Skip to main content

A Holistic Perspective on Covid 19

  • Teaser: What should be the views of holistic health practitioners in exploring the challenges of Covid-19 for themselves and their clients. What unique perspective can homeopathy and other holistic practices bring to the table. 


Most forms of holistic medicine work by harnessing the body’s own healing power, the innate intelligence of an organism to heal itself. This is the philosophical basis of healing for many systems, such as homeopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy, ayurveda, herbalism, indigenous healing methods and various forms of energy medicine etc. Conventional Western Medicine recognizes this phenomenon through an understanding of the immune system and the complex auto regulatory mechanisms of the body/mind. In conventional medicine however, drugs mostly do the work FOR the body, whereas in holistic systems, a more optimal function of the body’s innate healing capacity is encouraged and facilitated. Each obviously has its place.

Another concept central to holistic thinking is that dis-ease or an imbalance in health needs to work its way out from the centre to the periphery of the body. The most integral functions and organs of the body need protecting the most. Therefore, when things are allowed to come out on the skin, for example, it is often seen as a good thing. A fever is another example of the body working to help the body overcome an infection. The body is doing what it is meant to do. This is also based on the premise in holistic thought that all things are connected and the body’s own intelligence is functioning to protect itself. Every living organization is always seeking to adapt and develop. It is part of the survival mechanism of living things, which can be called the “biological imperative” and is part of all evolutionary theory. Medicine of all sorts seeks to help the body do its “job” more effectively either through stimulating the body’s own healing capacity or helping the body directly if it is unable to combat a situation. Suppressing a fever if too high or when the body creates a strong inflammatory reaction, which may endanger the body, is an example of this. We have seen this with Covid-19 when the lungs produce a strong inflammatory reaction in dealing with the spike protein of the virus and which needs to be controlled.

Disease – whether physical, mental/emotional, social or cultural needs to be seen in a complete and holistic way. By focusing only on one thing, it can often lead to an externalized projection of a problem and seen as a primary cause, which can avoid looking at the deeper reasons and causes for “disease” and to seek more fundamental solutions. This may be the case when we say that bacteria or viruses are the cause of a disease when they are only one factor in a multiplicity of other factors or “causes”.

The “bug” or the “terrain: inner and outer causes and their relationship

This debate in relation to the role of bacteria and viruses as causes of illness is an old one. Most famously, Louis Pasteur and his colleague Béchamp, discussed what is more important – the bug or the terrain. This exploration of the terrain or “terroire” relates to underlying “susceptibilities” to disease, the broader environment in which the disease exists and seeks to explain why some people get sick and some don’t or why some people get that much sicker than others. We are seeing this very clearly now when looking at Covid-19. However, modern medicine has focused predominantly on the “bug” as the problem and to produce drugs to “kill” the bug. While that has its place, it is not always the right strategy as most bugs only have an impact when the terrain is suitable for it. Even internal bacteria in the body change from being benign to more malevolent if other factors are present. On a cultural level the same process of externalizing disease can occur when groups of people in society are blamed for society’s problems. It is an externalization of a deeper issue, one which often does not want to be acknowledged. This has happened throughout history, fueling racism and all forms of prejudice, including the most recent one, with those who are called “anti vaxxers” for deciding not to take the Covid-19 vaccine being demonized in the media and punished by many governments. This is not about science but about politics.

It is part of the goal of holistic thinking to look at the fundamental roots of disease, the true causes, which lie within the terrain of the whole person, connected perhaps to genetic or inherited predispositions, or to maintaining causes in one’s environment, food toxins, air pollution etc., which again are all connected to the basic terrain, or as is called in homeopathy, the “constitution.” It is this constitution or foundational qualities of a person that are ideally optimized into a more perfect state of health with holistic treatment, which not only cures but, by default, prevents future illness as much as possible. This constitution has to be optimized on an energetic or informational level, with medicines that act to enhance latent capacities in a person. The same applies when addressing social/cultural challenges. We need to understand the root causes of the problems.

