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.

Advertisements

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.

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter