Free Homeopathy App. for your mobile phone

Did you know there is a free homeopathy app. for your mobile phone. Anyone who prefers to use homeopathy rather the conventional medicine - because it is so safe, and so effective - should download it now. 

It is a brilliant homeopathic first aid guide to the treatment of simple illnesses and injuries. It helps you select a remedy for yourself, or your family, when you are ill - without having to contact or consult a homeopath.

• For android users click here.
• For Apple users, click here.

Materia Medica

The app. has a brief and simple 'materia medica', which provides an outline description of some of the main remedies used in homeopathy, and which are available in all homeopathic first aid remedy kits. These kits are available from these homeopathic pharmacies.

Repertory   

The app. has a brief and simple 'repertory' on a variety of common illnesses, ideal for anyone who needs guidance in first-aid, or emergency situations. The repertory points to the most likely homeopathic remedies that can be used for the condition, or the situation.

Find a Homeopath

For more serious or long term conditions, where you do need to consult with a qualified homeopath, the app. also has a direct link to the 'Find a Homeopath' web page. So wherever you are, at home, or at work, or on holiday, the app. will help you find the nearest homeopath for assistance.

So don't be caught out without the app.; certainly don't go to a conventional doctor because it seems quicker or easier; download the app. to your mobile phone right now.

 

Our Amazing Body, the Immune System, and Pharmaceutical Medicine

How do we breathe? 

Do we have to remember to do so?

Do we have to think about it?

How do we keep our blood circulating?

Do we have to do anything to keep it moving around?

Do we have to tell it to do so?
 

How do we keep our body at a stable temperature?

The same questions can be asked - but the answer is the same.

 

We do not need to do anything. It is all done for us, whilst we just get on with living our lives.

Every minute of the day our body is doing all the things we need it to do to keep us alive; except for feeding ourselves, exercising, and leading a sensible, sustainable lifestyle. If we undertake this properly the body even keeps itself well, it protects us from illness and disease.

Our immune system keeps us from harm, it automatically does things that keep us healthy
And we know nothing about it

We do not have to think about fighting off infections.

FIGHTING CORONAVIRUS

Only conventional or pharmaceutical medicine seems to have forgotten about our body's amazing ability to do all this, and our brilliant immune system. I wish I had £1 for every time I have heard a conventional medical spokespersons saying that a vaccine is going to be necessary, that we won't be protected from COVID-19 before a vaccine is available.

This message has become a regular feature of pharmaceutical medicine's propaganda - that in order to stay well we need a pharmaceutical drug or a vaccine - our body will not, cannot do it alone.

What conventional medicine is telling us is that it knows what is happening when we are ill - a fever - inflammation - whatever - and that it has the drugs and vaccines to stop it happening. It can force the body back into health, back into compliance. Moreover, these drugs have to fight the body, with drugs that oppose ("anti-......."), or ........ blockers or ......... inhibitors. The all oppose, inhibit, block what the body wants to do, needs to do. The doctor knows best how to keep us healthy and fit! Pharmaceutical medicine  even have drugs now, immuno-suppressant drugs that purposely stop our immune system from working. What sort of medicine is this?

They suppress the immune system because, they say, it has "turned in on itself", it is faulty, and is causing disease. So why does it do this? We are not told. But presumably, pharmaceutical medicine has drugs and vaccines that will protect us against infections, like coronavirus, that we no longer have natural immunity to. Yet we know it has no such thing.

And does the immune system really turn on itself? Or is autoimmune disease caused by pharmaceutical drugs - drugs like antibiotics, statins, and vaccines? The faulty immune system is part of conventional medicine's denial - that it is causing harm to our bodies.

 

Fortunately, natural medical therapies have not forgotten about the importance of our amazing body, or our brilliant immune system. All natural medical therapies, quite rightly, place these things at the very centre of our healing process, each in their different way. It is what makes them 'natural'. They are not picking a fight with the body, or engaging in unwinnable battles with germs. All natural therapies emphasise the important of diet and nutrition, exercise, good lifestyle choices, and so on. In addition they have developed strategies, treatments for supporting the body. Homeopathy, for instance, seeks to support the body, to stimulate the natural healing qualities of our body. 

 

We have to live with bacteria and viruses, we always have done, and coronaviruses are here forever; they will not go away, they will not be killed, they will mutate first. They are here now, and they will be here in future. They will kill some people, every year, people with 'underlying health conditions', although with the support of natural medical therapies, we give ourselves a greater chance of surviving epidemics like COVID-19.

So why has conventional medicine forgotten about the amazing body, the brilliant immune system? The answer is rediculously simple! Neither our body, nor our natural immunity, is profitable. It has to be sick to be profitable. Drug companies have to frighten us into believing that we will be sick, or will die, without their pharmaceutical wonder drugs. Good health comes from a bottle of expensive pills.

 

And this is why the coronavirus COVID-19 panic has been generated.

Doctors want to sell us more pills we do not need.

 

 

Homeopathy and the history of treating of infectious epidemics. Why homeopathy will always outperform pharmaceutical medicine.

Mankind has always suffered from epidemics of infectious disease. Each infection has killed countless people, some killing large sections of the populations. They have always caused panic. Until the 19th century there was no treatment for them. So when people contracted the illness they either died, or they recovered - with friends and family watching on, scared and helpless.

Conventional or pharmaceutical medicine still has never had treatment for these epidemics. Medical science has been able to explain their cause for the last 100-150 years; but the coronavirus COVID-19 has demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that it still has no treatment to offer. Those who have contracted the virus have either died or recovered - with friends and family watching on, scared and helpless. The conventional medical establishment has always admitted that this is so.

Washing hand, social distancing, social and economic lockdown - these are not treatments: they are responses seeking to reduce the transmission of the infection - nothing more than this.

I have just listened to a BBC programme that discussed two flu epidemics in Tudor England. The first was in 1551, known as "The Sweat", thought to be a virulent form of influenza where people were well in the morning, and dead by the evening. It caused a huge death toll, and caused great terror. There was no explanation for it. This was time of protestant reformation when the government was involved in asset stripping the Church; so the reason for the epidemic was explained in moral terms, it was a religious judgement on the political changes of the time - one way or the other.

In 1558 there was another flu epidemic which reputedly killed at least 1/5th of the population. Edward VI and Mary were now dead; Elizabeth was Queen; and it was mainly the old Catholic ruling classes, the nobility, bishops, priests, and justices, who suffered badly. The epidemic was described as "a huge gift to protestantism". But again, other than this, there was no explanation of the cause; and there was, of course, no treatment.

 

The conventional medical establishment continued in this vein for the next 300 years. By the mid 19th century some explanation of causation was forthcoming: but a further 160 years went by without effective treatment. Even the horrors of 'Spanish Flu' in 1918 did not lead to finding conventional medical treatment. This was a vicious form of influenza that affected over 500 million people around the world, and killed over 100 million of them - mainly in the age group 20 to 40 years old. Again, conventional medicine was helpless; doctors had no treatment: nurses helped care for the victims as they died. So it was said, correctly, that nurses were more helpful to patients than doctors; and this has proven to be the case more recently with coronavirus CPVID-19.

Indeed, so great was the catastrophe of 1918, following on as it did from the World War, governments around the world began to introduce health ministries; the political pressure for better treatment began. The pharmaceutical industry, encouraged by government money, tried hard to discover effective treatment. When another serious epidemic arose there was a determination that this would not happen again. A vaccine was introduced in 1930's; but there has been little else; and when COVID-19 came, there was no treatment available - not even a vaccine.

Conventional medicine must be the only industry, and only business, that can survive for over 500 years without a viable product to offer us when we need it.

In contrast, homeopathy was only mooted in 1793. It developed quickly during the 19th century, and during this time, it consistently outperformed conventional medicine in the event of regular infectious epidemics around the world. Julian Winston researched this, and some of his finding have been written here. He made use of Thomas Lindsley Bradford, MD, book called "The Logic of Figures" in which he collected statistics that compared outcome of conventional medicine and homeopathy in the treatment of 19th century epidemics.

               "From its earliest days, homeopathy has been able to treat epidemic diseases with a substantial rate of success, when compared to conventional treatments. It was these successes that placed the practice of homeopathy so firmly in the consciousness of people world-wide."

