The Homeopathic Cure of Wikipedia

Wikipedia falsifies the placebo claim for homeopathy . . again, shilling  for pharma

Wikipedia has been caught for a third time frantically producing false information about homeopathy on  a shifting footnote intended to support a hypothesis that homeopathic medicine is a “placebo.” A placebo is defined by Wikipedia as a sham treatment intended to deceive recipients.

The problem is that reviews of clinical tests of homeopathy, published in the British Medical Journal and the Lancet, among others, have all shown that the collective weight of clinical trials shows that the ionized pharmaceuticals used in homeopathic medicine are not placebos.

Wikipedia has therefore had to misrepresent the literature,  pretending to quote (1) a systematic review by a defrocked  professor of complementary medicine who garnered a reputation as the world’s leading homeopathy antagonist (2) a US government website that says nothing about placebos and (3) currently, at the time of this writing, the leading meta analysis of clinical trials that actually concludes homeopathics are not placebos.

The Wikipedia article says: “Homeopathic remedies are found to be no more effective than a placebo,[2] defining placebo as “a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient.”

The article is locked down, preventing a rewrite neutral to the facts. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has voiced vituperative opposition to homeopathy, calling it the work of charlatans. The talk session of the article is a jumble of opinions by trolls trying to figure out how to reconcile contradicting conclusions in meta analyses, looking for evidence to support the placebo hypothesis in credible publications, and not finding it.

The  scuttlebutt is that whoever wrote the article was hired to keep it in flux by pharmaceutical industry interests, like the Geneva based International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations, (IFPMA) for which Wikipedia admittedly provides advertising space. The use of ionized pharmaceuticals, as used in homoeopathy, could break the strangle hold current conventional pharmaceuticals have on modern medicine, and so must be suppresed.

Footnote number two in the WIkipedia homeopathy article seems to prove it. Prior to the current footnote, footnote  number two, which traditionally has been the footnote supporting its placebo accusation,  led to an article by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) that says nothing about homeopathics being placebos. The NCCAM article is entitled Homeopathy: An Introduction (click here and read it for yourself if you don’t believe it).

This changed within the last few hours of publication of this article, as if they’re watching my keystrokes. Now it leads to the 1997 Linde meta analysis published in the Lancet, what homeopathy antagonist Edzard Ernst called “technically superb.” Linde is considered to be the best review of he literature, but is now 17 years old. Linde stated their results were incompatible with the placebo hypothesis, the opposite of what Wikipedia says it said. .

If you’re familiar with Wikipedia’s pseudoscience and fake academic “research” by hired shills for the pharmaceutical industry trying to take attention off their culpability in spawning breasts on boys and two headed girls, then you can imagine pornmeister Jimmy Wales standing in front of a table full of geeks saying something like, “just use any old article, nobody reads the footnotes, I mean you could link it to Bomis and the wikisuckers still won’t check it out.”

The U.S.’s  NCCAM article refused to say what Wikipedia wanted them to say, so the Wiki editors probaly had to switch back to Linde, which addresses the placebo hypothesis directly, but contradicts their undying  insistence that homeopathic remedies are no more effective than placebos.

Perhaps one of the editors actually read the NCCAM article and then hurriedly kicked some cat litter over it and nervously went back to something more sustainable, to make the placebo claim. Give the appearance of attribution and people will think it is.

But when Linde’s 1997 results are read they say:

“The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.”

The reason Wikipedia likes Linde is because in a susequent addendum Linde moderated their results by saying that more rigorous trials revealed less positive results. But Linde never recanted their basic statement that homeopathic remedies are not placebos.

Linde is not the only meta analysis that blows up in the face of those who are desperate to disprove homeopathy.

A 1991 systematic review of clinical trials, published in the British Medical Journal stated:

The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a surprise to us. Based on this evidence we would be ready to accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible . .  “The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homoeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications. There is no reason to believe that the influence of publication bias, data massage, bad methodology, and so on is much less in conventional medicine, and the financial interests for regular pharmaceutical companies are many times greater. Are the results of randomised double blind trials convincing only if there is a plausible mechanism of action? Are review articles of the clinical evidence only convincing if there is a plausible mechanism of action? Or is this a special case because the mechanisms are unknown or implausible?Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homoeopathy, British Medical Journal, 1991; 302: 316–323. tinyurl com/kleijnen

If it’s saying what you  want it to say, or, if you know it isn’t true, and you’re motivated to expose the lie, if you have the conviction of your beliefs, it’ll be your red meat, or fakin’ bacon if you’re vegan.

