VoYS is an aggressive anti-homoeopathy lobby that have well documented
funding connections to pharmaceutical companies.

We the undersigned are outraged at the way the World Health Organization has
allowed itself to be coerced by the Sense About Science Voices of Young
Science into condemning the use of homoeopathy in developing countries.

This condemnation comes after what appears to be blind acceptance by WHO
of the contents of a single letter from 'young scientists' living in the UK in June.
VoYS is an offshoot of Sense About Science an aggressive anti-homoeopathy
lobby that have well documented funding connections to pharmaceutical companies.

WHO appears to have made no efforts at all to establish the veracity of the claims
of VoYS or to check with the homoeopaths in the named countries on what they
are doing, their treatment policies or the results they are having in treating patients
with a wide range of conditions.

There is an increasing body of evidence in favour of homoeopathy's effectiveness.
The respondents from WHO's various departments, in their rush to fulfill the
'Young Scientists' request to condemn homoeopathy, apparently are not aware
of, or have chosen to overlook, the positive results of many research studies.

A recent high quality trial by the prestigious, WHO qualified facility, the Finlay
Institute in Cuba, involving two and a half million people, found homoeopathy to
be extremely effective in the prevention of Leptospirosis (Dr. Concepción Campa
Huergo report to Finlay Institute 'Nosodes 2008 conference' December 2008,
to be published).

 A trial conducted by Quebec homoeopathy organization in partnership with
McGill University in Honduras found homoeopathy effective in preventing and
treating parasitic Chagas disease (Martine Jourde report to Finlay Institute
'Nosode 2008 conference' December 2008).

Three studies that show homoeopathy is effective in the treatment of childhood
diarrhea. Furthermore, counter to the uninformed claim of Joe Martines, on
behalf of Dr Elizabeth Mason, Director, WHO Department of Child and
Adolescent Health and Development, rehydration was included in the protocol
of the trials (See below).

A pilot study in Ghana showing homoeopathic treatment equal to and slightly
more effective than chloroquine in the treatment of acute malaria (Br Homoeopath
J 1996Apr;85(2):66-70).

The Stanford study treating tuberculosis in HIV patients resulted in significant
improvement in patients receiving homeopathic immunotherapy (Stanford,
Comm Br Hom Res Grp Dec 1992 22 30-9).

Furthermore, the WHO department directors have ignored the rich and well
documented history of homoeopathy's success in treating major worldwide
epidemics of cholera, influenza (including the 1918 epidemic), yellow fever and
many other serious epidemics. Homoeopathy has a well developed approach
to epidemics which mean homoeopaths can respond rapidly to an epidemic
infectious disease.  In light of these and more studies of homoeopathy and the
extreme challenge of emerging drug resistant epidemics in developing countries,
it is cause for wonder why WHO itself has not sponsored research into
homoeopathy treatment.

Homoeopaths operate in a complementary way to conventional medicine, they
do not recommend stopping any prescribed conventional medicines.  Treatment
results of patients in the developing countries where homoeopathy is used are
impressive. Patients are happier and healthier and despite the constraints of lack
of funding from established research foundations, studies are being undertaken
and proving homoeopathy's effectiveness.

In 2005 the World Health Organization proposed an extremely positive report
on homoeopathy and its potential in the developing world noting that it is cost
effective, has no side effects, and above all is positively health enhancing.  It was
only after pressure from critics of Complementary and Alternative medicine to
revise it, that the report was held back and despite considerable revision it has
still not been published.

The VoYS has issued a press release to the media that widely publicises the
statements from the WHO Departmental Heads. VoYS has stated that they will
be contacting the Health Ministries of every country to tell them of the opinion
of WHO and discourage the use of homoeopathy in order to accomplish their
mission to stopping the use of homoeopathy altogether.   VoYS has presented
the communication from WHO as a public announcement from WHO and as a
way to pressure countries to alter their internal health policies.

Is this the intention of WHO ?  Does WHO condone other organizations speaking
and acting on its behalf in such a way??

We have several questions for WHO.

How can you allow your organisation to appear to condemn homoeopathy on
the basis of one letter by an antagonistic lobby that receives funding from the
pharmaceutical industry and without first checking the facts?

How can you reverse your own previous recommendations without verification
and dialogue?

Why when all over the world doctors, scientists and patients are choosing
homoeopathy because of their positive experience in regaining health, does
WHO decide to condemn homoeopathy?   How is the WHO statement and
the subsequent contact by VoYS to be received by countries such as India,
where homoeopathy doctors have a long and respected record of treating all
diseases, including epidemics?

Why when Ministries of Health in many developing countries have responded
to the requests of their own citizens to make homoeopathy a registered medicine,
does WHO choose to lend their authority to the dedicated campaign of an anti-
homoeopathy group located in the UK?

The citizens of Switzerland recently voted in a national referendum to include
homoeopathy as one of their medical choices.  Should the poor sick of Ghana,
Botswana, Swaziland, Tanzania, Brazil, Cuba, Thailand and other developing
countries, living in rural areas with little or no access to other medicines, be
deprived of this safe and affordable choice?   How can WHO allow, through
the contents of one arbitrary letter, removal of freedom of choice from the
people who need it most?  Is this not an issue of basic human rights?

'There have been 81 children who have died from H1N1 in the US.
These of course are tragic.

How many pediatric deaths occurred in children who:

- Were positively lab confirmed as H1N1;

- Had underlying chronic immune and brain dysfunction

- Were fully vaccinated according to CDC recommendations

- Had received influenza vaccine this year

- Had received seasonal influenza vaccine in previous years

- Received Tamiflu or another anti-viral prior to death

- Had a coinciding bacterial infection with H1N1

- Were never vaccinated - totally unvaccinated
...
(There is a new Canadian study that suggests those who have gotten seasonal
influenza vaccines in the past may be at greater risk for getting H1N1 swine
flu. This information reinforces NVIC's call for a comparison of the long term
health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated children).
..
What is unknown is whether the massive amount of vaccine exposure in the
US population has critically weakened people's ability to mount an effective
immune response to novel infections like H1N1.
..'
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/10/21/Special...

'UC Davis Study With Mice Links Thimerosal With Immune System
Dysfunction. Main Category: Immune System / Vaccines Article Date:
24 Mar 2006 - 10:00 PDT ...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/40052.php

'2008/11/1

Two reports this week showed the flu vaccine may not be effective in
preventing health problems in children.

One study revealed that flu shots in the past two seasons did not reduce
doctor visits or the risk of hospitalization for flu in children age 5 and
younger. Another showed that MRSA, or methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (a sometimes fatal drug-resistant bacteria that can
accompany the flu), as opposed to the flu itself, is a main contributor to
the growing number of child deaths attributed to influenza.
..
MRSA is a drug-resistant superbug that can piggyback on the flu and
can cause outbreaks of deadly pneumonia. Secondary infections increase
the risk of death from the flu more often than the flu itself.
..
1.  The majority of flu shots contain 25 micrograms of mercury, an amount
considered unsafe for anyone weighing less than 550 pounds! And which
groups are most sensitive to the neurological damage that has been associated
with mercury? Infants, children, and the elderly.

2.  The above study published in the October issue of the Archives of Pediatric
& Adolescent Medicine found that vaccinating young children against the flu
appeared to have no impact on flu-related doctor visits or hospitalizations
during two recent flu seasons.

At first glance, the data did suggest that children between the ages of 6 months
and 5 years derived some protection from the vaccine in these years. But after
adjusting for potentially relevant variables, the researchers concluded that
"significant influenza vaccine effectiveness could not be demonstrated for any
season, age, or setting."

Sort of trying to side step the discussion aren't you.

Since you know little of electronics and the testing they did, you
are trying to sidestep the discussion.

How cowardly.

Chronic mercury exposure is also a threat to our health and makes us
especially vulnerable to flu infections. It has been shown that "prolonged
exposure of mammals (white mice) to low mercury concentrations (0.008 -
0.02 mg/m3) leads to a significant increase in the susceptibility of mice to
pathological influenza virus strains. This is shown by more severe course of
infection. In the experimental group more mice died (86 - 90.3 %) than in
the unexposed animals (60.2 - 68 %), additionally the experimental group
died more quickly. The significant difference was in the appearance and
degree of pneumonia in the effected animals," wrote Dr. I. M. Trakhtenberg
in *Chronic Effects of Mercury on Organisms.*

Though everyone in the northern hemisphere is contaminated with mercury
health officials have a mental block against suggesting anything that might
reduce total mercury body burden. Though some dedicated health activists
are cracking the FDA's endorsement of mercury dental amalgam it will take
a Martian death ray to get them to protect the public from the obvious.
Natural chelation methods work safely to remove mercury but unfortunately,
if this is the dreaded flu outbreak, there will be little time to reduce mercury
levels. Much can still be accomplished with the emergency protocol
suggested below. Mercury exposure will make flu symptoms worse and
even more dangerous, and that is one reason the flu vaccine is deadly
because most brands include thimerosal, which almost fifty percent mercury.
..
Dr. Eleanor McBean, lived through the 1918 Influenza epidemic, and
testified, "As far as I could find out, the flu hit only the vaccinated. Those
who had refused the shots escaped the flu. My family had refused all
the vaccinations so we remained well all the time. There was seven times
more disease among the vaccinated soldiers than among the unvaccinated
civilians, and the diseases were those they had been vaccinated against."