MONOPOLY OF FEAR

Risks make unnecessary vaccination statutory crime

A professor known for his relentless bashing of homeopathic and complementary medicine has recently made another useless jab in apparent favor of allopathic (non homeopathic) immunization against diseases that other authorities say are not only unnecessary, but criminal. 

Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary Medcine at the Unviesity of Exeter in Great Britain says, “A US team has just published the largest ever study of CAM providers’ attitudes towards vaccination [1]. They found that children receiving care from naturopathic physicians or chiropractors, during their first two years of life, were significantly less likely than their counterparts to receive the recommended immunizations against measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox or Haemophilus influenzae type b. Later in life, such children were more likely to suffer from a vaccine-preventable disease.”

The soemhwat lukewarm statement appeared after Ernst was challenged here to provide one study that proves homeopathy is a placebo.

So far no study, test or trial has materialized.

Of course, when they support allopathy, the old criminal’s references are supposed to be free of any of the criticism he levels on the studies that support homeopathy, but as usual, the study Ernst refers to is unavailable at this time online.
However, Kaviraj dug something up on the Child Health Safety blog here on WordPress that throws a wet blanket on Ernst’s sneering report: Ernst’s vaccinations are unnecessary, ineffective, and criminal!

“The measles mortality graphs . . contradict the claims of Government health officials that vaccines have saved millions of lives. It is an unscientific claim which the data show is untrue. Here you will also learn why vaccinations like mumps and rubella for children are medically unethical and can expose medical professionals to liability for criminal proceedings and civil damages for administering them.
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

Criminal proceedings? Against allopathic doctors? For mumps andmeasle needle jabs?
Yes!
The problem faced by modern medicine is a serious double-bind. Homeopathy does not have the financial incentives behind it that allopathy does, but allopathy, because of this very same thing, has become criminalized. I am not using that term vaguely, either. They’ve been convicted in the US under the RICO organized crime act. The pharmacetuical industry is a criminal enterprises that has been convicted of mass murder in a catch and release program by the U.S. government.
In the UK, providing treatment to a patient that is not clinically needed, and misleading patients as to the clinical need for a treatment so as to vitiate their consent, can mean the administration of the treatment is a criminal offence: Appleton v Garrett (1995) 34 BMLR 23.
According to The British Medical Association (‘BMA’) and The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) mumps vaccination is clinically inappropriate:-

“Since mumps and its complications are very rarely serious there is little indication for the routine use of mumps vaccine”: British National Formulary (‘BNF’) 1985 and 1986 Freedom of Information documents show the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and Ministry of Defence agreed as early as 1974 that:-
“there was no need to introduce routine vaccination against mumps” because complications from the disease were rare” JCVI minutes 11 Dec 1974.Doctors and nurses who fail to tell parents mumps vaccine in MMR is clinically unnecessary, of the exact risks of adverse reactions and then give the vaccine, appear to be behaving unethically, potentially in contravention of the criminal law and liable to civil proceedings for damages. They are also unable to explain the exact risks because data on adverse reactions are not being collected properly or at all, and there is evidence showing adverse reaction data are suppressed.
“A consequence is that giving MMR vaccine to children cannot be justified on clinical or ethical grounds. And as there is insufficient clinical benefit to children to introduce mass mumps vaccination, it cannot be justified as a general public health measure.”

The same reason that makes allopathy a criminal enterprise is the same reasons it is allowed to survive, which is because it is such a huge money making business, and that is because it is a monopoly of fear.
Homeopathy threatens that monopoly of fear with a truly doctored centered regime that makes use of a relatively simple, effective and safe medicine that can treat anyone with any disease.

The moment they admit the pre-clinicals for homeopathy, the tests that show the action of homeopathic remedies on non human subjects like plants and animals, allopathy not only loses it grip on the public throat, it doesn’t just fall to the place where it belongs, as a third rate medical treatment, its practitioners are in danger of being criminalized for using it. In the light of superior homeoapthic medicine it becomes clear that oppositional medicine is a dangerous treatment. It continues as a legal treatment because without an apparent alternative, allopathy appears necessary and vital to human health.

Ask for homeopathic treatment to prevent cancer and diabetes.

Try homeopathy, it works.

Advertisement

I CHALLENGE ERNST: Part Three

In part one of this series I issued a challenge to the world’s first Professor of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Edzard Ernst, to prove his assertion that homeopathic are placebos by proving it by his own standards of what constitutes science: For every report of verum, show us one for placebo.
In part two I present the sole ad hominem assertion for the action of homeopathics.
In this part, I examine the claim for placebo more closely, present its solvent, and call for the question, challenging the opponents of homeopathy to create in a dialectic worthy of the academia he represents. if you can’t prove placebo, then stop making that assertion and start asking relevant questions.
We know the assertions of condemned evidence are never taken easily by invested reputations, and we know you know it. So why must we take each other as idiots?
If one someone  says he has seen something you consider to be implasuible, you are well within your rights not to believe him. But if million subscribe to it, even  scientists, who understand that it is implausible, then it bears further inspection. It deserves a personal test. But I don’t see that happening. Ernst won’t drink the dilute Kool Aid. He will not conduct a proving. Remember what he said? After more than a million dollars sunk into him and  his program, he doesn’t have enough money to conduct one.
In the skepticism of Edzard Ernst, are his assertions evoked from global standards, or are they local? What are his criteria for a scientific study? Can he contrast the failing of tests for homeopathy to similar tests for allopathic pharmaceuticals?
If he’s so sure of his position, then he should have no problem in asking basic questions about it.
What dimensions does he see for homeopathy? Why does he not include the biochemical tests in his review of homeopathy?
Aside from alleging placebo, Edzard Ernst’s quest is to dismiss selective evidence qualitatively without naming crtieria, and to ignore the rest.
Within his arguments there are a few hidden assumptions, as there must be in any a priori allegation. This trundles along benignly, but it is missing something. A skeptic who applies his Pyrrhic node globally doesn’t have much to say except “cast thy shadow not on me, the truth cannot be known by any man, it is all for naught.”
Well, if Ernst were to do that we could all admire him, give him some wine and leave him alone in his barrel. But it doesn’t end there. Ernst, like every local skeptic with a positive assertion must ineviatbly succumb to barrel fever and come boiling out of it with his own  hypocritcal version of the truth: Ernst says that the effects of homeopathics are due to “placebo.” That is his sole, ill-defined, vague thesis. That is the one incontrovertible statement of hard fisted, sure-to-the-bone belief of this “master scientist.” He knows from study, logic and law that homeopathics must have the avenue of the human mind to work their thaumaturgy, that they are not idiopathic substances like coals that lie alone in the pit and glow, no! They must have the engine and fire of the intellect to work their magic, for they have no power alone without the bellows of delusion.
However, there is a huge difference between the criteria in the case for homeopathy and the case against it.
In the case for it, the propositions are supported by trial, error and classical scientific terms. His are supported by little more than the criticisms he has levied on the evidence for verum.
His is a circular argument. It feeds on its own solipsism. We show him evidence, he denies it on grounds that there is no theory to support it. We show him theory and he denies it on the basis that there is no evidence to support it. And why is that again? Because there is no accepted theory in science to support he evidence . . yeah, but didn’t we just say . .

“NO!” he shouts.

Do you see the hypocrisy of his argument?
The deciding factor should be found in the specificity of the case. The truth has a rolling detail to it that in inspection gains in resolution, definition and concordance. Seven different types of biochemical tests logically dissolves the placbeo hyptohesis. Intermoelcular forces that constitute polymeric crystalliferous liquid aqueous structuring and the ensuing piezo electric effect define the theory of action.
The lies, however, that physical and dynamic indices don’t exist, that action is solely that of a placebo, lacks a corollary, is full of contradictions and is idiopathic.
But homeopathy is not idiopathic, not like its opponents want us to think. Homeopathy can not stand apart from science, and a diligent inspection of it shows that it does not. Homeopathy can be explained using current scientific terms, found mostly in supramolecular and crystal chemistry.

Next, a comparison of Edzard Ernst to Christian Science.

A Fight to the Death

Should Homeopaths be called Doctors?

It is of critical importance that homeopaths fight for the right to legally call themselves doctors. Homeopathic treatment is of vital importance to the public. The historical record and modern day epidemiological reports, in vitro, in vivo, in silico tests and clinical trials show homeopathy is an astoundingly superior medicine.
Take the recent swamp fever epidemic in Cuba as a stunning example. In 2007 the results of a very large-scale homeoprophylaxis intervention against swamp fever (Leptospirosis) in a dangerous epidemic situation was reported by Cubans in three provinces of that country.

2,300,000 homeopathic doses stop epidemic 

The Cubans prepared a homeoprophylactic formulation from dilutions of four strains of Leptospirosis and administered it orally to 2.3 million persons at high risk during a swamp fever epidemic in an affected region. Intervention was then compared with non-intervention.
Homeoprophylactic intervention showed a significant decrease of swamp fever, while there was no decrease in non-intervention regions.
This is conformation that I have seen little response by the corporate controlled anti-homeopathy campaign.  The Cubans are not controlled in their use of coroporatized medicine.

Such a trial would be unheard of of in corporatized countries.
Bracho, “Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20674839
This is not the first time that reports of the outstanding success of the use of homeopathics in massive disease control have been met with silence, ignored or thrown back in our faces by the racketeer controlled campaign against us.

Effective in epidemics

Homeopathy is effective in epidemics of scarlet fever, cholera, yellow fever, typhus, pneumonia and influenza.
Statistically then the number of lives saved by homeopathy are estimable. It may rank in the millions. (See my blog here on WordPress,  “The Logic of Epidemics,” and my article “The Truth about Homeopathy and the Swine Flu” http://scienceofhomeopathy.com/swineflu1.htm)
And now we are facing a huge epidemic of soft tissue cancer.
Homeopathy stands ready to treat those who bear the most serious diseases.
Homeopaths must insist on the need for accredited schools and their services and abilities, and that they be recognized as such with the right titles. Homeopaths have historically proven themselves master physicians, and continue to do so.
Make no doubt about it, there is, literally, a fight to the death struggle by an organized campaign against homeopathy, to malign it, to suppress its use and even to outlaw it. It may not be a life and death struggle for homeopathy, for homeopathy as a doctrine will most likely continue. Rather it is a life and death struggle for the millions who potentially saved by it from cancer and other epidemics.
Homeopaths must become acutely aware of the competing interests that seek to dissuade the public from using it. Homeoapths must warn the public of the dangers of the criminally convicted allopathic pharmacy threatened by the statistically noted superiority of homeopathy in treating suffering from wide spread disease, that criminal interests seek to tortiously interfere with the practice of homeopathy and protect their monopoly.
The public needs to be informed. Doctor means teacher,and homeopaths must be the ones to lead the fight against the indiscriminate use of “pharmacides” by picketing their use,  media and on the sidewalk.
We need more homeopaths.
This is an opportunity for the a to demonstrate the superiority of his craft.
We need more homeopaths. Calling htem doctors will attract more interested students.

Try homeopathy. It works.

John Benneth, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)

The Logic of Epidemics

The Dreadful Facts about Homoeopathy

How many lives have been lost due to ignorance about homoeopathy? How many people have died because they didn’t know better? How many people, with a serious condition, could have lived if they had made a better decision about using homoeopathy?

If you were coughing blood and felt like you were going to die, would you go to a homoeopath? Let’s say not knowing any better, on the advice of a friend, you did . . and miraculously got better. Would that be a recommendation for homoeopathy? Fractionally, of course it would.  But how do you know you didn’t just get lucky, you were getting well anyway? What if there was a thousand people coughing blood and feeling like they were going to die who went to the same homeopath and did die, and you were the lucky one . . ?

Well, there’s no belief in a quack medicine that a good epidemic can’t cure. Right? Well, maybe not . .

Epidemics and pandemics are the ultimate large cohort studies for the effectiveness of any particular medicine.  Therefore, if homoeopathy is the quackery it’s esteemed and credentialed critics say it is, then its performance in epidemics will surely determine whether or not it’s evertything its quacked up to be.  It should also reveal, by comparison, if there is a performance to be seen in the accuse’. IF there was such a thing then there should be a record of it and just how it got there, how well it did perform?

Well actuallythere is such a thing.

Thomas Lindsley Bradford

 

And the Logic of Epidemics

A Review of It

by

John Benneth

 

Ladies and gentlemen: The problem facing us today is not that a quiet, little, mysterious and misunderstood system of medicine called homeopathy, or more correctly homoeopathy, doesn’t work. No, the problem is that homoeopathy does work, as The Logic of Figures by Thomas Bradford painfully reveals. If it didn’t work, its critics (who I suspect make more money bashing it than some homoeopaths do practicing it) wouldn’t have jobs. They’d be taking their penmanship out on cardboard signs to hoist on street corners, not rubbing the keys on their keyboards blank over “homeopathy,” as they do now.
In my last journal entry, The Threat of Homeopathy ,  it was convincingly shown that allopathy (medicine that isn’t homoeopathic) is conducting mass murder on the premise that there’s nowhere else to turn, and so when they land in the jackpot and are criminally indicted and literally fined billions, they take it out on the orphan (homoeopathy)  .  .  sort of like the man who has had a hard day’s work, comes home and beats up his wife.

NOW WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?
It is because the big drug companies are afraid. They’re afraid that people might go sniffing around a homoeopath’s door when they get cancer, or a diagnosis of diabetes, or any particular complaint, from autism to zoonosis.
The masterpiece was ended by implying that one good epidemic leads to another, unless you stop them with something that works. And what most people in the murder-by-drug business are afraid to hear, is that (believe it or not) homoeopathy works, and epidemics prove it on a mass scale.

The punchline here is that by the technical definition of the word, “homoeopathic” is what the small pox vaccine actually is.

Allow me to reiterate this disturbing fact: What modern medicine complains about as a cockeyed theory and dangerous in one hand is being used in a clumsy way in the other.

What everyone is having a hard time recognizing is that the most effective vaccines, such as the small pox vaccine, are literally homoeopathic, and therefore it can be said, and it should be said over and again, as it is startling true, that modern medicos saved the world from its most terrible scourge with the unwitting use of crude homeopathy! This can be seen prima facie in the use of attenuated lymph from cow pox eruptions in cattle, the original “vaccine.”

Hahnemann, who announced homoeopathy the same year Jenner announced his own discovery in 1796, makes 42 references to smallpox and Jenner in the 1842 Organon of Medicine; but, you don’t need  the Organon to know that it’s true.

Anyone who isn’t blinded by the prejudices taught by allopathy, will have to admit that the basic principle of immunization is the same guiding principle of Hahmemannian homeopathy: A similar, stronger, temporary artifical disease is inseminated in the patient so as to cure a more chronic insidious one. This is exactly what is done in the use of the small pox vaccine in a posologically more crude way . . In other words, the major difference between the “conventional” use of vaccines is that doctrinal homoeopathy makes conscious use of the principle, whereas allopathy isn’t aware of it and in epidemioloigcal problems like small pox, homoeopathy, even crudely done as it is, is the only thing that works to immunize!

Allow me to share with you the secret: Modern immunology appears to work on the apprehension that immunity is can only be conveyed by the molecule. This in fact is not true! Immunity is not conveyed by the molecule, it is conveyed by the molecule’s electron, which, in a homeopathic remedy, is stripped away from the molecule in a process known as molecular dissociation. In essence, the homeopathic remedy is made from a hydrolytic nuclear event!

But enough science for now, and I might add, I am available to make house calls at your laboratoru or school for further elucidation.

In the meantime, to see just how effective the concious use of homoeopathy is epidemiologically, let us briefly examine Thomas Lindsley Bradford’s book “The Logic of Figures.” This is a shocking record of deaths from various hospitals, comparing homoeopathic treatment with allopathic treatment (allopathic means non-homoeopathic, patented, invasive, oppositional and heroic  “medicine” such as chemotherapy, radiation, leeches, bloodletting, unnecessary surgery, electroshock and poisoning) usually what we take for granted, what we are told is the only thing that can save us.

Bradford’s Logic of Figures is a real show stopper, medicine show stopper, that is. In case after case, comparison after comparison, homoeopathic treatment has been unexpectedly better than allopathic .

Read it for yourself, it’s available online from Google books;
The Logic of Figures, Thomas Lindsley Bradford, MD.

You can download the PDF, print it out and hold it close to your face. Or just skim through it online. Either way I think you will be in for a disturbing surprise.

Take Yellow Fever for example. Here’s Bradford’s comparisons of treatments for it, homoeopathic and that other thing, the one most people go for, what Hahnemann called allopathic . .  heroic medicine?

Let us now review these figures . . let’s put it this way: Is Bradford saying that the mortality rate for non homoeopathic medical treatments for Yellow Fever in over half a century of reporting (1803-1864) is approx. 44%, and that the mortality rate from the same disease, when treated by homoeopathy, is lower than 6%?
Is that not a huge difference?

I trust that the anomaly of this is clear to you. I hope that it is overwhelmingly clear to you: A doctrine which in  2010 was being threatened with defunding by the NHS in the UK has reportedly had a staggering success rate in comparison to its medical cousin, which is oft most practiced today in treating all diseases. But using homoeopathy, which the Chief Scientist  of the UK, John Beddington, says has no scientific validity, by Dr. Bradford’s reckoning, could have saved almost 90% of those who died of Yellow Fever.

DO THEY WANT TO MAKE YOU THEIR HEALTH SLAVE?

I hope you get it. There’s something drastically, dramatically wrong here. Bradford’s accounting is not an isolated one, as will be demonstrated to anyone who makes a deeper inquiry and more thorough investigation, part of which follows.

Prof. Edzard Ernst of Exeter University, who will predictably be terminated for academic misconduct [and, as an update, was] has also been particularly vociferous about denouncing homeopathy, especially in its use in preventing disease. Ernst is the professor of Complimentary Medicine at the University of Exeter in the UK. His complaint, like that of all others of his ilk,  is that the physic of homeopathy is impossible and therefore a placebo. However, to the contrary, there are biochemical tests that destroy the hypothesis, tests that Ernst avoids discussing [and as of July 17, 2019, still avoids discussing].

There is another interesting validation. If Bradford was doing a whitewash, you would not suspect him of plugging a dead horse. But he is fair, so when homoeopathy fails, he says so. Homeopathy did not come out superior to allopathic medicine is ALL regards. In some it came out about the same. And in treating dropsy of the brain, it was a washout (a dead horse) as one might expect in diseases of deposition and deficiency, and not as effective as surgery in removing neoplasms.. But in all others, infectious diseases, epidemiologically it did more than remarkably well. It’s results in some situations, especially epidemics, were stunning.

Publication of Bradford’s book was too early to include the performance of homoeopathics in the 1918 Influenza pandemic, accused of being the Spanish Flu, although there is some evidence it couldn’t be blamed on the Spanish because it may have come from a hog farm in Kansas, or Hot Springs, Arkansas.
The 1918 epidemic was a compelling spectacle, It reached into just about every far corner of the Earth and its morbid effects were dazzling, incredible . .  (I’m running out of unused superlatives for this entry). It left entire aboriginal villages dead. In the cities, people were dying in pools of blood as their immune systems went berserk, dissolving the lungs, spewing fountains of purple blood at the horrified staff of  hospitals. It was swift and it was deadly. Influenza could drop you in a day. Some targets, standing alive one moment and would be lying dead the next. One day you’d be whistling Dixie, the next, ready for planting.
Here then is an exquisite example for the ultimate test within the ultimate trial. How well did homeopathy perform during the Influenza Pandemic of 1918?

You can read the more grisly details yourself in my article  on the treatment of the influenza in 1918,  when homoeopaths lost approximately 3% of their patients, while the non-homoeopathic physicians lost about 30% of theirs. 

Homoeopathy performed TEN TIMES BETTER than allopathy in the worst disease outbreak known to man.

SWAMP FEVER

According to the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (Stern), Leptospirosis is “the most widespread bacterial zoonosis worldwide.”
On August 3, 2010, the Cuban government reported “the largest study of homeopathy ever undertaken, based on data from over 11 million people (the entire population of Cuba), is published today in the journal Homeopathy. It provides fascinating evidence that a highly dilute substance, prepared according to homeopathic principles, may contribute to the prevention of Leptospirosis.”

During the Leptospirosis season of 2007, the Cubans had enough Leptospirosis vaccine to treat 15,000 high-risk people. That was when the government decided to treat everyone in the region at risk with homeopathy, except for babies under one year. This would be a population of 2.3 million, the world’s largest homeopathic study group to date.

“Within a few weeks the number of cases had fallen from 38 to 4 cases per 100,000 per week,” says the Faculty, “significantly fewer than the historically-based forecast for those weeks of the year. The 8.8 million population of the other provinces did not receive homeopathic treatment and the incidence was as forecast. The effect appeared to be sustained: there was an 84% reduction in infection in the treated region in the following year (2008) when, for the first time, incidence did not correlate with rainfall. In the same period, incidence in the untreated region increased by 22%.”
Allow me to highlight those last few words: Leptospirosis infection in the untreated region increased by 22%.
Homeopathic prophylaxis of leptospirosis in Cuba reduced infection by 84% !
That is HUGE.

 The Faculty report followed publication of the Cuban’s report in their July issue of Homeopathy. The abstract is available on PUBMED. Bracho, “Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20674839
Here’s a video interview with the report’s eponym, Dr. Gustavo Bracho, http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=61C0884F69B56C3C70D20A52E526B6B2

Curator for the Hahnemann Medical College of Philadelphia library, 1894.

What will you do? What will you say? This is about a huge number of human lives at risk.

Without homeopathic treatment, they are sure to die.
Bradford:

There’s a cholera epidemic in Haiti right now. Will the Haitians have the benefit of homeopathy . . for that?
And speaking of insanity . .

And here is what is even more interesting. Go back and read Bradford’s report on Yellow fever. The percentage of people saved in the Cuban leptospirosis is nearly as high as those saved in Bradford’s entire 19th century record of Yellow Fever . .
This is dumbfounding.

Yes, there’s nothing a good epidemic can’t cure, such as mass stupidity. Perhaps homoeopathy has been suppressed such as it has as a measure of population control. You have to forgive me, for my mind is grasping at signals, for a scrap of logic as to why you have allowed this continue as it has. Well, maybe not you in particular, I don’t want to embarrass you in front of your own eyes, but it certainly is working itself around to you, coming to an immune system near you, soon enough. There are all kinds of epidemics, chronic and acute. It’s the chronic ones that sneak up on you, or that are already well in place. Like cancer. That’s an epidemic. And anyone who doesn’t die of a heart attack first will probably die of cancer, sooner or later.

Homoeopathy, the practice of medical similitude, is informational medicine. That’s how it works, by informing the immune system of the nature of the disease. So really, the biggest epidemic of all is stupidity.

Now you know.

Some seeds fall on barren ground, some are eaten by birds. Some are ground under foot. Some pop, take root, spring up, then die from lack of water. But every now and then the planted becomes the planter.

One mind can make all the difference in the world. I hope it’s yours.

Thanks for reading, thanks for writing. And thanks most of all for taking action.

 
John Benneth, PG Hom (Hons.)
Hahnemann College, London

Copyright 11/13/2010

“In spite of all scientific speculations and experiments regarding smallpox vaccination, Jenner’s discovery remained an erratic blocking medicine, till the biochemically [emphasis J.B.] thinking Pasteur, devoid of all medical classroom knowledge, traced the origin of this therapeutic block to a principle which cannot better be characterized than by Hahnemann’s word: homoeopathic.
“Indeed, what else causes the epidemiological immunity in sheep, vaccinated against anthrax than the influence previously exerted by a virus, similar in character to that of the fatal anthrax virus? And by what technical term could we more appropriately speak of this influence, exerted by a similar virus than  by Hahnemann’s word ‘homoeopathy’? I am touching here upon a subject anathematized till very recently by medical penalty: but if I am to present these problems in historical illumination, dogmatic imprecations must not deter me.” – Emil von Behring, the first man to win the Nobel prize for Physics and Medicine

Now let us have your witness!

The Threat of Homeopathy

The war over homeopathy is getting hotter. In the last 60 days there have been three devastating revelations about toxic pharmaceutical drug scams of megalithic proportions, which in turn have forced the drug cartels, through their shills, to issue warnings against what will overtake them for it by mere default.