Every bacteria or virus, as an “external” agent, behaves according to its own nature. Some bacteria are much more infectious than others and some are much more potentially dangerous. The same applies to viruses. However, by focusing so much on these external agents, there is a tendency to forget how important the terrain or constitution is in a person. This is much more the focus of holistic thinking. A deep and controversial analysis of the role of viruses in disease can be found in the book Virus Mania by Torsten Engelbecht which challenges the whole concept of viruses as “primary” causes of disease and sees them more as “co-factors” or simply adjacent to a disease state. Another interesting book on a similar subject is called The Contagion Myth by Thomas S Cowan MD. Both books challenge many assumptions of the causes and role of viruses and bacteria in disease.

The Concept of Suppression in Disease and its broader application to Covid Policy

Homeopathic medicine is particularly aware of the destructive effects of the “suppression” of the body’s immune system. The concept of suppression is a central part of homeopathic and holistic philosophy. Suppression involves the internalization of disease to a deeper and more fundamental level in the organism. As the body/mind is an integrated and dynamic living thing, everything is connected. Pushing disease from one level to another is not always a good thing and without treating the whole person, it is not possible to recognize the complexity of the functioning organism and how that connects to the innate healing intelligence of the body. Many drugs, if over used and if used to suppress symptoms, may create deeper problems. Therefore, the concept of suppression is fundamental to how we deal with other challenges in our lives; even apart from recognized “diseases”. Suppression of mental/emotional states can also be seen in the same light.

The use of vaccines is not necessarily suppressive. One can make a case that certain vaccines offer specific immunity to certain diseases that one definitely does not want to have, e.g., smallpox, polio, yellow fever etc. However, we also know that by getting a disease it can offer a much better and longer immunity and can be an important part of the development of a person’s immune system. This is especially the case when catching a disease that is not particularly threatening for most people, which is the case for Covid-19. That is why one argument for otherwise healthy people is that if Covid-19 is caught then the chances of serious illness are small and the natural immunity achieved is better than that of a vaccine.

Many holistic practitioners think that children should be allowed to have the normal childhood illnesses like Measles, Mumps, Rubella and Chickenpox, which as the founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, stated, are termed “fixed miasms” in that they tend to come at a certain specific time in life. Nearly everyone if exposed to them, especially in childhood, will be infected to some extent but afterwards a lifelong immunity is conferred. Further it may help develop the immune system and prevent more chronic illnesses later in life. Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella do not confer lifelong immunity. People can get these illnesses later in life when their effects can be much more serious. Also, it is possible that some form of immunity may be passed on to future generations if a disease has been experienced and the “information” from this experience is transferred to subsequent generations on an energetic and/or genetic level. Recent research is showing how genetics can play a significant role in immunity. One research from Kings College, London showed that ¾ of immune traits are influenced by genes, and that reactions after exposure to chicken pox, are mostly influenced by genetics. ( However a vaccinated parent may not pass on this immunity to their offspring, perhaps leading to these diseases becoming more virulent in subsequent generations as the information has not been passed on.

In a book by Dr Thomas Cowan, Vaccines, Autoimmunity and the Changing Nature of Childhood illnesses he makes the case that the mortality rate for Measles had already greatly diminished due to improvement in living conditions and was no longer a public health threat. Mortality had reduced from about 13.3 per 100,000 in 1916 to 0.2 per 100,000 in 1963, a reduction of 98.5%. This had nothing to do with the vaccine. He described how by being exposed to measles, a healthy person’s immune system will be generally strengthened and lifelong immunity conferred through the activation of both cell-mediated and humoural immune mechanisms. Also, very importantly, a mother who has had measles will pass on immunity to a new born baby through breast milk, which is called passive immunity and which will protect the child against getting measles at the most vulnerable time, when very young. Then when the child is somewhat older, getting measles will not be such a risk. This type of general immunity, along with improvement in living conditions has made measles an inconvenient but not a high-risk mortality disease.

However, health advocates and governments talk about how bad measles was before vaccines, how many children died from it and therefore how essential the vaccines are in preventing the disease. However, for the vast majority of people, measles is an unpleasant and challenging time for a week or so but no further consequences are seen, as stated above. The measles vaccine was only introduced in 1963 and the MMR vaccine in 1971. Prior to that nearly all children got the normal childhood illnesses. For a very small minority, measles can lead to serious side effects and some mortalities. This is now used to justified widespread and at times mandatory vaccination against measles and other childhood diseases. An argument can be made that the vaccines for measles and other childhood diseases may be useful for those with vulnerable immune systems but for healthy kids, it is not so important. Also, as stated before, it is understood in holistic thinking that by getting childhood illnesses, such as measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox, this can stimulate the body’s immune system and prevent more chronic illness in later life. This is discussed in detail in the book by Thomas Cowan, MD. He cites evidence of how much more common shingles is now, since the introduction of the chickenpox vaccine and how getting chicken pox may reduce the risk of brain cancer and how by getting measles may reduce the risk of arthritis, heart disease and allergies. This sounds controversial but is worth looking into.

Another possibility is that viruses like measles will naturally mutate, making any vaccine less effective over time and leading to outbreaks of measles in vaccinated populations, which is what we seem to have been seeing in the last few years? Also, it’s now recognized that vaccine induced immunity wears off after maybe 10 years, making young adults potentially vulnerable to certain childhood illnesses, which if caught as adults can be more severe? These are important questions.

Also, as Cowan mentions in is book and which is discussed a lot in a book called The Mirage of Health, by Rene Dubos, understanding the role of acquired immunity has been seen most clearly and tragically when Europeans went to the New Worlds of the Americas, Australia and Polynesian islands, including Hawaii and exposed native people to diseases such as smallpox, measles and even the flu. We know smallpox was used as biological warfare but also measles had a devastating impact on the very young and very old amongst native americans in both North and South America and also in the pacific islands. These people had no natural immunity to these diseases whereas Europeans had developed immunity over a long time. So, after the initial devastating exposure, these people’s also developed immunity and the mortality rates diminished.

The power of natural immunity v. vaccine induced immunity and the cause of polio epidemics

The philosophic core of homeopathy, as well as other holistic practices, is the idea that the vital force, the “instinctive intelligence” of the body, is the energetic force or principle that maintains the balance and integrity of the organism. It maintains the function and homeostasis necessary for overall well-being. Reliance on external “drugs” is only justified when the body can’t do the work for itself, when it needs support, but one always has to be aware of the suppressive consequences of certain drugs and the dependency they can create. This includes “vaccines” or more appropriately in the case of Covid-19 a “gene therapy”. It can’t really be called a vaccine because it does not seem to prevent the disease. Also, the new anti-viral drugs being given for Covid-19 are showing serious side-effects, another example of when the body struggles with the toxicity of anti-viral medicines.

Any vaccine should be seen in light of the risks of the disease and the risks of the vaccine. Not all vaccines are the same as not all diseases are the same. Thomas Cowan MD, in the book mentioned above, discusses this in regard to the incidence of polio before and after the first vaccine was introduced in 1955. He reveals some fascinating evidence of the causes for polio epidemics and challenges the widespread belief that the vaccine was the major factor for eliminating polio. An outbreak of polio between 1916-1918 in urban parts of Eastern USA occurred in strange clusters and was being blamed on everything from dirty water and contaminated food, but research by Dan Olmstead, an investigative journalist, and others, linked it to the widespread agricultural use of neurotoxins, including Arsenite of soda and DDT, which had been sprayed onto sugar cane, which was then being refined in factories along the east coast of the USA, including Coney Island, New York, where one of the strange polio clusters occurred. Arsenite of soda is highly toxic to fish and wildlife in general, and in humans affects the anterior horn cells of the spinal column and the digestive system, allowing toxins to leak into the body. Other outbreaks of polio in other countries can be linked to similar toxic exposure. DDT began to be used extensively for agricultural and insecticide use in the 1940s, which coincided with a spike in the number of paralytic states similar to polio. DDT even then was known as a neurotoxin, but it was being sprayed in classrooms, on gardens, in streets with children playing etc. Scientific researchers began making these connections and in 1952, a doctor testified in front of a US House subcommittee that “polio is classic poisoning.” Further research was published making the same connection of the neurotoxic effect of DDT, producing conditions similar to paralytic polio. In one outbreak of polio in Detroit, only 51% of cases tested positive for the virus. So, it’s possible that the other 49% didn’t have polio but neurotoxic affects of DDT. So, even if the introduction of the polio vaccine in the late 1950’s helped contain paralytic polio, DDT was also phased out of use finally by the early 1960s, perhaps being another factor in the disappearance of “polio”. The polio virus has been part of our gut system for thousands of years without producing significant problems, but the introduction of external factors such as Arsenite of soda and DDT are perhaps more significant factors leading to paralytic polio cases. So what we thought was polio and the viral cause was in fact due to “external” terrain factors.

Vaccine risks and benefits and other options

Vaccine therapy has been compared to homeopathy in that a vaccine introduces into the body a small amount of the disease given to provoke an immune response to that disease while in homeopathy, a small amount of a substance is given that is similar in nature to the state of the natural disease. However, the difference is that a homeopathic remedy does not stimulate a specific antibody response to a specific disease in anticipation of that disease but to “wake up” the body’s overall immune system to activate homeostasis and overall balance and wellbeing. In that way it is very different. A specific antibody response to a disease that the person doesn’t have puts the body on guard, in preparation for a possible infection. That may last months or many years, depending on the vaccine and disease. Homeopathy is working directly with the body’s overall energy state, and the immune system is simply one part of that overall state. Also, in homeopathy, one is working with each individual separately, not a one method fits all approach.

Vaccine safety has always been an important concern and for many people, the possible risks of certain vaccines have not been fully acknowledged. This was seen with the early whooping cough vaccines and some of the early mumps vaccines as well as the smallpox vaccines used in the 19th century which actually led to outbreaks of smallpox. More recently Hepatitis B vaccines and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines have come under scrutiny in many countries due to the number of serious side effects and deaths. A dengue fever vaccine in the Phillipinnes had to be stopped also because of side effects and it has been assessed that hundreds of thousands of cases of Polio in India occurred directly from using the live oral polio vaccine. Flu vaccines have also been controversial due to their lack of efficacy and the numbers of side effects seen. Questions regarding flu vaccines and HPV vaccines were discussed in a book by Dr Peter Gotzsche, called Vaccines: Truth, Lies and Controversy. Therefore, as with any treatment, the risks and benefits of each vaccine need to be analyzed. This is now a deeply important question in light of the Covid-19 vaccines and the growing numbers of serious side effects being seen. Given the fact that for the vast number of otherwise healthy people, especially younger people, Covid-19 is of little risk, the question has to be asked if the vaccine is needed and if the possible harm from the vaccine outweighs any possible benefit.

If at all possible, the body’s own optimal health potential, as expressed through the immune system, should be the focus of the work of health professionals. In the case of Covid, where all figures show that otherwise healthy people are not likely to get a serious case (with some exceptions) then the focus of people’s energy should be on maintaining their health through diet, exercise, supplements and natural therapies. The question from a natural health point of view, therefore, is why governments are focusing only on the vaccine as a solution and not on other options, both to prevent and treat early symptoms. Can it be shown that the vaccine has created necessary herd immunity after one and a half years of vaccines? It seems not. Have the vaccines been proven absolutely to be fundamentally safe and effective? They haven’t. (See site for analysis on Pfizer’s research) What we are seeing now, after nearly two years, is that the new so-called variants seem immune to the vaccines, showing that nature’s ability to constantly adapt is better than the vaccine’s efficacy. How many times do we see that nature’s ability to constantly adapt and evolve is greater than “man’s” attempts to control nature? Our modern antibiotic crisis is a case in point. In time, bacteria simply adapt.

