Biotechnology medical quackery

This is a subject I wanted to write about long ago, but today (Nov. 18 2006) there is a direct inducement when Kofi Annan warned of the potential risks of biotechnology. Novices with small laboratories will be possible to create the most dangerous substances. The risk of accidents will grow exponentially.

Hahnemann the founder of homeopathy warned about these allopathic quackery methods some 200 years ago and gave an archetypical example of a certain Brousseau who invented a new medical system which is totally comparable with this biotech:

... physiological system (without taking note of the homœopathic method then already established), a method of treatment, while effectively lessening and permanently preventing the return of all the sufferings, was applicable to all diseases of mankind; a thing that the palliatives then in use were not capable of affecting ... [he] found the easier way to quiet the sufferings of patients more and more at the cost of their life and at last to extinguish life wholly - a method of treatment that, alas, seemed sufficient to his contemporaries. § 60 Organon

Hahnemann noticed that the treatment was effective (reaching the predetermined goal, like all allopathic methods do, but don't actually heal) and was very "sufficient" but at the end cost lives. And where is this method now and where is homeopathy ? He also described the reason why such a method of medical quackery would not work:

Every builder of such a system cherished the haughty estimation of himself that he was able to penetrate into the inner nature of life of the healthy as well as of the sick § 54 Organon

It is evidently not new that allopathic scientists think they know the "inner nature of life" like gene manipulation. Hahnemann warned in § 74 that allopathic methods would create chronic disease. Biotechnology is probably the worst quackery. Let's expect those new methods are capable of palliating the symptoms of individuals, let's even suppose, for the sake of argument, certain methods will be able to heal a person completely on genetic level; the dangers created by biotechnology suggest there is a shift from personal to collective danger: Patient healed, world dead.

Cloned food

According to the FDA (Time Dec. 30 2006) there is no material difference in normal and food from cloned animals. But is there no difference ? Yes, everybody knows it is from cloned animals. Is this the only difference ? I think not. But I feel the burden of evidence is from the industry and the FDA to prove that there is any other difference. What about energetic difference ? I cannot prove there is, but should I ? Today is the day there is a way back, but for our children and child's children, there is not. They will show there was a difference, that there forefathers were only interested in selfish commercial needs and the FDA may have done little about it, unless you react on the FDA form...

(MSNBC Feb. 3 2007) The FA is still going ahead with its plans. The FDA doesn’t plan special labels for cloned food. The only method for US shoppers to eat clone-free food is to buy food with a green USDA organic seal. The industry plans to breed from superior animals, with as result minimizing the genetic variety from the origin of food.

Cow better than original ?

Scientist even engineered a cow which seems to be better than the original which has the ability to resist BSE (mad cow disease) which can be the source of future products (Jan 1, 2007 Reuters). Science has given (also political) reasons to accelerate their own biotech inventions. This new year 2007 will indeed be the golden age (especially January) of medical quackery, there seems to be no reasonable argument to vote against the new gene technologies. The archetype of the cow in homeopathy is the animal which is ready to be slaughtered. No longer will there be just mad cows, no science is bringing the whole humankind to the slaughter house.

Definition quack