WIKILIARS: Wikipedia and the case against homeopathy

John Benneth responds to Wikipedia lies about homeopathy.

Benneth reveals Wikipedia states the opposite of what its sources conclude.

“The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.”  -Wikipedia

Investigation of Wikipedia’s sources reveals the statement to be not true and follows a disturbing trend of omitting, attacking or transmogrifying positive studies, tests, trials of homeopathy while pro forma accepting negative opinion as fact.

Since I made my bold predictions and video on Wikipedia, their article has changed slightly. Instead of the footnote numero uno [1] going to an obscure dictionary definition of homeopathy, it now goes directly to the number one hatemonger for homeopathy, Professor Edzard Ernst, a bizarre old self-described homeopath, a Dr. Frankenstein making malice and lies, author of the pretended  über review of homeopathy ”A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy.” http://www.homeopathy.org/research/research_reviews/Ernst.pdf

Of course it’s nothing of the sort.

It’s just a collection of his own garbage obscuring the evidence: One third of his references are to his own articles, opinion and commentary about homeopathy. And yet it is this squattaling albatross the groveling open online encyclopedia Wikipedia cravens to.

“A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy,” the chief wellspring of hatecrime against homeopathy, is the headwater of lies against homeopathy.

Out of 224 footnotes on homeopathy in Wikipedia, Ernst is in 16 of them, non-scientist high school drop out James Randi, an entertainer, illusionist and debunker with an alleged million dollars to lose if homeopathy is proven to work, is in three of them, referring to articles entitled such as “Horizon’s homeopathic coup, Cuzco’s altitude, more funny sites, the clangers, overdue, Orbito nabbed in Padua, Randi a zombie?, Stellar guests at amazing meeting, and great new Shermer books!”

What’s amazing to me is that anyone with any kind of real knowledge about homeopathy, or even anyone with a lick of sense as to what makes a decent article is going to let this kind of crap pass without raising hell about it. The Wikipedia article is an obvious piece of black propaganda, its sources peopled with pharmaceutical company shills.

No? You don’t believe it? Then let me ask you this: Does such an article as Wikipedia’s on homeopathy NOT serve to benefit competing interests in the health scare industry?

Whether or not you believe homeopathic remedies have any biochemical action, would you NOT agree that they pose a threat to conventional medicine?

What is it do you think these people who are antagonistic to homeopathy are doing? Who do you think serves NOT to gain by homeopathy’s demise?  Could it not be that the antagonism to this tenacious remedial study sprung first from its  implausibility, led into facing a difficult to understand doctrine, and finally morphed into embarrassment from a too-hasty judgment that led to the fools gallery?

Yes, of course. If they’re so irrational, than why are they omitting rational evidence? Because it proves them wrong. It proves them to be the very thing they feared and subsequently condemned.

Is it because it is something that they condemned so hastily and so severely, leaping at the chance to bully something they thought they would make them look smart and tough minded,  that when finally faced with the evidence they said didn’t exist, they can’t recant without doing real harm to their precious reputations and their belly scraping self-esteem?

Isn’t it amazing how men wear their fears so brazenly written on their sleeves when they’re pointing an accusatory finger? A man most often it seems will condemn in others what he fears hides within himself.

We’re looking at a real, proven cure for cancer and we’re going to let these kind of games interfere with our use of it?

Well, I guess I shouldn’t be so naive, should I? I guess it’s to be cynically understood, sub silentio, isn’t it?

In a brutal world led by self proclaimed heroes who would drag us into the use of radioactive weapons against civilians, such as was recently done against the insurgency in Iraq, a few lies, such as those being issued by Wikipedia regarding a traditionally proven system of disease prevention and cure, redoubts against a complex and powerful health scare system, might seem like nothing.

But I must confess, I don’t buy into the cynicism so easily. Cynicism is for men wh0 sleep in barrels in the park, for losers, cowards and comedians.

I say to you that here a few lies is everything. It’s a quarter of century on the average lifespan. The world’s richest man of all time, richest in the values of a dollar both then and now, was a homeopath. John D. Rockefeller lived to be 97 years old and died with his homeopath by his side.  He was so committed to homeopathy that he ordered $350,000 for its support and development, but due to his philanthropic advisor defiance, it was diverted to the development of allopathic pharmaceuticals instead.

In 1906 the nation’s most powerful woman was a homeopath, as was her son an her first husband. Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science had also become one of the nation’s wealthiest women, and discusses cases she had treated in the church manual. Her greatest critic was the dean of American letters, but was also an advocate of homeopathy. Mark Twain wrote, “The introduction of homeopathy forced the old school doctor to stir around and learn something of a rational nature about his business. You may honestly feel grateful that homeopathy survived the attempts of allopaths (the orthodox physicians to destroy it.”

Mahatma Gandhi was an advocate of homeopathy. He says, “Homeopathy …. cures a larger percentage of cases than any other method of treatment and is beyond doubt safer and more economical and most complete medical science.”

So certainly even my harshest critics must honestly observe how it is that I can have a passion for this work when some of the greatest people of the twentieth century were its advocates.

Not one major meta analysis has been able to effectively conclude that the action of homeopathic remedies is due solely to the placebo effect. Not even Shang, the most popular homeopathy meta analysis among skeptics, was able to clearly conclude that the effect was from placebo. A review of the data by independent analysis of Shang determined that even in this most damning meta of homeopathy,  ”Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo.” http://www.anthromed.org/UploadedDocuments/LuedtkeRuttenJCE08.pdf

Why aren’t we seeing that in the Edzard Ernst dominated article on homeopathy in Wikipedia? This guy’s sticky fingers get all over everything that has anything to do with homeopathy.

Now, I can’t run out into the street and effectively stop marches to war by grabbing guns or lying down in front of tanks, but I can say something about a carefully orchestrated corruption peddling deliberate lies, as is being done on Wikipedia.

‘Homeopathy ^{i/ˌhoʊmi‘ɒpəθi/} (also spelled homoeopathy[1] or homœopathy) is a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners claim to treat patients using highly diluted[2][3] preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient. The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.[2][3][4][5][6]

Let’s take a closer look at the footnote, go to the article and see what the author actually said.

[2] ERNST: “The existence of contradicting evidence is not unusual in therapeutics. One solution to resolve such contradictions is to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of rigorous studies. In 1997, Linde et al did just that. The conclusions of this technically superb meta-analysis expressed the notion that homeopathic medicines more than mere placebos.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874503/

Oh, what was the conclusion of a technically superb meta-analysis now just a notion? And really, isn’t Ernst leading us to thinking in misnomers? He says he’s a “trained homeopath.” Well, at what point did he take such a skeptical view of it? Where did he get this training? When he says that homeopathy is more than a mere placebo’s, what’s he referring to, exactly?

Maybe he didn’t check the exact meaning of the word? Does it not refer to similitude, not dilution? Is that what he’s talking about? Or is he whining about this long standing complaint that anything diluted 1 to 100 a few times can’t have any biological effects?

First of all, he must know about hormesis, the Arndt Schultz Law, that substances that will usually depress an organic system, will in very small amounts stimulate it.

He must also be aware of the FACT that the action of similitude is credited with being the operative mechanism in providing the world with its greatest achievement, the small pox vaccine? Of course! What else would it be? Such is the mechanism for most vaccines. Hair of the dog that’s about to bite you. Prior to control of the deadly pox by homeoapthic vacination, variolation was the preferred method of immunization, technically isopathy . . not like cures like, but same cures same. Homeo means similar. Homo means equal. There’s a huge difference missed by nuance. They used to use a knife blade to inject the serum from the infected into the uninfected by cutting it into the crease of your ass where the butt meets the thigh, so as to hide the ensuing ugly infection and ultimate scar, and in this way partially immunize against the disease. But then they found that the serum from a similar  disease in cattle provided better protection, and it was made famous by Jenner.

Hahnemann called it testimony and proof of homeopathy.

“Not one case receiving homeopathic care died, while the “old school” doctors lost twenty percent of their (smallpox) cases…..I gave about three hundred internal vaccinations, five to adults acting as practical nurses; to the man who installed the telephone and lights in the pest-house; to mothers who slept with their children while they had smallpox in its severest form. All of these people, exposed daily, were immune.”–W. L. Bonnell, MD [ http://www.whale.to/v/bonnell.html ]

Follow the link 0n that one and read about Bonnell’s trial a the difference between vaccinoid and variolinoid. But are the anonymous editors at Wikipedia going to supply readers with links like these? Hell no, this is too much proof for homeopathy.

Now, allow me to repeat the question. Who made this man Ernst a homeopath?

Does he know about anti venom? Isn’t that an eample of homeoapthy in the rude form. Like cures like.

Adderall an Ritalin are ADHD “meiations” that oeprate on the pricniple of homeopathy, being nothing more than methamphetamine salts. Homeopathy.

In fat, I might be compelled tht I supet just about every action has a homeopathic like component in the response. There are other examples of homeopathy. In chemistry, like dissolves like in the action of solvents. In electromegaantics, like repels like inthe action of magnets. And of course eery it of matter living an not, has an elctrmagnetic component to it. What is it that holds the Moon in orbit so that it neither crashes into the Earth nor flies away from it?

Magentism. And it is no different han the explanations  of Hahnemann in reiting what is at the heart o the homeoapthic effect.

IYou know, I really don’t know how it is that a guy like Ernst an’t feel some shame or anxiety when reading an article like this. And he says he’s a homeopath. How does a man like that sleep at night?

I wrote to Ernst once and asked him if he was still offering $10,000 for proof of homeopathy. He wrote back and said that he had pulled the offer.

Could it be that he thinks he received his education from me?

LINDE:  “The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo.” Linde, Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9310601

Linde also says, “However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.”

The reason for Linde’s statement that there is insufficient evidence for any single clinical condition” is self evident. The Linde review is a meta analysis of the literature asking the question whether or not homeopathy is a placebo. Efficacy for any single clinical condition can’t be answered in such a review, and that’s why they had to put in that caveat. But Ernst takes this caveat and turns it into the meaning he wants. In his really not so systematic review he reworks Linde to say, “The authors also stated that no indication was identified in which homeopathy is clearly superior to placebo.”

As anyone can see, they did NOT state that.

Ernst says, “In conclusion, the hypothesis that any given homeopathic remedy leads to clinical effects that are relevantly different from placebo or superior to other control interventions for any medical condition, is not supported by evidence from systematic reviews. Until more compelling results are available, homeopathy cannot be viewed as an evidence-based form of therapy.”

From this the anonymous authors of Wikipedia allege, “The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.”

Even Ernst can’t say that.

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

 

Million Dollar Challenge Revisited

OPEN LETTER to Phil Plaitt and the James Randi Educational Foundation.

Posted on Plaitt’s blog.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/11/24/giving-thanks-2011/comment-page-1/#comment-445768

Dear Phil Plaitt,

Twelve years ago I applied for the James Randi Educational Foundation award to prove homeopathy. James Randi accepted my application, corresponded with me over a protocol, and then months later dismissed me as being inconsequential, claiming he was going to put Nobel laureate physicist Professor Brian Josephson and immunologist Jacques Benveniste to the test instead.

Canadian  author Syd Baumel of The Aquarian wrote to Prof . Josephson to inform him that my application to JREF preceded theirs. Prof. Josephson replied to say he never applied for Randi’ Challenge, was not interested in the Challenge, and Randi was sent back to me.

The basic protocol which Randi said would win the Challenge was a simple one. It would be to provide a method by which to identify placebo from verum in a double blind trial, of which there are several.

Randi finally ended correspondence with me. I’ll leave it to him to say why.