So now who’s administering placebos?

The word “placebo” does not even appear in the NCCAM article, the article that up to a few hours ago Wikipedia listed as its validaiton for the placebo claim. The NCCAM article does not describe homeopathic treatment to be ineffectual or intended to deceive, as Wikipedia suggested it would.

The word “homeopathy” refers to the phenomenon of like cures like, as is seen in the use of vaccines. In an effort to maintain equilibrium, organisms can react intensively to small doses of toxins, especially when dissociated. Hahnemann’s word homoeopathy (meaning same suffering) or the putative word homeopathy (meaning similar suffering) do not refer to the material phase of a pharmacuetical’s content as solid, liquid, gaseous or plasma (ionized). Any phase of matter can induce a homoeopathic reaction. Homeopathic medicines are noted for their use of the ionized pharmaceuticals, created by molecular dissociation when serially diluted in water, but the homeopathic application is not limited to ionized materials.

In the U.S., homeopathic remedies are regulated by the Federal Drug Administration. The original rules covering the use of homeopathics were a part of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act sponsored by Senator Royal S. Copeland, M.D. (D-NY), a homeopath.

That’s right. Your eyes are not deceiving you, you are not hallucinating.

The Godfather of the FDA was a homeopath.

Like the current reference to Linde, the NCCAM article implies the opposite of what Wikipedia claimed it said. The NCCAM article states,

“While many homeopathic remedies are highly diluted, some products sold or labeled as homeopathic may not be highly diluted; they can contain substantial amounts of active ingredients. Like any drug or dietary supplement that contains chemical ingredients, these homeopathic products may cause side effects or drug interactions. Negative health effects from homeopathic products of this type have been reported.”

The NCCAM article was not the first time Wikipedia was caught falsifying the placebo claim. This blog made note of the same charge in its entry on January 29th, 2012. (Wikipedia and the Case Against Homeopathy)

At that time the Wikipedia article on Homeopathy read, “The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.[2][3][4][5][6]

BACK TO LINDE

As you can see, WIkipedia is caught in a crossfire of its own references. Like a ping pong match, once again, tracing back to footnote number two we found, at the end of the rainbow, Edzard Ernst’s Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy, which stated,

“The existence of contradicting evidence is not unusual in therapeutics. One solution to resolve such contradictions is to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of rigorous studies. In 1997, Linde et al did just that. The conclusions of this technically superb meta-analysis expressed the notion that homeopathic medicines are more than mere placebos.”

Not one major meta analysis has been able to effectively conclude that the action of homeopathic remedies is due solely to the placebo effect. Not even Shang, the most popular homeopathy meta analysis among skeptics, was able to clearly conclude that the effect was from chance, iatrogenesis or “placebo,” admitting “a weak effect.” A review of the data by independent analysis of Shang determined that even in this most damning meta of homeopathy, ”Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo.” Ludtke Rutten

The literature for the homeopathic placebo simply doesn’t exist. The urban legend was a badly executed deception popularized by James Randi 14 years ago to support his phony offer of one million dollars ($1,000,000) to prove homeopathy, an offer that his supporters, which includes the pharmaceutical drug industry, are still desperately hanging onto as proof that homeopathy is unprovable.

The question remains, who wrote the Homeopathy article for Wikipedia, and how much were they paid, out of whose pocket?

DISBAND THE HOMEOPATHIC ACTION TRUST

LONDON- A song about vaccination was performed at a meeting of homeopaths, gathered together to discuss the proper marketing of homeopathy.

The Vaccination Song was videotaped during a dinner of the Homeopathic Action Trust (HAT)on September 17th at  the Refectory at the School of Pharmacy, Brunswick Square,, and just this last week put up on Youtube  . . and then almost immediately withdrawn, reportedly because of opposition to it.

