WAR, DISEASE, AND HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION

In order to have a meaningful discussion of such topics as epidemics, pandemics, and biological warfare, it is first necessary to understand the nature of disease. You might say to yourself, "Don't we already know what disease is? Haven't we been fighting it all this time?" The answer to such a question is not as simple as the allopathic community would have us believe. In fact, even in the late 1980's, people at the CDC would be asking themselves basic questions like, "What is malaria?"2:444 Despite all their efforts, the disease had not been eliminated. In fact, it had become worse not in spite of their efforts, but because of them! They, along with the rest of the allopathic community, would also have a difficult time explaining not only why the world's diseases had not been eliminated, as the age of optimism in the 1950's had promised, but also why the number and severity of infectious diseases had been increasing geometrically in the twentieth century! A similar situation applies to endemic and chronic diseases. To realize the allopathic understanding of the situation, one merely needs to pick up a medical dictionary and read the definitions of all of these diseases and syndromes, where the most commonly used phrase is "etiology unknown"4. When viewed retrospectively from a homeopathic perspective, such an outcome is not only explainable, but inevitable.

As previously mentioned, part of the problem lies in the allopathic community's limited view of disease, which primarily revolves around the Germ Theory. Gaining mass acceptance after Pasteur's work in the nineteenth century, this theory has since been dominant in allopathic medicine. It has remained essentially static since then, and has often limited allopathic thinking and methods to "finding and killing the germ", very often without considering the other potential consequences. Similarly for chronic problems, they concentrate on interfering with one of the biochemical processes which produce a symptom, or slice away an effected area, without dealing with the underlying cause of the symptom. Going into such a fixed mode of thinking is hardly exclusive to allopathy or science. In fact, it is common in most people, and is something I often refer to as the Exclusion Principle, or fixating on a single idea to the exclusion of all else. The Exclusion Principle accounts for why people often ignore any evidence which is contrary to their thinking, even when the consequences are often tragic. This, perhaps more than any other single explanation, accounts for the events surrounding the evolution of disease which began in the twentieth century. Since science is the arm of rationalization for allopathic medicine, it is natural for allopaths to view things in a micro-analyzed manner. This is why they have an ever increasing number of areas of specialization, and why they only view problems in terms of some of their building blocks, usually without looking at the "big picture". As seen previously, anything handled in a contrary manner is often viewed as anecdotal or suspect. This makes it difficult for anyone who wants to bypass the "system" and go straight to solutions, rather than do tests and experimentation which often lead nowhere, or at best lead to a temporary solution that yields further problems later.

"So how do homeopaths do things?" you might ask. The answer to this question has already been partially answered in previous sections of this website. The holistic methodology of case analysis is one of the three main principles of homeopathy. This is not to say that holism has no discernable rationale, but quite the reverse. Rather than jump to a conclusion based on one aspect of a problem, homeopaths look at all relevant factors in order to gain a better understanding of the situation. Therefore, a homeopath's view is not limited to a germ or a symptom, but must also include the rest of the equation, namely the person with the germ or symptom, and the circumstances in which he or she lives! One can only reach a meaningful solution when one considers all the clues. A given disease can manifest itself on three different levels: mental (the deepest and strongest level of disease), emotional, and physical (the shallowest). This is why I tell people that in order to be a good homeopath, you must be part detective in order to effectively gather all of the clues, part psychologist in order to understand and interpret the patient mentally and emotionally, part physician in order to understand the physical aspects of the patient, and all homeopath in order to put everything together in a fundamentally sound manner. Since things are not micro-analyzed, this is sometimes called a "black box" approach, a term particularly common in engineering. In this case, the black box is the patient. The "output" is the collective of clues gathered from the patient, while the "input" is everything which contributes to the output, including the homeopathic treatment. Therefore, homeopathy is very pragmatic, being concerned with comprehensive solutions rather than worrying about the full mechanics of the problems. This is made practical by the reactive cybernetic nature of the homeopathic remedies, which function as corrective "tools" for the black box by working with its existing "hardware". The wisdom of this approach should be evident considering how little we really understand about the vast complexity of the human mind and body, a fact to which an allopathic physician will rarely admit.

By contrast, the scientific method involves making an assumption, and then testing that assumption for its validity. Whenever one of the assumptions is violated, things don't work as expected. This is then used as stepping stone for modifying the assumptions. This methodology, when applied to health care and disease, has resulted in the situation we see now. The false assumptions which were violated in a given situation include many possibilities, which are not necessarily limited to the following: the inadaptability of animals to pesticides, a low rate of mutation for microbes, the small scope of microbes' ability to adapt to survive, a genetically static human body, equating a symptom with a disease, the irrelevance of ecology, the low impact of environment and lifestyle, and the low impact of a given biological element on its surroundings. All of this has collectively contributed to something which I call intropy, which is short for "immunological entropy". As you may know from physics, entropy is the measure of the "order" of energy, and its net value is non-decreasing (see vocabulary for more details). Similarly, intropy is a measure of the immunity needed by a biological element in order to survive, and its net value is non-decreasing (again, see vocabulary for more details). Given the high rate of adaptability of more primitive organisms versus more complex organisms, a microbe will beat a large animal in terms of adaptability. Allopaths have begun a "microbial war" by introducing previously unseen elements into the biosphere at an unprecedented rate. This has disturbed the naturally existing balance in the world, making natural immunization for other species more difficult. The result is an increasingly unstable and dangerous place in which to live, and threatens the survival of many species, including man himself. Thus, the allopathic contribution to intropy can be seen as another form of iatrogenic disease, one which is effective on a global scale. Since homeopathy works by using the existing biosphere, it is a health care method which can minimize the rate of intropy.

Given homeopathy's multi-faceted approach to disease, one might expect a theoretical framework which is correspondingly complex. Again, homeopathy works contrarily to what most people might think. As previously mentioned, Hahnemann became frustrated at science's inability to adequately explain and treat disease, and used metaphysics as a theoretical tool. The result was the Theory of Miasms. Put simply, a miasm is either an acquired or inherited taint, or susceptibility to disease. Today, we could explain a miasm in terms of immunology or genetics. I tend to think of miasms as protean, multi-headed beasts of disease. They also explain why a new symptom will sometimes appear after another is suppressed. In relative terms, what determines a miasm is the occurrence rate of symptom complexes or, if you prefer, the gene pool versus the existing immunological adversaries. If a given symptom complex rises to prominence, this means the emergence of a new miasm. In other words, intropy effects the emergence of new diseases. It is no coincidence that in Hahnemann's time there were only three miasms, but in just the last two centuries two more have emerged (and some homeopaths claim there are even more). Thus, iatrogenically induced intropy has produced the previously outlined situation. The saddest part is that many homeopaths could see it all coming12, though the observations leading to it are hardly confined to the homeopathic community2.

Let us briefly view the different miasms (more information may also be found in vocabulary). The three miasms of Hahnemann's time are the psoric, sycotic, and syphilitic miasms. These are also known as the primary miasms. Of these, the psoric miasm is the oldest, and is sometimes called "the mother of all disease". Its roots go back to the beginning of disease, and it is thought to originate from a skin affliction such as scabies. The other two primary miasms are venereal in origin. The syphilitic miasm emerged in the sixteenth century, and comes from syphilis. It is the only miasm which is destructive to living tissue. Although homeopathy cannot undo structural damage, it can prevent the miasm from being transmitted. The sycotic miasm emerged in the eighteenth century, and comes from gonorrhea. When suppressed, sycosis has a tendency to redirect towards the pelvic region. The sycotic miasm also has the dubious distinction of being induced by vaccination. The other two miasms, sometimes called the modern miasms, are the tubercular and cancer miasms. The tubercular miasm is sometimes called pseudo-psora. It can assume characteristics associated with any of the primary miasms. The last miasm is the cancer miasm. Cancer is a combination of all three primary miasms, making it particularly difficult to treat. However, treatment is often helpful as long as the disease has not progressed too severely.

The miasmatic model is especially useful when one considers the severity of the emerging diseases, and the difficulty allopaths have in treating them. Let us look at two particularly striking examples. Effective treatment for highly fatal hemorrhagic fevers like ebola continues to elude researchers2. Mortality rates have ranged from fifty to ninety percent, depending on the strain, and the person often dies after several days of intense agony as the body essentially liquifies itself! As previously mentioned, homeopathy can effectively deal with severe diseases, as was the case in the great pandemic of 1918-1919, which may have been caused by an ancestor of such ebola filoviruses. Such germs are not the only problem, however. Even the aggregate effects of allopathic treatment are themselves becoming increasingly hazardous and highly intropic. Indeed, the combination of the heavy use of such measures as antibiotics along with badly suppressed venereal miasmatic influences has contributed to the rise of AIDS12. In other words,
AIDS = sycotic + syphilitic + iatrogenic.

It has often been said that war and disease go hand in glove. Historically speaking, this is a more than justifiable statement. It is equally true that disease kills more people than war. As previously mentioned, iatrogenic disease alone kills more people than war, even in the golden age of biochemical medicine. Strangely enough, much more attention is paid to the relatively limited casualties of war. There are several reasons for this. First, people in the U.S.A. no longer live in an age of continuous warfare. Unless it comes in the form of a domestic terrorist attack like September 11th, the action takes place in a safely distant part of the world. This makes the war actions of the U.S.A. something of an "event", while the daily casualties associated with allopathic health care are more "mundane". Second, the negative events in allopathic health care are often downplayed or even covered up to boost consumer confidence, while war is often sensationalized. Third, people often buy into the idea that the negative things that happen with allopathic medicine are unavoidable. As you should realize by now, this is rarely the case. These facts, combined with the previously mentioned intropic war with disease, effectively make a new type of war: a war of health care. What even fewer people realize is the extent to which this war has been taken.

After World War II, a number of Nazi war criminals were put on trial in Nuremburg. The defendants included a number of doctors who were responsible for the infamous human experimentation performed on Jews and others in their custody. A result of the trial was the introduction of the Nuremburg Code into international law (see vocabulary for a copy of the code). It includes ten points regarding the ethical conduct of human experimentation. Central to the code is the idea that the prospective human subject in the experiment must give honest, uncoerced, and informed consent before becoming a test subject. Furthermore, the test must reach some goal which is of benefit to society which is not achievable by other means. The experiments must be done by qualified personnel who take all proper precautions against the injury or death of the subject, who has the option to end the experiment at any time of his choosing. Interestingly enough, one observer reacted by saying that, "It was a good code for barbarians but an unnecessary code for ordinary physicians."19:80 One of the doctors sentenced to death under the principles of the Nuremburg Code was Karl Brandt. In his own defense, Brandt had two ideas which he thought justified his role in the Nazi experiments. First, scientific progress had priority over the rights of individual human beings. Second, the ultimate reality is that the power of the state ultimately makes it impossible for it to be refused when such experiments are ordered. Though he was executed, in the years to come the U.S.A., "would struggle to avoid the blindness he took with him to the gallows."19:85 The ideas in this paragraph should be kept in mind while reading through the rest of this website.

This struggle would take many forms. Dr. Hubertus Strughold, who is known as the father of American space medicine, was discovered to be a Nazi war criminal who escaped justice thanks to the intervention of the U.S.A., so that he would be instrumental to the space program19:87-102. Similarly, in exchange for the scientific information obtained from the experiments, the U.S.A. also overlooked putting on trial those Japanese who were in charge of the atrocities committed at Unit 731 in Manchuria.19:102-17 It was also discovered that uninformed plutonium injection experiments were performed on a number of hospital patients to test the effects of the radiation on them.19:119-155 In the CIA's infamous MKULTRA project, a number of people were unwittingly subjected to doses of LSD.19:189-98 These are only a few examples. In all of these cases, human suffering and death was overlooked in the name of scientific progress. This in turn was done in the name of national security in the Cold War era.

This behavior would extend well beyond the arena of the Cold War, however. In the 1991 Gulf War, a major issue at hand was the forced vaccinations using unproven vaccines, and the so-called "Gulf War Syndrome" that resulted. In the war itself, there were 148 combat fatalities, and a similar number of deaths from combat-unrelated accident and disease19:268. Out of the 696,000 American troops that were vaccinated, some 80,000 would have permanent neurological and degenerative diseases of which they had no previous medical history18:136. There was a complete lack of information on the vaccines, even for the doctors administering them, resulting in 43 percent of the troop suffering side-effects18:140-1. I have personally talked to two Gulf War veterans. One said he thought he would be dead in a couple of years, and the other said that the doctors told him not to have children. I am not making this up! This situation is typified by looking at Army Regulation 600 (see vocabulary for a copy of the regulation). Its key idea is that any vaccination determined necessary will be administered to personnel by any force necessary, with or without their permission. This is, of course, a blatant violation of the Nuremburg Code. You hear stories in the news of how military personnel get dishonorably discharged whenever they refuse vaccination. As one Gulf War veteran was quoted as saying, if you "believe the military would never do anything to hurt me, then I suggest you talk to the many sick Americans that returned from the Persian Gulf. I love this country and I am willing to die, but only in war. Not because they are experimenting on me."19:269 Naturally, everyone involved with the vaccines denies any responsibility. Once again, we see how the devastation of iatrogenic disease dwarfs that of warfare.

My, how things have changed in fifty years! We have gone from the moral imperatives that wrote the Nuremburg Code to an era where people are arbitrarily forced to submit to iatrogenesis. By the logic of the commentator on the Nuremburg Code, we are living in an age of medical barbarism. As previously outlined, we are in an iatrogenically aggravated intropic war with disease, which in turn is a part of the war of health care. As the previous paragraphs indicate, this in turn is also a part of a war for people's basic human rights under both the law and moral obligation. If you think this situation applies only to military personnel and a few isolated civilians, then you will definitely benefit from reading the rest of this website.