I have outlined some of these epidemics, and the statistics about treatment, in a previous blog, Infectious Disease and Medical Treatment. A brief history arising from Coronavirus COVID-19. 19th century evidence clearly and regularly indicated that homeopathy outperformed conventional medicine; not difficult, perhaps, when we realise that, then as now, it had no treatment available to treat any of them. Conventional medicine did not like this, and soon they made their first attempt to hide their own incompetence from the public view. 

 

Cholera 1954. An epidemic of cholera in London was notable in that this was the first time the medical community was able to trace the outbreak to a source (a public water pump), and when the pump was closed, the epidemic ceased. However, it was significant for another reason. It was the first time conventional medicine sought to repress the success of homeopathy. 

                "The House of Commons asked for a report about the various methods of treating the epidemic. When the report was issued, the homeopathic figures were not included. The House of Lords asked for an explanation, and it was admitted that if the homeopathic figures were to be included in the report, it would "skew the results." 

 

Indeed they certainly did 'skew' the results!

 

                        "The suppressed report revealed that under allopathic care the mortality was 59.2% while under homeopathic care the mortality was only 9%."

 

It should be noted that, like conventional medicine, homeopathy knew nothing about the 'public water pump', but it was still able to treat the disease successfully. And homeopathy continued to develop an outstanding record of success from that time onwards, and in particular, for the deadly 1918 Spanish flu epidemic. Conventional doctors lost 28% of their influenza patients to death, whilst homeopathic doctors lost only 2%.

 

One reason for this ongoing ability to treat new epidemics, and new germs, is that whilst pharmaceutical medicine needs to know about 'the virus', 'the bacteria', 'the micro-organism', and how it operates, homeopathy doesn't. And as each new epidemic is usually based on new germs, conventional medicine has always found that it is unable to provide treatment. This has been the case with COVID-19; and the same will apply with any new infectious epidemic, however far into the future it might appear.

By contrast, homeopathy treats illness according to the principle of 'like curing like', so all the homeopath has to know, when faced with any 'new' epidemic, is the patient's symptoms so that a matching remedy can be identified. This is what homeopaths do all the time, and have been doing during the COVID panic, with great success, throughout the world, and particularly in Cuba and parts of India, where governments are favourably disposed to non-conventional treatments.

 

By contrast, conventional science once again had to panic. It has no treatment. So it is busy chasing a virus it cannot see, through non-treatments like hand washing, social distancing, and social and economic lockdown. The nonsense, and the cruelty of these 'non-treatments' are now leading to many people asking important questions.

• why is there no treatment?
• why can't people see their parent is residential care?
• why are people dying in hospital with relatives unable to see them?
• why can't I attend the wedding of good friends and relatives?
• why, if children go to school, do pubs have to shut down?
• why are masks necessary now when they were not a few months ago?
  

Non-sense inputs produce non-sense outputs. As long as out trust is place in this failed system of medicine it will continue to be so. It is time we learnt from history.

 

SICKNESS? Going to see your doctor? Ask your GP these questions before accepting any medical treatment

Most people, when unwell, go to their doctor for diagnosis and medical treatment. And when their doctor prescribes treatment, especially when this involves pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, we usually take them, reluctantly. We do so on two assumptions

1. They are effective, and will make us better
2. They are safe, and will not harm us.

More and more people now seriously question both these assumptions. So when our doctor offers medical treatment, so when we are uncertain about what we should do we have two main options. To accept, and hope that the drugs work and do no harm us. Or we can just dig in our heels, and refuse the treatment being offered.

A third option is to ask questions, not just for our satisfaction, but to emphasise the point that our position is open-minded, logical, and that if it can be demonstrated that pharmaceutical medicine is safe and effective we will be happy to accept it. But not otherwise.

So we should be prepared to ask important questions, not to be 'awkward', but to protect ourselves from potentially harmful treatment, on the following basis:

• you will accept the treatment offered - as long as you can be assured that it is both safe and effective.
• you are not opposed to pharmaceutical drugs, as long as they are effective, and will not cause you personal harm.
• you we are not 'anti-vax', guided by 'disinformation' or 'conspiracy theories', but wish to ensure that the treatment offered is effective and safe.

Diagnosis and Treatment Plan
Once your doctor has diagnosed your illness treatment is usually offered. This treatment may, or may not, involve taking pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

• Ask your doctor to explain his/her diagnosis of your illness, and the future prognosis.
• Ask your doctor about whether there are any non-pharmaceutical ways of treating your illness (there often are).
• For example, ask your doctor if there is any dietary or nutritional advice that is helpful in treating your illness which can be used without having to resort to pharmaceutical intervention.
• If the problem concerns mental health, ask whether there are talking therapies that can be used without having to take pharmaceutical drugs.
• Similarly, ask your doctor about physical and mental exercise, and other life style changes, that you can make to treat your illness before resorting to drug treatment.

Often conventional doctors will be able to recommend a treatment plan that includes these non-drug treatments, and may even refer you to a dietician or nutritionist, to yoga or swimming classes, to talking therapy sessions, and similar. All these can be positively helpful to the doctor too, they often complain that they feel under pressure from patients to prescribe pharmaceutical drugs, and are often happy to offer this kind of help.

Pharmaceutical Drug Treatment
If your doctor still feels that pharmaceutical intervention is necessary, inform him/her that you want to make an informed decision about the safety and effectiveness of the drug treatment being offered.  

 

You should remember, at all times, that the decision to accept or refuse the treatment offered by your doctor, is entirely your own; doctors cannot force you to accept any treatment.

• Ask your doctor how long you will need to take the prescribed pharmaceutical drug treatment.
• Ask your doctor about any contraindications to the pharmaceutical drug treatment offered, and whether there is any reason why you, personally, should not take the prescribed drugs.
• Ask your doctor to tell you about all the known side effects, adverse drug reactions, of the prescribed treatment.
• Inform your doctor that you will need to see the 'Patient Information Leaflet' (PIL) that accompanies every packet of prescribed drugs. If the doctor does not have a copy of the PIL, ask for an online link so that you can read them.
• Ask your doctor if there are any additional side effects of the prescribed drug treatment, including suspected, but not yet proven side effects, so not included in the PIL. 
• Ask your doctor for time to study the prescribed drugs on websites like drugs.com  or rxisk.org.
• Ask you doctor if there is any guarantee that you will not experience the side effects listed for the drug(s) that are being prescribed. Not unreasonably, (s)he will not be able to do so.
  

All pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines have side effects, and some of them can seriously damage our health. Doctors do admit this, but routinely prescribe them on the basis that "they do more good than harm" or are "well tolerated". So we all need to make an informed choice about whether the drug(s) prescribed are likely to do more harm than good; and whether we are prepared to take the risk of suffering from the side effects. After all, it is our health that is being discussed.

 

Natural Medical Treatment
With an illness or disease there are many medical therapies that will offer alternative medical treatment, principally from natural medical therapies. Doctors will not usually mentioned this, and if they do it should be remembered that conventional doctors are not usually qualified in these therapies, and know little about them. However, these questions might be useful to ascertain if your doctor is aware of alternative medical therapies, what (s)he thinks about them, and whether (s)he can refer you on for treatment.

• Ask your doctor if there are natural medical therapies that would be able to treat your illness, safely and effectively, such as homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism, acupuncture, et al.
• If the doctor makes critical or disparaging remarks ask whether (s)he is qualified to make such judgements on medical therapies.
• Ask your doctor whether (s)he can refer you to a qualified local therapist who can explain these alternative natural treatments, and offer treatment.

Drug Side Effects
If, after asking all these questions, you decide to take the prescribed drugs or vaccines, there are still important questions to ask. It is not just 'balancing' the benefits and the harm that needs to be questioned, but the reporting of drug and vaccine side effects. 

 

Studies have shown that only between 1% to 10% of side effects are ever reported. So when you decide to take the prescribed drugs, and you do experience side effects, you need to know that they will be reported - if only for the sake of future patients.

• Ask your doctor about the process of reporting side effects should you experience them, and whether (s)he will guarantee to do so should you report them.
• Ask your doctor to sign a form that guarantees the safety of the pharmaceutical drugs or vaccines that have been prescribed.
• Ask your doctor about arrangements in your country for injury compensation should the prescribed treatment cause personal harm.
• Ask your doctor whether it is possible to take legal proceedings in your country against medical authorities, or pharmaceutical companies, in the event of being damaged by the prescribed drugs.

