The first question about homeopathy is this: Can serially agitated high dilutes (SADs), which are the constituent solutions used in homeopathic remedies, be identified from their liquid vehicles?
Although it does not conclusively rebut the placebo accusation, if we can see a difference in SADs within the water from whence they came, this in itself suggests that there are physical attributes in homeopathic medicine that may affect living organisms.
Through supramolecular chemistry we have been given a look into what the homeopathic remedy is structurally. The homeopathic remedy is not a chemical compound, it is a molecular complex.
Through the action of van der Waal forces, hydrogen bonding within aqueous solutions creates polymer like structures, akin to ice crystals, that mimic the the shape and function of the mother susbtance. These structures were seen by early chemists such as Sir Humphry Davy and Michael Farraday and referred to as “hydrates,” and basically regarded as curiosities.
In the 1940′s Marcus Powell named a particular class of hydrates “clathrates,” which means lattice or cage, because of their cagelike structure.
Using the terminolgy of host guest chemsitry, Greek Nuclear phsyicist George Anagnostatos has gone further to describe how the homeopathic remedy is populated with these clathrates.
Using beta scintillation French phsyicists Yves Lasgne and Rolland Conte have recorded the radiant output of the homeopathic medium, described in their seminal work, “Theory of High Dilutions.”
A review of the literature spanning a century reveals reports of many ways to answer the question, and the conclusion is that there are indeed many ways by which to make the identification. The effects of high dilutes have been seen on bacterial, zoological and botanical subjects. Physical measures have been made. Biochemistry has been employed. The reports have been positive enough to suggest that although the molecular structure of SADs is not well understood, they do differ from their liquid solvent vehicles, have a dynamic action and subsequently suggest specificity in the sub atomic field.
- 1902 P.Jousset investigated the effects of silver nitrate up to 25c on mycelium. He found significant results in their weights, finding that the silver nitrate stunted growth. (reported by Gabriel Bertrand) “The Extraordinary Sensitiveness of Aspergillus
Niger to Manganese.” Comptes Rendus Academie des Science; 154, 616, 1912 - 1906 Boericke and Tafel made an unusual observation of the emanations from a high dilute of radium bromide (30c), to photograph a picture of the outline of a key. (Tafel’s Jottings, 1906.)
- 1928 JUNKER, Hermann The Effect of Extreme DIlutions on Microorganisms Phluger’s Archiv fur die Gesamte Physiologie, 219, pp 647-672, 1928
- 1923 Lilli Kolisko, Physical and Physiological Demonastration of the Effect of the Smallest Entities. Der Kommende Tag, A-G Verlag,
Stuttgart, 1923 pp. 1-10
5. 1923 N.P. Krawkow- Demonstrated 15c histamine increased the blood flow in isolated rabbit ears 25% and using 12c microdoses of adrenaline, strychnine, histamine and quinine was able to affect the change of pigmentation in the isolated skins of frogs. Controls were used. “Beyond the Boundary of Sensibility of Living Protoplasm” Zeitschrift fur die Gesamte Experimntalle Medizin, 34 pp.279-306 6. 1925 G. Stearns & M. Stark reported the action of microdilutes on fruit fly tumors. In this fascinating study we see that microdilutes actually altered the genetics of their subjects. A
genetically determined tendency to tumor formation ceased to exist after the administration of a microdilution of the tumor itself (isopathy). Controls were used. Other microdilutes were used to no effect. “Experiments with Homeopathic Potentized Substances Given to Dropsophilia Melanogaster with Hereditary Tumors”, The Homeopathic Recorder, 40. 7. 1925 G. Stearns tested microdilutions of salt on guinea pigs and demonstrated adverse affects from 30c to 1000c sodium chloride. He noted loss of appetite, aversion for bread, loss of weight, their young poorly nourished and scrawny, less active, indifferent, hair less glossy, rough, untidy, eyes watery, lack luster. And homeopaths brag that their “remedies” (which are actually legal drugs) can do no harm! There were 16 female control animals, and they all became pregnant, whereas only 31% of the 48 female experimental animals became pregnant. At the end of five months over half, 55% of the experimental animals were dead compared to only 35% of the control animals “Experimental Data on One of the Fundamental Claims in Homeopathy”, The Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 18. 8. 1927 Karl Konig used microdilutes to experiment on frogs and
fungi. He discovered that by using dilutions of of lead and silver
nitrate ranging from 1 to 15c he could cause a premature
metamorphosis in Rana fusca (common frog tadpoles) or kill
them or the fungus in the water. Once again here we see that
homeopathic drugs can have negative organic affects. Controls
