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 29^th, 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?

Advertisement

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.