Coronavirus COVID-19. Logging the Blogs on the Epidemic

Blogs on the Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic
From January 2020 through to June 2020 I have written nearly 30 blogs on this Pandemic. This is a synopsis of those blogs, what they discussed, with links to each one.

26 January 2020
The Coronavirus Panic. Just how dangerous is this new virus?

• where I reassured readers that the only people who needed to worry were those who depended upon conventional medicine.

10 February 2020
The Coronavirus Panic. What every sensible and informed person should be doing.

• where I recommended that readers contacted a local homeopath for both preventative and treatment of the new virus

12 February 2020
Conventional medicine is in a gigantic panic. So is enough being done to contain it? When it has nothing to offer, but refuses to embrace homeopathy?

• where I related the developing panic, and questioned why (as conventional medicine had no treatment) it was not asking homeopathy for assistance.

4 March 2020
The Coronavirus Pandemic. Why is the advice of the Indian government so different from advice we receive in 'advanced' western world? Are better treatments available?

• where I write about the Indian and Cuban governments response to the panic, and incorporating homeopathy in their strategy.

9 March 2020

Coronavirus. Did you know they use Homeopathy in India? So how are they doing?

• a blog reinforcing the use of homeopathy in India with some of the current statistics.

19 March 2020
Coronavirus. Does Conventional Medical Establishment prefer patients to die rather than offer them Natural Medical Treatment?

• with people now dying in the UK, conventional medicine having no treatment, yet still not asking for homeopathic assistance, whether the NHS preferred people to die than to refer to alternative medicine.

6 April 2020
Coronavirus COVID-19. The important questions that aren't being asked.

• with the NHS, the Government, and the mainstream media having endless discussions about the pandemic, I asked why certain key questions were not be asked, leave alone answered.

Coronavirus. COVID-19. Does Natural Medicine have an alternative?

• a blog in which I outlined what natural medicine might be doing in the epidemic -  if it was ever asked to play a role.

7 April 2020
Coronavirus. COVID-19. The pharmaceutical drugs cupboard is bare. Hydroxychloroquine. Chloroquine

• a blog written when this drug was put forward as a possible treatment, a drug with a long list of harmful side effects - which of course were not mentioned.

17 April 2020
Coronavirus COVID-19 in India & Cuba. Is Homeopathy the answer that the pharmaceutical establishment has to deny?

• with countries using homeopathy performing better (regardless of inadequacy of statistics) I discussed the reasons why conventional medicine could not afford to refer patients to homeopathy.

22 April 2020
Coronavitus COVID-19. A slow recovery? Why not try this remedy

• It as becoming clear at this point that many patients were taking a very long time to recover from the virus - and I suggested a homeopathic remedy often used for a failure to get well after influenza.

23 April 2020
A "Safe Vaccine" is an Oxymoron. The two words cannot be combined with honesty

•  As conventional medicine kept repeating the mantra "the solution will be a vaccine" I pointed out that there was no safe vaccine which has been the answer to any disease.

24 April 2020
Coronavirus COVID-19. The panic and hysteria is going to lead to Mandatory Vaccination. The Nuremberg Code, and the Hippocrtic Oath, tells us why we should resist this.

• I predict that the policy as 'protecting others' was going to lead to mandatary vaccination, and discussed similarities with the Nuremberg Codes, and the contraposition with the Hippocratic Oath - of doing no harm

25 April 2020
Coronanvirus COVID-19 & Immunosuppression. Who are these people with 'underlying health conditions' who are dying?

•  Coronavirus was killing very few people who did not have an underlying health condition, so I asked who these people were, and how pharmaceutivcal drugs are known to cause disease, and undermine natural immunity.

27 April 2020
Coronavirus COVID-19. Germ Theory and Disease. The difference between a natural health approach & a pharmaceutical approach goes back 150 years

• Pasteur's 'germ theory' was discussed as the basis for the 'chasing germs' strategy of conventional medicine. This was compared and contrasted with a contemporary scientist, Antoine Béchamp, whose theory of germs underpins all natural medical therapies.

4 May 2020
Coronavirus COVID-19. Will it lead to a re-assessment of a system of medical care that kills, or allows patients to die, destroys economies, and social life, as the result of an infectious disease?

• In this blog I ask whether the pandemic would ultimately lead to a reassessment of the performance of conventional medicine's response to infectious disease - in both humans and animals.

7 May 2020
Coronavirus COVID-19. A failure of medical science that has resulted in social and economic mayhem. "Save the NHS" or "Save Lives"?

• Here I juxtaposed the two strategies of the governments policy, and asked why 'Saving the NHS' was placed before 'Saving Lives'. Was it more to save conventional medicine than people's lives?

15 May 2020
Is there treatment for Coronavirus COVID-19? Or is it a closely guarded secret?

• after answering a question on the Quora website, this was a humorous suggestion that there was such a treatment - but that no-one should talk about it as it was not allowed by the conventional medical establishment!

18 May 2020
Coronavirus COVID-19. "Never have so few controlled the lives of so many"

•  This blog pointed to a brilliant video that I had just watched made by Rob Verklerk of the Alliance of Natural Health.

The Politics of Coronavirus. The thin edge of hefty wedge? Mandatory drugging, Health Freedom & Patient Choice

•  a further discussion of the strategy of the pharmaceutical industry to introduce mandatory vaccines, and the threat to health freedom and patient choice.

28 May 2020
Coronavirus COVID-19. Is a real health debate about this virus being stifled?

• with the NHS, the Government, and the mainstream media all singing from the same hymn sheet, this blog bemoans the lack of a real debate

31 May 2020
Coronavirus COVID-19. An agonizing journey to death. There is no medical treatment. So for many, it has been death without treatment when treatment was available.

• Another of my 'agonising journey' series of blogs - plotting the death of people who rely entirely on pharmaceutical medicine when they are ill.

1 June 2020
Coronavirus COVID-19. Everyone has gone through lockdown. but ''Shielding' patients have had it much worse. So who are these people?

• there was lots of talk about 'shielded patient', and I ask who these people are, and why they have to be 'shielded'. The government's description leads back to the immune system, and people whose natural immunity had been compromised by pharmaceutical medicine.

5 June 2020
Coronavirus COVID-19. UK Vaccine Network. News of a massive scandal involving the UK government, the Bill Gates Foundation, leading drug companies, all planning to profit massively from the pandemic

• reports of a massive scandal were beginning to dominate social media, and this blog referred to this as an explanation for some of the strange decisions and policies of the government.

9 June 2020
Infectious Disease and Medical Treatment. A brief history arising from Coronavirus COVID-19.

• a blog that looked back to the history of previous epidemics of infectious disease, and comparisons of conventional and homeopathic treatment that have been made since the early 19th century.

9 June 2020

Coronavirus COVID-19. What do you do when your policy fails? Apologise? Or publish research that says it could have been so much worse!

• A blog discussing the purpose of  two pieces of 'scientific' research which suggested that the situation could have been much worse than the disaster we are witnessing. 

10 June 2020

NHS IN CRISIS. 2020. Another routine annual winter crisis notwithstanding Coronavirus COVID-19.

• The impact the epidemic has had on the annual crisis within the NHS; more and more money pumped in; yet demand for health services continues to rise.

11 June 2020

OUR HEALTH = OUR RESPONSIBILITY

•  Comparing conventional medicine's approach to illness with natural medical therapy - do whatever you want and we will make you better - and - our health is a personal responsibility.

Covid-19 Vaccines. Reported Adverse Reactions and Questions to Department of Health

A large, and growing proportion of the UK population has now received either one or two doses of one of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines. I suspect that the vast majority of these people did so on the basis of what they had been told about them - by the Department of Health, the NHS, and the mainstream media (MSM) - that these vaccines were effectively safe, with few side effects, and would not cause serious patient harm.