were used and the sinusoidal curve that we see in many
experiments of diverse measures is first noted here. “On the Effect of
Extremely Diluted (“Homeopathic”) Metal Salt Solutions on the
Development and Growth of Tadpoles. Zeitschrift fur die Gesamte Experimentalle Medizin, 34, pp. 279-306 9. 1929 Vladimir Vondracek repeated Konig’s work, and instead
of lead and silver nitrate used gold chloride and a different
species of frog. At 12c he also reported a significant increase in
the mortality of tadpoles, and also obtained a repetition of the
sinusoidal curve. “The Mortality of Tadpoles in Ultra Solutions”
Zeitschrift fur die Gesamte Experimentelle Medizin. 66 pp. 533-538 10. 1932 George Russell Henshaw discovered a method for influencing serum flocculation in rabbits. Using Bryonia alba and Baptista tinctoria he showed a reaction in some of his subjects ”A New Method of Determining the Indicated Remedy by a Flocculation Test of the Serum The Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 25
- 1932 Joseph Roy The Experimental Justification of the Homeopathic Dilution, Le Bulletin Medical, 46, pp. 528-531, 1932
- 1936 Boyd, Research on Low Potencies of Homeopathy,
London, Heinemann
- 1938
Pierre Narodetzki, On the Establishment of a Technique for Studying Homeopathic Doses. Thesis. University of
Paris, 1938 - 1930 Persson, WM enzymes, The Principles of Catalysis in Biochemistry and Homeopathy, J Am. Inst. Hom. 23, pp 1055-1089
- 1936 Boyd, Research on Low Potencies of Homeopathy,
London, Heinemann - 1938 Perrson, WM enzymes, Effeats of Very Small Amounts of Medicamentws and Chemicals on Urease, Diastase and Trypsin, Archives Internatales de Pharmodynamie et de Therapie, 46, pp. 249-267
- 1941 PATTERSON & BOYD Potency Action – - A Preliminary Study of the Alteration of the Schick Test by a Homeopathic Potency, The British Homeopathic Journal 31, pp. 301-309
- 1941 Boyd, W.E. The action of microdoses of mercuric chloride on diastase Br. Hom J 31:1-28
- 1941 Heintz used UV spectra conductivity to make measurements and IR analysis of high dilutes. Physikalische Wirkungen hochverdunnter potenzierter Substanzen Naturwissenchaften 29:713-25
- 1942 Boyd, W.E. The application of a new biologic heart rate recorder to the study of the action on the frog ehart of small doses of Crataegus, DIgitalis, Strophanthus gratus and of traces doses of Strophanthus sarmentosus Br. Hom J 43:11-23
- 1946 Boyd, W.E. “An investigation regarding the aciton on diastase of microdoses of mercuric chloride when prepared with and without mechanical shock” Br. Hom J 36:214-23
22. 1951 J. Jarricot showed that veratrine sulfate 30c could decrease muscle contraction in frogs, and that Iberis amara in dilutions of 18c to 118c could slow the heart beat of turtles. The work appeared to be well controlled. “The Infinitessimals of Homeopathic Physicians Editions des Laboratoires P.H.R,.
Lyon 23. 1952 Gay-Boiron , galvonmeter, A Study of the Physics of Dynamization, Edition des Laboratories P.H.R.,
Lyon
France,
Lyon
France
- 1954 Boyd, W.E. enzymes, “Biochemical and biological evidence of the activity of high potencies” British Homeopathic Journal 44:6-44
- 1964 Heintz, polarography, Les “maximums”
del la Polarographie et la force electromotrice de mouvement C.R. Seances Academy Sience 1962 - 1966 Smith & Boericke, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, Modern instrumentaion for the evaluation of homeopathic drug structure, Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy
- 1966 Brucato & Stephenson, 50 KV Alternating Current Dielectric Tester, Dielectric strength testing of homeopathic dilutions of HgCl2, Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy
- 1968 Smith & Boericke, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, Changes caused by succussion on N.M.R. patterns and bioassay of bradykinin triacetate (BKTA) succussion and dilutions, J Am Inst Hom 1968: 61 197-212
- 1972 Heintz, electronic measures, La mesure de l’action de dilutions successives a l’aide, Ann Hom Fr 14:275-84
- 1975 Young, Nuclear magnetic resonance studies of succussed solutions J Am Inst Hom 68:8-16
- 1975 Luu-D-Vinh, Raman-Laser spectroscopy, Etude des dilutions homeopathiques par effet Raman -Laser
- 1977 NOIRET and CLAUDE, Enterobacter cloacae, Lysteria monocytogenes, Streptoccocus bovis, Activitie des diverse dilutions homeopathiques de Cuprum sulfuricum sur quelques souches microbiennes, Ann Hom Fr 19:91-109
34. 1979 Kumar and Jussal, surface tension measurements, A hypothesis on the nature of homeopathic potencies, Br Homeopathic Journal 68: 197-204
some drugs at high frequencies using Time Domain Spectroscopy Hahnemannian
Gleanings, 8: 358-36638. 1983 Jenkins & Jones yeast and wheat seedlings, Comparison of wheat and yeast as in vitro models for investigating homeopathic medicines. British Homeopathic Journal, 72, 3: 143-14739. 1983 Sacks, A.D. nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy,
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopy of homeopathic remedies J.
Holist. Med. 5, 2: 172-177
dipole laser Phys. Rev. Lett. 61: 1085-1088
that relate to homeopathic Sulfur potencies
Berlin, J. Res. Hom. 1,
1:61-68
Constanstinesco,A. Nuclear magnetic resonance. In this study
vortexed potencies of Silicea in a concentration of 1.66X 10-5
to 1.66x 10-29 moll Silicea in 0.9% NaCl were investigate by
means of NMR. Special attention was to the relaxation times
T1 and T2 of the hydrogen protons Modifications des temps de
relaxation RMN a 4 MHz des protons du solvant dans les tres hatures diltuions
salines de silice/lactose 44. 1994 Shui-Yin Lo, photo microscopy, (see pictures of Ice Electric, or “homeopathic” crystals below) In this unusual and controversial experiment, the Lo team, according to Dana Ullman, used an still yet unknown technique to actually photograph hydrogen bonding in water, revealing the suggestion that homeopathic drugs are a type of liquid crystal ”Anomalous State of Ice,” Modern Physics Letters B, 10,19(1996):909-919. See also, “Physical Properties of Water with IE Structures,” Modern Physics Letters B, 10, 19(1996) : 921-930. 45. 1996 Conte, Berliocchi, Lasgne and Vernot, nuclear magnetic resonance, infrared, beta scintillation, In this amazing little book this interdisciplinary French team presents the first nuclear theory for homeopathic drugs. According to the authors when matters disappears by dilution and is potentized by succussion, it leaves the opposite of the well known super dense black hole, what the authors call a WHITE HOLE and discuss a new atomic particle, the HYPERPROTON. This investigation they believe reveals the first model for the drive of animated matter. In this report they evidence the emission of Beta radiation from homeopathic drugs. Theory of High Dilutions, Polytechnica,
Paris 46. 1997 VAN WIJK and WIEGANT, Using a step down arsenite treatment with 100M or 300M arsenite followed by an incubation of rat liver cells with lower concentrations of 1-10M dilutions, cells were shown to exhibit increased sensitivities to low concentrations of sodium arsenite. There was an additional increase in the synthesis of protector proteins when low concentrations of arsenite were applied to arsenite pretreated cells. Stimulation of cellular defence of stressed liver cells by subharmful doses of toxicants HomInt R&D Newsletter, 1:/1997: 12-14
Karlsruhe47. 1999 Vittorio Elia and Marcella Niccoli, thermography, “Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, June, 827:241-248. 48. 2001 Geckeler, Kurt and Samal, Shashadhar at the Kwangju Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea discovered fullerenes, football-shaped buckyball molecules, formed aggregates in solution, and when diluted, the size of the fullerene particles increased. Cyclodextrin molecules behaved the same way. So did the organic molecule sodium guanosine monophosphate, DNA and sodium chloride. Dilution made molecules cluster five to 10 times bigger than those in the original solutions. Growth was not linear, and depended on the original concentration. Geckeler and Samal found that the more dilute the solution inthebeginning, the larger the aggregates become, and only worked in polar solvents like water, in which one end of the molecule has a pronounced positive charge while the other end is negative. Chemical Communications, 2001, page 2224; there is no volume number NewScientist.com http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1532
- 2003 Bell I., Lewis D., Brooks A., Lewis S., Schwartz G. Gas Discharge Visualization Evaluation of Ultramolecular Doses of Homeopathic Medicines Under Blinded, Controlled Conditions. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Volume 9, Number 1, 2003, pp. 25-38.
- 2004 Belon, P., J. Cumps, M. Ennis, P.F. Mannaioni, M. Roberfroid, J. Sainte-Laudy, & F.A. Wiegant (2004) “Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation”, Inflammation Research, 53(5):181-8.

Excellent work John.. Please God protect the anti homoeopathy people to not get a disease requiring such treatment, they would look stupid in their approch “wording against facts”; Obviously they like to be known like general Cambrone for that;
Thank you very much, Dr. Conte. I can’t think of a better person to receive a compliment from than you, as you were the one who opened my mind to pre-cinical testing 12 years ago. YOu are a REAL scientist, ot one of these poseurs who do nothing but speak for the money.
You have been my inspiration, you were the one who convinced me that high ddilutes can have biological effects.
