12/28/10 – The Wikileak documents reveal that the UN is secretly collaborating with pharmaceutical companies, which are operating for profit to ruin the health of the world population through the development of allopathic drugs.
If you want to read the files yourself, go ahead. You can find links to five PDF files that show an expert working group within the UN’s World Health Organization by searching “wikileaks big pharma WHO confidential analysis unreleased expert working group draft reports 8 Dec 2009”
After you Google that, Google this:
PUBMED “Contraceptive efficacy of testosterone-induced azoospermia in normal men.”
This is the World Health Organization “expert working group” report on methods for the regulation of male fertility. This was a multi-centered study in 10 centers in seven countries that was done to assess the contraceptive efficacy of hormonally-induced azoospermia in 271 healthy fertile men.
Look what they do, look what they‘ve done.
The azoospermia study was reported in 1991. In 2001, the Guardian newspaper reported that Epicyte, a California biotech company, had announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide that made the semen of men who ate it sterile. Epicyte was in a joint venture agreement with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault and used US Dept. of Agriculture funds to develop its genetically modified spermicidal corn.
Now there’s spermicidal corn syrup.
The world’s leading producer of genetically modified seed reportedly was also financed by the USDA.
Through subsidiaries and spin offs, Monsanto has produced and aggressively litigated notorious herbicides such as Round Up and Agent Orange. It created bovine growth hormone, artificial sweeteners saccharin and aspartame, was instrumental in the creation of nuclear weapons for the Manhattan Project; manufactured DDT, the insecticide that was implicated in the death of songbirds, and phenylalanine, the indigestible constituent of aspartame.
The illustration of the use of non patented drugs in combating diseases that patented pharmaceuticals cannot control is well documented in the historical record and has been detailed elsewhere in the John Benneth Journal (see “the Logic of Epidemics”).
Here is one example of recent testing at Walter Reed of non patentable dynamic isoprophylaxis for use against a virulent disease that has no known antidote within the patent pharmacy.
JONAS/DILLNER: Protection of mice from tularemia infection with ultra low serial agitated dilutions prepared from franciscella tularemia infected tissue. Jonas WB, Dillner D. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 35–52, 2000
The Jonas study demonstrates that dynamic isoprophylaxis is capable of immunizing against diseases that have no known antidote.
Here is one example of a government’s successful use of non patentable dynamic isoprophylaxis on a widespread disease.
Google this . .
CUBA: “Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control.”
We also have evidence for the use of non patentable dynamic isoprophylaxis in the control of malaria that has been in use in Africa for years now. This infuriates drug company shills like Professor Edzard Ernst at the University of Exeter.
The collaboration here between a government body and private corporate interests constitutes criminal syndicalism. It’s bad enough, prima facie, that what the expert working group has been doing is beyond the authority or scope of the UN’s mandate, but goes farther in that the industry it has been collaborating has been convicted repeatedly of felony actions and racketeering. The UN is secretly collaborating with an organization representing known racketeers, convicted under the US Rico Act.
NOW GOOGLE THIS: This details a secret disease spreading program conducted on the British population by the UK government’s Biological Warfare facility at Porton Down
I shouldn’t have to explain any more.
People . .
The John Benneth Journal 
Hm. In your last blog you promised that the next blog (ie this one) would contain details of the evidence for “plans for population control through a secret disease program”.
Are we to take it that those plans are described in one of those 5 pdf documents you mention? If so, which one? Page numbers would be useful. I did have a quick look through the documents, and maybe I missed the relevant bit, but I didn’t see anything about a secret disease program for population control.
LikeLike
Dear Adam- Stop acting like a drug company stooge. It’s right there in the PUBMED article. The very fact that a government entity is secretly conspriing with representatives of the drug cartels should be setting off alarm bells in everyone’s head, especially yours. WHy is it NOT?
We as homeoapths see an even darker side to this, because as master biochemists using classic supramolecular chemsitry, we are not blinded by the propaganda that’s blinded you, thinking that synthesized, patent medicine is the best that can be offfered We see its effects. Big pharma and allopathy are the same thing, and allopathy is the business of spreading disease.
It’s like the guy with a tire shop on a long stretch of road. People whiz by and no one stops to buy his tires. So he goes out and buys a box of roofing nails, and then under the cover of darkness, goes upon the highway and spreads disaster. Do the math. Within a couple of weeks he’s a rich man.
The WHO is conspiring with an industry that profits of your suffering. When you get cancer, are you going to run to a homeoapth? Of course not. You’re going to run right into the arms of the pharmaceutical industry who will apply their deadly heroic medicine and very likely kill you. It is because they have spread this disease of thinking that the use of suprmolecular medicine can’t help. They’d rather kill you and a millions of others before admitting it. And why would they not want to kill their golden goos? Wake up! Stop being their stooge. They’re spreading disease!
It’s not called heroic medicine because of their efforts, NO, it’s called “heroic medicine because of what the patient must endure, heroic suffering from the supposed cure. And now we have the WHO conspiring with these murerers to secretly tax the Internet? And everryone’s just sitting there like a bunch of zombies? To do what? Why do THEY need to impose an “indirect” tax on our use of this medium? Don’t ask me, ASK THEM! WHY? Let’s hear the faltering, stumnling, stuttering answers fromthese racekteers. Let’s hear about what’s in it for us and what’s in it for them. That’s a fair question isn’t it? WHY?