Official statistics, data coming from the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA, and published on the UK Governments website, suggest that this is not the case.

The evidence is that the vaccines are causing serious patient harm, with over 1 million side effects being reported by nearly 300,000 patients. This includes reactions such as severe allergic reactions, anaphylaxis, Bell's Palsy, blood clots, cerebral venous sins thrombosis (CVST), Capillary Leak Syndrome, menstrual disorders and vaginal bleeding, Myocarditis and Pericarditis (inflammation of the heart), and fatalities. Indeed the latest MHRA data show that there have been 1,403 reported deaths of patients shortly after they have been given one of the Covid-19 vaccines.

The MHRA, in its regular report, consistently discounts the seriousness of these reported 'side effects', even though its primary function as a drug regulator should be to protect patients from drug and vaccine-induced harm. It is well known that reported side effects represent a small proportion of actual side effects - research has shown this to be somewhere between 1% and 10%. So 1,403 death could actually be 14,030 deaths, or as many as 140,300 deaths.

I cannot think of any other walk of life where such harm could be caused, or even suspected to be caused, without a serious and immediate "Health and Safety" response. An industry that cause serious harm to its workers, or its customers, would be subject to rigorous examination and inspection. A restaurant suspected of causing food poisoning would be closed down. A road junction where there had been numerous accidents would have been subject to increased traffic regulation.

But this does not happen when such health and safety problem relates to the harm caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. "All drugs cause side effects" we are told blandly by doctors and drug regulators; and it is left at that. There has been no public warning from government, from the NHS, or from the MSM. They continue to tell us that the vaccines are safe; and urge everyone to take the vaccine, without any knowledge of the reported side effects.

So I have decided to write to my MP, so that he can ask the following questions of the UK's Department of Health.

1. Can the Department of Health confirm that MHRA statistics relating to Covid-19 vaccines contained on this Government website come from official data, and does not constitute "anti-vaxxer" disinformation?

2. Can the Department of Health confirm that, up to 23rd June 2021, the MHRA has received 1,403 reports of patients dying shortly after receiving one of the Covid-19 vaccines?

3. Can the Department of Health provide me with information about how it has been, and is informing the general public, either through the NHS, or the mainstream media, of all these serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines, including death, as reported to the MHRA?

4. Can the Department of Health inform me how many deaths (caused, or suspected to be caused, by these vaccines, or any pharmaceutical drug) it considers acceptable before you respond with appropriate health and safety measures that ensure the general public is made aware of the situation, can make an informed decision about taking the vaccines, and ensure that further deaths are avoided?

5. Can the Department of Health inform me what precautionary measures it has already taken to ensure that people who take the vaccines are not dying as the result?

6. Can the Department of Health provide me with the information it is giving to patients taking a Covid-19 vaccine, and what guidance vaccination staff have about the information they give to patients?

7. Can the Department of Health assure me that everyone receiving a Covid-19 vaccine is being informed that to date 1,403 people have died shortly after taking the vaccine

It is likely to be several weeks before any response is forthcoming from the Health Department. When I receive their response I will publish it here, in full, alongside my response to the adequacy of their response.

So watch this space!

Postscript August 2021

I eventually received a response to my 6 questions, in a letter from the Department of Health and Social Care, dated 20th July 2021. I have copied that letter, word for work, below. But as you will see it does not provide answers for any of them. My questions were very clearly about deaths reported to the MHRA as being caused by the vaccine - not by the virus. It is clear that whoever answered these questions (the letter is signed by Lord Bethell) did not read the questions; and has no doubt provided me with a proforma answer about questions concerned with deaths caused by the virus. For what it is worth, this was the response.

    "I appreciate Mr Scrutton's concerns. Deaths reported by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) are based on the cause of death recorded on death certificates. These can include cases where the doctor thought it likely that the person had COVID-19, even when there was no positive test result.

    "The deaths reported by the ONS will include deaths that are not included in the Public Health England (PHE) definition, which is that a positive test result was confirmed by a PHE or NHS laboratory. They may also exclude cases that are included in the PHE definition because, although the patient had a positive test for COVID-29, this was not mentioned on the death certificate. However, in generally, the numbers of deaths reported by the ONS will be larger than those included in the PHE definition. More information on the PHE definition can be found at www.gov.uk by searching for COVIC-19 investigation and initial clinical management of possible cases.

    "All the deaths data shown on coronavirus.date.gov.uk are for people who have had a positive test restult confirmed by a PHE or NHS laboratory. They also include, for England, deaths of people who have had a positive test resut confirmed through testing done by commercial partners.

    "The data does not include deaths of people who had COVID-19 but had not been tested, people who tested positive only via a non-NHS or PHE laboratory, or people who had tested negative and subsequently caught the virus and died. People who have tested positive for COVID-19 could, in some cases, have died from something else. Death are only included in these figures if they occur within 28 days of a positive test. This makes the recording more accurate because cases where a person has tested positive but then died from other causes some months later are excluded.

    "Data on COVID-19 deaths in England are produced by PHE. These data are taken from three different sources:

• NHS England deaths in hospitals are reported by NHS trusts, using the COVID-19 Patient Notification System;
• PHE Health Protection Teams: the local teams report deaths notified to them, which will mainly be death not in hospitals; and
• linking data on confirmed positive cases to the NHS Demographic Batch Service: when a patient dies, the NHS central register of patients is notified. The list of all lab-confirmed cases is checked against the NHS central register each day, to check if any of the patients have died.

    "Data on deaths from these three sources are linked to the list of people who have had a diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed by a PHE or NHS laboratory. This is to identify as many people with a confirmed case who have died as possible.

    "Notifications of deaths will often come from more than one source, so the records are checked and merged into one database and duplicates are removed. Automated processes are used to ensure that the data are as complete as possible. Full details of the process of producing the data are available on coronavirus.data.gov.uk/about-data. As referred to above, deaths that occured more than 28 days after a positive test are removed. 

    "This final list of deaths therefore includes all those previously reported by NHS England, and those that were confirmed cases, whether they died in hospital or elsewhere, provided death occurred with 28 days of a test.

     "With regard to annual death rates over the last six years, these canbe found on the ONS website at www.ons.gov.uk by searching for 'Deaths in the UK from 1990 to 2020.

    "Additional, Mr Scrutton can make a Freedom of Information (FOI) request by going to www.ons.gov.uk and searching for 'Freedom of Information'.

    "I hope this reply is helpful.

The reply is not helpful in any regard because has answered questions that I did not ask! Is the response deliberate obfuscation, and attempt not to answer questions about the harm being cause by the Covid-19 vaccines? When I asked the question 1.403 people had been reporting as dying soon after receiving the vaccines. That figure has since risen to 1,536.

In any case I will now write back to my MP, ask him to ask the questions again, and suggests that he advises Lord Bethell to actually reads the questions before his next response.

So once again, I will await an answer - and post them here. So again, watch this space. 

NHS in Crisis (Autumn 2020). Coronavirus COVID-19 is confirmation that conventional medicine is failing us

The NHS is now in a constant financial crisis. Coronavirus COVID-19 may be clouding the overall picture but look underneath the bluster and panic the pandemic has caused and there is, in effect, no difference to the annual NHS crisis which I have been describing for the last 10 years (to see this series of blogs, type 'NHS in Crisis' in the search bar above). The main features of the crisis, every year, are:

• The NHS is a prisoner of the conventional medical establishment, which has no effective treatment for most chronic disease, and all infections; coronavirus is just another infection.
  
• People get sick, become patients, and as the NHS has little effective treatment, they do not get better; they continue to be sick, and in need of treatment.
  
• Most treatment involves patients taking pharmaceutical drugs and vaccine, and the main outcome is that they actually get sicker - through their well-known adverse drug reactions which are outlined in conventional medicine's own literature.
• As people don't get better, and conventional medical treatment makes them sicker, demands for health services increase, and the NHS cannot meet demand for treatment; it causes a financial crisis, and the NHS demands more money for more treatment; treatments that do not work, and made us sicker.
  
• The government provides more money, which increases the amount of largely ineffective, and harmful treatment; this leads to an increasing patient demand for medical services, and NHS demands for yet more funding.

And so the crisis perpetuates itself, year by year. The main result is that the NHS is now a gigantic organisation, built upon its ongoing failure to meet patient treatment needs, plus the willingness of successive governments to fund this growing monster.

So how has coronavirus COVID-19 changed this situation?

1. Coronavirus COVID-19 is an infection for which conventional medicine has no treatment. This is not new, but faced with an new, highly infectious disease, the NHS has been scared into a full-scale panic. It fears that demand for treatment, by sick people, it will be overwhelmed, and thousands of patients will die. The government has bought into this fear, that the NHS will be overwhelmed, and this has led to its central strategy - to "Save the NHS", which has become its constant mantra.
2. The absence of effective treatment for COVID-19 is not a new phenomenon for the NHS. Conventional medicine has always had a paucity of effective treatment - for any illness. The inability of the NHS to treat serious illness and disease successfully is the reason for its failure, and has been an integral part, the major cause, of the ongoing annual NHS crisis.
3. COVID-19 has certainly increased the degree of panic within both government and the NHS. Although the number of patients hospitalised, and the number of people dying have not been significantly greater than in other recent years, the policies of panic we are witnessing are doing unprecedented harm to our social life, and to our economy.
4. The pandemic has, however, led to the cessation/postponement of many other NHS treatments for illness and diseases far more serious than coronavirus. Routine testing, treatments and operations have been stopped in order to provide the NHS with greater capacity to deal with COVID-19 patient. In recent years this has been done during the annual winter crises, but this year this has been  extended through the summer, and into the autumn; and is likely to continue until the spring - at least. The result is that waiting lists have gone through the roof, and it is expected/feared that this may lead to an increased number of non-coronavirus deaths, almost certainly more than the deaths caused by COVID-19.
5. SO FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME THE NHS HAS HAD TO ADMIT THAT IT CAN NO LONGER TREAT EVERY PATIENT, IT CANNOT COPE WITH THE LEVEL OF SICKNESS AND DISEASE THAT EXISTS.
   
6. The coronavirus panic has also been successful in removing any semblance of financial constraint. The nation's coffers are now wide open. After 10 years of austerity the new Conservative government, elected in December 2019, was already planning to increase spending on the NHS by £billions. Now it has discovered the 'magic money tree' so that it can spend much more than it had planned on health services.
   
7. The current crisis is no longer seasonal, it has now stretched beyond the winter, in the spring and summer, and now into the Autumn and winter. It has become an annual event lasting a full year. Will this continue? We will see
   
8. The only sign of an NHS (conventional medicine) saviour is a new vaccine, which does not exist, which is being rushed through its trials, at enormous cost to government and taxpayer (and enormous profit for the pharmaceutical industry).
   

So the NHS crisis of 2020, which will now run through the winter into 2021, is merely an extension of what I have been writing about over the years. It is no different. There may be no NHS demands for increased resources but this is because it has now been given a blank cheque; effectively it can now spend whatever it wants to spend, regardless of whether it will bankrupt the national economy. 

And whatever money the NHS spends it will be spent on more conventional medical treatment, which will once again prove to be ineffective, and add to the level of sickness - as it has done now for decades.

The vaccine, for instance, will be rushed through the testing process; the people who have become sick in the vaccine trials to date will be forgotten; or paid off; it may not be effective (no vaccine for any strain of coronavirus has ever been effective); it will cause more patient harm (our government has already recognised it is likely to harm patients by agreeing to indemnify drug companies from any harm their vaccine causes).

Perhaps there are two changes that the coronavirus COVID-19 panic might bring about. First, it will throw the NHS more deeply into crisis, a more permanent crisis. Second, the disastrous social and economic outcomes of the pandemic will bring to people's attention to the failure of conventional medicine. 

• Why is it that we cannot see our relatives in hospital, in care homes, or even attend their funerals?
• Why is it that we cannot hug our grandchildren?
• Why is it that we cannot socialise with our friends?
• Why is it that our freedoms and liberties being undermined?
  
• Why is it that we have lost our job in what were viable, profitable companies and industries?

The outcome of Coronavirus COVID-19 might just be that it leads to a re-assessment of a system of medical care that kills, allows patients to die, destroys economies, and social life - as the result of an infectious disease?

There are so many questions gradually surfacing now amongst the people. The are arising from the inadequacy and failure of hand-washing, social distancing, lockdowns, and similar policies - all seeking to 'chase the dreaded virus'. 

Any successful medical system would not be chasing the virus. This has always been a pointless task; we have always shared our world with bugs, bacteria and viruses. An effective medical system would, instead, be ensuring that we all, each one of us, focused on our immune system, and how we are able to strengthen and support our ability to cope with infections. 

And this is just what homeopathy, and other natural medical therapies do; and have been doing throughout the pandemic.

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.

Coronavirus COVID-19. A New Vaccine. Great news from Pharmaceutical Medicine! Or is it?

The news that no-one had any right not to expect has been made today. One of the coronavirus vaccines, developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, has passed through its drug trials. According to BBC News, it is a 'milestone event', 'a great day for science and humanity', and will offer protection to more than 90% of people from getting COVID-19. More important is that 'no safety concerns have been raised'. So it will be able to relieve us from (the nonsense) social distancing and lockdown policies to which we have been subjected for the last 9 months.

So medical science has triumphed again! There can surely be no reason for us to think this is anything but unprecedented good news. Or is it?

Perhaps the most important thing to say is - let's wait and see? The pharmaceutical industry has a long history of heralding this kind of wonderful medical breakthrough; and so far all of them have ended up being nothing of the kind; and most of them have resulted in tragic outcomes in terms of the patient harm they have caused.

This new vaccine is either a good news story, as the mainstream media (MSM) wants us to believe; or it is yet another example of the triumph of hope over bitter experience.

LET'S WAIT AND SEE

Many people will want to believe that the new vaccine (and the other vaccines that will soon be emerging) are a good news stories. But before getting carried away in the ecstasy of this good news story, you would be advised to read about the history of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, and how good news has usually been followed disappointment, and serious patient harm.

What is undoubtedly true is that millions of people will now agree to receive this vaccine, and so just how effective and how safe it proves to be will become clearer. I will refuse the vaccine; it will be offered to me as I am over 70 years of age; but I will refuse it. And this blog will patiently wait to see the outcome of this new treatment.

THE VACCINE TRIALS

The safety and effective of all drugs are ascertained by conventional medical science. And the entire process of drug regulation and medical science is dishonest, corrupt and fraudulent. Perhaps this science is honest; there has certainly been enough calls for greater honesty, hitherto futile. Yet, during the past few months there have been many reports of serious side effects during the vaccines trials, including peripheral neuropathy and death. Some trials has been temporarily stopped as a result, only to be restarted again - largely unreported by the MSM.

Now, we are expected to believe that "no safety issues have been raised" during the vaccine trials.This is just untrue; but notwithstanding, the vaccine has been developed, and will be given to many people over the next few months.

It is to be hoped that more cases of peripheral neuropathy, and deaths, do not emerge. Or worse still, that the conventional medical establishment merely ignore and deny these 'side effects' (which is their usual response), and the MSM refuses to report on them (which is invariably what they do). This blog will certainly keep an eye on this in the months to come.

