Amidst vicious attacks on its credibility, the world’s smartest woman has denied it was her who wrote a letter in response to an article about Swedish authorities accepting homeopathy.
11/14/2011 UPDATE: WORLD’S SMARTEST WOMAN ENDORSES HOMEOPATHY?
Apparently not, at least NOT YET.
After it has been called to my attention, by one of our faithful readers, that the Marilyn vos Savant of “world’s smartest woman” fame has denied writing the letter that appeared under the same name in a comment responding to an online article, I am amending my assertions, equivocally.
Well, certainly it should come as no surprise that those of the highest echelons of intelligence have validated, used, supported or endorsed homeopathy. Butr really, what constitutes such a claim as the world’s most intelligent anybody? What about some of these evil geniuses? How smart really, are they? SHouldn’t intgelligence include indices for how well you get along with others? Does some abstract figure of I.Q. warrant such a nomer? And if we can say some woman by dint of this quanta is the world’s most intelligent, what does achievement, wealth, approbation and wealth rate for? I’d like to know. Is a mere paper and pencil test, which can be cheated opr lied about, not common to a rat in a maze? What is the best criteria for intelligence? How would we rate our own if we accedpted a quotient of intelligence for the ability to rate intelligence. Cannot intelligence be appraised soley in spiritual terms of happiness? Why not a misery index? Couldn’t it be said the dumbest people on the planet are in reality the most miserable no matter what fiscal appendages, acheuivements and academic commendations they may bear? How smart is a man who thorws him self into a fire? Have you ever thrown a cup at someone’s head?
Does she use Splenda? What is her daily consumption of aspartame? Did she vote for Romney? Does she know who Victor Neuman is?
Shouldn’t warning signs such as the above be consdiered benchmarks of intelligence? And how does intelligence farfe beside wisdom?
No, I submit to you, my friends, these are too arbitrary and give inapprpriate indications of intelligence, and how much greater wisdom? A better index, I think, is indeed homeopathy! Allow me to illustrate mya sssertions to you in full Technicolor in the plush 3-D cinema of your mind.
Is Marilyn vos Savant really the world’s most intelligernt woman. She never responded to my inquiry, how intelligent is thtWho was the world’s most intelligent man?
Mark Twain remains the world’s most quoted man. Defintely a candidate for the world’s smartest man. Who but a man of such incomparable intelligence as this Clemens would stave off his last work for publication, Letters from the Earth, to 50 years after his death, just to give the world a chance to catch up? Not only is it an ontology, it brings up the progenitor of the Judaeo CHristian faith before a celestial court by the his ears for his report in Numbers 31, without reference to ice cream, but rather the rapine genocide of the Midianites and modern karma of the Jew. He is the Godfather of American literature, he wrote her first great novel (The Adverentures of Huckleberry Finn) he is the Lincoln of her literature, the cynosure of her jungle . . and he used homeopaths almost exclusively. He 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 homoeopathy survived the attempts of the allopathists [conventional physicians] to destroy it, even though you may never employ any physician but an allopathist while you live.
John D. Rockerfeller in today’s dollars was the richest man to have ever lived. He was also a homeopathy enthusiast. He lieved to the age of 97 with his personal homeopath by his side);
Emil Adolph von Behring ajhn immunolgist, was winner of the first Nobel prize for medicine due to his work in developing the deiptheria antitoxin, which he ascribed to homeopathy. He wrote, “Indeed, what else causes the epidemiological immunity in sheep, vaccinated against anthrax than the influence previously exerted by a virus, similar in character to that of the fatal anthrax virus? And by what technical term could we more appropriately speak of this influence, exerted by a similar virus than by Hahnemann’s word ‘homeopathy’? I am touching here upon a subject anathematized till very recently by medical penalty: but if I am to present these problems in historical illumination, dogmatic imprecations must not deter me . . only the road of homeopathy led to my goal.”
Mohandas “Mahatma” Ghandi was the exemplary sanyasin ofhis time, the preminent leader of the Indian nation and exponent non pareil of the power of non violent civil disobedience. He was also one of the world’s greatest pronents of homeopathy, and from the impact of his words on such a huge number of people, second only to Hahnemann himself as homeopathy’s chief proselyte. He wroted, “His [Hahneman's] memory wakes us again and you are to follow him, but the opponents hate the existence of the principles and practice of homeopathy, which in reality cures a larger percentage of cases than any other method of treatment, and it is beyond all doubt safer and more economical and the most complete medical science.”);
Abraham Lincoln (greatest U.S. President, surrounded himself with homeopaths and sent them to cure McClellan of typhoid fever );
Bill Clinton (President of U.S. during the world’s greatest economic boom, reportedly received homeoapthic treament);
Queen Elizabeth II (current Queen of England) reportedly she and the Royal Family have made long use of homeopathy;
Professor William Tiller, (former head of the Stanford physics department, co-authored The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy. He and others write, “The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent. The principal conclusions of this paper concern only the plausibility of the biological action of ultradiluted water remedies, they are based on some very old (e.g. homeopathy) and some very new (e.g. metallic and nanobubble colloids) observations which have been rejected on invalid grounds or due to ignorance of the materials research literature and its theoretical basis. This constitutes an excellent example of the common error in rejecting new scientific discoveries by using the absence of evidence as evidence for absence.”
Luc Montagnier (immunologist, Nobel prize winner for discovery of the HIV virus, He syas in an interview. In an interview he said that Jacques Benveniste, whose controversial homeopathic work had been attacked, was “a modern Galileo“. When asked if he wasn’t “worried that your colleagues will think you have drifted into pseudo-science?”, he replied “No, because it’s not do-science. It’s not quckery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study.”)
Professor Brian Josephson, British physicist, Nobel prize winner for discovery of the Josephson Effect. He sponsored seminal lectures by French immunologist Jacques Benveniste on the new biological paradigm of homeopathy, and American homeopath John Benneth’s Supramolecular Chemistry of the Homeopathic Remedy at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University.
These are but a few of the geniuses who have supported homeoapthy. It got me to wondering: If Marilyn vos Savant, the world’s smartest woman, can endorse it, what about the world’s smartest man, Emanuel Swedenborg? What did he think about it? Well, unfortunately, he died before Hahnemann could get to him, but it has been stated that Hahnemann was a devotee’ of Swedenborg’s. Philosophically, Swedenborg and Hahneamnn reportedly drank from the same trough.
“Swedenborg had attempted to philosophically redefine Paracelsus and Kircher´s theory of signatures, renaming it as “theory of correspondences” – scientia correspondetiarum. This constituted the ground of later parallels with Hahnemann´s similitude.
“Yet, Swedenborg´s theories had no empirical support. As they derived from deductions, revelations, intuitions and spiritual insights, the Swedish was considered a dreamer, the founder of a religious-philosophic sect rather than of a system of rational thought.
“Homeopaths were always perplexed by the fact that many of the most original homeopathic minds were attracted by Swedenborg´s ideas. Especially, it was very difficult to explain how they could have confounded a therapeutic system – grounded on experience and elaborated through the strictest rational criteria, a kind of offshoot of 18th century Enlightenment – with such dark hermetic speculations.
“In fact, some of his theories seemed to correspond to homeopathic notions: besides correspondences theory, the idea of the representation of the maximum through the minimum (consequently, of minimal doses), the refusal of aggressive medical intervention, the stress upon body-mind relationship, the postulate of matter-energy unity, the octaves scale (employed by Kent as a guide to the sequence of dynamizations). However, these affinities do not suffice as an explanation. It would seem that Swedenborg´s ideas provided an “existential solution” that surpassed the frame of homeopathic doctrine.” Dr. Paulo Rosenbaum, Kent: Homeopathic Criticism and Knowledge
Senator Royal Copeland, MD prior to his tenure as a U.S. Senator in 1922, served as President of the New York Board of Health. He became popular with New Yorkers while his training as a homeopathic physician to protect them from the greatest epidemic to ever hit Mankind.
Pardon me for that errand . . I get carried away [sometimes], especially when someone mentions Swedenborg, but it’s nothing a dose of Lycopodium can’t cure. It may sound cheeky, but but to my own devoted followers I would say the point is this, that if vos Savant of brain teaser fame did endorse homeopathy, she would be in good company, as indices in the remarkable book by the great Dana Ullman have illumined for us, The Homeopathic Revolution. [I'm still waiting for him to send me a fresh copy, as the binding has given way due to pressing it down too hard on the copy machine, and if you don't know what I'm talking about, you're an honest person who needsquestion your utility]
Now, as you may note, all of tghese savants have been male with the exception of the woman who bears the word as her surname, which makes me susicpicious, and who to date has not yet, apparently, admitted to having a come to Hahnemann moment. Too bad, as we have seen those who pursue approbation before the fact shy away from homeopathy.
Mary Baker Eddy was a Mesermerist, spiritual healer and founder of the Christian Science religion,bes tselling author and, according to Twain, the most powerful and wealthiest woman of her time, who with a wave of her hand could command millions. But above all to her credit she was a professional homeopath. Whatever you may think of her, saviour or scam artist, using a more liberal measure, you may very well conclude that she may actually have been . . and still remains . . the most intelligent woman to have ever lived, and if not not, at least [perhaps] commanding a solid second to Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Eddy wrote “Homoeopathy furnishes the evidence to the senses, that symptoms, which might be produced by a certain drug, are removed by using the same drug which might cause the symptoms.”
Mrs. Eddy was married to a homeopath. she was herself a practicing homeopath and her adopted son, Dr. Ebenezer Foster Eddy, who as drummer boy during the Civil War known as “Little Nell,” at the age of 15 being small, fair and delicate bore the sobriquet “daughter of the regiment,” at 40 was a homeopathic physician and for a time second only to his mother in power and command of the Church.
A jack of diamonds, skinned with hides from writhing creatures, Dr. Ebenezer Foster Eddy was immaculately dressed, his magnificent fur-lined coat, fur cap, and the stunningly diamond stickpin spangling from his shirtfront, gifts to “Bennie” from Mother Eddy, the climax of his couture.
No ordinary musician, he would play, sit for hours on the massive pipe organ in the austere Cathedral inspired by homeopathy and play for Mother, sitting alone midst the Greek revival architecture the cononical hymns to which she had appended poetic lyrics,
“Shepherd, show me how to go O’er the hillside steep, How to gather, how to sow, How to feed Thy sheep. I will listen for Thy voice, Lest my footsteps stray; I will follow and rejoice, All the rugged way.
“Thou wilt bind the stubborn will, Wound the callous breast, Make self righteousness be still, Break earth’s stupid rest. Strangers on a barren shore, Laboring long and lone, We would enter by the door, And Thou knowest Thine own.
“So, when day grows dark and cold, Tear or triumph harms, Lead Thy lambkins to the fold, Take them in Thine arms. Feed the hungry, heal the heart, Till the morning’s beam; White as wool, ’ere they depart, Shepherd, wash them clean.
She writes of herself, “The author’s medical researches and experiments had prepared her thought for the metaphysics of Christian Science. Every material dependence had failed her in her search for truth; and she can now understand why, and can see the means by which mortals are divinely driven to a spiritual source for health and happiness.
This was the Church Homeopathy inspired. It’s growth in the early 1900′s, Twain reported (who was Mrs. Eddy’s most ardent critic) if its phenomenal growth continued as its 1904 rate by the 1930′s it would overtake Congress.
“Her experiments in homoeopathy had made her skeptical as to material curative methods. Jahr, from Aconitum to Zincum, enumerates the general symptoms, the characteristic signs, which demand different remedies; but the drug is frequently attenuated to such a degree that not a vestige of it remains. Thus we learn that it is not the drug which expels the disease or changes one of the symptoms of disease.
“Only salt and water
“The author has attenuated Natrum Muriaticum (common table salt) until there was not a single saline property left. The salt had “lost his savour;” and yet, with one drop of that attenuation in a goblet of water, and a teaspoonful of the water administered at intervals of three hours, she has cured a patient sinking in the last stage of typhoid fever. The highest attenuation of homoeopathy and the most potent rises above matter into mind. This discovery leads to more light. From it may be learned that either human faith or the divine Mind is the healer and that there is no efficacy in a drug.”
Now, returning to the letter in question, be it hoax or fact haven, it reported Swedish authorities have accepted homeopathy as a valid referral by non homeopathic medical doctors!
Much to my discredit, I simply assumed, out of hope, that this was the same Marilyn vos Savant I thought it was.
Immediately after being informed of the fact check oversight error, I sent her a note through Twitter stating that I was amending the post, hoping she would share her true thoughts on homeopathy.
Fair enough so far?
Hopefully the real Marilyn vos Savant will be amenable to reviewing the evidence for homeopathy, and rendering an opinion. Yes, that would be nice, but it didn’t happen and I doubt it ever will. Marilyn vos Savant appears to limit the use of her great intelligence to solving crossword puzzles.
[SUBSCRIBE to be notified of further updates]
THE REST OF MY STORY STANDS AS TRUE
The country of Sweden has joined Nobel laureates, top material scientists, the heads of state, royalty, countless medical doctors over two centuries, the state of Arizona, Cuba and millions of common people in accepting homeopathy, the world’s fastest growing medicine.
Hopefully, the world’s smartest woman, after reviewing the evidence for homeopathy, will join these luminaries in supporting further research into curative medicine.
Meanwhile, a ruling by Sweden’s Supreme Administrative court has struck down the Swedish Medical Association’s prohibition of homeopathy.
Swedish doctors may now recommend it.
The ruling has drawn the usual spears from its competitor of allopathy (common modern medicine that evokes symptoms other than those being treated). But in a comment following an article on the Swedish ruling, the defense of the embattled curative doctrine appeared to have been joined by Marilyn vos Savant, the woman the Guiness Book of World Records claimed has the world’s greatest IQ for a woman, rated to be as high as 230.
One of the points of the letter signed by “Marilyn vos Savant” pointed out is a noted fact that made it sound like this was indeed a letter from someone who was looking at the argument from an unusally objective point of view, what one would expect from the world’s smartest woman: Criticisms of homeopathy bear little or no references.
Exactly what I’ve been saying for years now.
At 12:59 on September 24, 2011 the letter signed by Marilyn vos Savant was posted a reply to the announcement that Swedish courts are recognizing homeopathy.
This is actually nothing new. Courts all over the world recognize homeopathy. Homeopathic high dilutes are FDA regulated and approved LEGAL drugs. They argue by numerous medical doctors, as well as licensed homeopaths.
The letter in question endorses homeopathy and asks intelligent questions, just as one would expedct from the world’s smartest woman. She writes:
“Personally, I believe in homeopathy. But that is me. The system, developed by a GERMAN doctor named Samuel Hahnemann, is a system based on the principle that a much diluted preparation of a substance that causes symptoms in healthy individuals can cure disease that causes the same symptoms in a sick person. As I said, it has worked for me, but I might be the exception of the rule.
“What is “top thinking” is the statement made by Marie Wedin, chairwoman of the Swedish Medical Association, about the stance of the organism on the matter:
“We believe treatment should be evidence-based, and evidence has shown that the absolute majority of homeopathic cures have not been proven effective.”
“Why doesn’t she provide numbers and/or who made a research about it?
“Marie Wedin is just another bureaucrat, that is, an administrator concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people’s needs. They usually open their mouths, long before they start their brain’s ignition system.
“With due respect
“Marilyn vos Savant”
YOU DON’T NEED TO HAVE A GENIUS IQ TO UNDERSTAND HOMEOPATHY
The writer is indeed perceptive in calling for references. Every statement against homeopathy turns out to be false, and there really aren’t any exceptions. Critics say homeopathy’s rule of ”like cures like“ has no correlatives in science. This isn’t true. In magnetic fields, like repels like. In chemistry, like dissolves like. In alcoholism, hair of the dog that bit you.
Bartender, methamphetamine for all my ADHD friends. And the smallpox vaccine for the Apaches!”
“If water has a memory,” they quibble, “then why doesn’t it remember everything that passes through it?” Well, why doesn’t magnetic recording tape remember everything that’s been recorded on it, it’s not a Victrola, or why don’t the memories in atheist computers remember all the porn they’ve watched?
Because it gets erased!
Homeopathy is often indicted as not being evidence based, when in fact it has built its protocols on evidence alone by directly observing the action of its curative substances on human subjects in double and even triple blind trials. In fact, it has been asserted that homeopaths invented the double blind trial. All classical homeopathic remedies are subjected to “provings,” tests on volunteers to see what symptoms they elicit.
Homeopathy has borne the burden of epidemics, outperforming its allopathic counterpart 10 to one. Recently Cuba administered 4.5 million doses to stop an annual epidemic and saved lives and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Even more compelling evidence for the science minded is seen in the action of high dilutes on plants, animals and in vitro biochemical experiments.
Critics say homeopathic remedies have no plausible mechanism of action, that because they shouldn’t work they don’t work. This “implausiblity argument” has been struck down by a team of American material scientists led by Prof. Rustum Roy of Penn State University, who have unequivocally stated that the highly diluted aqueous solutions used in homeopathy do indeed have identifiable physical differences from their inert vehicles.
Recently Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who co-discovered the AIDS virus, used equipment developed by the renowned French immunologist Jacques Benveniste to detect the homeopathic signal, an electromagnetic frequency beginning at one kH, detectable at other higher frequencies throughout the spectrum.
Montagnier speculated that the signal is triggered by the Schumann resonance, the Earth’s background radiation.
HIGH DILUTES RADIOACTIVE
It can now be said that the operative mechanism is most likely radioactivity, similar to tritium, an natural trace element isotope found in small quantities in the human body.
The experiments by Nobel laureate Montagnier reveal a homeopathic signal at 1kH. Beta scintillation measures observed by Dr. Rolland Conte and his team show that homeopathic high dilutes emit high beta frequencies between ultra violet and gamma (Theory of High Dilutons).
Opponents of homeopathy have complained that water cannot have a memory as required by homeopathy. But in June 2010, chemistry Prof. Emeritus Martin Chaplin of London Southbank University, who Roy calls “the guru of water,” wrote ”Water does store and transmit information, concerning solutes, by means of its hydrogen-bonded network.” [Chaplin, Memory of Water]
Others have said that all good studies of homeopathy have concluded that homeopathy is merely a placebo. But this isn’t true. Placebo is not an accurately definitive term of anything other than what we want it to be, no major metanalysis has ever concluded that homeopathy is a placebo.
Of the five major metanalyses done on homeopathy, only one, Shang, has come close to stating that homeopathy is a placebo, but that study has been soundly dismissed as seriously flawed, and the reviewers of Shang stated conclusively in their results that the data showed that collective trials showed ”Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo” (Ludtke & Rutten).
As one explores the research and testimony of homeopathy and personally experiences it, a second paradigm arises in stark contrast with allopathy: The statements made against homeopathy are always based on assumption, presumption and fallacy.
There’s something in the water . .
As implausible as it may be due to the dilution of intended material substances out of its remedies, it is impossible for this crypto molecular pharmacy of homeopathy to be dependent on the ’”placebo effect,” that its effects are purely psychogenic.
A recent question in commentary asked “why is there this opposition to homeopathy?”
I think it is because of several reasons. Homeopathy is difficult to understand yet it is accessible to lay people for very little cost. Its pharmacy can be created by anyone from anything. It escapes the graswp of intellectual prperty rights. It competes with the profit incentive of allopathy, is more effective than allopathy and infuriates the elitism of science.
It puts the medicine back into health care.
John Benneth, Homeopath
503- 819 – 7777