How Bad Homeopathy Saved 3,000,000 Australian Children

How Bad Homeopathy Saved 3,000,000 Australian Children by John Benneth

But some want to pull the plug . .

The “homeopathy” debate is rife with misnomers. The opponents take the proven practice of homoeopathy [homoeotherapy, curing a disease by creating a temporary artificial disease by giving a substance that causes the same symptoms as those of the disease to be cured] and conflating it with an ignorance of posology, the issue of dosage, how much of a particular medicine is given, and in what material phase.

Posology is the only reasonable or scientific concern that should be before us now.

But alas, other issues, like an artificial disease, prevail. So it is the job of this journal to separate  and analyze them. You should find the widespread ignorance of the conflation to be alarming, if not startling . .

“When the ratio of diluent to medicine is as low as 100:1 and if very many succussions were forced into it by a powerful machine, we would obtain medicines that, especially in the higher degrees of dynamization, would act almost instantaneously but with intense, even dangerous violence, particularly on a delicate patient, without bringing about the permanent, gentle counteraction of the vital principle.” Hahnemann, Samuel. The Organon of Medicine, Para. 270p. 114, 6th edition J. P. TARCHER, INC. Los Angeles, distributed by Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston PDF ONLINE at http://hpathy.com/wp-content/uploads/group-documents/41/1330840219-organonofmedicine.pdf

The current example of this chronic dilemma of homoeopathy can be seen in reports from the Southern Hemisphere hinting at a draft paper by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) that says “homeopathic remedies” are no more effective than a placebo “when used to treat 68 health conditions.”

STRICTER REGULATIONS

Worries are being expressed that the NHMRC’s implied review of the literature may lead to stricter regulations for the use of “homeopathic” products and homeopathic therapy.

The NHMRC is painting putative beliefs with the color of science. The NHMRC is promoting pseudoscience.

Simply labeling “homeopathy” as “placebo” is a tip off that the NHMRC is practicing pseudoscience. No comprehensive review of the literature of clinical trials of homeopathy concludes that the effects of homeopathy are solely due to the placebo effect. [I say solely because the placebo effect is indiscriminate, it logically makes no distinction between allopathy and homoeopathy, inert or potent medicine. In fact, a rather clever argument could be made postulating that the palliations and arch dramas of allopathy’s heroic “medicine” enhance the placebo effect!]

The point is, there is no scientific support for the illiterate allegation that “homeopathy is a placebo.” [If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me on this in the comment section of this blog and give us links to the double blind RCT’s published in peer reviewed journals that test the placebo effect for homeopathy] What is  so ridiculous about the NHMRC complaint  is that what both homeopaths and allopaths, (allopath being the name used by homeopaths for a conventional medical doctor, his government handler or anyone who subscribes to allopathic medicine) are ignoring is that beginning in the late 18th century, and traversing through the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries . . to this day. . homeopathy has been used to quench epidemics, disguised as allopathy! Allopaths alone, in the use of the vaccine, have nakedly made homeopathy-in-the-crude, or more simply put, bad homoeopathy, the world’s most widespread medical application . . and as such, has saved millions of lives.

It may be bad homoeopathy, but it is still homoeopathy! In Australia, it has saved an estimated 3,000,000 children alone!

Allow me to elucidate . .

I’ve written about this repeatedly in previous blogs. And I think the cure may be starting to take. Literal and intended definitions of homoeopathy, or it’s transmogrification into homeopathy, mean the use of an artificial disease to cure a natural one.

This is a simple fact. Homoeopathy refers to a strategy of stimulating the natural endogenous process organisms electromagnetically apply to maintain homeostasis as a way to defeat disease, whatever it may be. Just as like solvents will dissolve one another, and like poles will repel one another, like diseases will cure one another.

This is no mere fancy or fiction. It is a salient fact. Such is the dictionary definition of homeotherapy, the treatment of a disease by giving a substance similar to the agent that caused the disease.