Is it really possible to “suppress” an infectious virus like SARS-COV-2 and is it a good idea? What happened to herd immunity?

Has the strategy of seeking to “suppress” the virus, with all forms of lockdown restrictions worked? Has the vaccine, after nearly two years, curbed the pandemic in a profoundly significant way, justifying the corollary damage to the global economy and the lives of billions of adults and children? Is the whole strategy of suppression simply another “allopathic” view on the pandemic? Is it doomed to failure, leaving behind the subsequent “collateral damage” to the lives of billions as a tragic consequence? The examples of Australia and New Zealand are a case in point. Locking down the countries totally for many months with extensive draconian lockdowns, including closing all borders and the erosion of civil liberties etc., has been done in the name of total “suppression” of the disease, even though there have been very few mortalities in these countries. The recent increase in cases in these countries shows though that the strategy of total suppression doesn’t work. You simply can’t suppress an aerosol based, highly infective virus that is everywhere. What we have seen is that it may be possible to temporarily suppress the spread of the disease, but once people are able to move again, the virus tends to pick up where it left off. Again, from both a scientific and political point of view, the quest to totally suppress the disease is highly questionable.

These questions need to be answered before people continue to justify the suppressive strategies of lockdowns, masks, coercive vaccine mandates and other attempts to suppress and control the pandemic. Many would say that apart from protecting the most vulnerable (the elderly and those already sick), the rest of society should continue as normal. This would be working more in hand with nature than attempting to suppress nature in radical ways. It could be different if this was the black plague, where overall mortality rate reached 50% at times, but Covid-19 is not like that and overall mortality is proving to be no different from the flu.

Also, the term “herd immunity” was used a lot early on to justify the vaccine agenda. The World Health Organization even went to the trouble of changing its definition of herd immunity, eliminating the option of herd immunity being achieved in a population by enough natural exposure to a virus or other pathogen, but that such immunity could ONLY be achieved through vaccination. Suddenly, millions of years of human adaptation to disease through forms of natural immunity have been negated in the name of the saviour vaccines! Even then, with some countries achieving a vaccination rate of over 80%, new outbreaks have occurred, questioning the ability of this vaccine to create any type of both herd and individual immunity. Israel is a good example of this as it moves on to its 4th booster dose, and cases of the new variant Omnicron continue to rise with the vaccine boosters being ineffective.

One way of looking at the pandemic is that it is simply symptomatic of a deeper state of instability and transition on the whole planet, an expression of a deeper underlying state of change, including technological changes and increasing digitization of our lives. Our relationship to the pandemic and the various agendas that may be rolled out now by various world powers are an expression of the state of consciousness of the planet and, in particular, our relationship to new technology which is being rolled out very quickly, including 5G. This may have to “come out”, as we can’t seem to resist using technology once it exists and before we are really aware of its impact. At the same time, we have to maintain a conscious and positive relationship to the many challenging things that are occurring, to make appropriate decisions personally and collectively, including whether to take the Covid-19 vaccine. It also should make us question the many strategies employed during the pandemic, e.g., the lockdowns that have never been done before and that even the World Health Organization didn’t recommend in its initial pandemic strategies. How can we suppress a virus by locking down humanity? Does that really make sense?

Prevention and Early Treatment. What happened?

From a natural health point of view, much more focus should have been given to prevention and early treatment, not telling people to wait until they get very sick, which by then is often too late. So why were elderly people, especially in care homes not all given VitD3 (up to 4,000 ius), Vit C, Zinc, Magnesium, Quercetin and other supplements? Why weren’t other natural and conventional treatments explored more thoroughly, e.g., artemisia annua, Neem tree, Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, monoclonal antibodies etc.? Why are people in US hospitals given Remdesivir when its toxic effects are so serious. Why was the vaccine, from the earliest days, touted as the only solution, way before we even knew a vaccine was possible? Isn’t this suspicious? And now we have new anti-viral drugs being planned which may further have a suppressive effect on the body’s immune system. The degree of negligence in protecting the most vulnerable people in society is a serious indictment on many governments.

