The primary question regarding homeopathy is this: Can serially agitated high dilutes (SADs), 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 observe a difference in SADs with the water from whence they came, this in itself suggests that there is a physical attributes in homeopathic medicine that are likely to be affecting living organisms.
A review of the literature spanning a century reveals reports of numerous ways to address the question, and the conclusion is that there are indeed numerous methods by which to make the proposed 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,
24. 1953 Gay/Boiron, galvonometer, ) A Physical Demonstration of the Real Existence of the Homeopathic Remedy, Edition des Laboratories P.H.R.,
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
35. 1980 Boiron & Luu-D-Vinh, Raman Laser spectroscopy, Etude de l’actionde la chaleur sur les dilutions hahnemanniennes par spectrometrie raman. Ann Hom Fr 22 (2):113-18
36. 1982 Jussal, Meera, Dua, & Mishra, measured capacitance, resistance and dielectric dispersion, H-ion concentrations, electrode pontetials using an LCR bridge, time domain reflectance spectroscopy, digital pH meter, and nonpolarising electrodes. Physical effects on the suspending medium by compounds asymptotically infinite dilutions, Hahnemannian Gleanings, 3: 114-120
37. 1983 Jussal, Meera, & Dua Dielectric dispersion of weak alcoholic solutions of
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
40. 1988 De Guidice, E. Preparata, G. Vitello, G. Water as a free electric
dipole laser Phys. Rev. Lett. 61: 1085-1088
41. 1988 Davenas, E., F. Beauvais, J. Arnara, M. Oberbaum, B. Robinzon, A. Miadonna, A. Tedeschi, B. Pomeranz, P. Fortner, P. Belon, J. Sainte-Laudy, B. Poitevin & J. Benveniste (1988) “Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE”, Nature, 333(6176):816-18. 42. 1990 Weingartner, O. Nuclear magnetic resonance NMR features
that relate to homeopathic Sulfur potencies
Berlin, J. Res. Hom. 1,
1:61-68
43. 1992 Demangeat, L., Demangeat, C., Gries, P.,Poitevin, B.,
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.
And you call this proof?
I note not one of these has been published in reputable scientific journals. Furthermore, discredited researchers like Beneviste don’t help your case. Finally, a list of the names of assorted “scientific” papers hardly constitutes proof of the efficacy of homeopathy; they barely even qualify as anecdotes, let alone as solid evidence. It is merely a library-book list.
If you deny bread, leaven has no recipe.
None of these prove the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. These are all in support of a straw man argument. For example: I claim that drinking urine will improve health and someone argues against me saying that drinking urine has no benefit above drinking water. If I then prove that urine is not water I haven’t provided anything in support of my original claim.
Dear Tom,
Thanks for your reply. I apolgize if it seems like you are the target of this monstrous reply. After years of dealing with the subject I’m now simply using your post as the cue to write down some things I think need to be said.
And you are correct, if I take your analogy right: Whereas it may increase our understanding of the phenonemon in physics, showing the physical distinctions between homeopathically potentized water and the water from which it was potentized, as some of these studies have done, does not demonstrate any effect on living organisms, and does not show any medical effectiveness. Neither does showing their action on inert matter. But many other studies do show the effects on plants and animals, some which are also listed here, which should suggest that there can also be some homeopathic action on man beyond placebo.
Any good juror is going to put his prejudice aside long enough to hear the charges, see the the evidence and examine the facts. He does not want to make assumptions beyond the charges brought by a true bill of indictment. He wants as many eyes and ears on the subject as possible. He wants to hear the testimony of all relevant witnesses.
The charges against homeopathy have been that the reportedly potentized water used in homeopathic remedies is no different than the water from which they are made, and theoretically the effects on man are merely imaginary or coincidental.
Okay, so now we have questions that serve a protocol.
In what way, if any, does homepathic potentization affect the physical characteristics of water? Are there any known physical differences between homeopathically charged water and the water from which it was drawn?
So then, how is it now that we are able to try the questions?
Well, first of all, what are the known physical characteristics of water? Have the people making the charges of inertia made comparisons?
A review of the literature shows that yes, comparisons have been made and differences found, but this is an assemblage ofthe literature that critics appear not to have made, which is understandable. Many invetigators started out as fierce critics, but the results quelled their accusations of placebo.
There have been physical tests using contact photography (Boericke and Tafel), NMR (Demangeat, Smith&Brucato, Conte et al), beta scintillation (Conte), optical density (Boiron, Jussal), surface tension, polarity and pH measures, etc. These studies have shown physical attributes and action of high dilutes different from plain water.
An examination of the bibliography shows repeated experiments by numerous investigators and it dismisses the first charge that there are no physical differences highdilutes and non potentized water.
The response to a follow up charge that the reporters are not competent should be that the reporters were not named in the indictment. If the plaintiff was not aware of the reports that contradicted the claim, its an error of omission. If he was aware of it, then its an error of commission. In other words, at first the theory was on trial. If theory alone was not on trial, evidence would have been named. So by omission, the plaintiff has implied that there have been no investigations. In fact, as you will see repeatedly here, the defense is leading the investigation as to who, what, when, where, how and eventually why.
When the evidence contradicts the assumptions of theory, now that the first question has been responded to, the plaintiff in the first question has suddenly leaped to a new conclusion and posed a new question.
As an observer he has impugned his role as an unprejudiced juror and has taken the role of prosecutor to bring new charges.
First he said there were no witnesses. Now that witnesses have been brought forward, he wants to attack the credibility of each and every one.
He may assert that they are insane, or of low intelligence or bad character. He may say that there is no peer review for the publication of their results. But how does he really know? His claim that were are no witnesses to contradict his theory of placebo has now beenshownto be false. And this was something he could have determined for himself, as the literature is open to everyone’s review. But it was a review he didn’t make, either because he was lazy or simply presumed it to be non-existent because of wishful thinking.
It has been my experience that his step will be for us to take seriously his charges that the witnesses are of bad character, still based onhis theory that what is being reported on has no explanation. But all the universal forces share a similar mystery. Aristotle, for example proposed a unifying field he called the ether. This was dismissed later by mechcanical physicists, and then stated again by astrophysicists as an informational field, or quintessence, a quality that by reason the cause cannot be determined, a cosmological constant Einstein had to add to his equation to allow for the shrinkage and expansion of the Universe. Becuase it is invisible it is rfeferred to as dark energy.
How do we know that this isn’t the same force being manipulated in homeopathy? Modern physicists see many strange matters and forces that old theory cannot explain, and what can we see of the forces we do know of? Can magnetism be seen as “magnetons” or graity as “gravitrons?” Or is what we are seeing merely the effect of energy on matter? And if matter can be viewed as simply bundled energy, then really, all the effects of universal forces on matter is nothing more than the effect of one magnetic field on another.
So with the evidence of action for high dilutes in view, and considering the mystery of quintessence, and admitting the invisbility of other spectral forces how is it that we are to cling to a null set gtheory for homeopathy? How credible can the skeptic be now? He’s taken his view of it on nothing more than the patholgiocal hearsay of other skeptics, the most vocal being those who have a million dollars to lose over its proof.
The skeptic didn’t check out his first assumption, now that that has been washed away by the testimony of credible witensses viewing a kind of quintessence, in view of a lack of a unified field theory he wants us to take seriously his next proposition? He hasn’t investigated his next proposition, either. If he has, he’s had to dismiss it or lose a million dollars.
He is not following due process, nor can he and still stay in the argument as a reputable party. In normal proceedings his charges would be dismissed.
Those who remain prejudiced against homeopathy want to impugn the witnesses who have testified to it physical observations and its biochemical action rather than examine their reports, and in doing so have automatically impugned their own credibility in the investigation. For them the trial is not a question of material fact, it is a question of virtue.
But let’s allow the question, because in this case we really have nothing to lose, and we want there to be as little doubt possible in the minds of those who bear no prejudice as to the efficacy of high dilutes, and most importantly, we already know the answer to the question regarding the credentials of the reporters.
For instance, a recent physical study of high dilutes at the University of Arizona was conducted by Dr. Gary Schwartz, a Harvard trained scientist, and Dr. Iris Bell, a medical doctor, with others. Aware of the critical nature of the experiment, they took pains to adequately report their findings for the purpose of replication. Their report is available online.
Penn. State Geochemistry Professor Rustum Roy has stated that Schwartz’ painstakingly assembles his hypothesis and follows it by rigrous experimentation. Schwartz is not a homeopath, he is curious as to what this is. He believes it demonstratres a systemic universal memory.
As an additional response to the question of replicabilty, we point to the exhaustive work of Gay and Boiron in the early 1950’s studying the dielectric qualities of homeopathic remedies. Dieleectric tests were also done by Smith and Brucato in the 1960’s. So,in a comprehensive trial of homeopathy the juror should now have heard credible testimony from numerous different sources reporting that homeopathic remedies can be distinguished from their vehicles by physical measures alone. We have now seen evidence that contradicts the previous THEORY of critics that there are no distinctions.
Admittedly this alone does not totally answer the question regarding placebos. The first strike of the hammer sets the nail, but it is the second strike that drives it in.
In all fairness, simply because there are observable physical distinctions in the dilutes used in homeopathy does not mean the do not act as placebos. But at this point prejudice for the placebo argument hopefully would soften and curiosity should be heightened to the question.
Shouldn’t it be then a matter of course by reasonable investigators to test it on plants and animals? They provide us with plentiful subjects that can be well controlled and shouldn’t be affected by imagination if the experiment subjects and controls are not distinguished by the experimenter.
Calling for this testimony we are suddenly faced with a huge amount of data, most of it now coming out of European universities, such as Montpelier, Bologna and Bern, added to previous work listed in my bibliography. This is where the argument against homeoapthy really gets hammered.
Effects on seeds and yeast are easily replicated in your kitchen. And if you aren’t willing to put it to a simple test yourself, you really have no voice here.
After looking at this work and putting it to the test themselves, and seeing results on plants and animals with their own eyes, how can anyone reasonably deny it?
I am not a homeopath, nor do I have any real or reasonable investment in an expected outcome of the argument. I was led into this fight by curiosity, which was intensified by a somewhat dubious offer of a million dollars for proof. Subequently, what I have found, is that the skepticism regarding homeopathy I have encountered has been based on nothing more than theory and obsessive denials of old vitalist principles, principles that are now supported by modern physics.
Proof to me that the null set argument for skeptics’ homeopathy is on a slippery slope is seeing all the sideways action. The skeptics keep traversing. Travelling off the first charge loses it and all those subsequently appended to it.
Before we can reasonably discuss homeopathy’s effectiveness as medicine, the placebo charge has to be dealt with. In my opinion, the literature has done that, and the verdict after many trials in many courts, and the Supreme Court of your own eyes bears out the same answer, repeatedly: Homeopathic remedies are NOT placebos. Homeopathic effects on non-human living subjects and inorganic matter has been observed by reputable reporters and published in peer reviewed journals. The scoffers are only echoing the incoherencies of ignoramuses. And if previous scientific theory contradicts it, then a new theory must be found to satisfy the theoretical physicists (and it is theoretical that most of them are physicists).
It seems highly ironic to me that the idea to use biochemistry, plants and animals to test the placebo charge against homeopathy has NOT come from the most vocal and intense critics of homeopathy. The evidence inevitably quells or silences all those who look upon it.
Check out giriweb.com for current studies.
Now, I’d like to say something about skepticism. The rule of classical skepticism is that true knowledge cannot be ascertained, and so a skeptic proceeds through life with a questioning and doubting nature. Very well then. How can one call himself a skeptic and render such a harsh verdict so assuredly without trial? The question of science, of “what,” does not seem to satisfy some people; rather, I have found myself mired in the question of “who.” Any question of “what” has been in regards to credentials, reputation, sanity, intelligence, and ultimately, what virtue do I and others possess. So I have found myself struggling not with skepticism, but with cynicism.
I believe that skepticism, or the cynicism it masks, comes out of a need for self-preservation. I think it is panic, palliated. Without a moral code and the axiology of matter, vitalism becomes an electroversal maze for the skeptic. In the vitalist world structure follows function,form is the product of intent and thoughts are things, what is mirrored as a preserved opposite in the material universe.
I would ask those who are angry about homeopathy and other vitalist doctrines to consider replacing their anger for a moment with curiosity, to be curious about why it is they are angry. It serves a purpose, so what really is it? Even if it is a placebo, if it works for them, why can’t people be left with that? Of what consequence is it to you? Homeopathy is a legal doctrine, protected by thecourts and Congress, regulated by the FDA. If it was fraud, it would have been successfully prosecuted as such.
So what purpose does homeopathy, real or imagined, serve? Like the skeptic’s anger, it must serve some purpose.
Now, is there a taste of salt?
For a moment I would ask the skeptics to imagine themselves as pillars of salt. I would ask them to imagine what would it be like if that pillar was replaced by pure love.
I would like to say to everyone this: Skepticism touches us all. When it does, consider there is love in the world for you, and there are forces that work through people and other living things that will love you and take care of you. You have an immortal soul that cannot be harmed by anything but your own thoughts and actions. It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that reviles him, it is what comes out of it.
best regards,
John Benneth
I don’t get it.
So much energy being wasted here…
Just conduct an experiment! If you can successfully identify a 100c dilution, that would be impressive to say the least – all homeopathy aside.
Let’s say you have 100 samples. 50 of them are astronomically diluted. If you can pick them out with a success rate clearly above statistical fluctuation, that would be simply awesome. (Excuse my lack of eloquent adjectives.)
Forget about homeopathy. If it works for you, I understand that you may have no motivation in proving it right.
But being able to proof that water has come in contact with a substance of which no molecule is left – or is measureable by conventional methods would be an enormous success in itself.
If you know of ways to do it, and you believe they work, I think it’s an inexcusable mistake not to try it!
I will not go after it for the same reason I will not try to build a perpetuum mobile. But If I would think that it could work, I’d be all over it.
I would like you to tell my patients that there is nothing in the vials I give them. I specialize in treating lyme disease and the provings of the remedy in a 10M dilution make my patients sicker then ever for the first 2 to 3 weeks.
I have been a homeopath for over 20 years and I know it works. There are several studies that you did not include, but don’t worry, I will be getting Randi’s money soon enough. I will split it with you! Dr Lynne Walker Thanks for the video!
Although the citations appear scientific enough, there isnt enough material on any scientific explanations on what characterises the “blessed water phenomenon”. It would indeed be fascinating to learn / discover this behaviour of water, if indeed it exists.
However till then – Occam’s razor
We’ve admitted “dark energy” as the quintessential field. We say time stops at light speed. We can see dark matter in the heavens, but that doesn’t mean we understand the how and why of any of these things.
What did it serve to ridicule Marconi when he claimed sound could be carried miles through space without wires? If ridicule and scorn were the governors of science, neither could you watch TV or listen to the radio, fly nor visit the moon. Protogoras would have went his way and you’d still be on foot, huddled in a tree.
We have also seen the effects on animate and inanimate matter of infinitetessimals in tiny amounts of succussed and diluted water preserved in alcohol, and you can witness these effects for yourself. You don’t need to be an electrical engineer, a biochemist or a plasma physicist to witness what succussed dilutes do. Read the instructions for use, try it on yourself, your dog or on a plant and see what happens, or shut up about it and stop casting doubts on things you’ve closed your mind to.
Hello John,
I would like to send you a communication, but unwilling to use this small comment box (no spell check, too difficult to proof, etc.).
Please send me an email and give me a email address.
Warren
Warren,
Its important to me to have a public record of what you have to say, so we can addresss this forensically. I am not the only one who learns here and there arfe others who should read what you write. If you don’t like composing online (I don’t either) please type what you have to say offline, run your spell check and paste it in the reply field below. It should accept any reasonable length.
John:
I watched your YouTube video immediately after watching the BBC Horizon video testing homeopathy.
Thank you for listing the homeopathy references.
As a person with an interest in homeopathy, I was interested in your comments, but I find a couple of them confusing. You state at the top of this page that, “The primary question regarding homeopathy is this: Can serially agitated high dilutes (SADs), the constituent solutions used in homeopathic remedies, be identified from their liquid vehicles?” I don’t see that as the primary question. Even if we can identify the SADs, that says nothing about the efficacy of homeopathy. It only says that there might be some element of the active ingredient in the solution. This seems to be a long, long way from being the primary question. It might be a beginning question worth asking–a starting point at best. Your comment, “…if we can observe a difference in SADs with the water from whence they came, this in itself suggests that there is a physical attributes in homeopathic medicine that are likely to be affecting living organisms.” Again, that seems like a stretch to me. Just because we can identify the presence of the target substance in the solution, that doesn’t give us any information about whether or not the solution will have any affect on living organisms. It might, or it might not. That would be the subject of further investigation.
I am currently studying biostatics and research methods, so I really appreciate your efforts in listing the homeopathy references. I hope to have time to read some of them to analize their designs and statistical analyses to see if they were well performed studies. I may even be able to use some of them for my homework assignments.
Thanks,
Lester Partna
Assistant Professor
Western States Chiropractic College
You are genious.
Thank you.
Your effort for homeopathy is greatly appreciated. It takes time for the world to accept a radical change in current perception. Quantum physics is knocking at our door. One of these days the door will break open.
What is wrong with you homeopaths, why can’t you just go out and prove what you keep harping on about, or just shut up andn stop stealing peoples hard earned money.
Take the million dollars off of Randi or shut up. You really are the most annoying bunch of deluded souls. Why is it that you cannot get a grip on reality, all of this talk of sub-atomic this and that, it is up to you to prove it.
I have done enough testing of homeopathy over the last 16 years and all of the results are the same, it is complete and utter rubbish and never fails to make me wonder how people can be so stupid that they would pay money for it, but they do.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
As per Dr. Lynne Walker and her credentials (i am trying to understand what sort of people are supporting such claims):
“Master’s in Traditional Chinese Medicine from Emperor’s College in Los Angeles”
Yeah, and I have a Master’s in Reading Dirty Laundry from the Blessed Gates University.
Go to their website and tell me how this can be a reputable organization. Notice how about 80% of the “faculty” has graduated from this phony college. In any case – if you want to live in the dark ages – sure, drink water for every ailment you have, but for the love of the atheist god – don’t lie to other people that it actually works.
Wow, it seems I picked the funniest splock of credentials of “Dr.” Lynne Walker (oh, yes, from now on the quotes stay) without noticing the ribbish disguised underneath.
“Doctor of Homeopathy from Hahnemann College in London, England”
“Accreditation by American Naturopathic Medical Association in Washington D.C.”
“Certificate of United Kingdom Homeopathic Medical Association”
Wow, big and long names sound soooo important. Ook, seems to me you have jumped on the “homeopathic” wagon.
Let me ask you a question – what’s the ROI with this baby? I’d like to join in as well – I’ve got kids and all, an extra buck won’t hurt
.
.
.
.
.
jeez
So you said in your video that when you told james randi you’d prove that it worked in a double blind study it worked he said okay. But at the top of the page it says that none of this has disproven the placebo accusation. You said james’ challenge was a hoax because he didn’t accept the information above. But the one thing that really sticks out for me is that you supposedly told james you’d prove that type of medicine works. If none of this information disproves the placebo accusation, then how would it prove homeopathic works. But you said you sent him this information and he said it wasn’t evidence that it worked. Well holy shit mr.benneth you know what I think he was right, and that was what you used to call his challenge a hoax. I don’t even know where to start, but if your going to claim his challenge is a hoax at least obtain more substantial evidence then this.
That comment was written based on the information on this page and a video on youtube by mr.benneth.
Oh and Dinesh Kampani its not a radical change. Homeopathic medicine was around along time before modern medicines that actually have a chance of working. If anything its a step backwards.
John.
Thank you immensely for the effort you have made in compiling this wealth of information. I am sure it will provide many future Homoeopathic students with a wonderful selection of subjects and ideas for their theses and research projects.
Denis Gibbon – Hom Student.
Why do you fail to mention this comment on benveniste nature work which reports in the abstract “The now celebrated report by Dr J. Benveniste and colleagues elsewhere is found, by a visiting Nature team, to be an insubstantial basis for the claims made for them.”?
Best Regards
Title:
“High-dilution” experiments a delusion
Authors:
Maddox, John; Randi, James; Stewart, Walter W.
Publication:
Nature, Volume 334, Issue 6180, pp. 287-290 (1988). (Nature Homepage)
Publication Date:
07/1988
Origin:
NATURE
Abstract Copyright:
(c) 1988: Nature
DOI:
10.1038/334287a0
Bibliographic Code:
1988Natur.334..287M
THANKYOU SIR,
YOUR EFFORTS WILL NEVER GO IN VAIN SIR.I M STUDENT OF HOMOEOPATHY STUDYING M.D.(HOM)IN (MAT.MED.) FROM INDIA.YOUR WORK WAS TOO INFORMATIVE FOR ME AND HAS INSPIRED ME TO A LEVEL WHICH I CANT EXPRESS IT IN WORDS.AND SIR WHAT I FEEL IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT SHOUT AT DEAF EARS.THOSE WHO HAVE PRACTICED HOMOEOPATHY EVEN FOR FEW MONTHS HAS NO DOUBT ABOUT ITS EFFICACY AND OTHER WONT UNDERSTAND IT, SO WE SHOULD NOT BOTHER ABOUT THOSE WHO R NOT INTO THIS PROFESSION.Mr.RANDI MAY NOT BE KNOWING THAT “ITS TOO EASY TO DESTROY ANYTHING THAN TO CREATE IT”.
It is with great interest and fascination that I follow the whole homeopathy vs. sceptic maniac-debate, and although I am a student of conventional medicine (or should it be modern medicine, i.e. evidence-based), I would like to comment. My advice is simple. Forget the 200-year old trustworthy “Hahnemann” sentimentality in arguing your case. The only competing medical treatment available at THAT time was blood letting, poisons, scalping, frontal lobotomies and goodness knows what else. ANY form of treatment (even the dreaded placebo) would have been an improvement. Secondly, I know of no department at any school of medicine that relies on studies published in 1795 to prove why I should trust a certain form of therapy. There are HUGE amounts of data published WEEKLY (New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, BMJ to name but a few, that I might find time to read) – comparing new treatments (which also sometimes fail to work) to existing ones, therefore pushing medicine as an ever changing science. New groundbraking studies also alter the way we approach patients on a regular basis, instead of relying on dogmatic “because the forefathers said so”. Therefore, if you want to prove it works, study and publish it – in a reputable peer-reviewed journal (which will eventually lead to world-wide acceptance of homeopathy if studies show a benefit). At the end of the day, we are doing this for patients, not our own ego’s. If a homeopathic remedy works better in the treatment of asthma than conventional therapy, prove it and publish it – asthma kills enough patients already, even in the great U.S. of A! Intensive Care Units spend millions each year on therapy that still ends up in a 35-55% or even higher mortality rate. Maybe some homeopathic cure might change this! So, to follow Suttons law, go where the money is: Produce reliable and objective data that is publishable in an independant, peer-reviewed journal, in stead of creating YouTube videos alongside Madonna music videos and what not. I would tear up my degree and revoke my title if my professor in cardiology had to defend her science like this. If your art/science could prove itself like this (in other words the same way ANY new treatment has to be proven before prescribed), everyone could benefit.
Regards,
Peet J Viviers
hello sir,
i am highly impressed with the quality of research you have done on this subject but i feel the que which u think is primary is not primary.. i think the efficacy of homeopathy is not proved by just identifying constituent used in homeopathic medicines from their liquid vehicles… it just shows some thing is present in water in such a small quantity…One more thing which i find inappropriate is that if there have been cases which proved homeopathy’s efficacy then why are you not going and proving them to win the challenge… and i feel that if these studies are correct then placebo effect is not a cause of cure of a person taking homeopathy because in the demonstrations, 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.Noe frogs and rabbit did not know that they are being treated or tested and will recover from some disease if they are given that medicine. So there can be no secretions in minds that reduces the effect of the disease.So i think if these things are correct then you have successfully proved that placebo effect is not curing people, homeopathy medicine is.But i am still not able to understand how is it doing this because the amount of the element is very very small ??
Please do reply me about this thing??
Regards
Gaurav
How many of the studies do you have or have you read, so that we can critique the papers?
Thanking you in advance
Mr Benneth you write well and at length, yet nothing you have described here proves anything other than homeopathy has its followers and believers who will do anything to prove a point. I not you try to silence your critics on Youtube or at least threaten to silence them save they tow the line. This is not the essence of scientific argument – this is quite the opposite. One of these days you will look up Avagadro’s constant and work out how many molecules of active substance will be left at and beyond 24C. By my own calculations it’s less than 1 molecule per mole. Since a mole of water is a 18grams that means you have to swallow an awful to even get a single molecule of active ingredient.
Dear John,
You are obviously a well meaning guy. Someone who really cares. Someone who would like to change the World for the better. So, now I beg you to watch this very carefully
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z1QFZcnAi4&feature=related#
This is real science.
O.K. now I strongly recommend that you put your time, energy and money into doing something real, tangible and useful for the World e.g. camapaigning for safe drinking water in the developing World, or one of any number of truly worthwhile causes that can make a real difference.
Imagine if all the money spent on homeopathy were devoted to that, or feeding starving people…. WOW! Then we really would be getting somewhere.
Just so you know, I am a private citizen with absolutely no need or desire to support any perticular point of view. and yes, there is ‘bad science’, but the basic simple truth is that the pure essence of science is the truth. Now, if you ignore all your so called proofs, and still assume you are right, why not go after the $1 million bucks yourself. Randi does not make up the tests. He is not the sole arbiter so your argument is entirely flawed! Completely wrong! In fact he will happily allow you to set the test and the parameters for judging success (as long as the test has a control e.g. double blind, and is statistically valid)so please, no more distortions of the truth. It undermines you utterly to make false claims.
Thanks for reading. And I await your effort to win the $1 million bucks with interest. After all, if you win I’ll be swallowing those babies so fast they won’t be able to make them fast enough!
How about this test. Take homeopathy as a prophylactic against malaria. Expose yourself to malaria. Lets see what happens. Many homeopaths will claim this works. Honest.
Do you take my challenge? No money. Just proof. Perhaps you will win the Nobel Prize for medicine. Imagine!!! So much more prestigious than the JREF prize don’t you think? And your name will go down in history!! Or not, in whci case I will send you a get well card!
Hello,
Bravo for historical review. Thanks to Mr Randi and his $ 1 million. It has generated this work and without giving one cent away Mr Randi got fantastic advertising to generate more business to himself. Super clever man, but I wonder if one day this magician will give what was promised!
“Although it does not conclusively rebut the placebo accusation…”
That quote is from your own website and THANK GOD I DIDN’T HAVE TO READ A LOT OF STUPIDITY TO GET TO IT…you are a moron and people like you are the reason why humanity is having to struggle to make progress in the world…idiot.
The word placebo means to please, so its definition is a little hazy. It’s used by critics of homeopathy to say that the action of its remedies work on the mind of the patient, and that the remedy has no idnetifiable characteristics and therefore can have no demonstrable action on subjects that are free from the mind’s influence.
The problem with that is that homeopathic remedies remedies have been found to have in influence on non human subjects, and that there is a body of work done by reputable researchers that shows biochemical evidence for homeopathic remedies (BOYD), physical characteristics measurable by dielectric stress (BOIRON) NMR and beta scintillation (CONTE), among many others. It should be obvious then, to any intelligent inquiry, that we are looking at quantum medicine.
And so yes, it DOES work upon the mind, first and foremost, and homeopaths over the centuries have learned that when administering this form of medicine, there is a progressive cure, that produces first an emotional change in the patient, which is folloowed by a phsyical change. This is a quantum obsevation, that energetic change occurs before there is a physical manifestation of it.
Homeopaths have observed intheir patients over many years of study, that change occurs from the top down, from the inside out, form the most important organs to the least, and from the last occuring symptoms of a disease, to the first.
So homeopathy actually turns out to be the very opposite of what its critics claim it to be. It is ergonomic. It is orderly and consistently lawful. It is highly empirical. It shows that structure follows function. And this is a vitalist concept that seems to offend the worship of material mechanisms. Materialists think that in order to change function, you have to first change the structure! And of course this ultimately fails to the degree that the spiritual component is ignored.
So are homeopathic remedies placebos? Yes! but not in the way homeopathy haters want everyone to believe they are. Because the first and foremost “organism” is spiritual. And so here you have the crux of the problem in acccepting homeopathy. Quantum physics has a way of turning atheists inside out. A study of quantum phsyics leaves the average atheist holding his head. And for them to think that this field can be manipulated through the use of solvents such as found in homeopathy, leave them reeling.
Put Benneth’s Law to the test: Every The degree of antipathy for homeopathy will match the degree of atheism. Every homeopathy hater is, has been and always will be a full blown atheist.
Hi,
Recently I set up HOMEOPATHY TV CAFE and I would be delighted to feature your series of videos Secrets Of Homeopathy. At this stage I don’t even know if this is possible, but I would love your help.
Because I do not have your contact details I am using this feature for communication purposes.
I am looking forward to hearing from you as I really appreciated the contribution that you have made to Homeopathic Education.
Denis Gibbon.
[...] in the “proof for homeopathy” web site and you will see what I mean. Another example is the blog of a famous advocate of homeopathy, John Benneth. The sources he cites are either non-scientific, non-related to homeopathy, or totally [...]
So, why doesn’t water taste like poop. Or dead fish, or urine?
Thank you for most interesting and enlightening comments on scientific validation for Homeopathy. You gave a number of references about which I knew nothing and which are not easily found in conventional searching.
Also my most PROFOUND thanks for exposing the, in my opinion, highly questionable nature of the Randi challenge, by your excellent counter-challenge. I have had well educated people, even scientists, respond to my pro Homeopathy comments by saying pontifically… “Ah, but has it passed the Randi challenge?” as though that were something meaningful at all. Famous Homeopath Dr. G. Vitoulkas in Greece has documented at his web site the 5 years of negotiations with Randi in an attempt to undertake the challenge right down to the part were Randi seems to have decided to DISCARD all of the negotiations and begin again at square one.
Last but not least, I would appreciate it if you would update your references with mention of the Ennis experiments. Ennis, though a skeptic, bravely published her unexpected positive results showing a high dilution solution which did indeed stimulate biological activity (exactly as many of your other, less well known references indicate) even though all molecules of the stimulant have been diluted away (Inflammation Research vol53, p181). Sainte-Laude and others have in 2007 and 2008 confirmed this in numerous experiments even with improved controls. Also not well known and mis-reported at the weakipedia web site on her, the BBC Horizon documentary did NOT repeat her experiment and their producers finally admitted it after persistent and careful questionings by Ennis. The scientific explanation remains unknown. But, with the current advances in scientific instrumentation, we are, I believe, within a decade or less of getting a final theory that will silence the skeptics once and for all. There will be enormous repercussions in the health industry from this, something that big pharma and other $pecial intere$ts are well aware.
Homeopathic remedies work better in the treatment of asthma than conventional therapy, proven by the routine clinical cures by doctors around the world – Allopathy symptom suppression for asthma kills enough patients already, even in the great U.S. of A! Intensive Care Units spend millions each year on therapy that still ends up in a 35-55% or even higher mortality rate. Homeopathic will change this!
Dear John Benneth,
i am 24 years old,open minded, who loves life,but i am extremely sick.
please give me a contact where i can talk to you personally
John, if you have the money, try making an offer for the marius.net domain. I made an offer, but it was not enough. I’m connected with a company that offers multiple sites without charge, and I’ll host it again for no charge as I did before, but you have to get the domain back.
Bruce, if you do that please post the website, because John has posted some interesting research which is not easily found. I would be interested in hearing from John on any additional research he has uncovered and on his favorite Homeopathy books and other of his viewpoints.
For those that did not know, there is a treasure trove of historical Homeopathy books, some of the still of enormous interest, sitting in Google book search and available for free download as pdf’s
great work is being done,,,and i wish to congratulate those with open minds to witness the magic of homeopathy…i challenged randi about 30 years ago for psychic proof but he backdown for i demanded two reporters from national t.v…..the reason he back down is because that a third party at the scene can alter the effect to be carried out in the experiment,,such as dowsing…only a ignorant dowser allows others to be present….anyway this is the same case with homeopathy, where i have seen how human energy directed to the remedies can affect the potency effects to the patient..i have tried it with animals and humans…of course what works and what is accepted as working without physical proof its very difficult or almoust impossible,,,but if you try it then you might be convinced or at least curious, for healers have done it for thousands of years with or without the remedies…anyway it helps understand more the potencial of homepathy remedies…my name is angel guasch my personal e-mail is lightofgod@coqui.net …my best to all enlighted minds.
On his youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJpcpubwTeo&feature=related), Mr. Benneth mentions the very reputable journal Lancet (it is indeed) and the paper entitled:
Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.
Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, Jonas WB.
Lancet. 1997 Sep 20;350(9081):834-43.
But he does not mention the following facts:
1) The paper has an erratum (which I was unable to find).
2) It is very far from consensus and it was not well received, as one can noticed by the many strongly opposing officially published comments.
3) The paper is 12 years old now (a long time for science).
4) And most important: the entire interpretation section (from where he quotes) of this paper reads:
“INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted provided it is rigorous and systematic.”
I, myself, consider what Mr. Benneth did, what is called “quote mining”. That’s not some nice to do.
Peace!
Cota
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.
regarding placebo effects, i feel that i have conquered that problem….for i use homeopathy on my mental retarded, autistic, epileptic son,,, a small dog,,,and experiment with persons in my family without their concent,, where i use the remedies and they react to the effects without knowing that they had been given a homeopathic remedy. i have also verified that applied energy by giver of the remedy also seem to have a healing increment in the effects…such as doing a prayer with the remedy as i prepare it and carry it to the patient…there is a very strong possibility that the liquid or pellets can absorb the energies which are being created….for healing is also possible without homeopathy remedies…but when the person is not a believer of his potential healing sharing gifts,, then he can also help the patient with the homeopathic remedies…i am a bona fide skeptic, i cannot close my eyes to the magic of homepathic remedies, for all our family has stay away from doctors and hospitals for many years just by keeping up to date with the needs of the human body and a million vitamins that keeps our body machine in excellent shape. homeopathy secret ,, one of them anyway is that sometimes you are taking the correct remedy but the wrong dosis such as 6x 12x 30x etc..
my preffered dosis is using 6x,,,,which is not too strong or too weak,,,but you must be realistic and play around with the dosis, or change the remedy…it took me years to get the feeling of the remedys, but i wanted to have my son back from medications and God is also part of the formula. But God can also let you have success, even if you dont know Him…He has the time to wait,,,for you will know Him in this life or the other… so its just you, thats losing all the beauty of knowing God in this life….I hope God will illuminate you to find better health thru homeopathy,
one of God’s gift to man, for His magic is everywhere.
angel guasch ,,, lightofgod@coqui.net ,,,,
Angel said: “…and experiment with persons in my family without their concent (sic)…”
Have you NO ethical respect? Have you NO concern for your family’s safety? You know absolutely nothing at all about physics, chemistry or medicine, and yet you give your own family your concoctions without them knowing what is in them!
Is it any wonder Randi refused your entry for his challenge. One of the prime conditions is that the testing does not have the possibility to harm anyone, including yourself. But you have just now admitted you can’t possibly meet that criteria.
Please! Before you get arrested for poisoning someone, see a reputable shrink! Seriously.
dear mr. zep or whatever you name is….
1. you are an idiot has nothing better to do, except criticize what you have no knowledge about… if you are honest why dont you put your real name when you write??
as you can see i put my name and can be verified by anyone,,including my address and telephone….
Regarding mr..randi,,,which is another wacko, who i assume to be a good theatrical magician and wants to adquire fame by demostrating his neurotic and malicious concerns on fields to which he has not the smallest notion of logic….
2. I have been using homeopathy for over 20 years in my family and i dont need their approval, for they been using homeopathy with me also and trust me 100% and know very well that i do not tell everything i do,,for its the only way to prove that homeopathy works… otherwise they can be manipulated by their mind into autosuggestion of the effects….
3. i do not understand why you bother to write regarding homeopathy. if you dont beleive it,,,what do you wish? for someone to believe a person that has not tried or use homeopathy remedies, such as you? , but only know how to throw rocks at others..
4.you Say i do not know anything about medicine, physics or chemistry. I guess mr.randi gave you one of his fake diplomas and made you a savant in these fields.
and now you want to show off, like you know science…the only science you know is the science to criticize….
5. only a fool would criticize homeopathy without trying it first,,,for sir,,,it does work and always will. How dare you refute thousands of homeopathy doctors and millions of persons who have been helped in Europe alone…not including usa…
6. recently my 3 year old grandson took a whole jar of homeopathy and swallow all the 300 pellets and nothing happen, but yet i give him 4 pellets every two hours and relaxes him,,for he is a tornado in my house and its the only way i can relax him….I also have a bona fide handicapped mental autistic epilect son age 35,,,and i also give him homeopathy remedies and has been in excellent behavior since i started him 10 years ago in homeopathy..whereas he was under the medical doctors who had him getting worse for more than 8 years with dilantin, klonopin, depakote, and had to take every 4 months liver test,,because these medications will actually damage your liver…. and you dare to use the magic of writting to write foolish thoughts..i suggest to you,, to stop making a fool of yourself and get some seriousness into your life, for there are another million persons now and after i die that will continue to make a fool of your empty and void brain.
mr. randi does not do anything that deserves respect in concern of the betterment of mankind, therefore go and give him solace as he has given it to you. For it is normal for the blind to lead the blind..But maybe, just maybe God will illuminate you into doing actions that will benefit the betterment of mankind… When you decide to put your real name when you criticize, then i will know that God has entered your heart…Angel Guasch
TO ALL READERS OF THIS SITE,,,IF ANYONE WISHES TO FIND CONFORT ON CERTAIN ILLNESSES THAT DOCTORS CANNOT FIND THE WAY TO HELP YOU…SEND ME AN E-MAIL TO LIGHTOFGOD@COQUI.NET , AND I MIGHT BE ABLE TO RECOMMEND A HOMEOPATHY SOLUTION, FREE OF CHARGE.. AND WHAT HOMEOPATHY LABORATORY CAN SELL YOU THESE INEXPENSIVE REMEDIES. HOMEOPATHY REMEDIES COST LESS THAN A PIZZA..AND WILL NOT HARM YOUR BODY, EVEN IF YOU DRINK THE WRONG REMEDY,,,FOR ONLY THE CORRECT REMEDY WILL FLOW WITH YOUR BODY ENERGY AND GIVE YOU POSITIVE RESULTS IN LESS THAN 30 MIN…ONE OF THE POSITIVE PARTS THAT REMEDIES HAVE IS THAT IF IN 30 MINUTES YOU DONT HAVE A POSITIVE RESULT, YOU CAN TRY ANOTHER REMEDY AGAIN WITHOUT CONFLICTING WITH THE PREVIOUS REMEDY. OUR BODY IS COMPOSED OF MINERALS AND PLANTS, AND THEY ARE HARMONIOUS WITH OUR BODY FOR OUR BODY IS COMPOSED OF THE SAME MINERALS AND PLANTS. THATS THE SECRECT OF HOMEOPATHY. PHARMACEUTICAL MEDICINES ARE MADE OF SYNTHETIC MATERIALS AND THEREFORE ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE HUMAN BODY AND WILL DO DAMAGE TO ALL YOUR ORGANS SUCH AS LIVER, KIDNEYS, PANCREAS. SO YOU ASK WHY ARE THESE MEDICINES APPROVED? BECAUSE THE FDA DOES NOT TEST MEDICINES THEY ONLY APPROVED THEM, AFTER BEING GIVEN DOCUMENTATION BY THE PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES. WHO TURN IN EXPERIMENTATIONS DONE BY REGISTERED DOCTORS, TO MAKE IT COMPLETELY LEGAL…THEREFORE THE FDA CANNOT DENY THE LICENCE FOR THE MEDICATIONS. CAN YOU IMAGINE A CHICKEN KOOP THAT HAS A WOLF AND THE WOLF SIGNS A CERTIFICATION THAT HE WILL NOT KILL ANY CHICKENS AS LONG AS HE IS IN THE KOOP, AND WE AS GOOD CHRISTIANS BELIEVE HIM, FOR HE IS A CREATURE CREATED BY GOD AND WOLF’S DO NOT LIE OR KILL..NOT ALL MEDICINES ARE BAD AND NOT ALL DOCTORS ARE WOLFS,,FOR THERE ARE WOLFS IN SHEEP CLOTHING, THAT WILL HARM YOU. ITS UP TO YOU TO INVESTIGATE AND EVALUATE IN WHOSE HANDS ARE YOU PUTTING YOUR LIFE INTO….ANGEL GUASCH