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.

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.

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. 

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, 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. 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 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.

JOURNALISM AND COVID-19. The end of press freedom? Their response to the pandemic has been a dereliction of its duty to the people

Anyone and everyone who has suffered from the consequences of the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic, even those who have suffered with it, needs to begin asking questions about why their normal lives have been turned upside down. We all need to ask these questions because they are not being asked by politicians, governments, the conventional medical establishment, and perhaps most seriously of all, our so-called 'Free Press'.

The basic questions should have arisen from these undeniable facts: 

• why have so many people been impoverished during the pandemic by government policy?
• why have so many many people lost their livelihoods, and their jobs, as a direct result of government policy?
• why has the education of generations of children been seriously compromised by government policy?
  
• why has the national economy been so seriously undermined and damaged by the very government that is supposed to protect it?
  
• why have sick people, with serious illnesses and diseases, been allowed to go undiagnosed, or have treatment and operations cancelled, and many people have been allowed to die of untreated diseases as the NHS has been too busy dealing with the virus?
• why have people died in hospitals and nursing homes without their family being allowed by government policy to be with them, for comfort, reassurance and support?
• why have people been denied the opportunity to attend the funerals of close friends, relatives and loved-ones by government policies?
  
• why does government policy not allow important relatives and friends, some reaching the end of their lives, from meeting, seeing and hugging each other?
• why have social distancing and lockdown policies been pursued which are having such a devastating consequences on so many peoples mental health?

If you think the answer to any or all these questions is simple, explained by reference to "the pandemic", you are probably guilty of believing what you have been told about COVID-19. We need to do these things because of the pandemic! Government policy may be having serious consequences on our social and economic life, but it has all been necessary in order to keep everyone safe!

This is NOT a criticism of anyone. 

We have all been subject to an incessant single message.

 We have all been subjected to disinformation - so in believing this you are not alone.

1. The pandemic is real, it is happening. Our government has responded to it, quite correctly. It's response has been to introduce policies such as hand washing, masks, social distancing, track and trace, lockdown, and the like.
2. It is this government policy response to the pandemic that has caused the social and economic mayhem described above; but as I have pointed out, in other blogs, this did not need to happen, there were alternative policies available to the government that would not have led us to where we are now.
3. The basic question is, therefore, who has been informing us about the pandemic, who has challenged the government's response; who has been challenging the policy makers?

The unfortunate answer to all these questions is - NO-ONE.

1. Political

The Government has developed its policies over the last 12 months. In broad terms, politicians of all parties have supported these policies, usually without any serious questioning or challenge. This includes the Official Opposition Party who, in the main, have 'opposed' by asking for more of the same policies. There has been no political challenge to government policy.

2. Medical

From the beginning government policy was informed and guided by medical science, or at least, that dominant section of medical science that controls the conventional medical establishment, the part favoured and financed by the pharmaceutical industry. Government policy is based on the medical science that had little or nothing to offer. There was no pharmaceutical treatment on offer. There was no vaccine available. So TINA applied - There Is No Alternative". Nurses were left to care for COVID-19 patients whilst doctors floundered. Both watched as people died in their hospitals.

The National Health Service did not question or challenge this. It is, after all, dominated and controlled by the same scientific medical establishment. They were in league; indeed, the primary purpose of government policies has been, clearly and openly, to 'save the NHS'. Without lockdown the NHS would be overwhelmed, we are told. And we never ask why this should be!

3. The Role of the Free Press

The normally accepted role of the mainstream media (MSM) is to question, to challenge, to investigate, and to inform the public about what is happening to them, particularly if it is having severe consequences for their lives. It has singularly failed to do any such thing with regard to the policies being pursued for the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet this is not surprising. As I have often argued on this blog the MSM has singularly failed to engage in any health debate, and certainly not on the failure of conventional medicine to deal with important health issues during the last 20 plus years.

Yet surely the MSM has debated the pandemic, surely government policy has been questioned, challenged and investigated? Surely, I hear you say, there has been nothing but debate about the virus for most of 2020? Unfortunately this is not so. Any debate has been a mirage. If we think we are debating the issues involved with COVID-19 we are sorely mistaken.

QUESTIONING AND CHALLENGING GOVERNMENT POLICY 

Questioning government policy should have been the starting point of any real debate about the pandemic but it has never happened. Government policies have been presented incessently, ad nauseam, but never really discussed. What may have appeared to be a discussion has concerned peripheral issues - whether the government has imposed its policies quickly enough, or efficiently enough; and whether they have been imposed on us strongly or vigorously enough.

• most if not all political opposition to the UK government, including the devolved governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, want a stricter, stronger imposition of government policy.
• Almost the entire MSM coverage has 'questioned' the government from this viewpoint - "why are you doing more of the same" vantage point. Rarely has it questioned whether the policy
• is working?
• is controlling the virus?
• investigated the harm is it doing,
• whether it is doing more harm than good,
• whether the pandemic justify the harm being caused by government policy?
  