Now . . one of the last things I want to do is argue with my old friend, my best literary friend, my only concomitant friend  Daniel Webster, but it bears repeating from the header, that Hahnemannian medicine would amend this definition to say that homeopatherapy, or more correctly spelled “homoeopathy” is  the treatment of a disease by giving a substance that causes the same symptoms similar to those of the one to be cured . .

The misnomers do not alter my point: There is no mention of the use of diluted substances to restore homeostasis in the translated defintion of homeo- or homoeotherapy, homeo- or homoeopathy. This is a medical jinx.  It is what confounds the NHMRC and their like. Homeopathy does not require dilution of pharmaceutical agents in order to achieve prophylaxis or cure. The proofs for this statement should cause a sudden abatement of breath, followed by an order to cease and desist the assault on homeopathy, homoeopathy, homoeotherapy or their respective cognates.

The operative principle of homoeopathy, call it homeostasis, like cures like, or medical similitude, is the effective principle for all epidemiology. This is a palladium that has  obviously not been fully recognized by the medical recession, and has yet to come into its own, as can be currently seen in the edicts dribbling out of the Commonwealth countries, like the one we’re being urninated on now by the NHMRC. To outlaw homeopathy they would, by definition, have to outlaw conventional vaccinations.  Conventional disease prophylaxis under NHMRC condemnation would have to cease, because conventional vaccination is homeopathy! !

To outlaw homeopathy as such bans a natural phenomenon, as without human intervention, one disease will push out one that is similar to it, the examples for which follow.

The prime example of natural homeopathic prophylaxis is the small pox vaccine. Smallpox by the 1970’s was entirely eradicated by injections of serum from bovine variola, putatively known as cow pox, a disease in cattle similar to human variola. When cowpox is forced on humans by knife cut or needle injection, it sports the same reaction as their own endemic disease, but milder, creating an immunity, or cure, of scourging small pox. That after 200 years of successful application the principle of homeoprophylaxis is still not recognized is shocking.

The upgrade from variolation to vaccine was winked at in the observation that milk maids, noted for their beautiful complexions, were made routinely immune to smallpox, because of their exposure to its analogue. As a result they rarely if ever contracted small pox.

It could be legally said then, that homoeopathy, as a strategy of immunization, cured the world of small pox, the first pandemic disease to be totally eradicated by persistent, organized human effort.

By the same process of homoeopathy, known from Hahnemann and others, we can also see examples of how the disease of small pox and others, such as the whooping cough, [which first brought “homeopathy” to the stern attention of the NHMRC, have homoeopathically had their own curative effects:

WHEN DISEASE MEETS DISEASE

Hahnemann The Organon,Para. 46

We could cite very many examples of homoeopathic cures brought about by natural diseases with similar symptoms. But since we require precise and indubitable data we shall confine ourselves to the small number, always true to type, arising from unvarying miasms, which give them a distinct name.

CURE BY SMALL POX

Smallpox, prominent among them and so notorious for its many violent symptoms, has removed and cured a host of ills that have similar symptoms.

How common are the ophthalmias of smallpox and how violent, even to blindness!

Through inoculation, smallpox completely and permanently cured chronic eye inflammation in a case cited by Dezoteux a and in another cited by Leroy. b

BLINDNESS

A person who was blind for two years after the suppression of a scalp eruption completely recovered his sight after smallpox, according to Klein. c

DEAFNESS AND SHORTNESS OF BREATH (dyspnea)

How often has smallpox not brought about deafness and dyspnea! And it removed both these chronic complaints when it reached its acme, as J. F. Closs observes. d

SWOLLEN TESTICLES

Swelling of the testicles, even very severe, is a frequent symptom of smallpox; and that is why it could, by similarity, cure a large, hard swelling of the left testicle caused by a trauma (Klein). e Another observer also notes that it cured a similar testicular swelling. f

DYSENTARY

Among the unpleasant complaints that occur in smallpox there is a particular dysentery like stool; and so by similarity, smallpox has cured dysentery (F. Wendt). g

COWPOX VS. SMALLPOX

It is well known that when smallpox is contracted during cowpox immediately wipes out the cowpox homoeopathically and aborts it, both because of its greater strength and because of its close similarity. On the other hand, if the cowpox is already near maturity, because

of its great similarity to the supervening smallpox, the latter is at least greatly attenuated homoeopathically, h and milder, as Mühry i and many others have stated.

