" have been found to make the disease worse. It reported that tests, undertaken at Pennsylvania State University, discovered that the Malaria parasite "changes rapidly to resist the vaccine - making the vaccine itself ineffective within days and encouraging the spread of an even deadlier forms of the disease". (Source given: PLoS Biology, 2012; doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001368).

The personal experience of people using these Big Pharma drugs can also be catastrophic. In an article published in The Times, on 22nd January 1996, it was reported that a group of travellers were seeking compensation over an anti-malaria drug "that produces serious psychological problems in some people,  and other side-effects , in almost a quarter of users". The article reported that a solicitor in Bristol was planning a 'group action' against the manufacturer, pointing out that not only were the DIEs serious, they were also long-lasting. He stated:

          "We have people who have serious psychiatric disorders because of Lariam. For some people the problems persist long after they have stopped taking the drug."

In another Times article, written by the well-known journalist Matthew Parris on 4th April 1998, entitled "I think I'd rather have Malaria", he described the mental and physical reactions he had to Lariam:

          "As soon as I began the course two weeks before leaving Britain my night-time dreams turned weird. Strange, grotesque dreams, often with a horrific edge. Monstrous hideous faces would loom at me waking me in the night."

Matthew Parris went on to describe the mental reactions he had to the drug, which included hallucinations, and the physical reactions that for him included itching skin and an odd taste in his mouth.

           "I think the chemical composition of my saliva must have altered. My mouth just tasted different. Some food seemed to taste strange too. Tea, in particular (and to a lesser extent coffee), took on a faint but discernibly bitter edge.

And for Matthew Parris too, the symptoms of these conventional Malaria drugs continued for a long time:

          "That was three months ago and only now is it beginning to fade. It was as though some small but discernible chemical change had occurred to the internal balances within my body. Amputation I can face, but this sort of thing really scares me".

So there is good reason for people looking for alternative medical treatment. And, contrary to the opinions BBC News and the Media generally wishes to impose on us, I believe that it is important that people know that about the possible disease-inducing effects ((DIEs) of conventional Malaria treatment, and are informed that there are alternative treatments, like Homeopathy, certainly safer, and probably more effective, available to them.

So what should be done for people wishing to protect themselves from Malaria? As Karin Mont, Chair, Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, stated when advising Homeopaths, following the BBC Newsnight programme, patients should seek the fullest possible advice.

          "..... ARH would encourage our members to ensure their patients are given all information available, so that they can make an informed choice. This would also be appropriate behaviour for all healthcare practitioners, including medical doctors. Perhaps we can encourage patients to start insisting that their doctors explain all potential adverse reactions of the drugs they prescribe (in easily comprehensible terms!), rather than relying on a slip of paper in minute font to do the job for them!

Postscript, August 2013
In an FDA Drug Safety Communication, it has been announced that the antimalarial drug, mefloquine hydrochloride is now known to cause "serious psychiatric and nerve side-effects". These can last for 'months to years' after taking the drug. The drug is not being withdrawn (of course) but the warning labels are to be strengthened! It is now going to have a 'Black Box' warning. Wow!

Patients and carers are asked to 'watch for these side effects' but 'should not stop taking' it before discussing symptoms with health care professional.

I wonder if the BBC will bother to tell us about this? Perhaps it will just have another go at Homeopathy instead. It is important that they try to stop all those foolish people who are looking for prevention and treatment that is safer!