Since that time I have lectured at the Cavendish Laboratory at the invitation of Prof. Josephson on the supramolecular chemistry or the homeopathic remedy; Josephson says, “The idea that water can have a memory can be readily refuted by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments.”

He describes how many scientists today suffer from “pathological disbelief;” that is, they maintain an unscientific attitude that is embodied by the statement “even if it were true I wouldn’t believe it.”

Does JREF suffer from pathological disbelief? If not, then prove it with my simple test for homeopathy, accepted by James Randi.

Leading a team of material scientists, the renowned Professor Emeritus Rustum Roy wrote a review of the literature on water structure and postulated it’s relevance to homeopathy, showing that the substances used in homeopathy have physical indices that identify them from their vehicles (as I proposed); Roy says that the literature “does definitively demolish the objection against homeopathy, when such is based on the wholly incorrect claim that since there is no difference in composition between a remedy and the pure water used, there can be no differences at all between them.”

Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier produced a series of experiments showing that high dilutes as used in homeopathy radiate an EM signal and have filterable crystalline-like nano structures, H-bond structures associated with their signal.

When Montgnier was asked if he is concerned that with hiss research into the natures of high dilutes as used in homeopathy he was drifting into pseudoscience, he replied adamantly: “No, because it’s not pseudoscience. It’s not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study.”

In 2010 top water chemist Professor Emeritus Martin Chaplin of London South Bank University has said that water does indeed store and transmit information concerning solutes through its hydrogen bonded network.

There has been an explosion in the research of homeopathy. In 2007, Teela Johnson and Heather Boon wrote a review for pharmacists of the research in homeopathy in an article for the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education entitled “Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?” Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07.

They say, “Several meta-analyses have also concluded that homeopathic treatment is significantly better than placebo. The first was carried out in 1991 by Kleijnen et al. They identified 107 published papers that scientifically evaluated the efficacy of homeopathically prepared treatments. Of these studies, 81 reported positive effects for homeopathy, with 9 of the 11 highest quality trials showing positive results.
“A second, extremely rigorous, meta-analysis was conducted in 1997 by Linde et al in an attempt to ascertain whether or not the clinical effects of homeopathy are due to placebo effects. They evaluated 186 clinical trials that tested the efficacy of homeopathically prepared treatments. Of these, 89 reported sufficient data to be included in the main meta-analysis. After controlling for publication bias, and quality of evidence, their results showed that homeopathy performed significantly better (combined odds ratio was 2.45 in favour of homeopathy) than placebo, with a confidence interval of 95%. Additional scrutiny, including methodological revisions by the authors themselves in a subsequent paper, confirmed these findings.”

The Cuban government has used homeopathy to stop its annual leptospirosis epidemic; the nation’s number one rated medical facility , the MD Anderson Cancer Clinic, has used homeopathy to treat cancer successfully in vitro and in vivo; the American Medical College of Homeopathy has opened this year in Phoenix, Arizona; the legislature there is now licensing homeopaths under the Doctor of homeopathy (DH) designation, medical doctors trained in the use of homeopathics as MD(H).

In light of this information, and the fact that my original protocol to JREF has not changed, I submit to you that my claim on the JREF award is now more valid than ever, and the challenge to you is to make good on it, and to put the original protocol, as submitted to JREF in January 0f 1999 to the test, using independent, scientifically qualified judges who have the credentials for approving the final protocol for such a test and disposition of the award.

signed,
John Benneth, Homeopath
503 819 7777

According to Wikipedia, Plaitt formerly worked at the physics and astronomy department at Sonoma State University. In early 2007, he resigned from his job to write a book entitled Death from the Skies, .

On August 4, 2008, he became President of the James Randi Educational Foundation. He served in that position until January 1, 2010, when he was succeeded by noted skeptic D. J. Grothe.

Let’s see how he takes it.

 

HOMEOPATHY EXPLAINS JAMES RANDI

It’s always something, isn’t it? One of my big sayings has been, you see it once, you’ll see it again.