I say they think the best way for them to control Third World population growth is by spreading disease through vaccination and “biotech” i.e. genetic modification vectors, and I say they are SECRETLY looking for ways to do it as a way of making themselves wealthy. They’ve done it before, they’ll do it again, they’re doing it now. .And they don’t want homeopathy and people like me to get in the way.
ASK QUESTiONS. Don’t ask me, ASK THEM!
LikeLike
Kavaraj, I followed your link above, have you read the article? the conclusion –
“The problem of selective reporting is rooted in a fundamental cognitive flaw, which is that we like proving ourselves right and hate being wrong. “It feels good to validate a hypothesis,” Ioannidis said. “It feels even better when you’ve got a financial interest in the idea or your career depends upon it. And that’s why, even after a claim has been systematically disproven”—he cites, for instance, the early work on hormone replacement therapy, or claims involving various vitamins—“you still see some stubborn researchers citing the first few studies that show a strong effect. They really want to believe that it’s true.”
Thats you isn’t it and all homeopaths.
LikeLike
The Assumptions of Aggressive Secularism
1) There is no reality beyond the five material senses:
a) There is no vital force.
b) That the Big Bang is the beginning.
c) That sentient conscious life is a product of a random combination of chemicals; ie:
the belief that matter produces life.
d) That Darwinian theory is not merely one of a number of working models of evolution but is absolute truth.
2) That Aggressive Secularism is the rational belief system to be imposed upon the populace through the public tax supported institutions of the state.
3) That ‘evidence’ is to be defined only by the aggressive secularists.
LikeLike
Do you have any idea what a ‘secularist’ is? Would you have called the founders of the United States ‘aggressive secularists’ for waging a civil war that allowed separation of church from state?
Secularism is the bedrock of religious freedom. It allows all to hold their own beliefs without fear of state interference.
Perhaps you ought to use a dictionary and have a little historical perspective before typing such nonsense.
LikeLike
Perhaps you are the one who should look at the definition of secularist. A secularist could be taken to mean someone who doesn’t fit his beliefs into anything but a modern, putative perspective. The American Revolutionary War isnot regarded as a civil war. A good case could have been made that it was over slavery, as was the U.S. Civil War, but in the case of the Civil War, the slavers lost.
So much for secularism.
LikeLike
Isaw here is something for you. Maybe you will be able to understand. But I doubt it.
Its conclusion is that Shang wanted to find what he did and ignored all else – such as 112 studies that found other than he sought and excluded under false premises.
Its conclusion is also that you believe what you believe and are as far from science and scientific as possible. So please stop your pushing of your unscientific beliefs.
Funny thing is that homoeopathy is the only system of medicine without these biases, because it works not randomly but carefully calibratedd for each individual case.
LikeLike
Mr Benneth,
Here’s another one that has still not got through your “moderation”
On December 29, 2010 at 12:20 pm ISayISaw said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Kaviraj said;
“Those corporate shills that get paid by the post – as some recently admitted.”
Do you have link to substantiate that statement?
LikeLike
Non-patentable dynamic isoprophylaxis? At Walter Reed? Hmmmmmmmmm………thought that voodoo crap “doesn’t have anything in it”, RIGHT?!!!!! Somebody’s been paying attention.
LikeLike
Mr Benneth, since you are citing both Cuba and malaria again, I’ll repeat these questions and see whether you want to answer them this time;
1. In your definitive trial of homeopathy for malaria, how many people were enrolled and how were blinding and randomisation performed?
2. List the other factors that were at play in the treated region of Cuba during the leptospirosis study period.
3. Will you confirm explicitly that you do not require individualisation to be used in valid trials of homeopathy?
LikeLike
1. To properly answer your question, please explain, in your definitive trial of Lariam as prophylaxis against malaria, how many people were enrolled and how were blinding and randomisation performed? Please also cite how many deaths have occurred as a result of using Lariam, how many episodes of psychotic behavior induced by the use of Lariam have there been and its other contraindications. Also tell us what legal action has been taken regarding Lariam. Please review the in vitro testing of high dilutes during the current and last century and the historical record for the use of high dilutes in epidemics.
2. First explain the differences between the use of dynamic isoprophylaxis and patented prophylaxis in the treatment of leptospirosis.
3. Are you asking about in vitro or in vivo, clinical or pre-clinical studies?
4. Why are you asking argumentative questions about homeopathy when you should be burning up the phone lines to your elected reps about the drug industry conspiring with the WHO to secretly tax the internet to fund genetic engineering and toxic vaccines?
John Benneth
LikeLike
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all
This is what all you skeptics should read and finally conclude you are not scientific but a cult.
LikeLike
Interesting article, Kaviraj. Thanks for that.
It’s a good example of the ability of real science and medicine to reflect critically on the basis of their knowledge and develop the tools with which to do this, notably funnel plots in this instance
I’m sure the irony of you citing this as a trump card is completely lost on you.
LikeLike
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/12/the-mysterious-decline-effect/
Lehrer went into a little more detail about his conclusions in the above link and he explained that science is “a lot messier” than experiments, clinical trials, and peer review and that “no single test can define the truth.”
You can look over his explanation of Evolution as well while you’re at it, Kaviraj. And perhaps, while you’re at it, answer some of those question that have been hanging around since before Christmas.
LikeLike
Why does this not surprise me? And why do I think the loonies will come out of the woodwork to denounce this? Those corporate shills that get paid by the post – as some recently admitted. I don’t think, John, that we should give them any space to spew their venom.
LikeLike