MANDATORY MEDICATION
At the moment, the decision to take any pharmaceutical drugs or vaccines is entirely a matter for the individual. However, asking these questions will become increasingly important in a world in which governments, national health services, and powerful pharmaceutical and commercial interests, are seeking to remove patient choice and health freedoms. 

 

We will then need to protect our liberty, and our health, by justifying our refusal to accept medical treatment, not least to maintain our right to refuse pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

• We need to make the conventional medical establishment aware of our concerns.

• We need to insist that no medical treatment is allowed to harm us.

• We have to be clear we will accept medical treatment ONLY if it is safe and will not harm us.

However, the problem is that trying to link pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines with 'safety' and 'effectiveness' is an oxymoron! They just don't go together.

The evidence for this can be found firmly embedded within the literature of the conventional medical establishment itself!

 

And it is this medical evidence that will enable us to make an informed choice, and firmly place responsibility for causing harm on the conventional medical establishment.

Coronavirus COVID-19, media censorship, and the non-debate on health issues

The mainstream media has provided us with over 5 months of interminable 'debate' about the coronavirus COVID-19. Except, of course, there has been no real debate, just the constant re-stating and reinforcement of one single message - the government message - the message of medical 'science' - the message of conventional medicine.

• There is no treatment available
• Only when a vaccine is produced will we have any protection
• So wash your hands
• Keep social distance
• We have to lockdown the economy
  
• Followed by all the nonsense instructions that accompanies these policies

There has been similar non-discussions in the past. Let's consider and compare the coronavirus debate with just one of them - perhaps the Vietnamese war, or the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Whilst the war in Vietnam was being waged there did appear to be a discussion, but in reality there was none.

• the Vietcong is a dreadful, murderous enemy; and they must be defeated at all costs
• (for which read "the virus is a dreadful enemy and must be defeated at any cost")
  
• we should have pursued certain accepted/acceptable policies earlier; or later
  
• (social distance and lockdown policies were imposed on us too late, or lifted to early)
  
• we got this policy wrong, it should have been (very slightly) different - harder or softer
• (we should not have allowed horse racing meetings, or football matches to proceed; and we should not have returned older people from hospital to nursing homes)
  
• we should have given our troops the correct equipment, sooner, and more of it
• (our front line staff lacked the protective equipment they needed)
  
• the bombing campaign, and the use of agent orange was ineffective, or counter-productive
• (should we wear masks, or not)
• we need more troops, more munitions, more and more of everything, to defeat the enemy
  
• (the virus cannot be defeated without a vaccine, we desperately need a vaccine; it is our only hope)

Only when large numbers of people began to question the Vietnam and Iraq wars did the real debate take off, when the mainstream media could not but report that there was serious opposition - another point of view.

Should we be in Vietnam, or in Iraq at all?

Similarly, there will be no real debate about coronavirus COVID-19 until the same fundamental question is asked.

Is the policy being pursued sound, or sensible?

Is it working, will it ever work?

Is the policy the best, or the only way to respond to the epidemic?

If there are more effective ways of dealing with COVID-19 there is no point discussing whether social distancing, lockdown policies, or the wearing of face masks have been carried out adequately, or in a timely fashion. We would be discussing an irrelevance. And that is what we are doing. We are discussing the implementation of a policy - but we are not discussing whether the policy itself is the best response to the pandemic.

PS.

For a list of questions we should be asking about coronavirus COVID-19, go to this link. For a list of my blogs asking these questions, go to this link.

Asthma. Why do doctors not follow official guidelines on treating this condition?

Some time ago NICE (the UK's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) recommended that doctors stepped down the use of asthma drugs in what they described as 'stable patients'. This was sensible advice given. They said, quite clearly, that there was no benefit in giving more drugs, more inhalers, as they could cause serious adverse effects; and reducing them would save the NHS money.

However, MIMS has now reported (July 2020) on new research that has shown this is not happening in practice - despite all the benefits of greater patient safety, and cost.

