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.

 

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

About these ads

6 comments on “Million Dollar Challenge Revisited

  1. What about the following challenges being made to Con-Med and its supporters

    1. Open Challenge: 75000 US$ for anyone who drinks Con-Med vaccine cocktail

    http://ngriabassett.hubpages.com/hub/75000dollarschallengetodrinkvaccine http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/07/19/75-000-offered-for-md-to-publicly-drink-vaccine-additives.aspx

    2. Health Ranger Announces $10,000 Health Challenge to Big Pharma

    http://www.naturalnews.com/023476.html
    http://www.naturalnews.com/023475.html

    Like

  2. Sam says:

    Seams a decent part of your argument relies on discoveries by Martin Chaplin, Linked to one of the best Universities in the UK for research and quite a high publishing rate.

    Like

  3. Saurav Arora says:

    Well written letter, but the need of the hour is acceptability by skeptics. Even they are afraid of expressing their expression of being afraid. Thus in maximum number of cases a proper answer is not given, rather a new question is thrown on the efficacy of Homoeopathy and it modus operandi. I have been collecting scientific studies for sometime and amazed to know that there are many good and relevant studies, but never been mentioned (or rather ignored by skeptics).

    Like

  4. Significant discovery here in Queensland about skeptics and how they are made.

    http://www.truebluehealer.com/LoganDisc.html

    Like

What do you think? Question? Answer? Please comment. Your thoughful reply will be appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s