ACCIDENTAL HOMEOPATHY

DRUG COMPANIES ON THE RUN

My father, 89, an active man with a razor sharp mind, has been my chief sponsor and bottle washer. Yes, this is the same man who interrupted my boyhood pastimes, collared me and strapped me to a high chair to give me a sharp haircut, much in the same way the shepherd collars the lamb in the crook of his staff for shearing or offering to the Gods. I never was sure of which, as Genesis 22 was dad’s favorite passage to quote when I was bad, excluding the part where Jehovah interrupts Abraham’s pending infanticide to say “don’t kill the boy, I was just kidding.”

I would try to hide in places never visited by human eyes, but he would always find me out, hook me and drag me flailing in a death struggle to bind me to The Chair.

Perhaps this was a replay, because last night he continued this occupation of hunting me down, this time with a phone call, to inquire what the hell was my last blog about.

“Was this the great inspiration you were talking about at McDonald’s today?”
“Well, not exactly, I posted it before I. . “
“I thought you said you were going to change the face of medicine.”
“Well . . I . . not me . . I”
“I’d dump it if I were you,” he said. “I couldn’t tell who or what you were talking about.”

I had to silently agree with him that it was problematic, but there comes a time when a boy becomes a man and keeps his own mind and tonsure. So, I had to disagree with him that it was final, and not just for the pharmaceutical industry.

Not to ruin it for everybody, but that blog was just the inhaling part of a blast on a predictable material phase change in modern pharmaceuticals.

In my last blog, The Death Knell of Chemo Medicine, I am trying to prepare for the mere possibility that, at least where water is involved, there is no such thing as a simple chemical reaction that is electromagnetically void, free of subsequent supramolecular effects.

Everything has a buzz to it, but especially the cold plasma we know as water. This nails it. By more than my account water is known as the primordial energy absorber, and as such, it is the Great Transducer, as it absorbs energy, most notably the background radiation, water emits energy.

Water emits a converted signal.

We can all see it in the reflection of a puddle or a pool, light being a very narrow part of the electromagnetic spectrum. But it does not necessarily reflect the same signal it absorbs. Water has a tetrahedral molecular shape similar to glass, and as such it might be expected to have qualities similar to glass, molten and frozen.  So water acts as a lens, and this lensing action is not confined to warping visible light.

Solutes, guest molecules in an aqueous host solution, will cause structural changes in water that can be detected spectrographically, changes that can be detected in serial dilutions beyond theoretical mole limits, such as those used in homeopathy.

The current model for the action of the ionized pharmaceuticals used in homoeopathy is a corollary to tritium oxide, which is 3H2O, or radioactive water. The strength of the signal is from enthalpy (induced heat), which is created in the succussion phase of manufacture.

Just as the radiation from an atomic bomb blast will vitrify (convert into glass) materials such as soil, the electromagnetic radiation passing through water from solutes and external sources, such as sunlight, will cause structural changes in water that will continue to resonate and radiate the specified signals long after the instigators have absquatulated . .  or been turned off.

According to a University of London computer modelling post grad, drug companies are ignoring the ramifications of aqueous structuring around the company’s synthesized molecules and the inevitable biologically relevant electromagnetic effects.

The following mind bomb was posted in Jerome Burne’s blog BODY OF EVIDENCE by Jazz Rasool:

One stunning bit of research for simply validating the mechanism of homoeopathy that few people dare to embark on is to use the computer modelling of drug molecules prior to being approved for clinical trials. Many drug companies and universities heavily fund computer simulations of drug behaviour.
 Some modelling looks at whether a drug binds properly to the molecules it must interact with in the body. Another kind of modelling, a ‘Solvation Study’ typically surrounds a drug molecule with a cluster of water molecules to simulate the mostly water environment they may encounter in the human body. Pressure, temperature etc are altered and the water molecules start to move around based on Quantum Physics simulations. Some of them bash against the drug molecule deforming it. If the drug is stable enough it will return to its starting shape or not deform too much and if that is the case the drug is probably suitable for going to real drug trials. If the molecule is unstable then bits will break off which is not good as those might go on to cause side effects and in that instance the drug company won’t bother with a drug trial if the side effects are deemed too risky.
 I know these things because I did such simulations as part of my Masters degree in Computer Modelling of Molecular and Biological Processes at Birkbeck College in the University of London. One glaring issue I had with such studies was how all the focus was on the drug molecule and how the water molecules affected its shape and function rather than any attention be paid to the drug molecules effect on the shape and function of the cluster of water molecules. Water molecules typically can cluster around the drug molecule and can sometimes drift away intact in their joined up architecture that has within it an imprint of the drug molecule. This ‘imprint’ of the drug molecule within the water cluster means that the water cluster, from a biochemical point of view, is a negative or ‘antidote’ to the original drug’s actions. Of course Homoeopaths will tell you that’s exactly what homoeopathic remedies often behave like – with behaviour opposite to the substance from which they were formed from.
 For some bizarre reason drug companies across the world and researchers in universities almost universally ignore how the water molecules glue together into forms that can have their own biochemical effect. Randomised trials are not the place to start for evaluating efficacy of Homoeopathy -the place to start is with basic research that can be done on a computer at a university and, with ever more powerful home computers, something that can even be done by an amateur scientist at home.

 This is an explosion in the face of the pharmaceutical industry’s chemical engineers, for as is known, structural clustering of the aqueous vehicle is the primordial vehicle and cause for the redox and ionization of materials used as medicine in homeopathy, something that homeopathy haters stridently insist isn’t supposed to happen if they are to sustain accusations of implausibility and placebo.

This is further testament to the fact that homeopathic medicine is based on currently observed and explainable physics that are not exclusive to homeopathy.

So pardon me while I laugh long and hard. We homeopaths have been maligned for two centuries, and now suddenly who’s disovered practicing accidental homeopathy. Oh Hippocrates, I have to stop typing so I can wipe my eyes and dab the keyboard . .

Anyone can see what’s going on here. The industrial pharmaceutical arts can’t explain homoeopathy because it’s not in their interest to explain homeopathy. But in not recognizing the biomagnetic effects of the chemistry involved in synthesizing unstable molecules for patenting, they’re running into inescapable physics made cryptic to them by their own denials, whilst their products transmogrify into deadly wildcards.

Make a lot of money boys, you’re going to need it. Homeopathy will find you out and it will bind you to The Chair . .

 

” . . drug companies across the world and researchers in universities almost universally ignore how the water molecules glue together into forms that can have their own biochemical effect. “ Jazz Rasool

 

 

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

THE DEATH KNELL OF CHEMO “MEDICINE”

Views of a Fiery Blog May Reach 75,000,000

It finally ended. Since late April an interesting BATTLE ROYALE has been evolving and chopping virtual body parts off of homeopaths and their parastic trolls. All this can be gawked at on a medical journalist’s WordPress blog. A few days ago the author expleted that views had toppled the 7,500 mark . . or did he say 75,000,000?

Well, today he ended it . . the closed commentary, and with head down and feet dragging we all shuffled our ways home.

Boo hoo hoo. And just when things were getting good. The way things are going, given enough time, surely the numbers would have got higher, and may still after people read the headline on this blog. What is patently no lie is that at this early date there are now over 1000 comments, 632 Facebook links and 165 Tweets, women mudwrestling with men in a bloody free for all.

What I’m speaking of is Jerome Burne’s natty blog, BODY OF EVIDENCE, and this is the way it should be. The latest entry, the one in reference here, is entitled Homeopathy and the Threat of Endarkenment.

This is something I did not see when I first began posting on the subject many years ago. Most homeopaths were totally ignorant of the ancillary technical literature supporting homeopathy, or if they were cognizant of it, they were quiet about it, probably afraid to go home the way of Benveniste, tarred and feathered with a toothbrush . . and a nail driven through the wrist. It was intense. Seven years ago I’d put up a video on the pre-clinicals and I would have got less blood on me walking into a PETA rally in front of an animal skin shop wearing a full length mink coat. Up until a couple a few years ago, online, it was a hundred to one against homeopathy.

THINGS HAVE CHANGED

But this has swung the other way. The tables have turned. Homeopaths have learned to defend themselves with the literature and more science, and the anti-homeopathy moonbats are shooting rubber bullets. It still hurts, but it’s not stopping the charge by a greater number of proponents armed with real lead.

HOMEOPATHIC JEOPARDY

Answer: Like cures like

Question: What is vaccination?

Answer: Placebos

Question: What are chemical pharamaceuticals?

Answer: It’s just pure water.

Question: What is radioactive Tritium oxide?

Now Burne says he is an avowed agnostic on the subject of homeopathy . . which is honest enough, something all should try, myself excluded, having already sprayed the room with that Luddite swill. Like placebo being the thinker’s choice as to meaning, in a word, endarkenment is something one side is always clouting the other with. Although it should not come as a surprise to intuition, it seems an anomaly to conscious thought:

ALL HOMEOPATHY ANTAGONISTA,  trolls, pharma shills, professional skeptics like Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Joe Schwarz, David Colquhoun, Robert Parks, Ben Golddacre, Edzard Ernst, Phil Plaitt, Carl Sagan, Penn Jillette, Simon Singh, Neil Degrasse Tyson, most academic “scientists” like PZ Myers and pharmaceutical executives like Ian Reed of Pfizer and the half humans who slave for him ARE PATHOLOGICAL ATHEISTS. You can’t have a rational discussion with them. Try it. You won’t like it. But it will bring out the truth of what I say, and it will reveal to you the infrastructure of belief that supports the current mainstream medical paradigm or a chaotic, disconnected world made up of some yet undisceovered God particle, the Democritus bit, a homeogenous yet discreet and finite little pellet that is the stuffing for everything. That is the Universal view of atheism, the indivisibility of the infinitessimal, and if you want to see how it reads in all its delusional glory, read the commentary on Burne’s blog.

The Standard Atheist Argument goes like this:

A: Homeopathy is placebo/bunk/pseudoscience/fraud/useless (or expletive)

Q: Why do you say that?

A: There’s no science to back it up.

Q: Did you know that out of 22 reviews of the literature , only two concluded placebo, and they were shown to eiher misquote the literature or dismiss positive outcomes, just as you’re doing now?

A: You’re cherry picking.

Q: Did you know that even biochemical experiments with a high methodological standards could demonstrate an effect of high potencies?”

A: Benveniste was debunked.

Q: Did you know that Benveniste’s biochemical experiment that was supossedly debunked has been replicated over 24 times?

A: It’s just plain water.

Q: Did you know that tritium oxide, the radioactive trigger for a hydrogen bomb, by the same regard, is also just plain water, and homeopathic remedies have been discovered to be wide spectrum emitters, inclduing beta radiation?

A: Homeopathy is placebo/bunk/pseudoscience/fraud/useless (or expletive).

You may not want to read all thousand comments,  but hidden in the angry dribble of the trolls are some real gems, mostly by Laurie Willberg, Elaine Lewis, Sandra Courtney, Dana Ullman, Janice and Paul. It’s an education in the mentality of what not just homeopaths, but what humanity is up against.

Burne’s point is a Lazurus rising out of a blog he posted last July, wherein he spotted the cyberbullies of the homeoskeptic movement for what homeopaths have known them for years to be, “arrogant and batty.” This is novel for a “medical journalist,” as most of them get good traction beating up homeopaths rather than dabbing their tears. Even so, while bashing homeopaths . . and proving Burne’s point . . the antagonistas tip toe around him. 

I’m sure most have noticed it who have encountered it, the presumption of shooting blanks becomes predatory license for cowards. to attack the shooter and look grand. But it goes with the flow of late when the proselytes of similitude have been hitting back with some squirmy facts (mostly found in my blog) about what homeopathy is, or isn’t, and the sock puppets of skepticism have been leaving with bloody noses, and looking exactly like the other point Burne’s makes: Why are these loons after homeopaths pushing infinitessimals, with their presumed death by passive placebo and underdose, when the tide is rising from real iatrogenesis and death by overdose . . from active placebos.

Even if one should conclude by evidence or reason, that the little sugar pill is charged with nothing but belief, the genocide of modern pharma should be endorsement enough for consumers to overrun homeopathy, and therein is suspected the real math for the attack on homeopaths:Homeopaths are robbing mainsream medicine of their victims . . I mean, they’re stealing their customers!

This is not to say that homoeophobia is all economic. There is a noted pathology to homeopathy hating. I look forward to discussing it in a future blog . . but to get back to the point at hand, in the context of all this vicious vituperation of the adverse trustees that loyally attend us, a mysterious yet predictable little effect has been noticed by some workers, therein reported on Burne’s commentary . . but prodigiously dismissed by their masters, something one observer from the world of drug biochemistry explained early in the commentary: Due to encounters with water in the human body, the mechanism which propels the intended effects of homeopathic medicine is suspected now of causing unintended effects in the wallow of mainstream drugs. This could be the death knell of chemo medicine . . ah yes, and there’s the bell . . to be discussed in my next blog . . Accidental Homeopathy.

What we’re experiencing today in health care I believe is the delusional Standard Model of Physics playing itself out in medicine. All pejoratives against any particular person or group of people aside, this is as much due to the consumers phase of mind as it is to the suppliers’s state of mind. The supplier is just being opportunistic. He can’t survive in a market that is unwilling to buy his wares. He only convinces us of the value of his product . . not just because we’re convinceable, it’s what we demand. We don’t just believe it, we unconciously promote it.

Tell your friends, tell your enemies, be intelligent, be reminded, it’s fast, it’s furious , it’s fun, and you should read about it, in more detail, in your next issue of The John Benneth Journal . . subscribe NOW!

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

How Bad Homeopathy Saved 3,000,000 Australian Children

How Bad Homeopathy Saved 3,000,000 Australian Children by John Benneth

But some want to pull the plug . .

The “homeopathy” debate is rife with misnomers. The opponents take the proven practice of homoeopathy [homoeotherapy, curing a disease by creating a temporary artificial disease by giving a substance that causes the same symptoms as those of the disease to be cured] and conflating it with an ignorance of posology, the issue of dosage, how much of a particular medicine is given, and in what material phase.

Posology is the only reasonable or scientific concern that should be before us now.

But alas, other issues, like an artificial disease, prevail. So it is the job of this journal to separate  and analyze them. You should find the widespread ignorance of the conflation to be alarming, if not startling . .

“When the ratio of diluent to medicine is as low as 100:1 and if very many succussions were forced into it by a powerful machine, we would obtain medicines that, especially in the higher degrees of dynamization, would act almost instantaneously but with intense, even dangerous violence, particularly on a delicate patient, without bringing about the permanent, gentle counteraction of the vital principle.” Hahnemann, Samuel. The Organon of Medicine, Para. 270p. 114, 6th edition J. P. TARCHER, INC. Los Angeles, distributed by Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston PDF ONLINE at http://hpathy.com/wp-content/uploads/group-documents/41/1330840219-organonofmedicine.pdf

The current example of this chronic dilemma of homoeopathy can be seen in reports from the Southern Hemisphere hinting at a draft paper by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) that says “homeopathic remedies” are no more effective than a placebo “when used to treat 68 health conditions.”

STRICTER REGULATIONS

Worries are being expressed that the NHMRC’s implied review of the literature may lead to stricter regulations for the use of “homeopathic” products and homeopathic therapy.

The NHMRC is painting putative beliefs with the color of science. The NHMRC is promoting pseudoscience.

Simply labeling “homeopathy” as “placebo” is a tip off that the NHMRC is practicing pseudoscience. No comprehensive review of the literature of clinical trials of homeopathy concludes that the effects of homeopathy are solely due to the placebo effect. [I say solely because the placebo effect is indiscriminate, it logically makes no distinction between allopathy and homoeopathy, inert or potent medicine. In fact, a rather clever argument could be made postulating that the palliations and arch dramas of allopathy's heroic "medicine" enhance the placebo effect!]

The point is, there is no scientific support for the illiterate allegation that “homeopathy is a placebo.” [If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me on this in the comment section of this blog and give us links to the double blind RCT's published in peer reviewed journals that test the placebo effect for homeopathy] What is  so ridiculous about the NHMRC complaint  is that what both homeopaths and allopaths, (allopath being the name used by homeopaths for a conventional medical doctor, his government handler or anyone who subscribes to allopathic medicine) are ignoring is that beginning in the late 18th century, and traversing through the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries . . to this day. . homeopathy has been used to quench epidemics, disguised as allopathy! Allopaths alone, in the use of the vaccine, have nakedly made homeopathy-in-the-crude, or more simply put, bad homoeopathy, the world’s most widespread medical application . . and as such, has saved millions of lives.

It may be bad homoeopathy, but it is still homoeopathy! In Australia, it has saved an estimated 3,000,000 children alone!

Allow me to elucidate . .

I’ve written about this repeatedly in previous blogs. And I think the cure may be starting to take. Literal and intended definitions of homoeopathy, or it’s transmogrification into homeopathy, mean the use of an artificial disease to cure a natural one.

This is a simple fact. Homoeopathy refers to a strategy of stimulating the natural endogenous process organisms electromagnetically apply to maintain homeostasis as a way to defeat disease, whatever it may be. Just as like solvents will dissolve one another, and like poles will repel one another, like diseases will cure one another.

This is no mere fancy or fiction. It is a salient fact. Such is the dictionary definition of homeotherapy, the treatment of a disease by giving a substance similar to the agent that caused the disease.

Now . . one of the last things I want to do is argue with my old friend, my best literary friend, my only concomitant friend  Daniel Webster, but it bears repeating from the header, that Hahnemannian medicine would amend this definition to say that homeopatherapy, or more correctly spelled “homoeopathy” is  the treatment of a disease by giving a substance that causes the same symptoms similar to those of the one to be cured . .

The misnomers do not alter my point: There is no mention of the use of diluted substances to restore homeostasis in the translated defintion of homeo- or homoeotherapy, homeo- or homoeopathy. This is a medical jinx.  It is what confounds the NHMRC and their like. Homeopathy does not require dilution of pharmaceutical agents in order to achieve prophylaxis or cure. The proofs for this statement should cause a sudden abatement of breath, followed by an order to cease and desist the assault on homeopathy, homoeopathy, homoeotherapy or their respective cognates.

The operative principle of homoeopathy, call it homeostasis, like cures like, or medical similitude, is the effective principle for all epidemiology. This is a palladium that has  obviously not been fully recognized by the medical recession, and has yet to come into its own, as can be currently seen in the edicts dribbling out of the Commonwealth countries, like the one we’re being urninated on now by the NHMRC. To outlaw homeopathy they would, by definition, have to outlaw conventional vaccinations.  Conventional disease prophylaxis under NHMRC condemnation would have to cease, because conventional vaccination is homeopathy! !

To outlaw homeopathy as such bans a natural phenomenon, as without human intervention, one disease will push out one that is similar to it, the examples for which follow.

The prime example of natural homeopathic prophylaxis is the small pox vaccine. Smallpox by the 1970’s was entirely eradicated by injections of serum from bovine variola, putatively known as cow pox, a disease in cattle similar to human variola. When cowpox is forced on humans by knife cut or needle injection, it sports the same reaction as their own endemic disease, but milder, creating an immunity, or cure, of scourging small pox. That after 200 years of successful application the principle of homeoprophylaxis is still not recognized is shocking.

The upgrade from variolation to vaccine was winked at in the observation that milk maids, noted for their beautiful complexions, were made routinely immune to smallpox, because of their exposure to its analogue. As a result they rarely if ever contracted small pox.

It could be legally said then, that homoeopathy, as a strategy of immunization, cured the world of small pox, the first pandemic disease to be totally eradicated by persistent, organized human effort.

By the same process of homoeopathy, known from Hahnemann and others, we can also see examples of how the disease of small pox and others, such as the whooping cough, [which first brought “homeopathy” to the stern attention of the NHMRC, have homoeopathically had their own curative effects:

WHEN DISEASE MEETS DISEASE

Hahnemann The Organon,Para. 46

We could cite very many examples of homoeopathic cures brought about by natural diseases with similar symptoms. But since we require precise and indubitable data we shall confine ourselves to the small number, always true to type, arising from unvarying miasms, which give them a distinct name.

CURE BY SMALL POX

Smallpox, prominent among them and so notorious for its many violent symptoms, has removed and cured a host of ills that have similar symptoms.

How common are the ophthalmias of smallpox and how violent, even to blindness!

Through inoculation, smallpox completely and permanently cured chronic eye inflammation in a case cited by Dezoteux a and in another cited by Leroy. b

BLINDNESS

A person who was blind for two years after the suppression of a scalp eruption completely recovered his sight after smallpox, according to Klein. c

DEAFNESS AND SHORTNESS OF BREATH (dyspnea)

How often has smallpox not brought about deafness and dyspnea! And it removed both these chronic complaints when it reached its acme, as J. F. Closs observes. d

SWOLLEN TESTICLES

Swelling of the testicles, even very severe, is a frequent symptom of smallpox; and that is why it could, by similarity, cure a large, hard swelling of the left testicle caused by a trauma (Klein). e Another observer also notes that it cured a similar testicular swelling. f

DYSENTARY

Among the unpleasant complaints that occur in smallpox there is a particular dysentery like stool; and so by similarity, smallpox has cured dysentery (F. Wendt). g

COWPOX VS. SMALLPOX

It is well known that when smallpox is contracted during cowpox immediately wipes out the cowpox homoeopathically and aborts it, both because of its greater strength and because of its close similarity. On the other hand, if the cowpox is already near maturity, because

of its great similarity to the supervening smallpox, the latter is at least greatly attenuated homoeopathically, h and milder, as Mühry i and many others have stated.

ACNE

In the lymph of the cowpox inoculation there is, in addition to the element that protects against smallpox, a quite different substance that causes an overall skin eruption usually of small, dry (sometimes rather large, suppurating) pimples surrounded by a red areola and often intermixed with round red spots, often itching most violently.

In many children this eruption comes out several days before appearance of the red cowpox areola, but more often it comes out several days afterward and then disappears in a couple of days, leaving behind small, hard, red spots. It is through their similarity to this secondary infectious agent that skin eruptions of children, often very old and troublesome ones, are homoeopathically cured, completely and permanently, by the cowpox vaccination as soon as it takes, something many observers have noticed. f

SEMI-PARALYSIS

Cowpox, which has a characteristic swelling of the arm among its symptoms, k cured a swollen, half-paralyzed arm after breaking out. l

FEVER

The fever that comes in cowpox with the appearance of the red areola has cured (homoeopathically) two cases of intermittent fever, as Hardege the Younger reports. m

This confirms J. Hunter’s remark that two fevers (similar diseases) cannot exist in the same body at the same time. n

MEASLES CURES WHOOPING COUGH

There is much similarity between the fevers and coughs of measles and those of whooping cough. In an epidemic where these two diseases raged simultaneously, Bosquillon noticed that many children who had just had measles remained free from whooping cough. o They would all have remained permanently free of whooping cough and would have been rendered immune by the measles if whooping cough were not just partly similar to measles, i.e., if it also had a similar skin eruption. That is why measles protected only a number of children from the whooping cough, and only during that epidemic.

But when measles meets a disease that is similar to it in its main symptom – the eruption it will undeniably destroy and cure it homoeopathically.

Thus a chronic herpetic eruption was cured p ( homoeopathically) promptly, completely, and permanently by and eruption of measles, as Kortum observes. q

Hahnemann, Samuel. The Organon of Medicine 6th edition, p. 26-27, Para 46,  J. P. TARCHER, INC. Los Angeles, distributed by Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston

THE ORGANON PDF ONLINE

In his footnotes to cowpox attenuating smallpox in the above (h) Hahnemann states,

“This seems to be the reason for the remarkable salutary result of the widespread use of Jenner’s cowpox vaccination. The smallpox has not since then appeared among us with such widespread virulence. Forty or fifty years ago, when a city was stricken, it lost at least half, often three-quarters of its children.” ibid

INCREDIBLE . .

So within 40 years the homoeopathic application of a zoonotic disease had significantly reduced the virulence of a similar but more serious human one in the general human population, and within 175 years completely eradicated it.

Imagine for a moment a modern city today losing three quarters of its children to small pox. Imagine Australia, with a population of 20 million, of which four million are children under 15, losing three quarters of its children, three million (3,000,000) to small pox because of the failure to make homoeopathic use of cowpox, which is exactly what the smallpox vaccine does.

Vaccinations for small pox are no longer given because small pox no longer exists! It was wiped out by homoeopathy!

Imagine the survivors, some blinded, some deafened, partially paralyzed, horribly disfigured . . yet this is what the principle of homoeopathy has prevented.

When will the governing health bodies of the First World countries and their tag-alongs recognize this?

S        U        B        S        C        R        I        B        E

A NEW BIOLOGICAL PARADIGM

A NEW BIOLOGICAL PARADIGM

by John R. Benneth

“Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — Lord Kelvin, renowned British scientist, 1899.

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, world’s greatest genius 1932.

“If anyone shows the concepts of homeopathy to be correct, he or she becomes a serious contender for one or two Nobel prizes. Homeopaths often say that we simply have not yet discovered how homeopathy works. The truth is that we know there is no conceivable scientific explanation that could possibly explain it.” Edzard Ernst, top homeopathy antagonist, from “Why I Changed My Mind About Homeopathy.”

But there is a scientific explanation to explain it. We’re led to it by the evidence of action . .

In case you didn’t know, the man who made the last quote, ex-Professor Edzard Ernst of Exeter University, has been the world’s major antagonist of the curative medical doctrine of homeopathy, emphasis on has been. Ernst was professor of complementary medicine at Exeter University, he was the world’s first chair of it. For a while he was riding high, scoring better than James “the Amazing” Randi, a failed magician who became the world’s greatest skeptic and homeopathy basher, accusing anyone who practiced it of fraud..

But Exeter canned Ernst and his star began to sputter.  And Randi has grown silent after being exposed in complicitly of identity theft and fraud and in using homeopathy during bouts with stomach cancer and heart disease.

The half recant was published in The Guardian, which protects the interests of the pharmaceutical companies by characterizing homeopathy as bunk.

Apparently Ernst’s phone stopped ringing: Now he says he’s changed his mind about homeopathy.

TOP ANTAGONIST SAYS HE FLIPS ON HOMEOPATHY

Well, like most of the things he writes, on closer inspection you find it’s not true.  He hasn’t changed his mind about anything. Read the article and you’ll find he ‘s still spouting the same . . well, I hate to use the word lies, so let’s just say misinformation.

ERNST: “Yet as a clinician almost 30 years ago I was impressed with the results achieved by homeopathy. Many of my patients seemed to improve dramatically after receiving homeopathic treatment. How was this possible?”

With dramatic improvement? 

The man is full of contradictions. He says that if the axioms of homeopathy were true, then much of what we learned in physics and chemistry would be wrong.

UNCONVINCED

Let us try to get this straight. The anti-homoepathy crowd’s premier reference for the case against homeopathy is now saying that he’s seen it work with dramatic improvement in a clinical setting,  when in his “Systemaic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy,” which he penned after his work as a clinician, he says  “the clinical evidence and the basic research underpinning homeopathy remain unconvincing.”

So which is it? And where’s all the scientific literature to support whatever reason Ernst thinks there is to explain how it is that his patients improved so dramatically, just as where’s all the evidence that proves it’s a placebo? Was it his Svengali bedside manner? Was it Mesmerism? Alcohol?

What was it?

He then makes a statement that is provably wrong.

Referring to 200 clinical studies he says, “Over a dozen systematic reviews of homeopathy have been published. Almost uniformly, they come to the conclusion that homeopathic remedies are not different from placebo.”

I’m afraid this may send him looking for a brace of pistols in his sock drawer, or an epee’ hanging next to the garden rake in the garage, but I have to say it, it’s always so embarrassing when an . . as oxymoronic as it may sound . . an academic of Ernst’s stature is caught in a verifiable lie.

No comprehensive, honest review of the literature has concluded  what Ernst is claiming. 

Did the editors of The Guardian know about this? Did any of their fact checkers check it out?

There have essentially been three major accepted reviews of the literature pubslihed in  (1.) British Medical Journal (BMJ) by Kleijnen et al; (2.) University of York for the U.K. National Health Service (NHS) by Cucherat et al; and (3.) Lancet by Linde et al.

1.) NHS Cucherat 2000: HOMEOPATHY NOT PLACEBO: Found evidence that homeopathy was more effective than placebo. University of York/ NHS

2.) LANCET Linde 1997: HOMEOPATHY NOT PLACEBO: results not compatible with placebo hypothesis

3.)  BMJ Kleijnen 1991HOMEOPATHY NOT PLACEBO:The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used.

In addition to these high quality meta analyses, published in high impact medical journals, there are the following:

FISHER: High quality repeated experiments yield positive results tinyurl com/7666q5g

JOHNSON 2007: metas find homeopathy significantly better than placebo tinyurl com/7htoejq

SHANG 2005/ Ludtke Rutten: find significant homeopathic effect beyond placebo tinyurl com/ludtkerutten

[Remember to put a dot between tinryurl and com after pasting into your browser]

Now note this in your hornbook: NO CONCLUSIVE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE FINDS THAT HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES ARE “PLACEBOS”!!! And yet in the face of this we are repeatedly told by opponents of homeopathy that homeopathic remedies are placebos, implying that the pharmacy is inert,  and because the medicine is inert, homeopathy is a hoax. 

HAPPY HALLOWEEN

The medical  community has had the evidence for the clinical action of the materials before them for years, including the stark evidence that the pharmacy is not inert in the published reports of its action on plants, animals and biochemicals.

So why  are we being so desperately and obviously lied to?

The Royal Homoeopath vs. the Medical Journalist

It must beggar the imagination for the opponents of homeopathy to learn of the high and mighty’s endorsement of such, or it must fuel within their minds a kind of begrudging cynicism, that insists fools must by chance alone attain greatness. Mark Twain, John D. Rockefeller, Mahatma Ghandi, Mary Baker Eddy; Paul McCartney; Mariel Hemmingway; David Beckham; Sir William Osler; Twiggy; Tina Turner; Caprice; Susan Hampshire; C. Everett Koop, M.D. ; Louise Jameson; Catherine Zeta Jones; Gaby Roslin; Catherine Zeta-Jones; Jude Law; Sadie Frost, Nadia Sawalha; Jennifer Aniston; Jade Jagger; Roger Daltry, Annabel Croft; Meera Syal; Charles Dickens; W.B. Yeats; William Thackeray; Benjamin Disraeli; William James; Pope Pius X; Louisa May Alcott, Susan B. Anthony, William Lloyd Garrison, Daniel Webster, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, William Seward, Feodor Dostoevsky; Jackson Pollock; W.C. Fields; Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, MD; Dr. Chas. Frederick Menninger, MD; Charles Darwin; Nobelists Emil Von Behring, Brian Josephson and Luc Montagnier; former American Presidents James Garfield, William McKinley, Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton, about 500 American MDs and 300 British MDs, and reportedly about 5000 non MD practitioners in the US . . to name a few, have all been at least favorable, supportive or admiring of homeopathy if not regular users or openly enthusiastic about it.

Such a conundrum must plague their minds in the case of the English Royal family, under homeopathic care since 1830.  There has always been a Royal Homeopathic Doctor. Currently he is Dr. Peter Fisher, MD.

Whereas homeopathy antagonists, usually atheists, can dismiss the credible use of homeopathics by the creative, it must give them pause that such savvies, like atheistic Darwin, street smart Twain and the world’s richest man, the self made Rockefeller, could brook if not quietly use what scoffers have to insist is nonsense, “plain water” . .  or witchcraft.

But for the serious student of homeopathy the puzzle is why homeopaths haven’t been more influential, why they haven’t said more when the case for homeopathy is so strong and it’s paralegal opposition so weak, nothing much more than carping.

Recently in an online homeopathy discussion list, what should be the strongest voice for homeopathy, Royal Homeopath Dr. Peter Fisher, MD, has come under some criticism for what some consider a weak performance in a debate with medical journalist and homeopathy antagonist Ben Goldacre. a well known complainer noted for his constant lopsided criticism of any study, test, experiment, trial or review of the literature that favorably concludes for homeopathy. In fact, such doesn’t even need to be favorable to attract Goldacre’s ire.  All any study of homeopathy need to do for Goldacre to launch an attack on it is fail to condemn it.

In this rather tame duel, Fisher and Goldacre present their respective points and then field some soft balls pitched from the audience, when there are some of us in the homeopathic community who would like to see Fisher tear Goldacre limb from metaphorical limb . . and not necessarily because Goldacre deserves it, but because Fisher can.

My response to this is to ask that we give Fisher a break.  Isn’t he the one who took the spurious Shang metanalysis to the Discreditor’s Ball, held the antagonist’s major piece of bullshit to account by calling for the raw data? We should be down on our knees thanking the guy for the incredible work he’s done for homeopathy. He’s a real MD as opposed to this “medical journalist” clown Goldacre, who just pretends to be an MD. Of course this is just my opinion, but I think that if Goldacre ever actually treated somebody for a disease he’d be at risk of getting thrown in jail for murder.

When I was in England I invited Goldacre to my lecture on the supramolecular chemistry of homeopathy at Cambridge and away he ran, and when I took him to task for it all he could do was whine. He’s quite full of words when he’s sitting in front of a computer montior, but he’s been as loud as Grant’s tomb on a Monday morning when he’s sitting in front of someone he knows will take him to task.

Fisher, on the other hand, is a gentleman, and given his office must maintain the dignity of his position, and as such has to maintain a bedside manner, treat everyone as a patient and therefore sympathize with the sick bastard. As editor of Homeopathy Magazine, with a Royal Warrant sticking out of his back pocket, due to his titles alone Fisher is indeed probably the strongest single voice there is for homeopathy. The limb tearing should be left to the tattooed class.

The very fact that Fisher exists is alone a huge testimonial for homeopathy. But more than that he’s done most excellent work in rebutting the UK Parliament’s cherry picked ‘Evidence Check’ for the efficacy of homeopathy, specifically in his Memorandum to the UK Parliament on Evidence from Basic Research [ http://tinyurl.com/7666q5g ] and it is from this a telling point, a killshot, arises.

It’s in the Memo’s first line: “Its ‘implausibility’ from a scientific standpoint is often cited as a reason for scepticism about homeopathy, even in the face of positive clinical evidence. For instance a systematic review of clinical trials, published in the BMJ stated ‘we would accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if its mechanism of action were more plausible’.”

What?  “Its mechanism of action were more plausible”??

Now if the opposition was on its toes, a statement like this would set them back on their heels, if not flatten them. I say, and submit to you, that the reason it hasn’t flattened anyone is because they’re already there, prostrate, just as much as the corpse that made the statement.

Here, let me explain: What the British Medical Journal (BMJ, impact factor 17.215) is saying is the argument homeopathy has not been the putative, that there is no evidence of effective action . . no! What they are allowing, if not outright saying, is that they would accept the effectiveness of homeopathy if somebody would explain it to them! LOL! This is tantamount to a man falling off a ledge, and on the way down, proclaiming that he would accept the force of gravity if somebody could tell him how it works!

Up until this point, the rejection of homeopathy was supposed to be a cavalcade of absent evidence . . “Oh, homeopathy is not evidence based medicine” when in fact homeopathy, as anomalous as it may be, has never had the luxury of conventional hypotheses and theory . . evidence has been all it’s had, the evidence of action has been the sole cherry red river that’s driven its mill.

When the Internet began to transmit the actual record of pre-clinical and clinical trials, the attack on homeopathy had to shift from absent evidence to bad evidence and the suddenly discovered science had frantically picked apart by scientists-in-name-only (SINO) like Goldacre, with vituperative criteria reserved only for homeopathy.

Here’s a video of a debate, the Royal Homoeopath vs. the Medical Journalist.

The Jesus Crime: Thou Shalt Not Cure

I keep thinking that one blog ought to be a set up for another and that’s not how I like to think, but its come to the point where I have to forego the luxury of random access thinking, the thought pattern of what hey have labelled as attention deficiency disorder and deliver some sequential material. Critical mass has developed and now its time for a chain reaction.

In my last blog I threw out some rhetorical questions regarding The Economist magazine’s use of a debunked debunking of homeopathy, having already figured what the answer is.

One tragedy follows another. The Economist’s attack on homeopathy for its unidentifiable ingredient is nothing new. Hahnemann was chased out of Konigslutter over two hundred years ago because he too could not chemically identify what the active ingredient of the medicine was that he used in the Scarlatina epidemic there, other than to say that it was water tinged with Belladonna, and subsequently he was in such a hurry to leave town that his overloaded wagon overturned on a bridge, killing one of his children.

I know I’m a little hard on people sometimes, and before I wake up I counsel myself into thinking right rules over kindness, which is bunk, of course, but I have seen it take its course, and The Economist is neither right nor kind in their attack on homeopathy, it’s a solicitation of malice and an interference with trade, but I suppose after seeing James Randi and his ilk get away with it at TED lectures and the sort, they think its okay to characterize we homeopaths as fools and charlatans.

One thing I’ve found that homeopathy has done for me is having made me a little more circumspect about people, even those who are after my hide. There is a tremendous motivation behind the attacks on homeopathy, and the absence of traditional science, like chemistry and physics, is really nothing more than a letter of marque for the opposition to carry, 007 license to kill the doctrine..

WHAT IS IT?

Well, doctors are a jealous bunch. Like most poor fessionals, academics and vampires, they are envious of one another, especially the square footage of one another’s private gaols, the number of victims he has on leashes, his literary acclaim, and the money he makes from dope dealing.

Doctor means teacher, and as soon as he teaches he depletes his store of an easily replicable commodity; if he cures somebody they go away and never return; if he lets the cat out of the bag it threatens a chain reaction, which is exactly what the nuclear physics of the homeopathic remedy is, a chain reaction. And so it is understandable that he and Them, his pharmaceutical handlers are intent on preventing critical mass from accumulating, and the patent medical industry serves him well in preventing it, by sending out Pharisees to work the crowd into a snarling mob, through the media and various institutions, sometimes nakedly so.

Working for Them he can get out of the poverty of the teaching business and move on to the bonanza of taking hostages, made possible by Them. Predators need a constant supply of victims, and this is now what the health scare industry hath wrought, an unending spat line of miserable souls slouching over tests, sliding injto MRI’s, spreading for speculums, taking time, making trouble and lots and lots of money from a never ending supply of victims that now constitutes the single greatest chunk of the modern Pax American economy, hence the concern by The Economist and Wikipedia, magicians and foils, to block, sabotage or crush any attempt to thwart Them.

Comes now this cheeky little doctrine of curative medicine. The very gall, can you imagine it? How dare they violate the Golden Rule of Medicine? It’s the Jesus Crime, Thou Shalt Not Cure.

Like a union shop, some young buck comes on the floor and starts actually doing some real work, making everyone else look bad and lazy . . and doing it for free!

Crucify him!

And the license for it is it is unexplainable, that there is no logic, rhyme or reason . . there is no Technogogue, no Science god to back it up!

It’s voodoo!

Well, it’s not voodoo, and the government is playing along with this not-so-little hoax, like everyone else in the health scare business, when the government, as holder of standards and measures, should be the first to stand up and say what it is, explain the physics of cure.

Are we supposed to really buy into this explanation that there is no explanation for the action we’ve seen of these materials on human and non human subjects for over 200 years? Is that supposed to stop us, because Jommy Wales, James Randi and The Economist don’t know and probably won’t ever know how the magic works?

But it doesn’t, the government doesn’t really investigate: The US Department of Health’s website for the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine under the National Institutes of Health(NIH)  states, “A number of the key concepts of homeopathy are not consistent with fundamental concepts of chemistry and physics. For example, it is not possible to explain in scientific terms how a remedy containing little or no active ingredient can have any effect.”

What is ironic about the NIH is that a former director of he NIH, Wayne Jonas, M.D. demonstrated at Walter Reed in a test for the Department of Defense that a homeopathic dilution of Tularemia could inoculate mice against rabbit fever. And this is not idiopathic, there are thousands of examples of the effects of diluents on human and non-human subjects. When he died, Hahnemann alone reportedly left behind 100,000 case notes. And with hundreds of years experience with it, all the thousands of books about homeopathy, schools dedicated to teaching physicians how to use it, and the M.D.’s who do, we’re supposed to still believe that it’s a hoax?

And it’s just not true that it can’t be explained, it is possible to explain in scientific terms how an aqueous solution containing little or no active ingredient can have an effect on an organism, in scientific terms as well as unscientific terms that anyone can understand, what the physico-chemistry of homeopathy is. And however arrogant this may seem, with a little help from existing science and my friends, I intend to do so . .

The Homeopathic Cure of The Economist

It has long been held that unless you have studied the literature surrounding it and put it to an appropriate test, if you can’t say anything good about homeopathy, don’t say anything at all, because it will probably come off looking vituperative, read like a caviling complaint, stupid and flat out wrong.

 On April 1st, 2014, the same day as my last blog . . The Homeopathic Cure of Wikipedia . . The Economist posted another smug anti-homoeopathic cavil, and it will have about as much impact as another day in a 200 year old infection that’s been bugging Mankind, the disease being somewhere north of stupidity and south of deception.

Stupid or deceived, I have a hard time deciding which affliction any particular homeopathy antagonist is presenting, and I’m sure that’s exactly what they wonder of me. Touche’ a droit, et a gauche.

But my explanation for the physics of the homeopathic remedy I think are better than what I’ve got for why homeopathy isn’t accepted pandemically.

The article dodges around the usual rabidity about no active ingredients, the drooling “its just plain water” complaint. Well, the same thing could be said about Tritium, oxygen and hydrogen, the active ingredient of a chain reaction in a hydrogen bomb . .  and this a good corollary for the homeopathic remedy, just plain water except it has become radioactive. And this is not the only thing to blow up in the face of people who play gotcha with homoeopathy.

Homeopaths don’t like that explanation either. The devil they have in skepticism is an easier one to deal with than the one who resides in the physics of homeopathy, which are supramolecular and akin to the piezo electric effect.

But before my physics lecture gets me sued by Sominex for unfair competition by putting people to sleep without charge, or homeopathy for revealing a trade secret, allow me to return to the lies being spread by that rag with a one word oxymoron for a name:

The Economist says, “The most comprehensive review of homeopathy was published in 2005 in the Lancet, a medical journal. Researchers compared trials of homeopathic and conventional medicines. In the bigger, well-designed trials, there was ‘no convincing evidence’ that homeopathy was more effective than a placebo, they found.”

This is a lie. Now don’t take that as an insult, I admire a good liar. Pulitzer prizes are regularly awarded to people who, in a particularly good novel, have demonstrated an unusual talent for prevarication. Isn’t the word “fiction” just a civil replacement for a pack of lies? Of course it is. Story telling is just another way of getting our minds off the grisly truth.

And that’s what The Economist is doing here, the truth being that homoeopathy is a threat to the economics of the medical establishment.

What the smarmy author of The Economist is doing is quoting Shang, a debunked meta analysis of eight clinical trials cherry picked out of over 100 that appeared in Lancet in 2005 after the medical world was made especially miserable by Linde, a previous meta published in Lancet in 1997, of which the top critic of homeopathy at the time, Professor of Complementary Medicine Edzard Ernst of Exeter University, called “technically superb.”

After Shang hit the streets homeopaths began asking, where did they come up with this idea that homeopathics were no better than placebos?

Peter Fisher, MD, the Royal Physician and a practicing homeopath himself, asked to see the data. Shang refused, at first, then finally had to relent.

In a review of the literature for pharmacists, so they might form a more comprehensive view than the one presented by the The Economist, the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education reported, “In contrast to findings by Kleijnen and Linde, a 2005 meta-analysis by Shang et al that was published in Lancet found that the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was no different than placebo.51 However, this study has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels.52-61 Of particular concern, the researchers eliminated 102 of 110 homeopathic trials and based their conclusions on only the 8 largest high-quality trials without clearly identifying the criteria by which these trials were selected or the identity of these trials. Odds ratios calculated before the exclusions (on all 110 trials) do not support their ultimate conclusion that homeopathic interventions are no better than placebo.” [1]

So why is The Economist taking sides in such an acrimonious and long standing feud with bogus information sources to support a view less than neutral? Why isn’t it good enough that a growing number of people are asking for homeopathy in their health care? Why is The Economist inserting itself between patients and their physicians? Why is it that The Economist is reporting the conclusions of a highly criticized analysis of homoeopathy and not better ones reporting findings contrary to what The Economist is reporting?

April Fools?

 People will continue going to homeopaths as a last resort, some will report miraculous cures, and others, usually those who haven’t tried it, will cry fraud.

A blog follows The Economist article with commentary by readers.

[1] Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07.

Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy PracticeTeela Johnson, HonBSc and Heather Boon, BScPhm, PhD