• and whether there an alternative policy that would do less harm and more good?

There are alternative voices but they have remained largely unheard by the public, effectly censored. Some of these voices sit within conventional medical science, the most notable of these being the Barrington Declaration. But the MSM have studiously ignored these alternative voices, including the group of Belgian doctors and health professionals, who wrote an open letter encapsulating the arguments against the crazy policies that have been generated by the pandemic.

Natural medical therapies have also provided an important alternative message, based on the importance of natural immunity, and the central impotance of our immune system. Practitioners, including my colleagues in the homeopathic community, have been busy working with COVID-19 patients in the UK, and around the world. But as usual they have been totally ignored by the MSM. This censorship has been evident even when national medical services in countries like India and Cuba have reported positive results using natural therapies.

The MSM has engaged in none of this. Alternative voices have not been heard, they have been censored, their message entirely ignored except when they have often been dismissed as peddling 'disinformation'. Both governments and the MSM, throughout the world, have become creatures of the conventional medical establishment. The powerful pharmaceutical lobby controls politicians, political parties, and governments. The MSM is over-reliant on drug advertising, infiltrated by people placed on MSM boards, to feel comfortable questioning or challenging anything to do with conventional medicine. 

What this means is that there is no longer any such thing as 'press freedom'. The MSM may be free from government interference, but it is now completely controlled and dominated by the pharmaceutical industry.

So policies regarding COVID-10 have been supported, slavishly, unquestioningly. Most people have been scared into the acceptance of, and compliance too, a single monolithic message, repeated time and time again by government, medical science, and the MSM.

• we have been convinced that the virus is a serious threat to life, much more serious than it actually is, 
• the virus is indiscriminate; everyone is in danger, it can strike down anyone and everyone, at any time, anywhere,
  
• it is our personal responsibility to protect not only ourselves, but everyone else,
  
• there is no alternative to government policy, except the more stringent application of government policy,
  
• so everyone must accept the dictats of government policy, eschew their liberty and their hard won freedoms,
  
• there is no alternative, we must all conform.

The MSM agrees entirely with all this. The government's lockdown policies have been pursued now for most of 2020, with a conspicuous lack of success. The virus continues, unabated, and seems likely to do so for some time to come. Indeed, we are promised more lockdown in 2021. We can, we are informed, celebrate Christmas; but this is expected to lead to the inevitable increase in more cases, more hospitalisations, more deaths - and thus more of the same failed and failing policies.

And no-one is prepared to examine why this is so, and whether it could possibly be that government policy has failed, and is likely to continue to fail.

Perhaps this should not come as too much of a surprise. The MSM has unquestioningly supported a medical system, based on pharmaceutical medicine, that is in a state of collapse, and failing to address the burgeoning levels of sickness and chronic disease. And now it is doing exactly the same thing in its response to COVID-19.

All this represents a gross dereliction of duty by the MSM, a duty to question, to challenge and to investigate what is happening to its readers, viewers and listeners. So if they refuse to ask questions about what is happening in our social and economic lives, it is time we did so as individuals.

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. A failure of medical science that has resulted in social and economic mayhem. "Save the NHS" or "Save Lives"?

Governments around the world have admitted they have no policy on the COVID-19 pandemic. They have made it clear that they have been guided by "the science" - conventional medical science. Initially this advice was trite - washing hands et al - but worrying because it demonstrated that 'medical science' had no effective treatment.

A contagious and lethal virus, combined with a lack of effective treatment, produced panic. Doctors had nothing to offer their patients. So in time 'the science' became more extreme; it moved to social distance, and the 'lock down'. Now, several weeks into the epidemic, we are beginning to learn about the personal, social and economic distress and mayhem that is being caused by this policy. The policy was given a mantra.

"Save the NHS. Save Lines"

Interesting that order - with 'saving the NHS' taking priority. Patients are, apparently, not the first consideration. Initially it is the NHS, and the medicine that dominates it, that must be saved. Otherwise our GP's and hospitals would be overwhelmed with sick patients and unable to cope. The whole system might disintegrate.

This was undoubtedly a reasonable assumption. Readers of this blog will know that every year since 1913 I have been publishing blog entitled "NHS in Crisis". It happens every year, each winter. And now there was this pandemic. The NHS could not be allowed to fail: too many people would be asking "Why?" If it had not been for the coronavirus panic this year, and the excuse and justification to spend additional £billions, the NHS would almost certainly have been in deep crisis, and those 'why' questions would be asked.

So, once again, money has been generously, but foolishly poured into a medical system that admits it has no treatment for the most serioius epidemic we have faced for over 100 years.