ACNE

In the lymph of the cowpox inoculation there is, in addition to the element that protects against smallpox, a quite different substance that causes an overall skin eruption usually of small, dry (sometimes rather large, suppurating) pimples surrounded by a red areola and often intermixed with round red spots, often itching most violently.

In many children this eruption comes out several days before appearance of the red cowpox areola, but more often it comes out several days afterward and then disappears in a couple of days, leaving behind small, hard, red spots. It is through their similarity to this secondary infectious agent that skin eruptions of children, often very old and troublesome ones, are homoeopathically cured, completely and permanently, by the cowpox vaccination as soon as it takes, something many observers have noticed. f

SEMI-PARALYSIS

Cowpox, which has a characteristic swelling of the arm among its symptoms, k cured a swollen, half-paralyzed arm after breaking out. l

FEVER

The fever that comes in cowpox with the appearance of the red areola has cured (homoeopathically) two cases of intermittent fever, as Hardege the Younger reports. m

This confirms J. Hunter’s remark that two fevers (similar diseases) cannot exist in the same body at the same time. n

MEASLES CURES WHOOPING COUGH

There is much similarity between the fevers and coughs of measles and those of whooping cough. In an epidemic where these two diseases raged simultaneously, Bosquillon noticed that many children who had just had measles remained free from whooping cough. o They would all have remained permanently free of whooping cough and would have been rendered immune by the measles if whooping cough were not just partly similar to measles, i.e., if it also had a similar skin eruption. That is why measles protected only a number of children from the whooping cough, and only during that epidemic.

But when measles meets a disease that is similar to it in its main symptom – the eruption it will undeniably destroy and cure it homoeopathically.

Thus a chronic herpetic eruption was cured p ( homoeopathically) promptly, completely, and permanently by and eruption of measles, as Kortum observes. q

Hahnemann, Samuel. The Organon of Medicine 6th edition, p. 26-27, Para 46,  J. P. TARCHER, INC. Los Angeles, distributed by Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston

THE ORGANON PDF ONLINE

In his footnotes to cowpox attenuating smallpox in the above (h) Hahnemann states,

“This seems to be the reason for the remarkable salutary result of the widespread use of Jenner’s cowpox vaccination. The smallpox has not since then appeared among us with such widespread virulence. Forty or fifty years ago, when a city was stricken, it lost at least half, often three-quarters of its children.” ibid

INCREDIBLE . .

So within 40 years the homoeopathic application of a zoonotic disease had significantly reduced the virulence of a similar but more serious human one in the general human population, and within 175 years completely eradicated it.

Imagine for a moment a modern city today losing three quarters of its children to small pox. Imagine Australia, with a population of 20 million, of which four million are children under 15, losing three quarters of its children, three million (3,000,000) to small pox because of the failure to make homoeopathic use of cowpox, which is exactly what the smallpox vaccine does.

Vaccinations for small pox are no longer given because small pox no longer exists! It was wiped out by homoeopathy!

Imagine the survivors, some blinded, some deafened, partially paralyzed, horribly disfigured . . yet this is what the principle of homoeopathy has prevented.

When will the governing health bodies of the First World countries and their tag-alongs recognize this?

S        U        B        S        C        R        I        B        E

Advertisements

Google this . .

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 . .

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

Rubbing Out Homeopathy

The previous John Benneth Journal reported secret documents show the United Nations wants to tax the Internet. This entry reveals for the first time plans for population control through a secret disease program.