Instead, patients with asthma are increasingly being prescribed 'higher-level' treatment, often without clear clinical need, and a large proportion never have their medication stepped down - despite the clinical and cost benefits of doing so. These are the findings of UK research undertaken between 2001 and 2017. As MIMS reports:

               "They found that prescriptions of higher-level medication, such as medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, or inhaled corticosteroids with add-on medication such as long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs), increased from 49.8% in 2001 to 68.3% in 2017. Among patients prescribed their first preventer, one third were prescribed a higher-level medication. Half of these had no reliever prescription or asthma exacerbation in the preceding year, suggesting the prescribers were not following clinical guidelines. Of the patients first prescribed inhaled corticosteroids with one add-on treatment, the majority (70.4%) remained on the same medication during a mean follow-up of 6.6 years."

What is worse the research found that 1 in 8 patients (13%) who were prescribed medium or high dose inhalers already had conditions that could be worsened by corticosteroids, such as diabetes, glaucoma or osteoporosis. So is this gross negligence by doctors?

Conventional medicine is allowed to peddle pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that have serious adverse effects, that can cause serious patient harm, chronic disease, and death. And it might be expected, this being so, that doctors would take great care to follow the official guidelines on their prescription.

Yet unfortunately for patients (those who continue to place their trust in pharmaceutical medicine) this is often not the case. And it is so not just in this case of these asthma guidelines. In the same edition of MIMS, they reported that doctors should not prescribe analgesics for chronic pain.

Doctors will also ignore this guidance. How do I know? Doctors have nothing else to prescribe! They may be aware that paracetamol, ibuprofen, other NSAID painkillers, benzodiazepines and opioids should not be offered to people with chronic primary pain "because there is little evidence that they made any different to people's quality of life, pain, or psychological distress"; but when they are faced with a patient in chronic pain they will almost certainly continue to prescribe them. They will find it hard to tell a patient in pain that there is nothing they can do, nothing they can offer. So take the painkillers, and when they don't work, when they make the pain worse, come back and see me again. At least it gives the doctor a few week's grace. They have done something!

This is where conventional medicine now finds itself. The drug cupboard is bare. Doctors can prescribe few drugs (if any) that are safe. Or few drugs that make any significant difference to patients who are sick. And this applies to all illnesses. We are witnessing the failure of conventional medicine.

So rather than admit failure, doctors continue to prescribe the same old failed and harmful pharmaceutical drugs.

NICE will continue to provide guidelines for doctors about the drugs they cannot prescribe, albeit belatedly for the patients who have already been harmed by them. But they cannot tell doctors what they should be doing instead - because they have no alternative.

Coronavirus COVID-19 and Homeopathy. Early evidence from India that it has been effective

There is early evidence coming through that the use of homeopathy in parts of India has been successful in the prevention and treatment of Coronavirus COVID-19. The research can be found here, and its conclusions are as follows:

               "The major objective of the study was to find out the efficacy of Arsenicum album 30C for upregulating the immunological markers among residents of COVID-19 related hot spots in Pathanamthiatta district of Kerala state. The study found out that, the potentized homoeopathic medicine, Arsenicum album 30C is effective for upregulating the immunological markers such as absolute CD4 count, absolute CD8 count, absolute CD3 count, absolute lymphocyte count and CD4:CD8 ratio among the residents of COVID-19 related hot spots. It also found that, COVID-19 pandemic has created different levels of subjective distress as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at residents of hot spot areas in Kerala. The study recommends that, the homoeopathic medicine, Arsenicum album 30C can be used as a preventive and as an immune booster against COVID-19 prophylaxis in the state. It can be also employed as a medicine in the COVID-19 First Line Treatment Centres (CFLTC) in the state."

The Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment will now have to seek to deny, dismiss, discount, ignore such information, and be assured it will do just this over the weeks and months to come!

If they fail to do so there are important and difficult questions that will be asked

• why did conventional medicine, in most other parts of the world, not seek assistance from homeopathy (and other natural medical therapies) in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19? 
• and why did they prefer to watch, and allow 100's of 1000's people die of the disease when they admitted they had no effective treatment?

The answer is obvious to anyone who thinks about what has been happening to us during the past few months. 

• We are prepared to wreck the world economy in order to prevent difficult questions being asked about the number of people who have died under conventional medical care. 
• But the conventional medical establishment (which includes government, and the mainstream media in most countries of the world) are not prepared to admit that natural medical therapies are effective, and can save lives - IF this highlights the failure of conventional medicine to do the same.

And of course this new evidence does highlight just this.