Editorial: California Homeopath Volume 16, Issue 1
by Richard Pitt
In a recent article in the New Yorker magazine, the well-known Doctor, Mehmet Oz was the focus of an article called “Mehmet Oz, is he doing more harm than good.” The doctor, made famous by his appearances on the Oprah Winfrey show and who now has his own show is a household name in the United States. He has partly made his name by being willing to embrace unconventional healing methods, including having a Reichi healer present while he is doing surgery. He has had on his shows a wide range of guests who espouse many alternative forms of healing and his show takes a very open mind to many subjects and seemingly encourages people to explore many areas of self-development and dietary changes in order to find their optimal health and well being. I say ‘seemingly’ as I have never seen the show but the article purports to question if Mehmet Oz is using his unique influence to advocate wacky ideas and pumping people up on ‘new age’ style programs and ‘miracle’ diets and cures. Based on what the author describes, it does sound like Oz is taking things pretty far at times and maybe buying into some of the celebrity culture that mainstream TV encourages.
However, the insidiousness of the article is its pretence to state its concern that Oz isn’t following true science, and by encouraging unusual healing methods outside the mainstream he is actually doing more harm than good. The article takes the position of a ‘liberal social conscience’, concerned that the advances of true science are being diluted by his behavior and also that of Oz’s wife who questions such benign things as flu vaccines and GMO food. He questions why Oz would have a person like Jeffrey Smith on his show – not even a scientist states the author – talking about GM food and dismisses his credibility based on his mentioning one apparently flawed study and his lack of scientific credentials. He backs this up by saying it has been proven that GM foods are safe as the Food and Drug Administration have exhaustively tested them and stated that they are safe. It always baffles me how obviously intelligent people are so willing to accept what they are told by the government and various experts and not questioning the clear questions and doubts that may exist, especially about GM food. Perhaps the culture of conformity is so great in America today that to challenge any sacred cow of mainstream thinking is a threat to one’s professional credibility.
If GM foods are so safe, why has Europe banned most of them? Why is it only in the United States that they have been allowed to infiltrate so much into the food chain without the public even really being informed? Even though I am also not a scientist, I would recommend everyone read Jeffrey Smith’s book Seeds of Deception where he explores the work of the biotech industry and particularly that of Monsanto and their ability to manipulate government organizations, especially the Food and Drug Administration and also the media and public opinion on the subject. As the author states, many in President Clinton’s cabinet went to work or were paid by Monsanto after they left his administration. Monsanto’s ability to infiltrate government is very significant and it is well-known that they and the biotech industry have been seeking to control the source of food and how it is grown.
Whatever merit the author’s points were in the New Yorker article about Oz were utterly compromised by his cavalier dismissal of the threats of GM food, the backhand dismissal of his wife’s concerns about vaccination and god forbid, that Oz would have a homeopath on his show. Yes, homeopathy got a one word mention as an example of utter flakiness on Oz’s part. So, yet one more article on the irresponsibility of all those who espouse alternative methods of healing and how in the name of social progress, we should all drink the cool-aid of Big Pharma and government when it comes to our health.
The issue of GM foods is particularly relevant today, given the growing awareness of food security issues around the world, and particularly in Africa where I have been living most of the last two years. A recent meeting in Addis Ababa in 2012 was addressing the subject, its focus being on Africa, but its world-wide impact is clear as has been seen with the drought in the Mid-West of the United States and its impact on global food prices. The fact is that if the food supply decreases, prices go up throughout the world and those who suffer the most are in poorer countries, particularly Africa. It is still the case that 1 in 4 sub Saharan Africans do not eat enough on a regular basis. Primary deficiency is in protein but also vitamin and minerals. As an adult this may not be so crucial if a constitution is strong but in young children it is crucial and for both children and adults it predisposes to many diseases, including HIV/AIDS, Malaria and many other diseases affecting Africans.
When looking at the issues of food security and sustainable methods of agriculture for Africa, Monsanto’s name unfortunately comes up again as they are infiltrating into many countries, sometimes without using their name so blatantly, but trying to get their GM crops, hybrid seeds and roundup into a country’s agricultural agenda. So far, in spite of much money and strategies to address food security concerns, most Sub-Saharan countries do not have a long term agricultural policy to guarantee the food supply and concerns like unpredictable rains and a fast growing population are putting ever more pressure on many countries ability to produce enough food. In Malawi, where I spent six months last year, the government’s solution was to subsidize the use of fertilizer, using about 80% of the discretionary agricultural revenue in the process. The same has happened in other countries. Monsanto are also pushing their own hybrid seeds that cannot be reused and trying to incorporate GM foods into the food supply. Not all African countries have accepted GM foods willingly and we can only hope they do not buckle under the pressure and financial goodies that Monsanto will most likely entice them with.
I recently spent time with a French man working for a small NGO in Malawi, called Interaide, that is looking at improving access to sustainable agricultural methods and affordable health care, amongst other things. My friend was working directly on how to incorporate more diverse crops and to use natural fertilizer, agro-forestry and animal husbandry techniques for local farmers. Two years ago he wrote an article on the agricultural policy in Rwanda entitled The Authoritarian Face of the “Green Revolution”: Rwanda Capitulates to Agribusiness. In the article he states:
The coercive implementation of Rwanda’s new agricultural policy confirms as well that despite their remonstrance against deviations from democracy in countries of the Global South, international donors are perfectly willing to work with authoritarian states in applying neoliberal recipes and bolstering lucrative markets, such as the market in agricultural chemicals. Through the Global Food Crisis Response Program, the World Bank set aside $10 million in 2008 for purchase of mineral fertilizers in Rwanda. Since the bulk of this fertilizer is purchased from multinationals, most of the money immediately reenters the economy of the industrialized countries. In Rwanda’s case, the Swedish company Yara International ASA is the main CIP beneficiary. It is the world’s largest supplier of mineral fertilizers as well as the chief corporate sponsor of the African Green Revolution Forum (AGRF) held in Ghana from 2 to 4 September 2010 under the chairmanship of Kofi Annan. Yara pockets millions of dollars every year from the funds allocated. It also has fertilizer interests in most of the African countries adopting policies similar to Rwanda’s – Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, and Tanzania, for example. In total, 80% of the CIP budget is earmarked for fertilizer purchases from multinationals. While it may be dressed up in the humanist language of poverty reduction, this whole program – indeed, the whole of the so-called “Green Revolution for Africa” – hews closely to the neoliberal dogma shared by most international donors and is beholden to the interests of agribusiness.
Connected to this conference is an organization called Alliance for a Green Revolution Africa, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (www.agfa.org). Kofi Annan is on the board of the organization. Its aim is to address the food security problems of Africa, focusing on seed development, soil preservation, agricultural yields etc. These are all laudable aims and by looking at the site, it would seem much good is being done and the vision is a good one, integrating and adapting the best of modern agricultural technology to the needs of local farmers, encouraging sustainability, independence and also a business model that can be sustained within various countries.
On their site, they say this:
If the vision of an African Green Revolution is to be achieved, the soils tilled by smallholders must be improved. Average yields of staple cereals are less than one metric ton per hectare under smallholder farming systems. It is, however, relatively easy to double or even quadruple these yields. And the most promising approach is one that integrates fertilizers (organic and inorganic) with such complementary interventions as conservation agriculture and agro forestry, which help reduce soil and water loss from farmers' fields.
Many pilot projects have demonstrated the benefits of this integrated approach to managing soil fertility, yet efforts to scale up have so far been limited. This is precisely the problem AGRA is addressing. Millions of smallholder farmers need to adopt promising ISFM options in order to generate sustainable yield increases and make farming more profitable.
On a global basis, farmers apply an average of more than 100 kg/ha of fertilizers to their soils; in Africa, the average is only 8 kg/ha. Clearly, increasing smallholder productivity depends on significantly changing this equation, and SHP has set a goal of increasing fertilizer use on about six million hectares of severely degraded farmland to at least 30 kg/ha by 2013.
However, on the Wikipedia site for the organization, the following criticisms have been made:
A "Voices From Africa" conference has suggested that AGRA was planned without African voices, and imposes quick-fix technological solutions on complex and historically deep social issues. Specifically, that it will impose a regime in which farmers lose power over their own seeds and are forced to buy them back from large corporations year after year. This system may also contribute to the marginalization of women.[5][6] The conference compiled a set of papers containing of different arguments:
The Foundation's plan for Africa involves the production of cash crops which can be sold on the global market. This may leave countries unable to produce food for themselves, and dependent on fluctuations in the global market.
Some worry that AGRA will push genetic use restriction technology on African farmers, again leaving them dependent on outside companies for new seeds.
AGRA misrepresents Africa by cherry-picking spokespeople out of a population that massively opposes genetically-modified crops.
The program will create dependence on herbicides, which in turn will create super-weeds.
Hunger in Africa results more from poverty than from actual food shortages; people will not be able to buy any additional food that gets produced without larger systemic changes.
Most of these papers call for local control and food sovereignty as an alternative.
Other sources, including the African Centre for Biosafety and The Guardian, have reported that the Gates Foundation, allied with Monsanto and Cargill, plans to aggressively promote strains of genetically modified soy in Mozambique and beyond.[7]
A conference titled "Living With the Gates Foundation" contained some criticism of Gates Foundation sponsorship. One author suggested that Foundation's influence on media and global health was so great it could chill almost all criticism.[8] The above-cited Guardian article, for example, is written by the Director of Agriculture for Impact, a separate Gates-funded endeavor. And the blog series of which the article is a part sports a "Funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation" graphic in the top right.
What is the truth in all this. It is apparently true that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have a fairly close working relationship with Monsanto, who by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be said to have a benevolent attitude toward sustainability and ‘appropriate’ technology in agriculture. They want their Round Up used and their hybrid seeds and their GM crops. They did it in the USA, so they want to do it in Africa. It has to make one question the perspective of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation if such strong business alliances are a central part of their strategy. Much good may be done through their funding, but is it ultimately in the right direction?
Much of Sub-Saharan Africa is at an agricultural crossroads. Do they go down the path of industrial agriculture, which involves importing expensive fertilizers, pesticides, monoculture, GM foods etc or do they integrate organic methods, including permaculture techniques and other more natural methods to increase food security. That is not to say the situation is totally black and white or they have to choose just one or other. Some forms of large scale agriculture needs to be employed in much of Africa as well as large irrigation projects to guarantee water supply but where should the investment go. Malawi is a perfect example, lying by the side of the 3rd largest lake in Africa. The Israeli ambassador to Malawi said it could be the bread basket for Africa, and yet acute hunger and even famine are not that far away. So many people are caught in a cycle of subsistence where fairly often there is simply not enough to eat. I am always surprised to see how often this happens, even in people and communities that look quite OK.
Given the resources available to most farmers, the lack of investment money for most African governments (or the embezzlement of money), the best way to go forward is to encourage sustainable, local and natural methods of maximizing agricultural yield, which all farmers can have access to, if only they had the knowledge and a little from government. I was living with a local family in that situation. Even though they knew they should compost, plant trees to preserve nitrogen in the soil, diversify crops, and leave a little land fallow each year, they felt they couldn’t do it as they needed to grow as much as possible. And again they were hoping the government would simply give them fertilizer. All the methods to create greater sustainability are written in a land use manual in Malawi, sponsored by the government but no one has come to the farms in the district to help educate and implement it.
So the miasma of poverty is alive and well in Africa and this I talk about in the article on Homeopathy and AIDS and also in the proving of Cassava, which was carried out in Malawi in 2012. It was a small proving yet revealed interesting symptoms in relation to food, hunger and why cassava is so coveted in many parts of the continent. It is the perfect food for survival and I titled the proving ‘Enough to Survive, but not to Thrive.’
Cassava is keeping much of Africa alive, but at a price. It is a great subsistence food but it gives little protein and those who rely on it are simply not getting enough food to eat. That ties directly into the AIDS crisis in Africa. Why is it so many Africans have been affected by the disease? We know that the virus mainly affects those already with weak immune systems and chronic malnutrition is a major factor here. So, although western governments like PEPFAR are pumping over $45 billion dollars (yes billion) into AIDS drugs and education (which also includes some money for T.B. and Malaria) perhaps some of that money could go into sustainable agricultural development and creating reliable agricultural output.
If the lack of sufficient food and consequent malnutrition is truly a factor in the widespread dissemination of AIDS then the crisis of AIDS, as well as the culture of poverty in Africa has one glaring solution: produce more quality food. Educate and encourage the production of food for domestic consumption and export, as well as challenge the monoculture mindset where people simply want to eat cassava to feel full but don’t eat much needed fruit and vegetables, even though the land is suitable for both. One can see how much the collective memory of hunger, poverty and a general lack, infects every aspect of life in much of Africa. Even those who are wealthy have a fear of poverty. That is why they accumulate so much wealth. That is why corruption is so rife. If you have a chance to ‘eat’, you ‘eat’. You would be a fool not to. That is why the Nigerian or Kenyan people have accepted such staggering levels of corruption. Everyone would do the same. One way to change that could be to provide such an abundance and variety of food that people no longer fear starving or just surviving. There would be enough for all. People would need some encouragement to change certain eating habits but maybe it would help change things. That is, if only the governments wouldn’t exploit the situation and truly help control and distribute resources adequately. A big IF, perhaps.
Apart from a stable food supply and political stability of many countries, the ongoing crisis of HIV/AIDS in Africa is, according to the U.N., threatening the overall stability of the continent. It’s destroying the fabric of families, stretching the ability of communities and the state to provide for those who survive and shrinking the remaining work force to work the land and maintain social cohesion. But is it really that bad and is the epidemic growing, stabilizing or declining? Are the billions being spent on education and treatment having an impact? Some of these issues, including what homeopathy has to offer in its treatment are explored in the article.
However, a larger problem than AIDS in Africa is the ongoing challenge of addressing malaria. More people die from malaria than any other disease, by far, and still it is not being significantly reduced, in spite of new medication being used and ongoing education and prevention methods. Therefore the article on the research into the possible clinical prophylactic effect of the malaria nosode is of particular significance. This research follows on from the groundbreaking evidence of homeoprophylaxis in the Cuban trial using a leptospirosis nosode being given to 2.2 million Cubans between 2007-2208 to treat this epidemic condition. It may be showing ever more proof that homeopathic nosodes can work prophylactically, something many homeopaths have known for many years, but yet without substantive clinical evidence to back it up. Therefore, this research may inspire more similar research. And if this could be taken seriously by the U.N and NGO’s throughout the world, homeopathy could offer the possibility of real impact on the incidence of malaria.
I am happy to have other articles in this issue, including one showing the clinical response of Phosphorus in a cholera epidemic in Haiti after the devastating earthquake. It is another example of how homeopathy can work wonders in acute epidemic crises, just like in all the old books we have read. I am also pleased to have contributions from our Iranian homeopathic friends, with three cases of diabetes being treated, along with a brief history of homeopathy in Iran. And lastly, a contribution from my Brazilian homeopathic colleague who I met in the homeopathic ward of the large public hospital in Rio de Janiero.
I hope you enjoy this issue, in spite of the seriousness of the topics. We want the journal to explore the wider social concerns around health. And given that we are talking of Africa again (the 2nd issue to do so) and what homeopathy can offer to the people of the continent, it seems appropriate to discuss many issues that impact the health of people here.
Enjoy and best wishes,
Richard Pitt