The documents, obtained through Wikileaks, the controversial online conduit for confidential and sensitive government documents, reveal that the World Health Organization (WHO) has been collaborating with a pharmaceutical industry trade group to raise money for a secret disease program for population control under the guise of “biotech” and vaccination research and development by taxing the Internet. The biggest hitch is to these plans turns out to be a little known doctrine of medicine called homeopathy.

The documents report that a committee of advisors in the WHO, sensitive to Big Pharma interests, called an “expert working group” (EW group), specifically was looking for ways to raise money for “biotech” and vaccination research and development.

The WHO EW group decided that the best way to realize money would be to indirectly tax the Internet.

The EW group also noted voluntary private contributions, new donor funds, and taxes on pharmaceutical profits as potential funding sources, but ranked them behind taxing the Internet user, under the guise of oxymoronic “health care.”

Hard to swallow. Hard to digest. But look at scaremongering by the Chief Science Advisor to the UK government.

Professor Sir John Beddington is claiming that by 2030 the rising world population will outpace the Earth’s resources and precipitate a great calamity of water shortages and starvation.

The United Nations Environment Program predicts widespread water shortages across Africa, Europe and Asia by 2025. The amount of fresh water available per head of the population is expected to decline sharply in that time.

Beddington predicts mass migrations from the Third world countries, which is predicted to be hardest hit in a “perfect storm” of problems, resulting in a mass migration to Europe, England and other countries.

He offers no clear answers to the perceived dilemma.

If Beddington truly believes what he is saying and can see no other option than drastically reducing the population, then the most likely option is cryptogenocide, secret mass murder through the spread of a secret new fatal disease.

In order for a program of genocide on a population to work, the population must be convinced that there is no effective vaccination during a sudden outbreak of a mysterious new disease. The only problem with this plan is if there is a medicine that can be created quickly to treat a new disease.

This is where homeopathy comes in. Homeopathy is a controversial form of medicine that has challenged common uses of crude or synthesized drugs. Although not well known or understood, homeopathy uses government regulated and accepted drugs in its treatment.

However, the physics of these drugs and the way they are prescribed is not understood by most doctors. But more importantly, the homeopathic pharmacy is a generic one. Its drugs are easily made and can’t be patented. There is little comparative money in their prescription and use.

But the record shows they are highly effective when properly administered. And because they are selected by observing a patients symptoms, it is not necessary to know what the cause of those symptoms are. This makes them ideal pharmaceuticals for the treatment of new diseases, or for diseases which have no known treatment, vaccine or antidote.

Recently 4.8 million doses of homeopathic medicines were administered by the Cuban government to potential victims of an annual swamp fever epidemic and drastically reduced the number of infections, proving what the historical record has shown, that homeopathic medicines are vastly more effective in reducing infectious diseases than are patent medicines and vaccines.

And so is it coincidental that the Chief Science Advisor to the UK government publicly denounces their use?

“I have made it completely clear that there is no scientific basis for homeopathy beyond the placebo effect and that there are serious concerns about its efficacy,” Professor Beddington told the Commons a Parliamentary committee in the UK investigating homeopathic medicine.

He went on to warn that government funding for homeopathy risked legitimizing unproven treatments and that patients could harm their health by choosing these over conventional vaccines and medicines.

“There is a danger that the public will think that there is real efficacy for some serious conditions and I believe we have to work on that and make clear that this is not correct,” he told the committee.”
However, a follow up report on the House of Commons committee investigation by the Upper House revealed that the Lower House’s proceeding were a sham.

“The Committee criticised the supporters of homeopathy for their ‘selective approaches’ to evidence,” wrote Lord Baldwin, “They could fairly be accused of the same.”

The only “scientific “study that seems to best support Beddington’s conclusion that homeopathy is a placebo was done in 2005. It is one of eight major systematic reviews of homeopathy in CLINICAL use. It is the premier piece of evidence in the case against homeopathy.

And so in my next blog, I want to take a closer look at this one piece of evidence that seems to stand between the consumer and the use of homeopathy in socialized medicine programs, and question how it plays a part in a deadly game of planned genocide.