So the priority was to save the NHS; and then to save lives. Except, of course, that the NHS could not save lives - it had already admitted it had no treatment for coronavirus COVID-19. So if there was no treatment perhaps, instead, we could be asked to praise the staff, who were putting their lives at risk by caring for us. We all did so, and quite rightly so. The primary response to this pandemic has been led by nurses, other hospital staff, residential and home care staff, and (where lockdown has allowed) by the family. It has certainly not been led by the doctors, and their medicine.

• So let's praise what needs to be praised - the staff and care workers, mostly on low, often minimum wages, providing sick people and families with whatever support they could, and putting themselves at risk doing so. Let's praise their courage and commitment; but not the medicine they are obliged to practice.

• Instead, let's question the failure of those who determined that 'there is no treatment' for this virus; usually well paid and influential health 'experts' and scientists, all part of the conventional medical establishment; who have been advising our governments.

Medical scientific advice has been not only trite and crass; but wrong. It has demonstrated that conventional medical science has come a long way during the 70-100 years of its increasing influence, and now its dominance. The journey has all been done in reverse! I suggest that my mother was more knowledgeable, a better scientist ( although she would have been amused at any such suggestion) as she did know better than medical science appears to know today.

• she, along with other parents, took me to a measles party - to ensure that I picked up the infection. Like most parents of her generation she understood the importance of a strong immune system, and the natural immunity that getting an infection gives the child.
• perhaps she, and her generation, were lucky - there were no vaccines to promote then.

During this entire crisis there has been little mention of the importance of our immune system. The absurd term 'herd immunity' has been mentioned; but this concept has more to do with persuading us all that we must get ourselves vaccinated "to protect others" than any close relationship to natural immunity.

How much easier it would have been if our medical system had focused on our ability, as individuals, to withstand and overcome infection. There would have been no need to panic, in a desperate attempt to kill an invisible enemy that could attack, and potentially kill, everyone. One moments reflection would have told us - no epidemic throughout world history has ever come close to doing that!

• We needed to do was to protect the vulnerable - not everyone. 
• It was the vulnerable who needed 'social distance' and all the other protections. 
• There was no need to lock down social life, and potentially wreck the world's economy.
• We needed to test our immune systems; not the presence or absence of a virus.

Instead of panic, the NHS could more usefully have spent time and money teaching all of us how to support and strengthen our immune systems.

• the food we should be eating, the vitamins and supplements we should be taking, how we should exercise, the lifestyle habits we should be avoiding.
• the natural medical therapies that had preventative treatments, and treatments for the disease itself.
• the use of homeopathy in Cuba, India, and elsewhere, could have been examined, and indeed offered to patients who wanted to use it for themselves. 
• patient outcome studies could have been conducted which assessed the value of natural therapies, for future reference.

But, of course, none of this fits with the objectives of the conventional/pharmaceutical medical establishment. A crucial part of their strategy is to preserve their monopoly within the NHS, and other national health services. What if these alternative treatments did work? What if they saved life? People must never know. Much better for them to use their dominance of medical 'science', their control of the NHS, their unrestrained influence over government, and their financial control of the mainstream media, to ensure that no-one knows about these things. Otherwise they might have to admit there was an alternative to the knowledge and expertise of conventional medical science.

• Much better to allow people to contract COVID-19,
• better to let them die without any knowledge of effective treatment,
• better to stop the routine treatment of cancer, kidney disease, et al, patients.
• better to close down social life,
• better to wreck the national economy,
• and the economy of the world.

Medical science, and the pharmaceutical medical establishment, have failed. What has happened to medicine during the last 70-100 years may be likened to allowing 'flat earthers' to dominate and control all navigation across the world. No one would ever get anywhere.

Conventional medicine, and the financial interests that control it, has been, and is leading us in completely the wrong direction. So perhaps the most important outcome of this coronavirus COVID-19 panic will be to recognise this - and to do something about it.

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

Apologies. The disruption caused by the Coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic has delayed the writing of this, now, annual blog. The fear and panic generated by medical science, government and media  in response to the virus, still ongoing, has taken the focus away from what would otherwise have been the usual winter NHS crisis >> increased patient demand >> inability to cope >> demands for more resources.

Yet crisis it undoubtedly is, just like any other year, but perhaps just a trifle more serious. Once government and the conventional medical establishment realised there was an epidemic, and no conventional treatment, everything else hitherto considered important was thrown out - the baby alongside with the bathwater. Government policy made this clear.

STAY HOME - this was the central policy, an alternative to effective medical treatment, that has led inevitably to all the social, educational and economic distress and mayhem that it caused, and continues to cause.

..... SAVE THE NHS - the first stated, and primary objective of policy. It was made clear from the start that government knew conventional medicine, and the NHS, would be overwhelmed, and they determined that this had to be avoided at any cost as a top priority.

.......... SAVE LIVES - the next objective, something statistics can even now demonstrate has singularly failed. Fantastic hospital care, but no treatment, with NHS staff having to watch helplessly whilst over 40,000 people died in front of them.

• From March onwards more and more money was pumped into the NHS - "whatever it takes" according to government rhetoric. At some point, maybe, we will be told exactly how much additional money has been spent to prop up a failed medical system.

• At the same time most 'routine' work with cancer, heart and other priority patients was cancelled or postponed. Dealing with the virus was now the priority - saving the NHS from collapse. In addition, the panic generated by the NHS discouraged people from seeing their doctors, or attending  hospital, when formerly they might have done.

So the consequences of NHS, and conventional medical failure this year is going to stretch onwards into the rest of the year, and beyond. This morning, 10th June 2020), BBC News heralded some of the early cries of alarm that underline the new 2020 NHS crisis. Here are the headlines, taken from the NHS Confederation, a body representing health and care leaders from organisations that commission and provide health services in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

• NHS bosses fear the Covid-19 crisis could see the number of people waiting for NHS treatment double to 10 million by the end of the year.
• NHS Confederation projections show that the NHS waiting list is expected to rise from about 4.2 million currently to about 10 million by Christmas.
• It says that the NHS faces an "uphill battle" trying to restart cancer, stroke and heart care services, whilst at the same time continuing to manage thousands of sick and recovering Covid-19 patient.

Predictably the NHS Confederation said that more money would be needed. Equally predictably the Department of Health responded, saying it will continue to provide the resources, funding and support the NHS needs. So the never-ending pattern of NHS failure continues.

>>> sickness >>> money >>> more sickness >>> more money >>> even more sickness >>> etc

>>> sickness >>> treatment >>> still sick >>> drug side effects >>> more sickness >>> more treatment >>> even more side effects >>> even more sickness >>> etc

The NHS crisis of winter 2020 has been different only in that there has been one serious additional problem - coronavirus has led to the death of rather more people than usually die of influenza every year. In most years 'routine' surgery is cancelled. This year the panic response has led to the termination of all treatment for people with cancer, heart disease, stroke, and other serious medical conditions.

So will the outcome be any different? It might be. Even the NHS Confederation provides this warning for the future.

               "The bigger point being made by the confederation is that the government in Westminster needs to think very hard about how the health service is managed in the months ahead and how patients' expectations should be prepared." (my emphasis).


Managing patient expectations! What does this mean? In past years government money has always been made available to the NHS so that they are able to meet the ever-increasing patient demand for treatment. It is these demands that are now going to have to be managed, the implication being that ploughing even more money into the NHS may prove to be difficult. Why is this?

The demand side is not changing. Conventional medicine's inability to treat illness is ongoing; conventional medical treatment continues to generate increasing levels of illness and disease; and coronavirus is predicted to continue, adding yet more demands on NHS treatment (treatment it does not have).

The supply side, however, is weakening. The lockdown policies pursued by the government, an alternative to effective medical treatment, is destroying the economy. A recession is in prospect, perhaps even a depression. Millions are losing their jobs; they will require government expenditure on unemployment benefits, et al. At the same time tax revenues will be drastically reduced. There are already demands for additional government spending in every other part of the national economy - education, social care, police, local government - almost everywhere you look.

So perhaps for the very first time the UK government will find itself unable to respond to the constant demands for increased NHS funding. There will be a health crisis that cannot be hidden, brushed under the carpet, by yet more spending. Perhaps then more searching questions will begin to be asked.

• Why is the huge £150 billion NHS budget not enough?
• What value, in terms of patient outcomes, does the NHS actually provide?
• Why aren't patients getting better with conventional medical treatment?
• Why is chronic disease, in all its many guises, increasing so rapidly, year by year?
• Why is there no conventional medical treatment for infectious diseases wherever, and whenever they occur?
• IS THERE NOT A BETTER, MORE EFFECTIVE WAY TO SPEND THE HEALTH BUDGET?

The NHS had transformed itself into a monopoly supplier of one type of medicine. It is deeply hostile to natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, which it has almost totally barred them from the NHS. So whatever the problems the NHS now faces they have been caused by conventional medicine - its inability make sick people well, its willingness to use treatments whose 'side effects'  demonstrably cause patient harm.

Perhaps then the NHS will be forced to look at what some other countries are doing, like Cuba, and India (particularly in one southern province, Kerala), where patient outcome comparisons can now be made between conventional and natural medical treatment.

Or perhaps I am being too optimistic. The pharmaceutical industry remains financially strong, and it uses its wealth to control the NHS, the government, and the mainstream media. Too few people have analysed what is happening - that we are constantly throwing more and more money into a bottomless pit.