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 . .

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.

Who wants to smear homeopathy?

I think its a smear campaign.

Kaviraj and I have given them more than enough time to respond to our challenge. All we have asked of the critics of homeopathy, like Edzard Ernst, John Beddington, Ben Goldacre, Andy Lewis and their dopey proxies, is to please show us the evidence that homeopathic remedies are “placebos.”

Show us just one scientific  study that proves it. Please. Just one. That’s all. It’s not too much to ask.

But here we are, empty handed.

Boo hoo.
All we got in here is nothing more than blandishments, rhetorical questions, empty assertions, vague references to something seen on TV, ridicule, rants and accusations, but not one published study. Not one! Nothing to prove the claim that homeopathy is a placebo, nothing to lead us to the truth, not from them!

Instead, we have public figures, people who should be taken as authorities on the subject, such as Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at Excreter Univeristy in England, and Professor Sir John Beddington, Chief Science Advisor to the British government, presenting to the public a conclusion that has dual, contradictory meanings: One, because it is a placebo, homeopathy does not work; and two, the placebo effect can be a powerful one, and so if there is a cure from homeopathy that doesn’t seem like to be a coincidence, it is likely to be because of that.

So why would Beddington, Ernst or anyone with half a mind make a statement like that, that homeopathic medicine is a placebo, when the action of two and a half million (2,500,000) doses of homeopathic medicine was reportedly seen in Cuba to stop epidemic of chronic swamp fever?
Is Beddington going to call that the effects of placebo, or is he going to call the Cubans liars?
You don’t need to be partial to homeopathy to see that the criticisms of it aren’t adding up until, perhaps, I point out that Cuba is one of the few places in the world where drug companies like Pfizer can’t so easily get to.

“Homeopathy is very difficult to write about for a contemporary medical audience. In an ideal informational world, in which science is unbiased information and scientists and academics are unbiased consumers of such information, it would not be so difficult. Unfortunately, it is painfully obvious that science is biased, consumers of scientific information are biased, and science is routinely used to advance personal political and economic agendas that have nothing to do with increasing the store of generalizable knowledge.” (Dean review)

Intelligent people, people in positions of authority, are making stupid statements, that homeopathy is a placebo. Beddington said it in the Guardian just the other day, and that it is scientifically unsupported.

Conversely, one researcher, in making an exhaustive review of the clinical literature, found 205 prospective controlled clinical trials performed in the contemporary research environment from 1940 to 1998. He found evidence of homeopathy’s safety and efficacy in trials of high internal validity. He also found usefulness for homeopathy in areas that are problematic for orthodox medicine. On the basis of trials reviewed, he concluded that homeopathy is clinically relevant and that there are certain conditions in which pragmatic trials of homeopathy versus standard treatment would be useful, for example, in unexplained female infertility, postviral fatigue syndrome, influenza, and atopy. (Dean)
The review of his book then says something very interesting: “Sociologic data show the use of data for this purpose is ineffective. That is, scientists are not convinced by data. That a significant body of data shows homeopathy is more than placebo is now indisputable. Since homeopathy is a school of medicine, and not an ad hoc therapeutic modality or technique, one can conclude that data showing homeopathy is not explainable by placebo are data that go toward confirming the entire school of homeopathy and its claims, not simply that this or that remedy works for this or that disease entity.” (Dean review http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/mednat/research_on_homeopathy_state_of_the_art_(3).pdf)

Well, this is just wild, like Oscar, and it gets wilder, even more than Thornton.

As you can see, first revealed in my previous blog, a review of the literature by the most respected reviewers provided no real evidence for the placebo effect. Researcher Michael Emmons Dean isn’t alone in that assessment. There is no published, scientific support for the placebo charge against homeopathy, yet that’s the claim that the Chief Scientist to the UK government is making, along with the holder of the only chair for complementary medicine, and there appear to be hordes cheering them on, when in fact, in view of the data, the opposite should be happening.
I have never seen anyone, who has taken a vituperative stand against homeopathy, ever recant in the face of the evidence for it. They just slink away or keep yarping the same old bark over and over again, as if they don’t even look at it.
I’ve seen it happen up close and personal. I was friends with Jerry Andrus, a world renowned magician who was on the advisory board of the National Council Against Heath fraud. (NCAHF). Jerry was convinced there was no evidence in support of homeopathy. When I finally put a stack of studies in front of him that showed there was, he literally pushed it away and replaced it with a small pad of paper he was carrying and a pencil, and asked me to list some other stupid things I believed in, like witches, fairy tales and of course, astrology. When he saw the look in my eyes, he quickly withdrew it, confessing that he guessed that wasn’t fair.
It never is. Although they claim science, and demand it from you, when you present it to them, they ignore it at first, or try to pick it apart based on poor statistics.
When challenged to respond with facts over assertions, they simply ignore it. It’s not the behavior of scientists pursuing a concordant truth, its the behavior of people who are legislating. They won’t and can’t face the evidence. If they did, they’d have to stand down. Read the commentary in response. They aren’;t responding to the science with the science they first demanded. They have none. It’s all on the side of homeopathy.

Who is Sir John Beddington? When we look at some of his statged beliefs, an even stranger picture emerges as to why he is denouncing homeopathy. 

DEAN, Review of Michael Emmons Dean, “The Trials of Homeopathy: Origins, Structure, and Development” http://www.homeopathy.org/research/research_reviews/acm-2005-11_15.pdf
Jonas W, Kaptchuk T, Linde K. A critical overview of homeopathy.
Ann Int Med 2003;138:393–399.
Fisher P. Homeopathy: A multifaceted scientific renaissance.
J Altern Complement Med 2001;7:123–125.