A NEW CORONAVIRUS THREAT: THE CULLING OF MINK IN DEMARK

Yet there are other issues to consider at this moment. One is the news coming out of Denmark; that they are to cull "17 million mink over coronavirus fears" because 12 people "have already become infected with this mutated virus". (As I have argued many times here, see "Fighting coronavirus COVID-19. At least we get a better deal than animals who get an infection! animals invariably get a worse deal than humans from conventional medicine. After all, what kind of medicine kills patients, and then calls it 'treatment'? This Independent article makes clear that Denmark is not alone in culling it mink population:

        "Already, tens of thousands of mink have had to be culled in Europe, with Spain seeing 100,000 mink killed in July.... and ... thousands of mink have also been slaughtered in the Netherlands following similar outbreaks there".

 The fear is, apparently, that this new, mink-mutated virus, will require ANOTHER vaccine, the new vaccine will not be sufficient - it will have to be reinvented. What this means, therefore, new vaccine or not, is that the coronvirus crisis is not over. Even if it proves to be safe and effective it will only cope with one virus, and viruses always mutate. Conventional medicine has never been very good at treating infections.

Homeopathy, and a properly functioning immune system, can cope with changing, mutating viruses, but conventional medicine has never been able to do so. Hence it has to change the flu vaccine, year on year. So perhaps the new vaccine will change all this - but I am not holding by breath!

IGNORING EXISTING AND READILY AVAILABLE TREATMENTS - VITAMIN D

One of my earliest blogs (April 2020) on the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic questioned why conventional medicine was ignoring natural immunity, and natural medicine, as valid methods of treating the pandemic. One of the treatments I mentioned in that blog was Vitamin D. 

A new assessment of the value of Vitamin D has been studied. You will not hear about this in the MSM but it has been found that 82% of COVID-19 patients have been found to be Vitamin D deficient. This link, to the Dr Mercola website, explains that vitamin D has emerged as one of the primary risk factors for severe coronavirus infection and death.

        "One study found your risk of developing a severe case of, and dying from COVID-19, virtually disappears once your vitamin D level gets about 30 ng/mI (75 nmol/L)."

The Dr Mercola article presents the evidence in detail, so is worth reading. But one overwhelming question emerges. Why has the use of vitamin D to combat COVID-19 been ignored by the conventional medical establishment?

The answer is not too difficult to fathom. Conventional medicine does not like these 'natural' solutions to infections: they are not profitable: vaccines are profitable: sitting in the sun, or taking a vitamin supplement, is not.

Wash your hands; social distancing; lockdown, wearing masks - all these have been pressed on us, ad nauseam for months; but rarely, if ever, has there been any mention of vitamin D; or indeed vitamin C; or indeed the value of alternative natural medicine therapies.

There is an obvious agenda here, and not a very subtle one. Moreover this profit agenda is likely to be taken much further by the conventional medical establishment.

MANDATORY VACCINES

And what would be more profitable than making the new vaccine mandatory, forced on use, whether we wanted it or not. And this is on the agenda of the Conventional Medical Establishment, as can be clearly seen in this link, written evidence from Dr Lisa Forsberg, et al., "Compulsory Vaccination for COVID-19 and Human Rights Law. They make two arguments:

        "If Covid-19 ‘lockdown’ measures are compatible with human rights law, then it is arguable that compulsory vaccination is too. If compulsory medical treatment under mental health law for personal and public 30 protection purposes is compatible with human rights law, then it is arguable that compulsory vaccination is too.

So conventional medical policies have been a Trojan Horse. We have swallowed masks, social distancing and lockdown hook, line and sinker. So not only are our jobs, our livelihoods, and our economies being devastated by this pandemic, our hard won freedoms and liberties are also to be threatened. 

And all this because conventional medicine has demonstrated that it has been unable to cope with the coronavirus pandemic. The threat of COVID-19 remains real - to anyone who does not know (or has not been told) about the value of vitamin C, vitamin D, homeopathy, et al.

So we have a new vaccine; but is this really good news?

And if it is good news, who will it be good for?

The answer to these questions will become clearer in the weeks/months to come. 

So to watch the answers unfold - why not follow this blog.

Coronavirus COVID-19. The important questions that aren't being asked

In recent weeks we (in Britain and no doubt in many other parts of the world) have had wall-to-wall, 24/7 coverage of the coronavirus COVIS-19 pandemic.

Yet there are questions that are just not being asked by the mainstream media. The purpose of this short blog is to ask them.

CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE

• Why does pharmaceutical medicine (over 100 years since the Spanish Flu in 1918) still have no treatment for influenza - beyond washing hands, and self-isolation, and putting our economy into lockdown?
• How many people who are now dying of COVID-19 have received the influenza vaccine this year?
• Although COVID-19 does not kill many people directly, mainly those with an 'underlying health condition', how many of these 'underlying conditions' relate to people who are taking immuno-suppressant drugs that intentionally undermine and suppress the immune system?

NATURAL IMMUNITY

• Why is more attention not being paid to the concept and value of 'natural immunity', and what worried people can do to strengthen their natural immunity to this infectious disease?
• Why is more attention not being paid to the importance of diet and nutrition, including the use of vitamin C and vitamin D as a preventative to the pandemic?
• Why is more attention not being paid to the importance of a fit and health exercise regime?

NATURAL MEDICINE

• Why are alternative medical practitioners not being asked to assist in mainstream health services in both the prevention of the pandemic, and its treatment?
• Why is there no mention of alternative therapies, such as homeopathy, naturopathy, herbalism, and many others when practitioners around the world are working hard to protect, and cure their patients. India and Cuba are known to be using homeopathy, why is there not mention of this.
• Why did the Chinese epidemic stop so quickly? It is suggested that China is now using Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), and that the use of high doses of vitamin C has become government policy. Why is this never mentioned?
• Why is conventional medicine allowing patients to die, without offering sick patients the opportunity to use alternative medicine? Why is the media not asking whether doctors prefer patients to die rather than to try treatment that is non-conventional?

ECONOMIC LOCKDOWN

• Why is the complete social and economic lockdown been deemed to be necessary? Countries like Sweden has not imposed a complete lockdown, how are they faring with the virus, and how is this assisting their economy?
• Why has the pandemic centred on wealthier nations, with a more developed (pharmaceutical dominated) medical system? Why have most poorer countries not had so many cases, or so many deaths?
• There are suggestions that the pandemic centres on areas where 5G has already been rolled out. Why has this not been discussed? And why is mainstream media seeking to close down discussion on any potential link?

The mainstream media is telling us that they rely on 'expert' advice. The government says it bases its policies on 'expert advice' too. The problem is that all the 'experts' who are being consulted come from the pharmaceutical medical establishment. And even if government, and the media, were to ask these 'awkward' questions they would probably receive no satisfactory answer.

Coronavirus COVID-19. The Failure of Medical Lockdown Policy and the Political Outcome

There has been a general acceptance of the government's lockdown policy - although I hasten to say, not on this blog! However, the worm is now quite clearly turning, questions are being asked, at last, both on the streets, and in the world of politics. And it is embarrassing situation for our politicians who have locked us down now for months with no little positive outcome.

THE STREETS. Growing numbers of people, mainly younger people, are now clearly questioning the value and efficacy of lockdown policies, and this can be seen most vividly on the streets, where large crowds are congregating without any acceptance of  the 'social distancing' rules. Even the press, after months of political and medical indoctrination, are beginning to ask sceptical members of the public what they think about lockdown - and the overall consensus is that it is not working. They are right. The lockdown policy is leading to so many inconsistencies, and senseless anomalies. But people who are questioning lockdown have not analysed the basis of their opposition; they are apologetic; they do not have the evidence to defend their stance; and so they leave themselves open to criticism.