WIKILEAKS REVEAL UN PLANS TO TAX INTERNET, “PHARMACIDE”

Conspires with Big Pharma to protect drug patents as “biotech, vaccination R&D”

By John Benneth
Previous blog: Monopoly of Fear
Documents obtained by Wikileaks, the controversial exposer of government secrets and sensitive information, show what appears to be a working conspiracy between a non profit organization representing global pharmaceutical interests and the United Nation’s (UN) World Health Organization (WHO).

The conspiracy explicitly proposes to tax Internet use under the guise of raising money for biotech and vaccine research.

The non profit organization representing global pharmaceutical interests is the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA; aka “Big Pharma”). The WHO is the specialized agency of the UN that acts as a “coordinating authority” on international public health.

Although WHO representatives deny that confidential documents were intentionally shared with the IFPMA before they were shared with member states,  WHO officials have yet to reveal how the IFPMA got hold of confidential documents.

More importanly they expose an “expert working group” (EWG) in the World Health Organization (WHO) collaborating with the patent drug industry to indirectly tax the Internet, presumably to raise funds for biotech and vaccination research and development (R&D.)

But there may be a darker side in this unholy alliance.

“The IFPMA document confirms much of what had been feared,” that there is “a larger WHO strategy to protect the status quo, particularly as it relates to intellectual property issues,” – James Love, Knowledge Ecology International

Public health groups have expressed fears since early 2009, when the WHO EWG met with the drug industry representatives but refused to meet with those who are known to be drug industry critics.

The fact that WHO reports were distributed to IFPMA private members before they were distributed to the UN’s member governments reveals where WHO real interests reside . . with the drug companies.

The WHO EWG appraised “fundraising,” proposals, some which they considered “least likely to work,” such as diverting existing resources to health, reducing tax evasion and havens and levying new charges on services or access rights.  A proposal for a “Green IP” system (Intellectual Property Watch, Inside Views, 27 June 2008) was viewed as “too hard to operationalise” but that “some elements could potentially be useful.”

Ominously they said the best idea and  most likely to work would be new “indirect taxes,” on Internet users.

What is meant by “indirect“ is not known.

The EWG estimated taxing pharmaceutical profits would generate only $160 million. They see the profits from taxing the Internet to be 12 times greater, at $2 billion.

The question arises as to why, and how, the UN through the WHO would be interested in taxing Internet use to raise such a comparatively small sum.

By what authority can the UN tax the Internet, unless it is through a crisis. A crisis that would require immediate funding.

Hiding behind the money burden of taxation is a greater, more ominous issue.

Control.

Not of just the Internet, but of Mankind.

If the UN, acting in the interests of pharmaceutical interests, has the power to tax the Internet, it has the power to control it. Controlling it gives it the power of censoring information that could be injurious to its patent drug company benefactors.

Information such as that revealed by Wikileaks.

Note that the watch dogs in this fight are Swiss investigators reporting on “intellectual property rights.”  They are part of an organization called “Intellectual Property Watch,” based in Geneva.

In a word, “intellectual property rights” means “patent.” The UN, through its major client is an indirect enforcement agency, leads directly to the monopolized use of allopathic patent drugs in health care, and on to patented genetic modification.

(Allopathy is the current, mainstream philosophy of treating disease in the patient by creating new symptoms,  opposed to homeopathy, which treats the patient by matching symptoms of the disease.)

Control the health issues, control the medical system, control genetic modification, control Mankind.

It’s a recipe for disaster.

If they can own the patent on genetic structure, they can patent life. Plant life, animal life, human life. This is why the first investigators on the crime scene are from an organization that watches intellectual property rights issues.

The spying issues are merely an obfuscation of something much bigger. No mere house cat has been let out of the bag. What is out of the bag is a leopard stalking man.

I’m still reeling from the implications of the Wikileak revelation.

I hope you see its seriousness too.

Pharmacide.

(Still sounds crazy? Stay tuned. This blog is not finished.)

NEXT: The role of Chief Science Advisor to the UK government Sir John Beddington.

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter