There are times when rolling around the floor laughing, mindfully and gently, comes into conflict with a conscious decision to live truthfully and without fear. At the end of the day, the Fact is, if Universal Medicine wasn’t a cult registered on this site, with over 212,935 views to date (and counting), then this essay, written in response to the absolute bunk contained within Mr Benhayon’s letter to ‘elucidate’ the public, wouldn’t have to be either written or read. The simple Fact is Universal Medicine is a cult run by a conman and that is disturbing (FACT). Serge Benhayon, his family and the Sushi train of ever changing partners all benefit from ill and disenfranchised people and if Grima Wormtongue stopped hiding behind a very small number of zealots (as cults go) and had the decency to actually show his face and speak openly to his critics, then the obvious would be made clear and history wouldn’t be tainted by the double-speak of a very successful conman and his equally deceptive and predatory family. This response letter is intended to be an illumination to the readers.
Dear World,
What we see in Mr Benhayon’s recent response (https://www.universalmedicine.com.au/blog/a-one-sided-conversation-professor-john-dwyer-echo-chamber-his-own-prejudice ) to Prof. John Dwyer’s critique (http://theconversation.com/why-consumers-need-better-protection-from-dodgy-health-care-the-case-of-universal-medicine-95144 ) is that he’s up to his old tricks of spinning half-truths and omitted facts once again into the blend of Universal Medicine integrity double-speak. Mr Benhayon claimed that there was a ‘misrepresentation of the evidence’. What follows is the whole truth. You won’t read it on any Universal Medicine site.
1. Prof. Dwyer did ‘not even have the decency to engage Universal Medicine directly’. What Mr Benhayon omits is that he steadfastly refuses all interviews with anyone who may be objectively critical of the operations of Mr Benhayon and Universal Medicine. Mr Benhayon would not welcome questioning from Prof Dwyer who he already knew has been openly critical of Universal Medicine including openly critical in a parliamentary inquiry. Presumably Prof. Dwyer understood this and sent someone else.
2. Mr Benhayon welcomes ‘genuine inquiries of research interest’. Firstly you couldn’t get much more of an informed scientific critique than the one offered by Prof. Dwyer or a number of other reputable scientific opinions, all of whom utterly reject the scientific basis for Universal Medicine practices. However any critical voice is immediately labelled a ‘detractor’ by Universal Medicine and its zealots. Secondly, see point one above. Thirdly, the only ‘scientific’ inquiries that have been allowed to date on UM techniques have been by individuals who are deeply, psychologically, socially and financially , invested in Universal Medicine including; Mr Christoph Schnelle, Ms Kate Greenaway & Ms Danielle Pirera. Needless to say, because of the obvious conflict of interest, these studies are by definition unscientific. In short they are heavily and obviously biased, cannot be objective and therefore not worth the recycled paper that they are written on. While Mr Schnelle’s papers have been published in reputable journals this has only occurred because the journals report that Mr Schnelle did not declare a conflict of interest or his invested relationship with Universal Medicine. What would the well-respected journals gain by lying? Mr Schnelle is currently under investigation by his supervising university. This point seems to escape the scientific and ethical comprehension of both Mr Benhayon and Mr Schnelle who still continue to make spurious claims based on these reports. For example, Mr Benhayon claims that this is ‘substantial evidence’. Instead it can only be objectively described as an unscientific, deeply flawed, subjectively biased account where an acolyte discovers that his master’s techniques are very effective. You don’t have to be Einstein to appreciate the scientific error.
3. Mr Benhayon claims that ‘he has made inquiries ‘about the study in JMIR’. The inference being that he wasn’t aware of it, or only partially aware in a broad sense, and thus he needed to make ‘inquiries’. However, there is nothing that is undertaken by Universal Medicine acolytes that does not require being ‘energetically’ vetted and approved by Mr Benhayon. Given Mr Benhayon’s eagerness to shore up scientific credibility, an eagerness that is evidenced in his response, and given the financial rewards that would flow from that credibility, it beggars belief that Mr Benhayon wasn’t intimately involved in each step. Also, Mr Benhayon in his response notes that Universal Medicine ‘welcomes scientific inquiries’. This suggests that scientific inquiries do not occur ad hoc and instead involve a controlled process. A fact which again contradicts the inference that he was only partially aware at best.
4. Putting aside the question of scientific evidence and turning to Mr Benhayon’s claim that Universal Medicine women are significantly healthier than the general population. What Mr Benhayon and Mr Schnelle omit is that this is an entirely unsurprising finding given that individuals who are better educated report better health regardless of what religion they belong to!
5. Mr Benhayon then draws attention to positives arising from Mr Schnelle’s biased account. However does not draw attention to paradoxical findings. Significantly he omits the observation that there is no difference between the number of people with cancer in the general public and those with cancer in Universal Medicine. Yet Universal Medicine advertises itself as a clinic that offers 'healing' services and invests heavily in the idea of energetic causes, and implicitly energetic cures, based on the teachings and modalities of the founder Serge Benhayon. The fact that the rate is the same with or without Universal Medicines intervention and the ‘accredited practitioners’ is not something trumpeted by either Mr Benhayon or Mr Schnelle.
6. Mr Benhayon also omits to mention the negative findings. This includes that woman in Universal Medicine were reported as have significantly higher abnormal pap smear results. Mr Benhayon did not raise this as an issue.
7. Mr Benhayon states that he ‘runs a successful business”. What he fails to mention is that Universal Medicine is not just a business. It is also simultaneously a religion. However Mr Benhayon consistently fails to disclose this in contexts where he is seeking legitimacy for his practice under the ‘successful health business’ facade. This is not surprising because to infer that he was the second coming or that evil spirits sniff your energy or that everybody who doesn’t follow his teachings is ‘pranic’ and therefore possessed to varying degrees by evil forces, or that his teachings were the only true teachings and everybody else’s were works of the ‘lords of form’ or that sexual abuse was the product of past lives where the victim had been an abuser or that UM acolytes by and large only socialise with other acolytes or that acolytes are warned that your family and friends, possessed by evil forces, would try to dissuade you from following his teachings, or paying thousands of dollars effectively to belong and be further initiated, would undoubtedly not serve his interest of pursuing credibility. Best to stay mum on that one.
8. Mr Benhayon claims that UM has won business awards. What he omits is that these awards were ‘People’s Choice’ Awards from the local business council headed by his ex-wife and Universal Medicine business partner. What he fails to mention is that the 600 or so Universal Medicine acolytes were strongly ‘encouraged’ to vote online for Universal Medicine in these awards, regardless of whether they lived in the local area or even in the same country. It is hardly surprising that under these conditions that no other ‘fish and chip shop’ competitor, relying just on local, unrallied customers stood a chance. Surely this is a deception within a deception? Integrity none, nepotism bucket loads! Significantly, UM has not won any independently adjudicated awards even in this minor regional competition.
9. Mr Benhayon suggests that Ms McIntyre’s $1m plus bequest can be understood within the context of any ‘Educational or Training institution’. Notice the way Mr Benhayon slips half-truths into the argument. What Benhayon omits is that Universal Medicine is firstly not an authorised training institution and secondly that it is not just a ‘business’, but it is a religion that makes money. In this regard he fails to explain the religious context of these bequests. In particular he does not mention that he has emphasised in his teachings that to bequeath money to your family is karmically damaging to both yourself and your children if they are beneficiaries. It is however, as stated by Mr Benhayon, NOT harmful to bequeath money to the church of Universal Medicine (where he is the principle beneficiary), but is positive for good Karma in your next life. It then becomes a soulful act of ‘livingness’. Nor does he mention the degree to which his acolytes identity is bound to belonging to Universal Medicine (acolytes by and large only associate with other acolytes; acolytes eat, drink, walk, sing, dance and sleep according to strict precepts set by Mr Benhayon; acolytes only listen or read material approved by Mr Benhayon; acolytes psychological well-being is conditional on attending Universal Medicine activities, which can be 4 plus events every week) and the affect this has on the emotionally dependent and ill.
10. Mr Benhayon disparages Ms McIntyre’s children noting that they had challenged the will despite giving assurances to their mother. What Benhayon omits is that the children were unaware that Ms McIntyre had given $’s already to UM and then subsequently a similarly large sum on her death.
11. Mr Benhayon claims the bequest was for completing a ‘teaching hall’ for her community. This is a half-truth. The whole truth is that it was to complete the ‘Hall of Ancient Wisdom’ owned by Universal Medicine and for the use of the College of Universal Medicine. A hall effectively owned by Mr Benhayon on Mr Benhayon’s land. Hardly a community hall despite Mr Benhayon’s elastic definition. The truth is that Mr Benhayon was the financial beneficiary.
12. Mr Benhayon refers to a video. He does not ask the question, why was a video made shortly before her death? Whose idea was it to make a video of a dying woman that would be used to demonstrate how happy she was giving large sums of money to Mr Benhayon in a court?
13. Mr Benhayon also fails to mention how many other bequests he has received, or he is yet to receive, from other dying acolytes. In other words, how successful has Mr Benhayon been in his message that bequeathing money to ‘Universal Medicine’ as an act of, again in doublespeak, ‘livingness’? Also, how many of these acolytes were initially drawn to the ‘business’ of Universal Medicine in the disappointed hope of a cure from the ‘healer’s healer’ only to find themselves emotionally enmeshed in the ‘gentle’ religion and completely surrounded 24 hours a day, seven days a week by other acolytes gently encouraging them to do the ‘soulful’ thing and bequest to Mr Benhayon? Answering these questions may allow us more to more objectively answer the question, ‘what kind of evil business enterprise does Serge Benhayon and his family run?’
14. Mr Benhayon claims that Ms Ira McClure ‘has never spent that or any sum of money with Universal Medicine’. What Benhayon doesn’t say is that the money was given to one of his acolytes that he ‘trained’ and ‘accredited’ in the ‘modalities’ and that the money was spent in relation to practices tied to Benhayon’s teachings. This is the successful business that he refers to above, but seems to disown here. Once again the puppet strings are cut.
15. Mr Benhayon claims that there is ‘zero evidence’ to support the claim that acolytes avail themselves of Universal Medicine treatments instead of medical advice and care and points to Mr Schnelle’s biased account. Firstly, even Mr Schnelle notes that Universal Medicine acolytes attend medical care ‘less’ than the population. Secondly, given that this evidence itself is not worth the paper it is written on the real question is, is there anything in Universal Medicines teachings that would discourage students from seeking medical treatment apart from Benhayon’s own ‘anecdotal evidence’ (which, placed against the context of the litany of lies evidenced just in this one refrain, has to be accepted as just more advertising for his successful ‘business’ come ‘religion’)? The evidence here is quite clear that while Benhayon gives lip service to seeking medical attention he simultaneously describes that attention as being ‘energetically’ contaminated with a loveless energy and that this ‘energy’ will not only further contaminate your body, but also your Karma for your next lifetime. “Don’t you want a better one than this one? You wouldn’t be here if you didn’t.” Wink-wink, smile-smile and a nod of the head just for good measure! He fails to mention this just as he fails to mention the other anecdotal evidence demonstrating individuals who have both died avoiding medical advice or who have nearly died delaying approved honest treatment. Of course Mr Benhayon has millions of reasons to obscure this evidence.
16. Mr Benhayon protests that to call a business a cult or a way of life is an indictment on the person making the call. First, notice that he doesn’t actually answer the question and instead slips past by distracting with name calling. Also notice how he doesn’t draw attention to the fact that Universal Medicine is a ‘religion’ and refers to it as ‘business?’ Of course identifying it as a religion lends itself to being a ‘cult.’ Second, notice how he detracts from the force of the question by not responding to it, but instead refers to how healthy the acolytes are by again referencing the spurious evidence? The real question and answer would be something like this… a cult is defined in the following terms: (i) a living prophet who claims special superior truthful knowledge handed down by some higher being; (ii) that knowledge describes a black and white arcane and mysterious world of good and evil where everyone who doesn’t follow the superior knowledge is to varying degrees affected by evil forces; (iii) the living prophet is the only interpreter and mediator of this higher knowledge; (iv) generally a hierarchy is established with the living prophet at the top; (v) critiques are categorised as agents of evil; (vi) a strict prescription of practice determined by the living prophet; (vii) the living prophet is idolised by the acolytes and ascribed special powers; (viii) acolytes become psychologically addicted to strictly following the prescriptions of the prophet; (ix) acolytes come to believe that their wellbeing is conditional on following these prescriptions absolutely and any malaise is attributable to personal weakness and failing to follow the prescriptions; (x) the critical faculties of acolytes is systematically destroyed; (xi) the living prophet (and family) receives large sums of money from the followers. How many of these characteristics do you share? Answer, ALL OF THEM!
That’s the evidence.
Q. Is Universal Medicine and its congregation the persecuted religion they claim to be when the question of millions arises or is Universal Medicine a successful business as stated? There’s not much integrity in conveniently pretending to be a business when it suits in one context, while concealing the inconvenient religion, and then just as conveniently pretending to be a religion in a different context while concealing the inconvenient fact of the multi-million dollar, self-interested business. That’s doublespeak for integrity. In either case one thing is guaranteed. Ultimately a wolf hiding in sheep’s clothing will be sniffed out.
With love,
Essay
End Response.
Dear World,
What we see in Mr Benhayon’s recent response (https://www.universalmedicine.com.au/blog/a-one-sided-conversation-professor-john-dwyer-echo-chamber-his-own-prejudice ) to Prof. John Dwyer’s critique (http://theconversation.com/why-consumers-need-better-protection-from-dodgy-health-care-the-case-of-universal-medicine-95144 ) is that he’s up to his old tricks of spinning half-truths and omitted facts once again into the blend of Universal Medicine integrity double-speak. Mr Benhayon claimed that there was a ‘misrepresentation of the evidence’. What follows is the whole truth. You won’t read it on any Universal Medicine site.
1. Prof. Dwyer did ‘not even have the decency to engage Universal Medicine directly’. What Mr Benhayon omits is that he steadfastly refuses all interviews with anyone who may be objectively critical of the operations of Mr Benhayon and Universal Medicine. Mr Benhayon would not welcome questioning from Prof Dwyer who he already knew has been openly critical of Universal Medicine including openly critical in a parliamentary inquiry. Presumably Prof. Dwyer understood this and sent someone else.
2. Mr Benhayon welcomes ‘genuine inquiries of research interest’. Firstly you couldn’t get much more of an informed scientific critique than the one offered by Prof. Dwyer or a number of other reputable scientific opinions, all of whom utterly reject the scientific basis for Universal Medicine practices. However any critical voice is immediately labelled a ‘detractor’ by Universal Medicine and its zealots. Secondly, see point one above. Thirdly, the only ‘scientific’ inquiries that have been allowed to date on UM techniques have been by individuals who are deeply, psychologically, socially and financially , invested in Universal Medicine including; Mr Christoph Schnelle, Ms Kate Greenaway & Ms Danielle Pirera. Needless to say, because of the obvious conflict of interest, these studies are by definition unscientific. In short they are heavily and obviously biased, cannot be objective and therefore not worth the recycled paper that they are written on. While Mr Schnelle’s papers have been published in reputable journals this has only occurred because the journals report that Mr Schnelle did not declare a conflict of interest or his invested relationship with Universal Medicine. What would the well-respected journals gain by lying? Mr Schnelle is currently under investigation by his supervising university. This point seems to escape the scientific and ethical comprehension of both Mr Benhayon and Mr Schnelle who still continue to make spurious claims based on these reports. For example, Mr Benhayon claims that this is ‘substantial evidence’. Instead it can only be objectively described as an unscientific, deeply flawed, subjectively biased account where an acolyte discovers that his master’s techniques are very effective. You don’t have to be Einstein to appreciate the scientific error.
3. Mr Benhayon claims that ‘he has made inquiries ‘about the study in JMIR’. The inference being that he wasn’t aware of it, or only partially aware in a broad sense, and thus he needed to make ‘inquiries’. However, there is nothing that is undertaken by Universal Medicine acolytes that does not require being ‘energetically’ vetted and approved by Mr Benhayon. Given Mr Benhayon’s eagerness to shore up scientific credibility, an eagerness that is evidenced in his response, and given the financial rewards that would flow from that credibility, it beggars belief that Mr Benhayon wasn’t intimately involved in each step. Also, Mr Benhayon in his response notes that Universal Medicine ‘welcomes scientific inquiries’. This suggests that scientific inquiries do not occur ad hoc and instead involve a controlled process. A fact which again contradicts the inference that he was only partially aware at best.
4. Putting aside the question of scientific evidence and turning to Mr Benhayon’s claim that Universal Medicine women are significantly healthier than the general population. What Mr Benhayon and Mr Schnelle omit is that this is an entirely unsurprising finding given that individuals who are better educated report better health regardless of what religion they belong to!
5. Mr Benhayon then draws attention to positives arising from Mr Schnelle’s biased account. However does not draw attention to paradoxical findings. Significantly he omits the observation that there is no difference between the number of people with cancer in the general public and those with cancer in Universal Medicine. Yet Universal Medicine advertises itself as a clinic that offers 'healing' services and invests heavily in the idea of energetic causes, and implicitly energetic cures, based on the teachings and modalities of the founder Serge Benhayon. The fact that the rate is the same with or without Universal Medicines intervention and the ‘accredited practitioners’ is not something trumpeted by either Mr Benhayon or Mr Schnelle.
6. Mr Benhayon also omits to mention the negative findings. This includes that woman in Universal Medicine were reported as have significantly higher abnormal pap smear results. Mr Benhayon did not raise this as an issue.
7. Mr Benhayon states that he ‘runs a successful business”. What he fails to mention is that Universal Medicine is not just a business. It is also simultaneously a religion. However Mr Benhayon consistently fails to disclose this in contexts where he is seeking legitimacy for his practice under the ‘successful health business’ facade. This is not surprising because to infer that he was the second coming or that evil spirits sniff your energy or that everybody who doesn’t follow his teachings is ‘pranic’ and therefore possessed to varying degrees by evil forces, or that his teachings were the only true teachings and everybody else’s were works of the ‘lords of form’ or that sexual abuse was the product of past lives where the victim had been an abuser or that UM acolytes by and large only socialise with other acolytes or that acolytes are warned that your family and friends, possessed by evil forces, would try to dissuade you from following his teachings, or paying thousands of dollars effectively to belong and be further initiated, would undoubtedly not serve his interest of pursuing credibility. Best to stay mum on that one.
8. Mr Benhayon claims that UM has won business awards. What he omits is that these awards were ‘People’s Choice’ Awards from the local business council headed by his ex-wife and Universal Medicine business partner. What he fails to mention is that the 600 or so Universal Medicine acolytes were strongly ‘encouraged’ to vote online for Universal Medicine in these awards, regardless of whether they lived in the local area or even in the same country. It is hardly surprising that under these conditions that no other ‘fish and chip shop’ competitor, relying just on local, unrallied customers stood a chance. Surely this is a deception within a deception? Integrity none, nepotism bucket loads! Significantly, UM has not won any independently adjudicated awards even in this minor regional competition.
9. Mr Benhayon suggests that Ms McIntyre’s $1m plus bequest can be understood within the context of any ‘Educational or Training institution’. Notice the way Mr Benhayon slips half-truths into the argument. What Benhayon omits is that Universal Medicine is firstly not an authorised training institution and secondly that it is not just a ‘business’, but it is a religion that makes money. In this regard he fails to explain the religious context of these bequests. In particular he does not mention that he has emphasised in his teachings that to bequeath money to your family is karmically damaging to both yourself and your children if they are beneficiaries. It is however, as stated by Mr Benhayon, NOT harmful to bequeath money to the church of Universal Medicine (where he is the principle beneficiary), but is positive for good Karma in your next life. It then becomes a soulful act of ‘livingness’. Nor does he mention the degree to which his acolytes identity is bound to belonging to Universal Medicine (acolytes by and large only associate with other acolytes; acolytes eat, drink, walk, sing, dance and sleep according to strict precepts set by Mr Benhayon; acolytes only listen or read material approved by Mr Benhayon; acolytes psychological well-being is conditional on attending Universal Medicine activities, which can be 4 plus events every week) and the affect this has on the emotionally dependent and ill.
10. Mr Benhayon disparages Ms McIntyre’s children noting that they had challenged the will despite giving assurances to their mother. What Benhayon omits is that the children were unaware that Ms McIntyre had given $’s already to UM and then subsequently a similarly large sum on her death.
11. Mr Benhayon claims the bequest was for completing a ‘teaching hall’ for her community. This is a half-truth. The whole truth is that it was to complete the ‘Hall of Ancient Wisdom’ owned by Universal Medicine and for the use of the College of Universal Medicine. A hall effectively owned by Mr Benhayon on Mr Benhayon’s land. Hardly a community hall despite Mr Benhayon’s elastic definition. The truth is that Mr Benhayon was the financial beneficiary.
12. Mr Benhayon refers to a video. He does not ask the question, why was a video made shortly before her death? Whose idea was it to make a video of a dying woman that would be used to demonstrate how happy she was giving large sums of money to Mr Benhayon in a court?
13. Mr Benhayon also fails to mention how many other bequests he has received, or he is yet to receive, from other dying acolytes. In other words, how successful has Mr Benhayon been in his message that bequeathing money to ‘Universal Medicine’ as an act of, again in doublespeak, ‘livingness’? Also, how many of these acolytes were initially drawn to the ‘business’ of Universal Medicine in the disappointed hope of a cure from the ‘healer’s healer’ only to find themselves emotionally enmeshed in the ‘gentle’ religion and completely surrounded 24 hours a day, seven days a week by other acolytes gently encouraging them to do the ‘soulful’ thing and bequest to Mr Benhayon? Answering these questions may allow us more to more objectively answer the question, ‘what kind of evil business enterprise does Serge Benhayon and his family run?’
14. Mr Benhayon claims that Ms Ira McClure ‘has never spent that or any sum of money with Universal Medicine’. What Benhayon doesn’t say is that the money was given to one of his acolytes that he ‘trained’ and ‘accredited’ in the ‘modalities’ and that the money was spent in relation to practices tied to Benhayon’s teachings. This is the successful business that he refers to above, but seems to disown here. Once again the puppet strings are cut.
15. Mr Benhayon claims that there is ‘zero evidence’ to support the claim that acolytes avail themselves of Universal Medicine treatments instead of medical advice and care and points to Mr Schnelle’s biased account. Firstly, even Mr Schnelle notes that Universal Medicine acolytes attend medical care ‘less’ than the population. Secondly, given that this evidence itself is not worth the paper it is written on the real question is, is there anything in Universal Medicines teachings that would discourage students from seeking medical treatment apart from Benhayon’s own ‘anecdotal evidence’ (which, placed against the context of the litany of lies evidenced just in this one refrain, has to be accepted as just more advertising for his successful ‘business’ come ‘religion’)? The evidence here is quite clear that while Benhayon gives lip service to seeking medical attention he simultaneously describes that attention as being ‘energetically’ contaminated with a loveless energy and that this ‘energy’ will not only further contaminate your body, but also your Karma for your next lifetime. “Don’t you want a better one than this one? You wouldn’t be here if you didn’t.” Wink-wink, smile-smile and a nod of the head just for good measure! He fails to mention this just as he fails to mention the other anecdotal evidence demonstrating individuals who have both died avoiding medical advice or who have nearly died delaying approved honest treatment. Of course Mr Benhayon has millions of reasons to obscure this evidence.
16. Mr Benhayon protests that to call a business a cult or a way of life is an indictment on the person making the call. First, notice that he doesn’t actually answer the question and instead slips past by distracting with name calling. Also notice how he doesn’t draw attention to the fact that Universal Medicine is a ‘religion’ and refers to it as ‘business?’ Of course identifying it as a religion lends itself to being a ‘cult.’ Second, notice how he detracts from the force of the question by not responding to it, but instead refers to how healthy the acolytes are by again referencing the spurious evidence? The real question and answer would be something like this… a cult is defined in the following terms: (i) a living prophet who claims special superior truthful knowledge handed down by some higher being; (ii) that knowledge describes a black and white arcane and mysterious world of good and evil where everyone who doesn’t follow the superior knowledge is to varying degrees affected by evil forces; (iii) the living prophet is the only interpreter and mediator of this higher knowledge; (iv) generally a hierarchy is established with the living prophet at the top; (v) critiques are categorised as agents of evil; (vi) a strict prescription of practice determined by the living prophet; (vii) the living prophet is idolised by the acolytes and ascribed special powers; (viii) acolytes become psychologically addicted to strictly following the prescriptions of the prophet; (ix) acolytes come to believe that their wellbeing is conditional on following these prescriptions absolutely and any malaise is attributable to personal weakness and failing to follow the prescriptions; (x) the critical faculties of acolytes is systematically destroyed; (xi) the living prophet (and family) receives large sums of money from the followers. How many of these characteristics do you share? Answer, ALL OF THEM!
That’s the evidence.
Q. Is Universal Medicine and its congregation the persecuted religion they claim to be when the question of millions arises or is Universal Medicine a successful business as stated? There’s not much integrity in conveniently pretending to be a business when it suits in one context, while concealing the inconvenient religion, and then just as conveniently pretending to be a religion in a different context while concealing the inconvenient fact of the multi-million dollar, self-interested business. That’s doublespeak for integrity. In either case one thing is guaranteed. Ultimately a wolf hiding in sheep’s clothing will be sniffed out.
With love,
Essay
End Response.