This is why homeopathy is treated as it is. It is because of organizations like HAT

HAT SHOULD BE DISBANDED!

Instead of presenting homeopathic medicine for what it is, curative medicine, superior to allopathic, their puerile stupidity, cowardice and self-serving antics are rubbing off on the rest of us and preventing the progress of real medicine.

Maybe HAT didn’t hear, maybe they aren’t aware of it, but a great number of very vocal people have been calling them frauds for YEARS now, and HAT doesn’t seem to even know.

They certainly haven’t done anything about it.

They claim they fund projects. When I went to their webpage to see what the projects were, all it was, was a blank map of Britain, with red push pins in it !!

And one in what looks like Tanganyika . .

When I went to their research section, they simply linked to the Malik bibliography, and linked to another website with that same damn picture from Clues of the Murdered Homeopath mystery, a spilled bottle of no. 35 pellets strewn amongst cut daisies.

Every phony website on homeopathy has the same damn picture in it. It just shows how careless some people are, knocking things over!

The website in turn was asking for £5000 each for several projects, one which promised to look into the physico chemical processes of high dilutes. At this point what can they say that hasn’t already been said?

Top material scientists have concluded that, like magnetic tape, water stores its “memory” though its hydrogen bonded network (Chaplin).

And wait a minute, isn’t this the same topic I was talking about at the Cavendish?

Yes, and I . . I invited HAT!

And they want £5000  to THINK about what I was offering to explain to them a year ago, just a few miles down the road on the same day they were camped out in Cambridge?

By the way, the hydrogen bond theory for homeopathy has been around since the sixties (Barnard)

Hell, I gave everybody the answer FOR FREE!

Meanwhile, you have angry comedians off on a jihad against homeopathy. Funnyman Dara O’Briain’s fatwah against homeopaths says they should be hunted down by mobs, put in sacks,, and beaten with sticks . .  like they used to do with witches.

Can you imagine the doing that to Peter Fisher?

“What the heck, throw in Luc Montagnier, too! Anif we push, I think we can stuff Josepshon in there too!”

Everyone laughs! “OMG that’s funny. Please please, turn of the laughing gas, I’m suffocating here!”

“It’s only water,” he says, and everybody screams. “Stop stop, call 911! I’m having an OBE!”

Standing before large audiences in a navy blue jacket,  James “the Amazing” Randi struts back and forth on a high stage in front of a large audience. He is very serious. He profoundly  says homeopaths are criminals, frauds, their practice a scam.

Name one homeopath beside George Vithoulkas and me who has stood up to this prevaricating  bully.

Does anyone see what I’m saying? Instead of producing videos that they immediately yank from Youtube, why haven’t these homeopathy organizations throughout the world orchestrated a solicitation of malice law suit against his organition, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF?)

Why hasn’t an organization like HAT organized a  defamation law suit against JREF?

What hasn’t HAT  filed a tortious interference law suit against JREF, and similar organizations and their supporters long ago?

If you let them say things like that without publicly challenging them, then it looks like you accept it to be true.

It’s time to stop rolling over an go after these people who are trying to ruin us. Make them stop, shut them up.

Richard Adams, the wealthy founder of the Internet backbone, UUNET, and for years the treasurer of JREF, according to Randi put up one million dollars to taunt homeopaths with a challenge to prove homeopathy to Randi.

It is a phony offer. There is no million to prove homeopathy. It doesn’t matter if there is a million dollars in Guatemalan negotiable bonds hidden somewhere in a mayonaise jar, there no intent to give it to anyone to prove homeopathy. yet thi phony offer is what they use to actively defame us with.

It is more like a jelly bean guessing contest, managed only by Randi himself, in which he, like Boris Karloff in some medical horror epic,  is the sole arbiter.

Now why isn’t HAT going after something so transparent as that?  Why aren’t they shutting down an shutting up Adams, Randi, JREF and their chin-chuntering supporters with charges of malicious interference of trade?

WHy aren’t they asking the obvious questions, such as what connections does JREF have with the pharmaceutical industry?

How much have the pharmaceutical racketeers, who have been convicted in US court, put directly or indirectly into Adams and Randi’s pants?

The answer? In homeopathic jargon, “Mind, delusion, raptio, Stockholm syndrome, believes his captors.”

