CONCLUSION TO THE PRECEDING SECTIONS

This website is meant to be merely an introduction to homeopathy and health care. As such, it is by necessity eclectic. There are uncounted references which support the claims made here, which space constraints have made impractical to include. The following are just a few examples.

• Jacques Benveniste, MD, is an immunologist who worked for INSERM, the French Biomedical Research Institute. He was also a Nobel Prize finalist in 1982. In one of his experiments, he discovered an anomaly for which there was no scientific explanation. In what is a rare demonstration of genuine scientific curiosity, he relentlessly pursued an answer to this puzzle. As a consequence, he lost his position at INSERM and became ostracized by the scientific community. His only crime was that his experiments empirically demonstrated the efficacy of highly diluted solutions, as are used in homeopathy. This is a classic case of scientific censorship of data which does not support current scientific theory. It also demonstrates the role of the scientific community in the medical racketeering network5:461-4.
• Albert Abrams, a physician at Stamford University in the early 1920's, noticed unique properties in diseased material. While attempting to refute the potentized remedies used in homeopathy, he actually discovered them to be radioactive, and the level of radioactivity increased with the level of dilution. Abrams was slandered for his experimental results in a scientific publication, and forced to resign from both the AMA and the California Medical Society. Abrams was obviously even more ahead of his time than Benveniste5:249-50.
• The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), the research branch of the U.S.A. Congress, released a report around 1990 on the efficacy of medical procedures. The OTA found that "only 10-20% of all medical procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial"16:6. Furthermore, of the 10-20%, some of the claims of efficacy were based on flawed research. This demonstrates two points. First, the so-called "Gold Standard" of allopathic medicine, the double-blind placebo-controlled study, is not the only means of determining the efficacy of treatment. However, the expensive $200 million procedure is arbitrarily required to prove the safety and efficacy of any cost effective alternative medical treatment, and is most likely rejected by the FDA regardless of the results. Second, odds are overwhelming that most of the allopathic medical treatments are little better than having nothing done at all! This demonstrates the double-standard surrounding the approval of medical procedures and medicines in the medical racketeering network.
• Until recently, mercury was used in the amalgam of dental fillings. Indeed, half of the "silver" in the filling was actually mercury! As previously mentioned, a number of studies have been done to show the dangers of mercury on people. For example, multiple sclerosis patients have been shown to have eight times the level of mercury in their spinal fluid compared to the neurologically healthy. Autopsy studies have shown a direct correlation between the number of dental fillings and mercury levels in the brain and kidney cortex. Naturally, the American Dental Association (ADA) vehemently denied the whole thing. When an ADA representative was confronted with the facts of mercury poisoning on 60 Minutes on December 16, 1990, he was humiliated. Shortly thereafter, the ADA reversed its position. This provides yet another illustration of the Exclusion Principle which inundates the scientific and medical communities16:60-4.
• In the 1980's, Dr. Rasmussen opened a hospital which specialized in electromagnetic treatment. Such a biophysical approach is not unlike what is seen with homeopathic remedies. The facility had a great deal of success. When an FDA official came to visit, he said to Rasmussen, "You've got a nice office and a nice home. If you want to keep them, you better stop using and promoting electro-magnetic therapy"16:132. This demonstrates not only the unfair trade practices in the medical racketeering network, but also how allopathic doctors will even fight each other in petty "turf" wars over money.
• Professor James Bennett of George Mason University published a study of three major health charities in July of 1990. In it, he found that all three organizations were misleading the public by claiming to support research to look for a cure to illnesses. While 87% of the American Heart Association's 1988 income came from tax deductible donations, only 30% of its funds were actually spent on research. Similarly, the American Cancer Society received 90% of its funds from public donations, yet only 25% of its income went to research. The American Lung Association had 75% of its income from public donations, yet it spent a mere 4.1% of its income on research. Here is yet another example of Medical Machiavellianism for the sake of profit16:212.

We have taken a brief look at western medicine, in particular how it applies to homeopathy. Allopathic, or conventional mainstream, medicine developed at least from the time of Galen and evolved with civilization. This evolution included a marriage with science during the Renaissance, and a division between academic and empirical medicine developed. Allopathic medicine became increasingly subjugated by capitalism in the post-industrial revolution era, and a profit-driven medical racketeering network formed between the pharmaceutical industry, the medical industry, the scientific community, and key U.S.A. government agencies under the pretense of providing consumer protection and scientific health care. Consequently, all cheaper health alternatives to the network were squashed. The power and impunity of the racket has reached the extremes of being comparable with war crimes, where profitable mass human experimentation and homicide are fraudulently performed in the name of scientific medical advancement and health care. In its secure racketeering position, the simplistic mentality of allopathic medicine has exhibited little fundamental change since the nineteenth century, and its techniques have proven to be harmful not only on an individual scale, but also on a global scale. As such, it presents a major threat to the future of humanity. As the world becomes politically more unstable and imbalanced by iatrogenically induced intropy, no realistic hope of help from allopathic medicine can be expected. With no end of all of this in sight, the singularly most effective alternative is homeopathy.

Homeopathy, which also has its roots in antiquity, developed along an empirical rather than an academic line. It finally culminated into a comprehensive system of medicine in the early nineteenth century due to the efforts of Samuel Hahnemann. Although homeopathy enjoyed considerable empirical success, the lack of a scientific explanation was used as an excuse by the greedy and bigoted allopathic community to suppress the results. Philosophical division within the homeopathic community, combined with the actions of the profit-driven medical racketeering network, drove homeopathy into obscurity for nearly a century. The current situation created by allopathic medicine has prompted an increasing number of people to rediscover homeopathy, whose empirically driven approach relies on a much more sophisticated view of disease and health care. The popularity of homeopathy will continue to increase as people take up the fight in the war of medical human rights which was instigated by allopathy, not only for themselves but also for their posterity.