POLITICS. In most countries political differences are now replacing the consensus of recent months, not least in the UK where the official opposition is no longer slavishly supporting the government's lockdown policies. Even some MP's from the governing party are now voting against government legislation. And regional Mayors, especially in the north of England, are now opposing attempts by central government to enforce heavier lockdown policies. Yet there is no political analysis about what is happening, no understanding of why lockdown policies have failed. Indeed most opposition politicians seem to want a harder lockdown, with no clear explanation for why even more lockdown is likely to be any more successful.

So a discussion, of sorts, is beginning, but after months of indoctrination and brain washing it is not surprising that understanding about what is going wrong with lockdown is, at best, superficial, and certainly marginal to the real questions that need to be addressed. More people realise that social relationships are being damaged; that lives are being ruined; that our mental health is suffering; and that the economy is being destroyed.

The root of the problem is this; that washing our hands, social distancing, masks, lockdown policies, and even test and trace, are all aimed at chasing an invisible virus. And very clearly they do not work, and it should be clear now that lockdown itself has become the problem, not the solution.

THE FAILURE OF CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE

This failure of conventional medical policy, the only policy our doctors have, is exacerbated by attempting to measure the virus, and create fear, with the use of dodgy statistics, based on inaccurate testing, misleading information, and the use of 'damned' statistics. To mention but three:

• In Britain, 43,000 people have NOT died OF coronavirus; at least 95% have died WITH coronavirus - but OF some underlying health condition.
• There may, or may not be, lots more people diagnosed with  COVID-19 - depending on how much we can rely on the validity of the test being used to determine this. But most patients recover, fully, within a short space of time.
  
• And most people who have tested positive for COVID-19 are asymptomatic; that is, they have no symptoms of illness; that is they are not ill; their immune system is coping with the virus, just as our immune system is designed to do.

Government policy, as we have been consistently told, has always followed 'scientific advice'. This means that policy has been devised by medical scientists; that is, by leading members of the conventional medical establishment; the people who dominate and control the NHS. Conventional medicine, on its own admission, has no treatment for COVID-19. So the NHS has no treatment to offer. If a pharmaceutical drug existed that could save the lives of people who contract the virus there would be no problem. Doctors would use the drug and people would not die. As it is, however, COVID-19 patients are admitted to hospital, nurses look after them as well as they can, some survive, but many die. And all the NHS can do is to watch, with no treatment. Doctors are mere observers.

This is one of the central problems. It is embarrassing for NHS doctors to watch on, helpless, hopeless, whilst their patients die in their hospitals. It is embarrassing for government, who spend some £150 billion on the NHS every year, and rising, to see this happening. So something must be done, or at least be seen to be done. And the best they have come up with is washing our hands, social distancing, masks, lockdown, and test and trace.

THE POLITICS OF LOCKDOWN FAILURE

So I am busy politician-watching at the moment! Lockdown is palpably failing proving that chasing the virus in any form does not work; and it is becoming clear now that politician know this. The Conservative government might stick to their policy, or be forced into a tighter lockdown. The Labour opposition may come up with a different policy on lockdown. But policy remains - lockdown, or more lockdown. Yet politicians from every side admit, in their more honest moments, that tighter lockdown is unlikely to help significantly, and is more likely to increase the seriousness of social breakdown, and the destruction of the economy.

The libertarian right are, at least, addressing the political and economic damage of lockdown, objecting to the human rights violations of government policy. Yet as far as the virus is concerned they have nothing different to offer, other than allowing the infection to grow, watching on as more people are diagnosed, some are hospitalised, with many dying.

THE EVIDENCE ON LOCKDOWN EFFECTIVENESS

The Alliance of Natural Medicine has summarised the evidence that supports the effectiveness of lockdown policies. I can do it no better.

        "What’s emerging is an interesting balance of evidence: The evidence for lockdown benefit continues to be wafer-thin, with the harms caused by lockdowns increasingly outweighing any perceived or measured benefits. As we showed last week, countries that have locked down hardest have among the highest covid-associated mortalities and there is no clear association with outcomes and lockdown severity or absence. Even Dr David Nabarro from the World Health Organization has gone on record to say that governments should only ever use lockdown as a last resort."

So much for our government 'following the science'!

IS THERE A DIFFERENT WAY OF LOOKING AT COVID-19?

Why do some people contract COVID-19 and die; whilst others get better, and some remain entirely asymptomatic? Indeed, why is it that in every infectious epidemic in the history of the world many people have died, but most survive? Why is it that some people live, whilst close neighbours die? The answer was a mystery until medicine began to understand the functioning of the immune system.

Unfortunately conventional medicine, and therefore the NHS, appears to have forgotten much of what they once knew about the immune system, and natural immunity. It is perhaps too busy prescribing pharmaceutical drugs, and promoting vaccines, as the answer to all ills. So several questions arise:

• Why is our NHS not informing us about our immune system? How we can support and enhance it through diet and exercise? 

• Why is the NHS not looking at the pharmaceutical drugs are known to interfere and undermine the immune system, and so making people who take these drugs more vulnterable? 

• Why is the NHS not warning us that immunosuppressant drugs have for many people completely suppressed our natural immunity, and created patients who are completely susceptible to COVID-19, and any other infections?

• Why are natural therapies not alive and well within the NHS, working alongside conventional medical practitioners so that they can learn from each other? 

• Why is the NHS not looking carefully at the way homeopathy has been used in India, Cuba, and other countries?

Regular readers of this blog will know the answer to all these questions. We are dealing with a medical monopoly within an NHS, dominated by the pharmaceutical industry.

This is what politicians (of all colours), governments, and the mainstream media are failing to look at - because such questions have become taboo. The 'experts' politicians, governments and the mainstream media consult and use come from the same monopoly group. And if alternative medical strategies are mentioned they are ridiculed, dismissed as 'conspiracy theories'.

So TINA applies: There Is No Alternative. So most people do not know about an alternative strategy. It is lockdown or nothing. The debate is about how hard (how damaging it is to social relationships, and the economy) lockdown should be.

AN ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY

It is the alternative strategy that natural medicine offer that would save us all from the non-sense and hopeless insanity of government policy lockdown, conventional medical advice, and government policy including politicians and young people wanting to have a social life, from the hopeless insanity that is government policy.

• Focus on natural immunity; give each and every one of us the tools to measure it; give us all the information we need to support and strengthen our immune system. When natural immunity is strong there is no need to lock people down, to damage social relationships, to destroy the economy. Let them get on with their lives, engage them in helping those less fortunate.

• For those whose immunity is weak, educate and protect them; give them the information they need to support and improve their immune system; recommend they make changes to their diet and lifestyle; stop giving them the pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines that are known to harm the immune system; ban immunosuppressant drugs completely and ask natural medicine to treat the 'underlying health condition' for which they are being given. And with the protection of social distancing, masks and other protective equipment, encourage them to get on with their lives.

• Where the immune system is more seriously compromised, where there are already serious 'underlying health conditions', protect and shield them fully; work out and utilise sensible and considered lockdown measures; and again, ask natural medicine to help treat their 'underlying health condition' as best it can, and repair their immune systems as much as possible.

And above all, we should accept an alternative explanation of life and death; that any infectious epidemic WILL kill some people; they always have done; it is regrettable; but it is part and parcel of living. The task of medicine and government should be to reduce this as much as possible, without destroying everything that is important to living.

UNTIL WE REALISE THIS UNIVERSALLY APPLIED LOCKDOWN POLICIES WILL BE THE BEST WE CAN DO.

Coronavirus COVID-19. Why is conventional medical science in such a mess? Why the political hysteria? Why the total media compliance?

The coronavirus panic has led to a shambles, the self-infliction of a ludicrous set of social rules and regulation that make no logical sense. COVID-19 is just a virus, albeit one that may have been created in a bio-laboratory somewhere that experiments with mixing animal and human viruses. Yet a more sober assessment of the virus seems to suggest that COVID-19 is no more lethal than any other 'ordinary' flu virus.

The problem that has caused the shambles is conventional medicine. We should all have been asking the question decades ago - what sort of medical system do we have...

• that kills cows, and complete herds, when they contract TB?
• that kills entire flocks of birds when there is an outbreak of bird flu?
• that kills and burns cattle that contract Foot and Mouth?
• that fells and destroys trees when they are diagnosed with a disease?

I have often wondered what would happen if a serious viral epidemic threatened humanity - and now we know! In Britain (and no doubt throughout the rest of the world dominated by pharmaceutical medicine) we have been getting blanket, wall-to-wall news coverage about coronavirus. It is panic stations.

• The mainstream media in the UK is consulting with health 'experts' - all of them from the conventional medical establishment.
• The government is consulting health 'experts', all providing (we are told, and one assumes) the best information that conventional medical science can provide. No one from outside conventional medicine is consulted. Anyone with a contrary message are not listened to, they are ignored. It is as if they did not exist.

So it is not surprising that the conventional medical message about this virus has taken a firm grip on the nation's thinking.

• Coronavirus is a serious and deadly infection.
• It is estimated that hundreds of thousands (not just thousands) will die.
• The government has a responsibility to do anything and everything to protect us.
• So we must all self isolate.
• We must undermine normal social relationships.
• We must lock down the economy.

Three months into the pandemic and still no-one really knows how long it will last. No one knows whether people will accept social lockdown for any extended length of time. No one knows whether it will lead to serious mental health problems, mass disaffection, or whether there will be rioting in the streets. No one knows what it will do to the economy, to our jobs. No one knows what it will do to our children's education. And so on.

We are on a journey into the unknown - courtesy of the conventional medical science.

Government and Media are doing what medical science tells us to do. They are the 'experts'. No-one is allowed to challenge their wisdom. What medical science says is sacrosanct, unchallengeable.

Indeed, I suspect that the current state of fear and panic is such that many people, indeed most people, will not want to read this! They will find such a contrary message hard to accept. When a message is repeated often enough, however irrational the message, people will believe it, especially when they are not 'experts' in the field. This is not surprising perhaps - it is the basis of all advertising and promotion. We tend to believe what we are told to believe.

The message we are receiving about the coronavirus epidemic, the only message we are getting, is one of fear, enough to make most people hysterical with panic. If conventional medicine wanted us to panic, to be hysterical, it has succeeded. We are doing things we would not volunteer to do in normal circumstances. There is a lack of cool, rational thinking. There is no suggestion that we should not self-isolate, that we should not close down or personal and social lives, or put our economy at serious risk. TINA rules - There Is No Alternative.

It is certainly a fact that pharmaceutical medicine has no viable response to this (or indeed any other) virus, either preventative or treatment. It has openly admitted as much. So perhaps the only thing they can do is to get us to panic. It is better to stress how awful the virus is than to admit they can do nothing about it.

And the conventional medical establishment has demonstrated that it is sufficiently powerful, and influential, to control the government, and ensure that the mainstream media does not do its job - to delve, to question, to investigate. The result is that there has been no discussion about the 'closing down' message from anyone. The mainstream media does not challenge medical 'experts' who predict imminent doom. People have accepted that they must isolate, close down their social lives, act in a way that will probably impoverish them, and make us reliant on government largesse.

Everyone should panic - and panicking we most certainly are.

Few questions are being asked about where this policy is leading. Is the personal, social and economic cost of conventional medical policy commensurate with the size of the threat we face from the virus? We are being asked to do things we have never done before, never, in human history. Stop socialising with other people; don't visit sick and elderly relatives. Don't get married. Close down every imaginable recreational pursuit.

How long will it last? How long will people be willing to comply? 3 months, 6 months, to the end of the year, perhaps sometime in 2021.

We all have to wait. The only prospect is that the pharmaceutical industry will soon come up with a vaccine. And vaccines are, of course, the answer to all health problems. This has been stated regularly, and it has gone unquestioned since the start of the pandemic!

So are there alternatives? Do we have choices? Does what we are doing make any rational sense? Is the policy of medical science a commensurate response to the threat?

Yet there is a further question. Why should the conventional medical establishment want us to panic in such a way? Panic arises whenever there is a sense of helplessness, an inability to control a situation that threatens us. And this is the position conventional medicine now finds itself in, and they don't like it.

After all they always present themselves as health 'experts', a medical system that has the answers to ill-health, that is overcoming sickness and disease. Regular readers of this blog will know that the reality is different. So when faced with coronavirus, when they realise they have no effective treatment, they panic. It's a natural reaction. Their reputation is at stake. And all they can do is to get us to panic by over-emphasising the threat to our health, and appear to be doing something, anything, even if it is to wash our hands, in response to it.

So whilst pharmaceutical medicine may appear confident, it is anything but confident. It is scared stiff. And they have scared our government into abject fear. And persuaded the mainstream media not to go 'off message'. 

At no other time, in all human history, has any government, in any part of the world, been prepared to put normal social relationships, and our economy, at such risk. Yet of course we are lucky.

• If we were birds we would be culled. 
• If we were cattle we would be slaughtered. 
• If we were trees we would be felled.

Or maybe we should start looking at natural medical therapies,

 to see what they can do to save us from complete insanity.

The Failure of the Covid-19 Strategy, the Vaccines, and a system of medicine. Is it all the benefit of hindsight?

After two years of incessant conventional medical propaganda it is now becoming clear to an ever increasing number of people that public health measures such as face masks, and lockdowns, and the experimental Covid-19 vaccines, have been an abject failure.

The official Covid-19 narrative has been recited, ad nauseam, by government, conventional medical authorities, and the mainstream media throughout the world for over two years. The narrative is simply outlined.

• The Covid-19 virus is deadly.
• Everyone is at risk, no-one is safe.
  
• There is no treatment available.
• Government has a responsibility for our health and will keep us safe.
  
• Only a vaccine will save us, and return life back to normal.
• The new vaccines were amazingly effective; they would quickly contain the pandemic.
• The new vaccines were also entirely safe.
• Everyone should get the vaccine, for their own safety, and until we did we were at risk.
• Everyone should get the vaccine for other people's safety; it was a public duty.
  

For so many people, this narrative, repeated day after day, has been their only source of information about the Covid-19 virus; so whilst many people may now realise they have been duped, the sheer consistency of the propaganda means that no one can be blamed for believing it - apart, that is, from the messengers, governments around the world, conventional medical authorities, and the mainstream media. 

And now that the narrative is breaking down. It is breaking down because what is happening in the real world does not reflect what is happening in the narrative, in medical propaganda. So now, those who are responsible for that narrative are now having to find excuses for providing the general public with misinformation.

The excuses from government, conventional medical authorities, and the mainstream media, have begun. They know they have to justify the messages they have been giving us. And it is already clear that one excuse, "the benefit of hindsight" will be high up on their agenda.

It is probably best for those of us on the winning side, previously thought to be "the misinformed", or "the spreaders of misinformation", not to say "I told you so". But this blog was amongst the first blogs to accurately predict what was going to happen. If we take the first month of the official Covid-19 narrative to be January 2020 (it was actually earlier than this), this is what appeared on this blog.

January 2020.

The Coronavirus Panic. Just how dangerous is this new virus? The worldwide coronavirus panic is in full swing! I predicted in month one that the virus would not prove to be as serious as was being suggested. I said that homeopaths were already treating the virus, and working on identifying the remedies that were the most effective to patients who contracted the virus.

February 2020.

The Coronavirus Panic. What every sensible and informed person should be doing. In this blog I predicted that conventional medicine would be unable to prevent people contracting the virus, unable to treat it effectively, and that large numbers of people would die without treatment. Again, I outlined how homeopathy was working to protect people with simple remedies, but that conventional medicine would not offer their patients this treatment.

Conventional medicine is in a gigantic panic. So is enough being done to contain it? When it has nothing to offer, but refuses to embrace homeopathy? In this blog I highlighted how homeopathy had been used successfully in past epidemics, and what it was doing in the current epidemic. Yet conventional medicine was (and still is) allowing people to suffer and die with the virus, even when it admitted during this first year it had no effective treatment to offer.

Health Freedom and Patient Choice. This blog was my first response to increasing calls for mandatory drugging - this long before the Covid-19 vaccines had been developed, leave alone had a track record of any description.

March 2020

Does the Conventional Medical Establishment prefer patients to die rather than offer them Natural Medical Treatment? By the pandemic's third month the number of people dying of, or with the Covid-19 virus was increasing rapidly, and I asked why conventional medicine was not using every possible way of preventing this. The exaggeration of the seriousness of the virus was already plain - anyone who died within 28 days of testing positive - for whatever reason - was a Covid-19 death. 

We are just beginning to find out the extent of this deception. GB News recently confirmed figures, based on a Freedom of Information request from UK Office of National Statistics (17 January 2022). Only 9,400 people died OF the virus in 2020, and only 5,746 in first 9 months of 2021. The 150,000 figure of Covid-19 deaths includes those who died WITH the virus, but not OF the virus. This was a gross exaggeration of seriousness of pandemic, designed to create fear in the population.

April 2020

Covid-19. The important questions that are not being asked.  Even by month 4 this blog was asking pertinent questions about the so-called pandemic, including what (to me) is the key question - why was conventional medicine, which still had nothing to offer, was not taking the opportunity to emphasise the importance of natural immunity, and what people could do to support and strengthen their immune systems. 

In addition, I asked why the virus was mostly affecting 'developed' nations, that is, nations with well-funded pharmaceutical medical systems in operation. And it was also one of the first blog to question why 'lockdown' was considered to be a sensible policy.

Covid-19. Does Natural Medicine have an alternative? This was the first time I emphasised the importance of our natural immunity, and natural medicine. I stated, nearly two years ago, that if this was done it would prevent the unnecessary damage being caused by social distancing, and lockdown policies both to the economy, to social life, and the emotional damage it was doing to people lives.

And so the blog has continued for the next two years. My opposition to both the public health measures, and the experimental vaccines, used by conventional medicine in response to the Covid-19 pandemic were not made 'in hindsight'. They arose from an understanding of the ongoing failure of conventional medicine - which I then applied to what I could see happening 'on the ground" as a result of the Covid-19 panic. The pandemic was clearly no more than the repetition of so many previous examples of conventional medicine incompetence.

I had written my E-Book, "The Failure of Conventional Medicine" on the basis of the previous history of this medical system, notably its consistent and ongoing failure to treat illness and disease successfully. 

Over the weekend I took time to re-read this book (written originally in 2007). It provides a history of the past failures of conventional medicine, alongside a detailed explanation of why this drug-based system of medicine would continue to fail. What I realised was that it could equally be used as a predictor of future failure. It is a far better explanation for what is happening to our health, and why levels of public sickness has been increasing rapidly, year by year, especially during the last 70-100 years, than any explanation coming from the conventional medical establishment!

So for anyone who is as horrified abour what has happened over the last two years should perhaps take some time to read "The Failure of Conventional Medicine". It will explain much about what has happened during the last two years - even though it was first written 15 years ago. Writing the E-Book has cost me much time, and a little money - but it is entirely free for anyone to read. It was written to inform, to enlighten, to educate, not to produce profit. 

For anyone with an open enquiring mind, reading the book can alter your view about health, it can explain why conventional medicine is now dominated by the drug industry, and the consequences to our health of that domination. For anyone who wishes to escape the clutches of pharmaceutical medicine this can be the first step to a more healthy life.

 

The Three Serious Outcomes of Coronavirus COVID-19. The Threat to Social Relationships. The Destruction of the Economy & Jobs. Personal Freedom & Liberty

Conventional Veterinary Medicine culls animals and birds in the name of 'medicine' because of infections like Foot and Mouth, Swine and Avian Flu - even the culling of badgers because of bovine TB. And they call it 'treatment'. So I have wondered for some time what similar nonsense conventional medicine would come up with if humanity was ever faced with a 'killer' virus.

Now we know. Conventional medicine admitted early in the crisis that it had no treatment for Coronavirus COVIS-19. As a result, the first 'treatment' was to scare everyone about its seriousness, to create fear, to frighten us into compliance. It was likely that over 500,000 might die. 

Fear was required in order ensure that we conformed to the only treatment conventional medicine had to offer; we had to wash our hands, socially distance, go into social lockdown, and eventually to wear masks we were initially told were useless. At least we were not to be culled, we were spared the fate of animals and birds.

And fear ensured that we all conformed, and went into lockdown. The media has also conformed; until recently it has tirelessly relayed the governments medical message, and ruthlessly refused to ask the important questions this blog has been was asking for the last 7-8 months. The media consistently and unquestioningly supported the government line. For months no opposing voice was ever heard, it was never allowed to be heard. And if there was an opposing voice it was ridiculed and attacked.

Now, after some 9 months of nonsense conventional medical policies, all based on the advice of science, medical science, there is a growing realisation that life is going to have to return to 'normal'; that the current restrictions are unacceptable.

There are three areas, in particular, that now have to be addressed. And after an extensive period of obsession with an 'untreatable' virus, the mainstream media is beginning - just - to discuss them; they are being forced to do so because growing numbers of people know there is something serious wrong, not working, with conventional medical strategy. 

So why is the strong alliance between  government and the mainstream media breaking down? And why now? Why have critical voices, previously censored, begun to be heard - after all this time? The answer tells us much about the mainstream media, our so-called 'free press'. 

Fundamentally, the media will toe the dominant (government/corporate led) line until such time that this line is no long viable, can no longer be supported.

Three serious issues, the main long term consequences of the nonsense policies pursued by governments around the world, and promoted by conventional medical science, are now forcing the media to discuss them.

1. Social Life and Family Relationships

Social lockdown has produced many unpalatable and unacceptable consequences.

• Hospital visiting has been stopped, preventing close friends and relatives visiting even the most severely sick patients. People have entered hospital, suffered for days, weeks and months, without being able to see those who love and care for them, or being to benefit from the moral support they could have received from them.
• Funerals have been conducted with attendances heavily restricted to a handful of people who would otherwise have attended.
• Weddings have suffered seriously, with perhaps the doubtful advantage of having the option of postponement.
• Grandparents have been unable to see or hug their grandchildren.
• People in relationships have been unable to meet with their friends and lovers.

 An increasing number of people are now demanding to know why, they are questioning the non-sense of such a policy, they are asking why these measures have not worked.

2. Jobs and the Economy

Government policy is in the process of destroying the economy, people are losing their jobs, unemployment is rising, and likely to rise considerably further in the months to come - all as a result of government policy, based on the 'science' of conventional medicine.

For 10 years, prior to the onset of Coronavirus COVID-19 in early 2020, three Conservative-led governments have responded to the 2008 financial crisis with a policy of severe austerity. This was the correct economic policy for such times - restrict spending on education, law and order, local government, the armed forces - everything except health spending and the NHS. Then, faced with an epidemic, the conservative government  began to spend money from what it has described, dismissively, as 'the magic money tree'. After 10 years of damaging austerity the government was suddenly prepared to spend any amount of money, even silly amounts of money on 'moon missions', committing it to borrowing £billions - all because of a viral infection for which conventional medicine had no treatment, and in order to 'save the NHS' which had no treatment, and could only care for people as they died.

Simultaneously it locked down the economy. No one except essential workers were allowed into work; whole industries were closed down; staff were put on an expensive furlough scheme. Expenditure commitments increased whilst income from taxation reduced.

Yet none of this expenditure was able to stop that loss of jobs, the unemployment; and consequently the number of people who are angry, and are beginning to ask if this intentional destruction of the economy was for a good reason.

3. Personal Freedom and Liberty

If social life, and the economy, were put at risk, uprooted by coronavirus COVID-19, a third casualty soon became apparent. In order to ensure that nonsense medical policies could be introduced, and enforced, governments around the world introduced laws that now threaten personal freedom and liberty. In the UK, legislation was quickly enacted to give the government powers to control the spread of the virus, but which now seriously threatens our time honoured personal freedoms and liberty. In the UK the legislation was called the Coronavirus Act, and it was designed to 5 things:

1. to contain and slow the spread of the virus,
   
2. to ease legislative and regulatory requirements,
   
3. to enhance capacity and the flexible deployment of staff across essential services
   
4. to manage the deceased in a dignified way,
   
5. to suppose and protect the public to do the right thing, and follow public health advice.

All this seemed perfectly reasonable, understandable, acceptable; especially after most people had been scared stiff by reports of the serious nature of the infection - predictions (500,000 people might die, et al) that have never materialised. But this was legislation that would enable to government to impose strict limitations of people's freedom and liberty - even when it became clear that government policy was not working.

The Price for an Untreatable Virus

These have been the main three costs to humanity when faced with an (allegedly) killer virus. Unlike the animal world we have not been culled - like veterinary medicine has imposed on cows, pigs, poultry and badgers! But we are paying, and certainly will be paying, every price short of this.

 All for a virus that is not particularly dangerous!

• death figures - it has been calculated that 95% of those who have died have other, underlying illnesses: they have died with coronavirus, not of it.
  
• note, the dangers of the virus used to be calculated by the number of deaths; now it is being measured by the number of cases because deaths are nowhere near the levels of earlier this year.
• The total number of deaths, caused by all causes, have not been significantly higher, if at all, when compared to previous years.
  

So all this has arisen from the same common denominator:  the extraordinary inability of pharmaceutical medicine to treat an infectious disease - something that has never been discussed.

Coronavirus COVID-19. Is a real health debate about this virus being stifled?

News and current affairs coverage has been little else but coronavirus COVID-19 for the past couple of months and more. It has been provided incessant, unrelenting wall-to-wall coverage. Yet there is no real health debate going on. How can this be? And what are the likely consequences?

• We know there is a virus and what it is called.
• We know it is affecting people around the world, and it's been designated a pandemic.
• We know thousands of people are dying with it (although not of it).
• We know most people who are dying die in hospital.
• We know pharmaceutical medicine has no treatment for it - which is why people are dying.
• We know about public health advice, washing our hands, social distance, lockdown, et al.
• We know that the government was scare that it would overwhelm the NHS.
• We know £billions have been spent propping up health care services.
• We know normal social life has been severely disrupted.
• We know that our economy has been devastated.

We know all this as we have been told about it, ad infinitum. And as the early weeks of the epidemic passed, and the number of people dying grew, it did appear that some debate did begin.

• Did the government act quickly and consistently enough? 
• Were they too slow to enforce public health measures rigorously enough?

Yet this is essentially a sterile debate. It is about 'the rules' that conventional medicine has dictated to governments, and how they were, and how they should have been enforced. The rules themselves have never been challenged or even debated. The application of these public health rules have led to serious social and economic mayhem; but as the rules were never questioned that is just 'unfortunate', unavoidable. They have led to nonsensical and laughable situations with little or no logical explanation; but they are the rules, as we must all abide by them.

• the rules were made on the advice of medical science (and science is, of course, sacrosanct, unquestionable).
• the government itself had no policy beyond this advice (perhaps their way of washing their hands).
• and must all abide by the rules to protect the NHS, which would otherwise not be able to cope.

The science on which public health policy is now built is the same medical science that has told us routinely for the last 70-100 years that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are 'entirely safe'; and this is also not to be questioned. It is the same science that has been bought and controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, the science that tells us that the only 'scientific' approach to medical care, to combat illness and disease, is through their drugs. It is also the science that now dominates the way we think about health, and what we understand health to be. There is no vaccine available, and there will be no solution to coronavirus COVID-19 until we have one.

• So if we are given rules that causes serous social disruption, and untold economic damage we must accept it. 
• If a doctor diagnoses an illness, we have the illness, no questions are asked.
• If then a doctor says we have to take a drug, or a vaccine, then that is exactly what we must do. 
• If we are told there is no alternative then there is no alternative. 

If , in addition, we are all frightened out of our wits (as we have been about COVID-19) we become even more compliant to the mandatory advice of conventional medicine - supported by the government, and the mainstream media. There is no alternative, we must conform to the rules, otherwise we might die too. There is no treatment.

And mostly we do this because we now assume that conventional medicine has been 'proven' by medical science, and that no other medical treatment can work.

This is what stifles the health debate. Pharmaceutical medicine is too powerful, it does not want a debate. Why should it? A virus is causing death and it has no treatment. Would it really want government and media to discuss alternatives? The conventional medical establishment has a monopoly position in the NHS, and it wants to maintain it. It has used the vast and excessive wealth of the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that there is no debate. So neither the government nor the mainstream media can afford to do anything other than 'follow the money', and obey 'the science'. Both have become slaves to medical science.

How much simpler it would have been if our medical hierarchy had pursued a different, alternative health policy.

• recognise that they had no medical treatment,
• that it is farcical to chase a virus that cannot be seen, but which is everywhere, and that doing so leads to nonsensical social disruption and unnecessary economic harm,
• to focus instead on the immune system, confirming that natural immunity is the best way we can each defend ourselves, to provide everyone with the best possible advice on how to support and augment personal immunity to the virus,
• to focus support on those who immune systems are weak, protect them if we can by locking down,
• to engage with natural medical therapies (as has been done in India and Cuba) to see (and study) what treatments they have to offer, and how safe, how effective, and how cost-efficient they are.

To discuss these issues would take us beyond 'the rules' to a real health debate, where conventional wisdom is questioned, where dominant views are challenged, and where conventional medical  assumptions are investigated.

Unfortunately this is clearly NOT happening. Indeed, both government and mainstream media is not only refusing to discuss the efficacy of the conventional medical establishment, it is parroting their propaganda - describing these alternative medical approaches as 'fake news', 'dangerous misinformation', and attacking anyone who dares to mention them.

This is not what real science does - real science questions, challenges, investigates. And this is not what medical science would do - if it was genuinely independent of pharmaceutical medicine.

So we argue about whether a failed conventional medical policy could have been more successful if it had been implemented more effectively, and believe this to be a debate. Remember, we had a much more serious epidemic 100 years ago - Spanish flu. Similarly, conventional medicine had no effective treatment. Millions died despite the medical treatment available at the time. 100 years on we are experiencing exactly the same.

What will be the conventional medical response to another serious epidemic in another 100 years? Unless there is a real debate they will have learnt nothing, yet again, largely because it has stifled and prevented serious debate now?