Hello John and others–a few months ago I spent what ammounted to 6 weeks or so of fighting off the vicious, anti-scientific, bigoted, biased, abusive, ignorant and generally not-too-nice guys on youtube/the net who call themselves “skeptics” because I posted a comment favourably for homeopathic medicine. It was a real eye-opener as to the mental health status of these types (I haven’t gone toe-to-toe with them before but have observed them in situ for years and have been generally disgusted with their closed mindedness. The group-think and herd mentality of these types who align themselves with the fraudulent medicine and science coming from the mainstream/coporate world displays very evidently their fear of complexity,of the ‘unknown’ and of losing the ole priviliged white male thang! I tried every type of argument in an effort to be ‘heard’, to no avail. One thing I discovered just after switching off my youtube account was the newly translated report by the Swiss Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme entitled
Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs
published by Springer
It was published in november 2011
It came too late for my ‘crusade’ but turns out to be all that I asked for in terms of ammunition against the conspiracy that is raging in the english speaking world regards homeopathy. It puts to rest the ridiculous anti-scientific findings of the Lancet “meta-analysis” (the most quoted piece of “evidence” by those with no knowledge whatsoever of homeopathy btw) It would be a wonderful experiment to get a “skeptic” to read it under controlled conditions and to then pronounce on it to show how far true-believers will go in their denial of science and evidence-based medicine.Would make a good youtube video methinks haha. I think you should read the book and write up a review if you aren’t already in the proceess of doing so John, get it out there far and wide….fabulous stuff!!
Paul,
I know EXACTLY what you mean. I’ve been dealing with the same anti-homeopathy campaign by these trolls for years. We all have. It’s black propaganda. They’re obsessive debunkers working or pharma who think they’re “on to something.” They’re like school yard bullies. When they see the muscle they run. And we have a ot o0 sule on our side, they have none, just boster.
The one thing to always keep in mind when dealing with these “skeptics” is that every argument against homeopathy by “skeptics” is ALWAYS false.
The 2005 Lancet meta (Shang) you mention, for instance, was a hoax. It was a response to the Linde meta, which Ernst, the main antagonist against homeopathy, had to conclude is a techinically superb meta. It appeared in the Lancet in 1996 and panicked the medical estabishment. Linde concluded homeopathy is NOT a placebo. Shang took its results from cherry picking, which is the same thing opponents of homeopathy have had to do in order to make their case putative. Shang had to be produced to slow the growth of homeopathy, but Shang doesn’t stand up in science or law.
LINDE: “The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.” tinyurl com/84xt56k
Shang’s meta-analysis based its conclusion on a subset of 8 larger trials out of 21 high quality trials out of 110 included trials. Two susequent reearchers, Ludtke and Rutten, performed a sensitivity analysis on various other meaningful trial subsets of all high quality trials noted but purposely not analyzed by Shang . They found that homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo tinyurl com/ludtkerutten http://tinyurl.com/ludtkerutten
Don’t ever back down from these guys, Paul. They’re a bunch of losers that have nothing but lies, myths, fallacies and half truths to back them up, and if you are familiar with the literature you will always beat them. They brought a few rotten cherries they picked to throw at you in a gunfight where you’re holding the only gun.
The best way to anwer them on Youtube is with a link to a tinyurl without the http:// , and the period before the com removed. WHen they’re confronte with real science the smarter ones will usually just slink away to find somehting else to pick on.
Answering on youtube is an art. You have to get your message aross and a link to a cite within 500 characters, so write it out then edit it down using abbrivations if u hve 2.
Here’s an example of statements I get from them and how I answer:
RETORTS to commentary
“IT’s JUST WATER”
RESPONSE: “It’s more than just water. No one sells “just water” as homeopathic medicine. If I’m wrong, if it’s just water, show me the bottle, Honest Abe. Tell me who makes it and who sells it, where can I buy a bottle of your pure “homeopathic water” with nothing else in it? Come on big mouth. I hear it every day but I’ve been waiting for years to see it. It doesn’t exist. Its just another illusion by James “the Amazing” Randi.”
(61 chars left minus header)
links
HOMEOPATHY IN PHYSICS
ROY Structure tinyurl com/7fap5m4
RAO Epitaxy tinyurl com/6nbl9jv
CHAPLIN Memory tinyurl com/78445jp
ELIA Thermoluminescence tinyurl com/6w7t4bf
MONTAGNIER tinyurl com/Montagnier
JOSEPHSON Molecular Memories tinyurl com/bdjosephson
TILLER thermodynamics tinyurl com/billtiller
“IT‘s A PLACEBO”
RESPONSE: “You’re not meeting your own standard of proof for making a positive assertion. The belief here is that in order to be valid, a phenom, such as homeopathy, or in this case, the “placebo effect,” has to be supported by peer rev’d pub’d studies, tests & trials. So my question is, if you believe the biological effects of homeopathic remedies are solely due to psychogenesis, where are the studies in psych journals that prove it?”
PEER REVIEWED PUBS pf tudies, tests and trials that show homeoathy is VERUM, not placebo.
Am J Pharm Educ tinyurl com/7htoejq
Int J Onc tinyurl com/7n9939c tinyurl com/6m2dpnd
Integr Cancer Ther tinyurl com/7r7zajg
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg tinyurl com/cb88aym
UK Parliament tinyurl com/7666q5g
Nature tinyurl com/6rc3jy tinyurl com/7aelcv9
Inflam Res. tinyurl com/6fj9jsn
Comp Ther Med tinyurl com/7evvmkb
BMC Public Health tinyurl com/7r7zajg
Lancet tinyurl com/84xt56k
NY Acad Sci.tinyurl com/6w7t4bf
RHINITIS BMJ2000;321:471 tinyurl com/bmjrhin
“Benvensite was debunked.”
RESPONSE: “Entertainer Randi with a million dollars to lose was allowed to hold the key to the double blind overnight, played games with it. The results showed all the markings of tampering. What’s not known is the experiment JB did was the 4th pub’d rep, up until 2007 sucessfully rep’d 24 times. Witt in vitro review tinyurl com/7n9sedq
Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, et al. Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: results of a European multi-centre trial. Inflammation Research, 1999; 48 (Suppl 1): S17–S18. tinyurl com/6fj9jsn
WHen an independent replication of Benvenite was done for Nature, positive reults were obtained (Hirst), but the authors were so terrified of the backlash that they ascribed the results to some error and they called them negative, just like in the Shang review. Subsequent indepenent statistical analysis showed they were positive. Vecchi: Experiments past and future: Hirst et al. , the Burridge report, Ovelgönne et al. , the BBC Horizon “scientific experiment” and more tinyurl com/7aelcv9
“The burden of proof is on you to prove homeopathy works.”
RESPONSE: “No it’s not. In free countries the burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser, not the accused.”
“Homeopathy is a scam”
RESPONSES:
“Then why is itsold openly in grocery stores and pharmacies & adm’d by medical docs trained& lic. to use it? American Medical College of Homeopathy tinyurl com/ammedcol
“If you think homeopathy is a scam, then why haven ‘t you and others taken it to court and won huge judgments?”
LEGAL NCAHF VS KINGBIO tinyurl com/ncahfvskingbio
“FDA Homeopathic drugs generally must meet standards for strength, quality, and purity set forth in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia. tinyurl com/fdahomoe
The FDA webpage on homeopathy is the bottom line. This is Fedral law on homeopathics in the US. This is the argument killer. They can make up al the stories they want about it, that’s a scam, that’s its a placbeo, that it’s the work of the devil, it’s just water, blah blah blah but at the end of the day, its FDA regulated, protected, and approved.
One of the best cites to throw at them is this one:
Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07
Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?
“Several meta-analyses have also concluded that homeopathic treatment is significantly better than placebo” tinyurl com/7htoejq
“WHy haven’t you collected James Randi’s million dollars?”
RESPONSE: “Two well knkown homeoapths have applied for Randi’s hallenge, John Benneth in 1999 and Geo. Vithoulkas in 2003. In both cases Randi ran away, because his challenge is not a legal offer. Lawyer analyzes Randi challenge tinyurl com/vzammit
Paul, Open up a new channel on Youtube an stay in touch. We need you, desperately, to go up against these guys. YOu can’t fail. If you ever have any problem asnwering a point with these guys, contact me and I’ll show you how to answer them, but just know, there’s nothing they can throw at you that you can’t handle.
Thaks for the reply and the depth John, hope it’s useful to others as well. There are a few things here I wasn’t aware of…
I’m familiar with the actions of the more reasonable guys who “slink away” when confronted with some ‘new’ facts-unfortunately they take their new knowledge/acknowledgement silently away with them without posting for shame, pride or otherwise? so their road-to-Damascus moment is never recorded amidst the chaos. The overwhelming majority of posters on a forum such as youtube are hardcore head-in-the-sand deniers,. They are like that “scientist” Brian Josephson spoke of somewhere who informed him that he “wouldn’t believe in homeopathy even if it were true”!! Indeed I used a number of reliable sources and respectable types in my ‘arguments’ but to no avail.
You see social scientists have confirmed that for the modern person the baseline psychological state is the one of being in denial. The world is simply too complex now and contradictory (read:scary, thanks largely to misinformation campaigns waged in whatever fields designed to nullify the thinking abilities of people so they just give up and go with the flow of corporate governance I imagine) for anyone to risk putting their head up and getting it lopped off. Something like homeopathy is a relatively easy field to demonise and control responses to because of its ‘difference’ to the usual (corporate) way of doing medicine.
There was ALWAYS something wrong with what I proposed in whatever form I proposed it: John Benneths Cavendish talk was a “major embarrasement” for the Institiute, bringing effusive “apologies”(!) ; Josephson got his Nobel for something NOT to do with homeopathy (!); Roy was not the right kind of scientist; the Journal of Oncology is a partisan journal not to be trusted; The Lancet is immune to attack becuase of its pedigree; CAM doesn’t work; “Without modern medicine we would all be dead”!!!; there is no research proving “the memory of water” findings (interestingly almost noone seems to have heard of the Benveniste witch-hunt–a new, younger generation of indoctrinated drones I imagine…..and so forth and so on…….. All the ‘arguments’ thrown back at me were emotive, anti-scientific (in method and facts) and generally religious in their allegiance to scientism and its percieved catholic infallibility. The other major ‘brick wall’ to get through was their beliefs in what they call “science”, “rationalism” and “skepticism” and other such linguistic constructions, automatically gave them immunity to being wrong in any way. Again this is merely a carry-over of the religious thinking that science sought to overthrow and replace and which quickly found new home in the new fields of the sciences. Unfortunately the human mind doesn’t change its thought structures as fast as we’d like to think it does in social context (and neither do social structures for that matter). Their allegiance to the above keywords/buzzwords is quite extreme and does the job of automatically nullifying new information coming in and of ‘protecting’ the views already formed in their mind.
I’m off youtube for now, but continue to recommend and talk of homeopathy to whoever is open to it. thanks.
Look at it this way, Paul. It could be that without skepticism of homeopathy as it is, it would be unknown, but as it is, it’s growing at 30% a year.
My strategy has been to use attacks on homeopathy as opportunities to promote it.
Rather than just argue with them on Youtube, I use the tinyurl cite drops I listed in the other post, and it really stops them. They make an anecdotal statement, like “homeopathy is a placebo” and I hit them with the metas and reviews that state otherwise and ask for one study that shows the placebo effect. They say there’s no peer review, I drop in the tinyurls that link to peer reviewed lit. They say there’s no science, I hit them with the physical studies by Roy, Rao, Tiller, Bell, Conte, Demangeat et al. There really aren’t that many attacks on homeoapthy, and none of them are valid.
Once you’re aware of the literature, its fun, it’s like having discovered how to get strikes in ten pin bowling every time, knocking these guys with their crazy arguments down.
They say we have to prove it to them, my response is innocent until proven guilty, burden of proof is on the accuser, and why haven’t they won in court, an then I drop in a link to NCAHF vs King Bio and the FDA cite on it.
If you like winning arguments with a lot o people an saving lives, this is your game. If you like watching people die for no good reason, don’t do it.
WHat I’d like you to do is reopen a channel on Youtube and develop playlists, like one for of “Homeopathy Works for Me.” I[‘ve started one, but it’ss huge. Powerful videos. There must be a hundred. Go after these guys. Use them. You’ll be doing Hahnemann’s work and the world a lot of good. You WILL convert people to a superior form of treatment.
We need you.
ok, you got me. I need a breather but will re-enter the topsy-turvy world of the “skeptic”/liars den soon haha. I know homeopathy is growing exponentially-to the degree corporate medicine is/has failing/ed I imagine–this would explain the last ditch efforts by these types to hold on to their outmoded/never-were-relevant ideas of medical ‘science’ and its presently crumbling status and privilege. It’s a kind of Dr Strangelove world view these people have that would pull the plug on all mankind rather than admit to the failure of the project of the “white mans burden” represented by the “progress” obsessed/imperialist/colonialist etc etc (insert-your-own-word-here) mode of thinking about what science is and how grateful we should be for all its wonders….that’s my experience of them anyway haha. As Quantum Overload made it known: “without modern medicine we would all be dead”!!!
P.S. I forgot to mention the Swiss study was originally published in German in 2006. This throws an interesting light on both the length of time and the effort those involved in the denial of its findings can go to, particularly with regards the Lancet fraud.
I’ll no doubt run into you again somewhere online…
Great post, Paul. Thank you
[...] are over a 100 prior studies, some of these must be replications. Here are some of them …. Proof for Homeopathy The John Benneth Journal John Benneth has been rudely treated by 'skeptics' for years, as a result he has become rather [...]
Hello John, thankyou for your effort regards homeopathy–your site is like the eye of the storm if you get my meaning? I’ve just had an extended period of jousting/going mad with the “science”/”Skeptic” boys on various youtube vids and have an enquiry about some know-it-all University science boffin who told me he just “demolished” the clathrate argument using some equation on your blog–is this true? He also said you had censored his findings..his name was QuantumOverlord (what else haha) on youtube?
Thanks, Paul
Hi Paul, thanks for the thanks. Yes, I remember “Quantum Overload.” He first wanted to argue that clathrates didn’t exist due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then when it became apparent to him that they DO exist, he wanted to argue that they didn’t apply. Next he’ll argue that he was the one who invented homeopathy. He’s no different than all the other flatworlders.
Oh Dear! I had more words with Qantum Overload and he INSISTS he demolished the clathrate argument. I know he is most probably full of it but in the interests of my deep interest in the science underpinning homeopathy I have to double check the facts regarding all this (though to be honest I haven’t actually seen any yet!–he claims they were censored when you kicked him off??). So, was there anything important in what he wrote that could lead to his assumption/delusion? regarding thermodynamical principles as relevant to overturning the argument for clathrates? Sorry VERY MUCH if this is a total waste of your time. Paul
ok, I’ve done the ‘research’ on the little prat known as Quantum Overlord—I see it all clearly. In the interests of good blogsite content you can delete my comments thanks
Extremely Impressed with this article. Excellent work! Congratulations & tons of thanks to you.
I’m not a homeopath but have benefited immensely from homeopathic treatments and would love to see the whole world benefit from it.
As regards the constant accusations of the so called “Placebo Effect” by some skeptics, I would like to state that on thousands of clinical trials on animals, homeopathic treatments have been found to be very effective & successful.
Animals do not understand “Placebo” therefore surely the benefits of homeopathy is due to its medicinal properties and not due to any placebo.
Best Regards
Sumanta
No ‘proof’ whatsoever of homeopathy here. Firstly, there may well be clathrates or other possible active molecular formations in the experimental samples. This is because even the purest obtainable water contains tens or hundreds of thousands of impurities close to or below detectable levels. However, if the sample is a genuine homeopathic remedy, then the notional ingredient will not itself be present. If you want to demonstrate that the effectiveness of the remedy (assuming it has any) is due to the notional ingredient, then you must rule out the possibility that the effectiveness is due to one or more of these impurities, as well as demonstrate that the structures in the water are due to the ingredient that is not present.
Secondly, the fundamental principle of homeopathy is the ‘law of similars’ – you have to demonstrate the connection between this ‘law’ and the chemical phenomenon you are claiming as the basis of homeopathy – you have not done this.
Thirdly, science does not deal in ‘proofs’. Science deals in theories that explain phenomena, and looks for evidence that agrees with or refutes theories. There may be (and are) other explanations for the results of homeopathy than the ones that homeopaths themselves believe. To have scientific support for homeopathy, you must find scientific evidence against these alternative explanations.
Well, this is interwsting, as this particular blog doesn’t get much commentary, so as miserable as it is, I’ll let your comment pass.
Your first technical error is assuming that for a substance to be “homeopathic” it has to be diluted beyond it’s ‘notional’ or intended molecular content. Homeopathic refers only to the law of similars, like cures like, which can be observed in chemistry solvents “like dissolves like,” not dilution. You can see homeopathy as such, the law of similars, working without dilution in vaccinations and magnetic polarities, which essentially explain the action of homeopathic dilutes, polymorphic magnetism. I suggest you bone up on your chemistry, esp. supramolecular, the stuff you missed in high school. I suggest that you read Structure of Liquid Water, Roy et als review of the scientific literature illustrating the qualities and action of liqueous aqueous structuring, andthe Witt review of in vitro evidence for homeopathy . . and the materia medica before you go posing as an authority here. You really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Obviosuly you have fantasies about what science is melded into your mind by professional “skeptics”, but that’s nothing new. You’re simply another anonymous poseur trying to make himself look good with a bunch of technobabble and vague theories he heard from James Randi. In other words, everything you have to say here so far has been based on a fallacy and deception foisted by the pharmaceutical industry and skeptic poseurs. Science does deal in proofs. Science deals in evidence for anomalies, and when the evidence becomes overwhelming, as it has in homeopathy, it is the job of “science” to explain it, which in this case it has done . . for the most part . . better than it has done for other energetic phenomena, like graviity.
Homeopathy has survived two centuries of the same stupid argument “Severn” is foisting here, testimony to its power. And what have has he got in default? Rackteering charges, fraud, lawsuits, the third leading cause of death. Go complain about that.
We have a superior form of medicine.
What has he got?
We’ve been hearing the same stupid arguments against homeoapthy for over 200 years now from people more intelligent than you, you blockhead.
You don’t understand science so you don’t understand homeopathy. All you’ve demonstrated here is your ignorance, your delusion of thinking that you an impress everyone here with your screwy ideass.
The law of similars has many examples through out science. In chemistry, for instance, like dissolves like in the action of solvents. In magnetisim, like repels like. YOu’re so delusional you can’t even see what a hil can see when palying with magnets.
In medicine, the greatest accredited medical acheivement of all time is an obvious example of ike cures like, the smallpox vaccine.
Now how do you feel? You came on here thinking you could look like you are smart, like nyou know something, by humiliating somebody by charaeriing them stupid, but all you’ve done is make yourself lool stupid, all you’ve done is humiliate yourself.
You see? This is why homeopathy persists despite all ot the best efforts of people like you. You’re so deluded you think the burden of proof is on us to prove it to you, when in fact you know quite well that the burden of proof is on you, the accuser, to prove theat these substances aren’t not real, tha they do not work. Homeopathic drugs are FDA regulated and so they must be government APPROVED!
But you’re more to be pitie than censored, as you are nothing but another victim of convicted racketeers who are in competition with homeopathy who want you to think and say things exactly as you have done.
Dear John,
I am a student of medicine in USP (University of Sao Paulo) and want to congratulate you for making public the true about homeopathy.
Besides that, congratulations for the honesty of your statements. What bothers me most is not skepticism itself, but how emotional the skeptic maniacs get when talking about homeopathy. Frustrating.
That said, I am offering to you all my help with anything that you may you need to broadcast this truth. Nothing would make me happier than being able to assist you in this journey. I am at you entire service. Feel free to reach out to me.
Regards,
A
Dear Dr. Mojzeszowicz,
Thank you very much for your kind words. I feel humbled to receive this honor from you.
There is something that you can help both me and Kaviraj with. Just this afternoon Kaviraj sent me the news of the first brand of wine, produced in Portugal, grown using 100 percent homeopathic agriculture.
As Kaviraj and I do not speak Portuguese, we need some help in further developing the story.
Can you help us in contacting the producers?
Here is the link to the story: http://popsop.com/42532
John Benneth, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)
[...] it’s anti-establishment. The ABC Homeopathy site links to this video, and in this video, a prominent homeopath accuses a prominent skeptic of being a stooge for big phrama, a theme you’ll find repeated in [...]
Some one asked for ‘real science’, here it is when applied to homeopathy.
Back in 2005, BB2′s Horizon programme tried to replicate Prof Innis’s work which was based on Jacque Beneviste’s work.
The idea was to measure the effect of histamine solution on basophiles in dilution.
I won’t go into details of how they did not comply with Prof Innis’s protocols for this experiment. It is the result which is of great interest.
They used a vial of water (as control) and a vial of histamine solution. Both vials were subjected to serial dilutions and succussion – as one would prepare a high dilution potentised solution.
At set intervals the solutions were then supposedly ‘double blind’ labelled and sent to two labs where they were tested on the basophiles.
Now here are the interesting points in the finding:
1- The results showed that some of the diluted water and some of diluted histamine solutions affected the basophiles.
2- The results of one lab was the exact mirror image of the of the other lab’s results.
This indicated to me either inadvertent or purposeful mislabelling.
The conclusion was made that there was no difference between the water and the histamine solution and therefore Randi’s money was safe!
Three questions were not asked:
1- Why is there a mirroring of results between the two labs?
2- Serially diluted histamine solution showed an effect by killing the basophiles. Why wasn’t this conclusion pointed out?
3- Importantly, their results also showed that the serially diluted ‘water’ also killed basophiles. No one pointed this out either or say – hey guys there is a flaw about the conduct of this experiment. How can water kill basophiles? If that was the case, we would all be dead!!
There is no need to defend Homeopathy. Existing theories may not be qualified to substantiate the provings. The observations are not to conform to empirical laws, on the contrary if the laws are not able to explain the repeated observations, then there is a need to delve further and find relationships if one is bent upon that. The website mentioned below may answer some of the intriguing questions, Avogadro’s law et al. As a layman, and an intense follower of Homeopathy, having been benefited myself (where scientific allopathy failed miserably) and also others , I am least interested in the scientific footings of the potentized medicines as far as cure is concerned , beyond academic interests.http://physicsrevolution.com/ScienceofHomoeopathy.aspx
There is no need to defend Homeopathy. Existing theories may not be qualified to substantiate the provings. The observations are not to conform to empirical laws, on the contrary if the laws are not able to explain the repeated observations, then there is a need to delve further and find relationships if one is bent upon that. The website mentioned below may answer some of the intriguing questions, Avogadro’s law et al. As a layman, and an intense follower of Homeopathy, having been benefited myself (where scientific allopathy failed miserably) and also others , I am least interested in the scientific footings of the potentized medicines as far as cure is concerned , beyond academic interests.
greetings,,,the only way you will advance at a good pace in understanding homeopathy is by continual personal practice with yourself, family and friends ,,, from them you will adquire feedback which will make you grow higher into understanding the magic of homeopathy.. two books gave me the grease for my ball bearings,,,both books cost about $20-$30….the books dont really teach you directly,,but indirectly,,,for they have photos of plants and minerals used….as you look, read and see, your psychic intuition will guide you thru the simplicity of it all…we all come from the earth and when we are ill, we are lacking certain minerals and components from the plants, and just a micro minute dosis, will re-establish your health or body needs… dont waste too much time in trying to understand,,,for that time can be better used in practice of the healing of the minerals and plants, spend and lose some money in buying multiple remedies and just try them. i strongly recommend dosis of x6 and x3,,,in my case i found that 12x and 30x potencies either they are hard to understand their workings or you need 40 years of practice.. the books are THE FAMILY HEALTH GUIDE TO HOMEOPATHY BY DR. BARRY ROSE,,,,AND THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO HOMEOPATHY BY ANDREW LOCKIE,,BOTH ARE OUT OF PRINT BUT THERE ARE PLENTY OF COPIES IN USED BOOKS IN THE WEB.,,BOTH BOOKS COMPLIMENT THEMSELVES IF YOU CAN READ IN BETWEEN THE LINES,,YOU CAN START HELPING OTHERS RIGHT AWAY,,,IF I CAN BE OF HELP LET ME KNOW BEFORE I DIE. HOMEOPATHY IS SO SIMPLE, THAT I THINK PEOPLE DONT REALLY TRY IT BECAUSE THEY CANT BELIEVE SOMETHING SO INEXPENSIVE AND SMALLL CAN REALLY HELP THEM,,,,PLUS ALSO THE ONES THAT LOVE TO BE SICK,,,SO THEY CAN COMPLAINT AND GET RECOGNITION THRU THEIR ILLNESS WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN GET SOMEONE TO TALK TO THEM…ANGEL