If these questions are valid, then, for natural health advocates and practitioners, it should be clear that the simplistic vaccine solution as a universal panacea for the pandemic is wrong. Prevention and early treatment plans should have been given much more focus, the demographics of who is most susceptible to getting seriously ill with Covid-19 should be given more attention, as should protecting the elderly and most vulnerable. And yet, in spite of the billions spent on trying to suppress the virus with crude and ineffective methods, little seems to have been learnt and some governments continue to push for more vaccines, more boosters, more restrictions, even though they haven’t worked. Isn’t that the definition of insanity?

Individuals can take the decision to get vaccinated, but to claim that this is the best thing for everyone is another thing entirely, not only from a moral point of view but a scientific one. Perhaps it’s the pervasive fear that has now infected our society. There is no evidence that the vaccine can prevent people getting sick or prevent the spread of the virus. The vaccinated do this as much as the unvaccinated. What, then, is the point of the vaccine for the majority of people who are unlikely to get very sick from Covid-19, or blaming the unvaccinated for spreading the disease.

The Freedom to Choose and to take individual responsibility for health

Based on everything above, the case has not been made that healthy adults and children will benefit from the vaccine. More than that, the vaccine is showing itself to be extremely dangerous for some people, producing more side-effects and deaths than any other preceding vaccines. It is therefore incredulous that some natural health practitioners have publicly taken the same viewpoint as Big Pharma and the so-called “scientists” who are often in the pay of drug and vaccine companies and advocate for blanket vaccination of the population. It seems totally inconsistent with the holistic foundations of homeopathy and other holistic therapies. Do we know what the founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann would do? We don’t, but we know that he stood up to the abuses of apothecaries of the time and was very critical of the dangers of toxic drugs. Maybe he would also be challenging the shabby science (including Pfizer’s safety and efficacy documentation which the FDA wants to hide for over 50 years) and the political world doing the bidding of the ever more powerful drug companies.

Every individual has the freedom to choose what is best for themselves and their family. Taking responsibility for your health is one of the most important things that any individual can do. The fact that being overweight is one of the most important factors leading to more serious symptoms of Covid-19, should be enough to encourage all people to pay more attention to the food being consumed, as well as drugs taken and other lifestyle factors. But again, this is mostly ignored by governments and health “experts” whose obsession with the vaccine has led to them to simply ignore other important factors.

But the lesson here is that we can’t or shouldn’t always rely on other people, on “experts” and governments to tell us what to do or dictate health choices. We have been told to “follow the science.” A more apt question might be “what science”? We have also been told in a Forbes magazine article that when it comes to Covid-19, vaccines and other important matters, we shouldn’t think for ourselves, but rely on the “scientific experts” to do it for us. Now, given everything, that really doesn’t seem to be good advice.

Personal body autonomy is no different than political or spiritual autonomy. More than ever, one of the main lessons of Covid-19 is for people to awaken to a more profound sense of responsibility for their own health. They surely can’t depend on most health care systems now. It’s not to say that amazing work hasn’t been done and the commitment of health workers isn’t appreciated, but the system itself and its political influences have been profoundly impacted. This is another reason why natural health care practitioners should be advocating for people to take a greater responsibility for their health, to be better informed, to question the mainstream narrative and to feel more empowered.

Most important is to not let fear and anxiety consume us, which is one of the worst things for the immune system. Governments and the media have been exaggerating and exploiting fear, using it as a psychological ploy to push their own narrative. It has even been admitted by the UK government that they employed companies specializing in psychological operations and have manufactured specific messages. They have admitted that exaggerating fear was a clear part of their plan to encourage greater compliance.

Therefore, natural health practitioners should be aware of this and not touting the vaccine as the only solution. We should be encouraging us all to be positive in moving forward to a future with less fear and anxiety and to be trusting our capacity for well being and the ability of the body to adapt and survive if it’s given enough support. There are many ways to do this, using the best of both conventional and alternative methods of healing.