Take James “the Amazing” Randi, for instance.

A while back, in fact it must have been about a century of Sundays ago, major homeopathy antagonist James “the Amazing” Randi did a lecture on homeopathy in which he decried it as being, among other things, criminal.

I thought this demanded a response.

So here’s his video, “James Randi explains homeopathy,” followed by my response, “Homeopathy explains James Randi.”

And here’s my response:

You might want to check back here to see if there are the usual angry denials, threats, spoofs, and name calling as is the usual responses of skeptics when hit with some difficult questions.

 

John Benneth, Homeopath

503 819 7777

The Homeopathic Physician General

Kill the health scare system and replace it with one that works.

HOMEOPATHIC PHYSICIAN GENERAL

What the world needs now is a new office of Physician General, a homeopath. Homeopathy is curative medicine, superior to the palliative medicine of allopathy. Homeopaths are superior physicians.

It’s time to make a real physician the chief medical authority.

A surgeon general is the head of a public health service or the head of an armed forces medical service. The title of surgeon general is outdated, from the 19th century, when the office was commissioned in 1871. It is laughable, that in the 21st century, we are still mired in 19th century concepts that have become outdated and superceded by a new biological paradigm of supramolecular medicine, the new defining term for what homeopathy is.

“Surgeon General” is now the highest ranking health official in the US. He or she has the power, by executive order, to issue decrees mandating compliance in matters of public health. The US Physician General replaces the Surgeon General as the chief medical officer in government.

The problem with such a title is it designates a martial command of medicine. It implies that the highest, most critical function in medicine is surgery, the branch of invasive, allopathy that treats injuries or disorders of the body by incision or manipulation, especially with instruments.

[Allopathy is the most common form of treatment regarded as "medicine" in the U.S. It treats illnesses with substances and procedures that create symptoms and conditions different from those of the illness, usually desensitization or removal.]

Allopathy does not cure.

Allopathy is  inferior to homeopathic medicine. Homeopathic medicine creates symptoms similar to those of the illness in order to trigger powerful, organic curative forces. It is superior in most appliations to allopathy.

Now, many conditions do require surgery, but many conditions do not,  yet are treated with  unnecessary and dangerous surgery.

DEATH BY ALLOPATHY

“An estimated 7.5 million unnecessary medical and surgical procedures are performed each year, writes Gary Null, PhD., in Death by Medicine. Rather than reverse the problems they purport to fix, these unwarranted procedures can often lead to greater health problems and even death. A 1995 report by Milliman & Robertson, Inc. concluded that nearly 60 percent of all sugeries performed are medically unnecessary, according to Under The Influence of Modern Medicine by Terry A. Rondberg. Some of the most major and frequently performed unnecessary surgeries include hysterectomies, Cesarean sections and coronary artery bypass surgeries.”

http://www.naturalnews.com/012291.html

One report shows that within a 6 year period  there were 65000 lawsuits against allopathic drug companies.

There is more to medicine than just surgery. Invasive, palliative “medicine” as practiced in allopathy is inferior to the curative medicine of homeopathy.

Take the one most controersial issue of our time: Tobacco

The effects and antidotes of tobacco smoking and usage were already well known in great specifity by homeopathic physicians a century before the allopaths had anything to ay about it. The Surgeon General in 1964 Dr. Luther Leonides Terry, M.D. published the landmark report  in 1964 saying that smoking “may be” hazardous to health.

That alone was enough to spark nationwide anti-smoking efforts. But Terry and his committee refused to define cigarette smoking as an addiction . . the committee was made up of “doctors” who smoked.

Anyone who has taken up smoking knows that the consumption of tobacco has addictive effects. Terry’s obvious error, which anyone can see now was false, wasn’t corrected for 24 years.

By the 1900′s homeopathic references had noted extensive symptomology for tobacco poisoning. The more current Repertorium Publicum shows 2,106 ymptoms specifically for Tabacum.

No one can now deny that the effects of tobacco can be dramatic, if not drastic, on the human constitution. But these have been seen for hundreds of years. Fifteenth century Turkish writer wrote, “As to tobacco’s harmful effects, there is no doubt . . . tobacco is medically noxious in that it makes morbid the aerial essence  .  . for men of dry temperment . . it is no wise permissile. It will increase his dryness an will constantly dessicate the moisture of his lungs.”

English King James I, in his 1604 Counterblast to Tobacco, wrote “A custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in black stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless.”

In a 1790 essay entitled Tobacco, American journalist and rebel Phillip Freneau wrote, “Tobacco was surely designed to poison and destroy Mankind. ”

To be fair, it should be noted that not everyone who smokes dies of it. Of the nine oldest known living people, a third of them smoked. Louise Marie Meilleur was an avid smoker and lived to be 117.  Shigechiyo Izumi took up smoking at the age of 70 and lived to be 120 years old.  Jeanne Calment, the last person to have met Van Gogh, lived to be 122 and smoked up until the age of 117. I seem to recollect reading somewhere that she smoked Gauloise, a short, wide unfiltered cigarette made with strong, dark Syrian tobacco that stings the lungs.

In a Farewell to Tobacco, 19th century English writer Charles Lamb wrote “”For thy sake, Tobacco, I would do anything but die.”

So, as you can see, tobacco is an example of the egregious long term medical incompetence of the Office of the Surgeon General. But don’t stop

Vice Admiral Regina Benjamin, current U.S. Surgeon General

there.  There are other mass maladies even worse than tobacco that the Surgeon General has missed.

IT’S IN THE WATER

How about the use of chlorine and fluoride in drinking water?

Standby for shocking news.

Chlorine and fluoride are deep acting poisons that have gone unnoticed by the Surgeon General, poisons that homeopaths have known about for many years, poisons that have contributed to the high murder rate and hypersexuality that can be seen in modern populations since their introduction in the mid 20th century.

Then there are the vaccines, which in essence are homeopathic. The only trouble is, the allpaths haven’t learned to cut the dose.

Then there are the countles allopathic drugs that flood the market that are bringing on a tidal wave of lawsuits and crinal penalties.

It’s a medical disaster.

The Quantum Psychiatrist

http://www.quantumpsychiatrist.com     BE THE QUANTUM PSYCHIATRIST

 

 

Victims of the Great Genius Support Group

Here’s a new blog that may change your basic outlook on science, called

VICTIMS OF THE GREAT GENIUS
Support Group.

The first entry is entitled “The Speed of Now.” 

I encourage you to be the first to take a look and comment.
http://victimsofthegreatgenius.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/the-speed-of-now/

John Benneth, Homeopath

503 819 7777

NOVELLA: Shouldn’t work means it doesn’t work.

Submitted by “Steve” on 2011/11/09 at 2:13 am to the John Benneth Journal

Since you’re attacking Dr. Novella I thought you and your readership would appreciate what he said about this self-same video of yours last year.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/homeopath-benneth-jumps-the-shark/

Signed,

Steve

Alright “Steve”, let’s take a look at what Novella said . . ad rem:

“. . an exhaustive review of the evidence for homeopathy led the UK Science and Technology Committee to conclude that homeopathy should not work, it does not work, and all public support for homeopathy and homeopathy research should be halted.”

Have you stopped to think how stupid that sounds? Because “homeopathy shouldn’t work, it doesn’t work” [?].

Granted the word because sits outside the quotes. Novella’s interpolation does not mae that word explicit.

But which is it?

“Shouldn’t” or “doesn’t?”

And what do you mean by work?

He later dismisses the effects as being those of the placebo effect, which he knows perfectly well can be powerful effects . . that work.

But where the hell does did he get the should an doesn’t part? Thomas Edison? Herman Cain? Mussolini?

Who says that?

And that’s all the evidence you got?

That because it shouldn’t work, we shouldn’t look anymore?

Stop the research on homeopathy before it’s too late!

Isn’t that the same kind of logic criminals use?

“Whatever you’re looking for you find it so you’re just wasting everyone time and the taxpayer’s money.”

And perhaps you or Dr. Novella would like to clarify what you mean by exhaustive. If you think that was exhaustive, then you do need something more than the crap you’re peddling. Sounds like somebody’s been drinking Drano to get high..

Say it again, Steve and Steve: Because something shouldn’t work, it doesn’t work.

You mean the Sun doesn’t orbit the Earth?

You mean like gravity?

Heavier than air flight?

The age of the Universe being less than its observable limit in light years?

Sounds like something out of the Dark Ages, Steve and Steve.

Where have you been?

If you’re up to it, here is a video of Novella getting his brains beat out on this same subject by one of Amerrica’s top material scientists.

John Benneth, Homeopath

503 819 7777

I’ve been gypped!

Steven commented on People’s vs. Corporate Medicine

There’s nothing left to discuss. The science has been settled and Homeopathy doesn’t make the cut. This is why we’ve left it.

Goodbye John, you and Homeopathy will fade from memory despite all of your efforts.
Homeopaths are quickly becoming the new flat-earthers.

signed,

Steven

Dear Steven,

LOL! If there’s nothing left to discuss, then why are you still discussing it?

We’ve heard this same pathetic cry now for 200 years, the “end of homeopathy,’ how it’s ‘finally been exposed for the fraud that it is,’ and then a year later we hear its overtaken Congress.

It is Congressionally mandated now, you know.  you id know that, didn’t you?

In fact it’s been Congressionally mandated for over 100 years!

The FDCA was sponsored by a homeopath, Sen Royal Copeland, MD. Homeopathy is now being used to treat cancer patients in the nation’s number one rated cancer clinic, MD Anderson, in Houston. It’s growing at 30% annually worldwide.

And you think by posting a comment on a blog, moderated by a homeopath, you’re going to stop it?

“Oh gosh, in 45 words posted on the John Benneth Journal some guy named Steven just put a stop to an industry of FDA regulated and approved medicine. golly, what are we going to do now? I guess we’ll just have to burn that warehouse full of books on homeopathy and go back to swallowing that crap that killed off the Kennedys.”

Check it out Brainstein.

But before I pull the lever on my automatic allopathic self-burial system, where all I have to do is lie down, pull the lever and it dumps the dirt on top of me in the grave, could you please grant me one last request?

Could you answer a question?

Who are you talking about when you’ve decided the science has been settled? George “I’m the decider” Bush? Pee Wee Herman? Ronald MacDonald? James the Amazing Randi? Steven Novella? Scientists at Glaxo Smith Klein . .or Pfizer?

And just which science are you talking about ?

Christian Science? Rocket Science? Social Science? Pseudo Science? Political Science? The Science of Homeopathy? Mr. Science? The Science of Homo Dumbo? The Science of Creationism? The Science of Cretinism? The Wonderful World of Science? Popular Science? Modern Science? The Science of Atlantis?

The Scientist’s Science of Scientism? The Science of Science of Science of Science?

The Science of Steven Novellaa?

You know what I think? I think there just isn’t enough Science to go around. I mean, if you say the Science has been settled, it implies that people have been arguing over it, which means that people just aren’t getting enough of it. I think we should all have a backpack full of it. And you Professor Steven (Novellaa?), I nominate YOU to be the Scientist of all Scientists, Chief Scientist Steven Noellaaa?)

You’ll have to wear a lab coat and thick, horn rimmed glasses, of course, and talk in a monotone voice, and preface every sentence with “according to my precise calculations . . ” and give us the double blinded peer reviewed random controlled studies, tests and trials reported in peer reviewed double blinded no peek Science magazines, Journals, and Comic Books, like Super Scienceman.

Now I’ll just pull that lever . .

Hey!

It doesn’t work!

I’VE BEEN GYPPED!

NOVELLAAAAA!

John Benneth, Homeopath

503 819 7777

Pharmaceutical Quackery Exposed

by Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj

You might do well with a nice expose of Pharmaceutical quackery that passes for evidence-based.

We then see Drug Watchdog Fraud Investigation and How Poisoning has Become the New Standard

And the recent GSK settlement for $3 Billion because of fraud, deceptive illegal advertising and death of too many people.

Evidence-based medicine?

Yes!

The evidence base is death and iatrogenesis and that is all they have. So let us piss off Big Pharma a little more and show how few clothes the emperor really has!

Such as the amounts of dead people from pharmaceutical quackery in the US is greater than cancer and heart disease combined – it stands at one million each and every year.

Statistically, 16% of the population is sick at any one time. Of these, only the clients of alternative medicine have shorter periods of disease and are healthier and live longer on an all-over basis.

Of those that use conventional medicine from Big Pharma, many end up taking increasing amounts of medicine to combat the effects of the previous medicine, which was prescribed for the effects of the previous, ad-infinitum, all the way to the one for the original complaint and do not feel any better.

Let us talk about the 8% believable reports they can produce, because in 92% of all reports, the placebo is not even mentioned, which makes the report useless, or if so, it is not a placebo and two medicines are compared against each other. That is a biased test.

Let us talk about the only 11% of proof of effectiveness on the disease, apart from producing side effects. Then we see that the evidence is death, and anecdotal for all other parameters, in collusion with the regulators, who approve such crap on such paucity of real evidence.

Pharmaceutical quackery is precisely engaged in doing what they accuse the homoeopaths of.

Those poor skeptics will never be able to wrap their heads or lies around this. Meanwhile, we have 200 years of unrivaled success with the same thoroughly tested medicines and are in little need to change it very much.

Vaikuthanath das Kaviraj is the co-founder of the legendary Magic Bus Company. He has known, such luminaries as Allen Ginsberg, Ken Kesey, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane and the Grateful Dead.

In 1979 he became sick while travelling in India and could not find relief until he was treated by Dr. Chatterjee a homeopath with 70 years experience, and subsequently Kaviraj became Chatterjee’s student. When Chatterjee passed away a year an a half later, Kaviraj took over his clinic in Vrindavan, Uttar Pradesh, and spent the next ten years treating the locals there.

in 1986 he began experimenting with the effects of homeopathy on plants. In 1990 he moved to Australia and began experimenting on plants on a mass scale.  In 1997 he received a Shamanic Initiation into the fraternity ofnative medicine men in Australia, the Aboriginal Men of High Degree.

In 2006 he published “Homeopathy for Farm and Garden.”

He now lives in London and is working on the Encyclopedia of Agrohomeopathy in twenty volumes.  He travels around the world lecturing an teaching homeopathy.

 

John Benneth, Homeopath
503 819 7777

 

People’s vs. Corporate Medicine

My videos have not always been considered completely politcally correct, socially acceptable or even in good taste.

In order to give my lecture, “The Supramolecular Chemistry of the Homeopathic Remedy” at the Cavendish laboratory at Cambridge, England,  I had to change the title of this video from “Homeopathy, the Jew of Modern Medicine” to what it is now.

Lately I’ve come to think that maybe I’m not as smart as I used to think. But gee whiz, these people who try to pass off skepticism for intelligence are really stupid.

It seems to me like the same kind of mentality of people who used to burn witches at the stake.

It’s not just the blatant hypocrisy that amazes me, its the unwillingness or inability  to challenge it.

It makes me wonder, ‘”what is it I don’t see about myself?” It’s not that I don’t have a lot of objectors, critics and bashers who follow me around, but usually they don’t have anything really constructive to say. It’s mostly just nasty name calling.

Now I got all the LGBT’s hating me.

I’m starting to run out of people to piss off.

Gotta be a reason for it . .

John Benneth, Homeopath
503 819 7777