Homeopaths have come to sie with their accusers. At the first whiff of an indictment, their necks go stiff as their eyes glaze over.  In their heads, the curse of Hanuman, the Indian legend of the monkey who was hypnotized into forgetting his powers, is at work. It turns in their brains like a worm in its husk.

What a weird coincidence. Hanuman, the monkey who forgot how capable he was, had practically the same odd name as Hahnemann, the man who founded homeopathy eons later.

And how apropos.

Homeopaths, the world’s best physicians, the best workers of internal medicine and quantum psychiatry, these practitioners . . not of other- symptom-producing-allopathy, but real medicine,  curative medicine, quantum medicine designed not to extract money from its victims, but medicine designed to heal.

At every turn, at every allowance, homeopaths, individually and collectively, should at least be demanding why, from every skeptic who opens his mouth about it, why, if it’s so obviously criminal, why haven’t settlements been made in court?

WHY?

Randi says “so sue me.” A better question is why hasn’t he sued us? If homeopathy is as flawed in the way he describes it, in his numerous lectures, jack-in-the-box epiphanies and videos made throughout the last decade, then where is the mass class action suit against homeopathy?

Why is he, the Skeptic’s Christ, and all the truth seekers at the James Randi Educational Foundation not leading the charge?

Why instead is he holding out his mendicant hand to the piddling, niggling crowd, bilking them of .50 worth of courage for 100 times the cost, and a subscription to his toilet paper, when he could be reaping millions in a lawsuit against the Evil Placeboists and their rattling panaceas?

Am I asking a question I can’t answer? Am I? Or is it obvious?

Can you find the key, hidden in the picture?

And me too. When I was in England last year they were meeting in Cambridge the same day I was lecturing there on the Supramolecular Chemistry of the Homeopathic Remedy at the Cavendish Laboratory, answering the questions of science with science before the crowned heads of physics at the world’s most prestigious science facility, where were they?

Was one of them there? No, of course not! They were outside the lecture hall with the skeptics picketing my lecture for having destroyed the placebo hypothesis!

I not only humbly invited them in, to attend the Cavendish, at my expense, with full security to protect them from hurled garbage, but I volunteered to go to them and give my lecture there . .

But “nope, sorry, we hate you Benneth.”

“How dare you,” one screamed at me. “Are you trying to make us go to work everyday and like the wogs, make our patients wait for treatment in long lines, without being able to blame our mistakes on figments of the imagination? If you manage to prove that these substances are real medicines with biological action, we’ll have to buy malpractice insurance and go to school to learn CPR!”

“If Benneth proves homeopathy is real, I may have to run that malaria clinic down in Uganda,” said another. “What will the Royal Family do?”

They were too busy dancing on the lawn, rwwing pictures on white boards on whiteboards and making videos with the sound muted . .

“Mind, delusion, thinks whiteboards are better than Power Point presentations.”

HAT has been taking their orders from the enemies of mankind because it suits them just fine.

well, tt’s time for them to go to work for humanity or stop and get out of the business.

HAT should be getting multi million dollar research grants instead of the chicken or fish at the banquet.

HAT should be supporting with hard cold cash the efforts of homeopath Carol Boyce’s videos of malaria clinics in Africa and leptospirosis epidemics in Cuba.

HAT should be laying out hard cold cash for the Homeopathy Works for Me video series, probably the greatest campaign ever mounted for homeopathy.

HAT should be on the front lines in the General Assemblies of the Occupation Movement, chiming in with chants of

“Mr. OBAMA, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL STREET!

“Mr. OBAMA, TEAR DOWN THIS PREDATORY HEALTH SCARE SYSTEM!”

And to the homeopathic community they should be saying:

Help us:

“HELP US PUT A HOMEOPATH IN EVERY OCCUPATION ENCAMPMENT.”

“HELP US PUT A HOMOEOPATH IN EVERY HOSPITAL.”

DON’T VACCINATE, INOCULATE, WITH HOMEOPATHY!

Mr. Treddinick, tear down this Homeopathic Action Trust!

Blessings, good health to the craft, and so mote it be,

John Benneth, Homeopath

For better health call 503 819 7777

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter