The Vindication of Jacques Benveniste

HOW THE HOMEOPATH BECAME KING , Chapter 2: The Vindication of Jacques Benveniste

In our last entry, amid some inflammatory allegations, we pointed out some salient facts.

Homeopathy has not been the sole domain of fools, as scientists-in-name-only (SINOs) would have us believe. After being informed by a failed stage magician that the materials used in homeopathy are nothing but plain water, SINOs get factamnesia; tritiated water, i.e. radioactive H2O, as used in medical isotopes for tracking, is also, by the same critieria, just plain water!

We know what the enemies of homeopathy want it to be: What they said it was. But it’s not. What it really is threatens their dress code, which is, among SINOs, if you look right you will be right. Therefore, anything that threatens looking right, anything that threatens to desynchronize the lock step ridicule of what was touted “scientifically” wrong, has to be attacked, even though it is shown to be demonstrably right.

SINOs get factamnesia when it is pointed out that supporters of homeopathy include real scientists who have gone against the weathered tide, some of them Nobel laureates for physics and medicine, such as physicists Brian Josephson and Emil von Behring, and virologist Luc Montagnier, who recently replicated Jacques Benveniste’s discovery that the supramolecular* medicines used by homeopaths have electromagnetic indices.

SINO’s become amnesiacs after learning that among notable medical doctors like Mendelsohn and Menninger . . who have practiced homeopathy . . is Royal S. Copeland, MD, a US. Senator from New York , who taught it, and was chief sponsor of the Federal Drug and Cosmetics Act. Copeland was The Godfather of the FDA, the iatric who crowned the homeopath “king of physicians,” from which this series takes it title.

I certainly can understand that it is a go-along to get-along world, and for this I give my errant siblings some slack. I confess homeopathy might not be all I crank it up to be; after dragged from the shuttered cave, a fraction my years spent in Parmenides’ light, compelled I am to admit, it may be part illusion.

But I don’t think so . .

Among the long list of notable users of homeopathic medicine were some arch-skeptics. Mark Twain, the world’s most oft quoted man, dean of American letters, the Lincoln of her literature and author of the first “Great American novel” . . not because it was the first to be composed on a typewriter, but because of its insight into humanity. Twain was nobody’s huckleberry, and Twain was a regular patron of homoeopathic physicians.

Whereas atheists are infamous homeopathy bashers, after ten years suffering from an incapacitating, unrelenting and mysterious stomach complaint, Atheist Jesus Charles Darwin was cured by Disraeli’s homeopath, Dr. James Manby Gully, MD. And so the list of renowned users goes on and on. The richest man to have ever lived, John D. Rockefeller, was a lay homeopath who offered free homeopathic treatment to all his Standard Oil employees. He passed over at 97 with his own personal homoeopath by his side. Legendary songwriter (perhaps the greatest of all time) Paul McCartney of the Beatles is quoted as saying, “I can’t manage without homeopathy. In fact, I never go anywhere without homeopathic remedies. I often make use of them.”

Twain’s great love/hate relationship was with a homeopath who also just happened to be, by Twain’s account, one of , if not the most powerful, and perhaps the richest American woman of her time, Mary Baker Eddy, revelator of the new American Christian Science religion and founder of its church.

Her first marriage was to a homeopath, Daniel Patterson. Her son, Ebenezer Foster Eddy, was also a homeopath. The inability of physical science to explain the healing action of homeopathy was taken by her as proof of spiritual healing. It was homeopathy, she said, that led her to the discovery of Christian Science, by breaking the hold that materialism had laid hold on her mind.

Having witnessed cures that had no explanation in physical science, Eddy concluded that they had to have originated in the mind. The problem with this reasoning are the biochemical effects of homeopathy’s supramolecular ionized materials, unless of course you are willing to extend psychokinesis to the petri dish and the effects of homoeopathy on plants and animals,

But this isn’t good enough for SINOs.

Up until 1988 pre-clinical testing of high dilutions as used in homeopathy was simply ignored as being ridiculous. If there were no plausible explanations for the action of supramoleculars, then they had to be fictions. But that blew up in critics faces in 1988 with publication by Nature magazine (impact factor 30.98) of a trial by INSERM, the French medical research institution’s replication of basophil degranulation by a dilute of histamine (Poitevin) that showed blood cells, in vitro, reacting to dilutions as used in homeopathy (Davenas).

Like Nobel laureate physicist von Behring’s 1901 threat after receipt of the prize for the diptheria anti-toxin, stating that all vaccines are homoeopathic, the rule among the medical Illuminati of giving aid and comfort to the homeopaths had been broken. For this, the chief scientist at the French National Institute of Medical Research, INSERM, Jacques Benveniste, had to be punished. He was subsequently subjected to vigilante justice, an embarrassingly unscientific trial and patently phony “debunking” by thugs, a pederast magician and a sweating magazine editor, invading INSERM and playing sleight of hand with the results of the double-blind, random controlled trial (RCT), provided by Benveniste.

Knowing that simply trashing Davenas and it’s director wasn’t enough, Nature commissioned a highly reputable lab (Hirst) to replicate the test and prove there was no effect. This also blew up in their faces. When Hirst’s results showed there were indeed biochemical reactions to supramoleculars, they had to be attributed to an unknown flaw in the equipment.

That the world’s top science magazine would employ such blatant pseudo science is stunningly tragic. But for the plucky, it’s suicidally depressing, like watching your parents fight, finding out you’re adopted and then getting kicked out of the house before the age of majority in a world wide economic Depression under a 3-branch Republican administration with nowhere to go but God or Hades.

After almost 200 years, conventional science still hadn’t caught up with homoeopathy.

But for a quiet, unassuming Nobel laureate there was a thin lifeline for Benveniste. He was an English physicist by the name of Brian Josephson. I have never been able to quite figure him out. The Josephson Effect and the Josephson Connection are his eponyms, exemplars of a supercurrent, a macroscopic quantum phenomenon, generally classified as such when the quantum state is occupied by a large number of particles . . typically 10^23, which is Avogadro’s number! The emphasis here might seem meaningless, but in the case of Avogadro’s number it is surprisingly relevant to homeopathy. Avogadro’s number is the mark of the complete phase change between gas and plasma, i.e. the ionized primary, or fourth phase in the revolving door of matter. It  is also the point of dilution, the 23rd, at which the homoeopathic dilution embarks into the non-material world. 10^23 stands for the Holy Grail of homeopathy, for it is the 23rd to 24th decimal dilution in homeopathy when all the original starting material has theoretically been diluted out. It is the stumbling point at which materialism goes off the tracks in trying to understand the physically identifiable component of supramoleculars.

Get this: The theoretical size of the Universe is calculated to be 10^23 times larger than the observable. The implication here is that 10^23 is the demonstrable connecting point between what appears to the atheist as the real and the unreal; to the theist it is the connection between the material and spiritual world, and here, the poor dog guarding this gate is the Cerberus of real science.

It is the point at which the homeopathy’s dilute solution becomes ionized, purely supramolecular.

These are startling coincidences, or they should be to the non-opiated.

In other words, the critics of homeopathy are totally ignorant of an entire phase of matter!

And so this is why I find Josephson puzzling. The “effect” implies a “connection” if not an explanation for homeopathy, as if he is patiently waiting for someone else to make it. One of the observations of 1910 Dutch Nobel laureate Johannes Diderik van der Waals, was that phase changes are contiguous and the liquid and the gas phase of a substance merge into each other in a continuous manner and show that the two phases are of the same nature.  One of the touted mysteries of water is the simultaneous appearances of what are generally recognized as its three phases, but as anyone with a connection to Wikipedia can see in reality there are four basic phases of matter and locally 18 in water. By van der Waals criteria, water could then be considered a cold plasma that carries along the specificity of it ionized solutes. If three phases can show specificity, why should there be any surprise in finding it in all four global and the 18 localized in water??

In addition to being multi-phasic, water shows several qualities of being a plasma. It is made of of two gasses, has a high electrical component, both in internal tension and supercurrent. It emits electromagnetic signal indices. And so you can see, within the Josephson effect is the connection between science and homeopathy.

In the 1990′s French scientists Rolland Conte and Yves Lasne discovered that the materials used as medicine in homeopathy had extraordinary emissions of beta radiation. Beta radiation is in the quintillion Hertz frequency range, overlapping the higher end ultra violet range and the lower range of x-rays. They published their results with beta scintillation and nuclear magnetic resonance in a remarkable book entitled Theory of High Dilutions and experimental aspects. They proved their findings in a very simple test using hospital x-ray film. Laying a pattern of homeopathic Natrum muriaticum 30C in rectangular tablets on the film, they burned the image of two letters into it, an “H” and a “P”, to stand for Hyper Proton, which Conte describes as the absence of matter, the opposite of a black hole, which coincidentally fits the definition of plasma!

This is truly a remarkable physical test of proof for the mechanism, mode of action and physical efficacy of the unexplained materials used in homeopathic medicine. It shows the presence of Tritium, as found in tritiated water. It should elicit a yeow from anyone with a discerning mind who can see that it leads to the natural conclusion . . that these highly diluted, or supramolecular substances used in the curative medical practice of homeopathy, are not only specific radiant emitters in the class of low energy radio pharmaceuticals and medical isotopes, it also leads to other conclusions. Homeopathy is, albeit unwittingly, nuclear medicine. It is the product not of a chemical but of a nuclear reaction. A change occurs in the nucleus rather than a rearrangement in the electron shell.

It means (at last) we have found the scientific grail for real medicine, real cures for what conventional “modern”medicine has profited on as “incurable.” Like Linda Loman pleading for her husband Willie, “Homeopathy never made a lot of money, not like corporate medicine. It never had big ads in the newspaper or TV commercials showing people riding horses in fields of daisies or walking on the beach at sunset holding hands. It may not be able to cure everything, but it is real medicine, and a terrible thing is happening to it.  So attention must be paid to it, it must not be allowed to fall to its grave like an old dog.  Attention! Attention must finally be paid to such a medicine!”

LOL, she’s right! And I would like to see the Lasne Conte beta scintillation film test replicated by American scientists in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health, and published in a peer reviewed journal with high impact. In the name of real health care I call upon my colleagues and all science minded individuals and organizations to see this work done by the most credible workers available.

Please contact me if you think you can help to prove homeopathy in this way and vindicate one of the great scientists of all time, who stood up for homeopathy, and was shouted down.

In place of the letters “HP” I would prefer it to read “HOMEOPATHY WORKS.”

Chapter Two of HOW THE HOMEOPATH BECAME KING. To be notified of amazing Chapter Three, “The One Thing that Will Put Homeopathy Over the Top,” join the growing number of people now subscribing to THE JOHN BENNETH JOURNAL.

supramolecular means “beyond the molecule” and refers here to the high diluted . . beyond the molecular limit . .  used in homeopathy, identified by structural analysis. Not well understood by traditional chemical analysis, but a legitimate branch of chemistry since the 1950′s.

HOW THE HOMEOPATH BECAME KING: British Medical Journal tumbles to homeopathy

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

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

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

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

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

Goldacre is a SINO (Scientist In Name Only). SINOs are like playground bullies who think they’ve found an easy target in homeopathy. They think they can call it anything they want and humiliate practitioners, but as time progresses, with the help of the WWW,  they’re starting to walk away from online debates with black eyes and bloody noses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the hell, I’d be happy to explain the plasma physics of homeopathy to them. It’s the piezo electric effect transducing the background radiation and other perturbations in hydrogen bonded aqueous nanostructures, like clathrates. Ultra diluted solutions in materials used in homeopathic medicine are electromagnetic emitters akin to conventional radio pharmaceuticals and medical isotopes. Perhaps for a bottle of whiskey, pack of smokes and an English “girlfriend” the editors of BMJ would like to see a power point presentation of it at the Cavendish again.

So why the change in heart? The clinical evidence for homeopathy has remained consistent for 200 years, but this has always been rejected. Up until now, the rejection of homeopathy was supposed to be a cavalcade of absent evidence . . “Oh, homeopathy is not evidence based medicine” when in fact homeopathy, as anomalous as it may be, has never had the luxury of conventional hypotheses and theory . . evidence has been all it’s had, the evidence of action has been the sole cherry red river driving its mill.

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

NEXT: The Vindication of Jacques Benveniste:

“Up until 1988 pre-clinical testing of high dilutions as used in homoeopathy was simply ignored as being ridiculous. But that blew up in the SINO’s faces in 1988 with . .”

To be alerted to the next mind blowing installment, SUBSCRIBE

The Physics of Homeopathy: A Dialectic

The following is from a discussion of the physics of homeopathy subscribers to the Minutus homeopathy email list

To: minutus Homeopathy discussion
From: Jeff Tikari
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:44:28 +0530
Subject: [Minutus] Homeopathic Hydrosomes

For remedies potentised beyond Avogadro’s limit.

Active principles of potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or HYDROSOMES, which are nanocavities engraved into water-ethyl alcohol supramolecular matrix through a peculiar process called POTENTIZATION. Potentization actually involves ‘host-guest’ molecular interactions exactly similar to that which is commonly utilized by polymer chemists in preparing molecular imprinted polymers. The only difference is, homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as the imprinting medium, whereas polymer chemists use polymers.
All potentized drugs contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing the diverse types of individual constituent molecules which are part of a drug substance used for potentization. By acting as ‘artificial key holes’, these individual molecular imprints can bind to specific pathogenic molecules that have the same conformational affinity; thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions that they are subjected to in diseased conditions. This is exactly the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.

Extract from the writings of Chandran KC

Jeff Tikari check out (a must) www.jeffspage.com

 

In a message dated 8/27/2013 9:45:27 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

Roger Bird writes:

Jeff, I love you. I appreciate your efforts. I want you to be happy. But I had trouble getting past the first two sentences because I was LOLing. What you said may even be true. But it won’t cut no ice with skeptics or ANY other materialistically oriented scientist or fan of science or even the general public. They are all going to say that it is nonsense and gibberish.

Since I believe you, sort of, I assume that such ‘imprints’ are how the etheric or transcendental energy of the homeopathic remedy stays connected to the water.

I’m sorry, I tried to read you comment again and burst out laughing. You have to say stuff that people can relate to. You can’t describe things that are on top of things that are made up of things all of which haven’t even been proven, accepted, or understood yet. It would be like trying to describe how to use the gmai l app on your android phone to Alexander Graham Bell. Bell might have been a brilliant scientist, but he would have been utterly lost the moment you said any of the words that I used to tell you what my example was going to be.

I live on both sides of my brain. I am a jack of many arenas of thought and the master of only one: philosophy. I frequent several physics forums and can understand most of what they say. So it is easy for me to know what the skeptics are going to think and say.

Are we still friends? I hope so. (:->)

Roger Bird

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM, John Benneth wrote:

Mr. Byrd,

I applaud Jeff Tikari for posting Nambiar’s work. Obviously you have very little understanding of science and even less of supramolecular chemistry. Material scientists with academic credentials of the highest orders have described the distinctions between the supramolecular materials used as medicine in homeopathy and their inert vehicles in a way that supports part of what Chandran Nambiar has described here (see Roy, The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy, Materials Research, 2005).

As early as Hahnemann, it was thought that [homeopathic remedies] “cannot be apprehended by specious a priori sophistry, or from the smell, taste, or appearance of the medicines, or from chemical analysis, or by treating disease with one or more of them in a mixture (prescription).” (Hahnemann, The Organon of Medicine, 6th edition)

But even though 19th century science did not afford the necessary terms, instrumentation and theory needed to explain the action of homeopathic action, Hahnemann’s opinion that it was a magnetic phenomenon still holds up under today’s tools.

Magnetic imprinting in water molecules, like that of ferro-magnetic recording tape, is still the only explanation offered for homeopathy’s mode of action by Hahnemann and modern material scientists. (The Indian transmission electron analysis misinterpreted structural memes for nano particulate of the original starting material in Chikramane, Why Extreme Dilutions Reach Non Zero Asymptotes: A Nano particulate Hypothesis Based on Frother Flotation )

Nambiar’s keyhole theory aside, magnetic imprinting fits both the observations by Benveniste and Montagnier and the structural analysis by Anagnostatos, Demangeat, Conte et al, Roy et al, and others . . and the orthodox literature on water.

Imprinting by H2O protic polarization around pneumatic cavitation was first described by Barnard when NMR analysis of supramolecular “homeopathic medicines” by Smith and Boericke at Hahnemann College in the ’60′s showed structural differences from their vehicles.

Whereas Nambiar’s “hydrosome” is probably a misnomer for hydrozoan and should be replaced by ‘clathrate’ and the pathogenic molecule binding to artificial keyholes appears to be his invention (which I don’t agree with) I could be wrong. Nambiar’s work reveals an admirable effort to explain the liquid aqueous structuring in homeopathic supramoleculars and their biological action, all in the teeth of ridicule. I believe he is also right in stating that “Potentization actually involves ‘host-guest’ molecular interactions exactly similar to that which is commonly utilized by polymer chemists in preparing molecular imprinted polymers. The only difference is, homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as the imprinting medium, whereas polymer chemists use polymers” except to note that water and alcohol are both polymeric substances that exhibit crystalline properties, and homeopaths have appeared to have unintentionally solved the problem of polymorphic transmogrification that has played havoc with the pharmaceutical industry. Conventional science has been slow to unable to borrow anything from homeopathy technology, not because of material discrepancies but because it would give credibility to a competing medical doctrine that has yet to be syndicalized by intellectual property rights..

So . . this is an extremely difficult subject involving pitfalls, egos and misnomers. If you don’t understand words LOOK THEM UP instead of just calling them technobabble. If you don’t understand something, ask questions. In ridiculing the investigation you are trolling, dissuading people from a delicate but necessary discussion that is of key importance to medicine, and making an eventual fool of yourself instead of your target.

So give everybody, including yourself, a break, why don’t you? Trying to please “skeptics,” i.e. jealouis blowhards, doesn’t move anything forward.

John Benneth

In a message dated 8/28/2013 10:19:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Elham writes:

Dear all,

Don’t want to be rude or anything but if you ever think a Homoeopath is going to solve the mystery of potentization you are mistaken. We will use its powers and let the skeptics shout and yell at us as much as they like, but we won’t solve its mystery. It will need science to advance much more and technology to advance much more and then there might be a slight chance that a scientist might come up with some explanation. In the meanwhile let us continue with our work that is curing the sick and let others worry about how Homoeopathy works.

Best regards

Elham

NEXT: Physics of Homeopathy Dialectic continues with the RESPONSE TO ELHAM

Don’t miss the next installment of this paradigm shifting discussion on the physics of homeopathy. It’s easy to  SUBSCRIBE to the John Benneth Journal, your only source for revelations by the Great Genius.

SUBSCRIBE NOW and help us meet our goal of 10,000 subscribers . .

DISEASES ARE RADIO TRANSMISSIONS

INTRODUCTION

Now I know it doesn’t sound quite right. To some it may even sound pretty stupid. To others . . crazy. And yet still to others a fraudulent pitch, and to new, enlightened old souls the dangerous, cold truth.

There are certainly more sophisticated ways of saying it, but you must concede, none quite so tantalizing and none quite so succinct . . or true.

And when you really put y0ur nose into it, study it, think about it . . it makes perfect sense.

Diseases are radio transmissions.

There are different ways of saying it. I once got Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer on the phone to ask him where he was getting the ridiculous crap he was publishing about homeopathy in the Skeptics Dictionary, and would he be interested in seeing what the material sciences were saying, and he agreed. But when I touched on the physico-chemical composition of the remedy, he fired back, “What is it?”

I knew what he was asking me, but to paraphase his question to be more explicit, he wanted to know what was the identifiable mechanism of the homeopathic remedy.

It’s a fair question, and supra to me I don’t know the homeopath who could answer it.

But what I fired back at him is “it’s radioactive.”

I think he spit his teeth out.

Now I know calling homeopathic remedies “radioactive” isn’t the best thing politically to say, but I’ll hang by it, committedly as well as Messianically.  The pro-homeopaths don’t want “radioactive” to be the answer, and the anti-homeopaths don’t want any answer at all, at least not one that makes sense.

But its not so tough to concede that matter is basically nothing more than  intermolecular forces, energy pretending to be intransigent. We know by our Geiger counters and beta scintillators that matter gives off a signal. What we don’t seem to know, or want to know, is that the material signal, its radioactivity, can be replicated with hydrogen bonded oxygen atoms to form liquid aqueous structures that replicate the matter from which they came, and which in turn projects a a unique eletromagnetic signal (radiation) representative of the matter from which the polymorphic aqueous structure.

This is a new biological model for medicine. It is a model that has been in the works now for 200 hundred years, and I’m so happy to be able to humbly unveil it for you here today.

DISCUSSION

The discussion of homeopathy has shown little recognition of the literature ’til now. But once encountered, only the self deluded can conclude that the effects of supramolecular medicine, as used in homeopathy, are purely psychogenic. (1)

SUPRAMOLECULAR

This is a real word, not a misspelling of ‘supermolecular.’ It is not often seen . . yet. Supramolecular means “beyond the molecule,” any organized system of two or more molecules held together by intermolecular forces. Even homeopathy’s most strident critics must concede that the word supramolecular is definitive for the homeopathic remedy, as they are always talking about Avogadro’s Constant, where the intended solute has dropped out because the solution has gone beyond the molecular limit of dilution.

Supramolecular chemistry is the study of chemical systems made up of a discrete number of assembled molecular subunits or components. Hahnemann, as revealed in the quote towards the end of this article, knew that the mechanism of the remedy was essentially intramagnetic. He simply lacked more precise definitions at the time to describe it.  Putative science had to catch up.

So technically then, that’s what it is, that’s the description of the homeopathic remedy.  The next question pertaining to that then is, how do we know that a solution is supramolecular?

Can dilutions beyond Avogadro be physically identified?

MATERIAL SCIENCES CONFIRM  

A review of the material science literature relevant to homeopathy and the memory of water was co-authored in 2007 by four top American material scientists. They were led by one of the most decorated and respected scientists of our time, Prof. Rustum Roy of Penn State University (2)

Roy’s landmark paper asserts that the claim there is no difference in composition between a homeopathic remedy and the pure water used in it is “wholly incorrect.” (2)

Just as in law, in science the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. Roy says “The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent (2).

THEY CAN’T PROVE IT!

Of course, critics can’t prove there is no difference because Roy proved there was (3).

In 2007 Witt released a landmark review of a more than half century of biochemical tests of homeopathy (4).

Critics have tried to dismiss this review through Witt’s statement that “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.”

Critics always leave out the preceding statement, hoping no one will notice: “Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies.”

STABLE?

Consider for a moment, if the STABLE standard of effectiveness critics howl for homeopathy were demanded of allopathic drugs, there wouldn’t be any!

Where are these strident critics of homeopathy when daily we hear of untested allopathic drugs causing death and harm?

This is why homeopathics are U.S. FDA approved and accepted by the U.K.’s NHS.

MORE EVIDENCE

But wait, there’s more! In 2009 the pseudo scientists were set back on their heels with a stunning blow from one of the world’s highest medical authorities when an odd study was released by a Nobel laureate virologist (5)

Luc Montagnier’s extraordinary work claimed that substances of the type use in homeopathy, bassed on what seemed to be nothing more than pure water were actually physically identifiable and emitted a seemingly impossible electromagnetic (EM) signal starting at 1 kH. Even more startling, this strange water was able to form similar liquid aqueous structures mimicking bacterial DNA that were inadvertently transmitted, like radio, without physical contact, to SEPARATE CONTAINERS of water!

If you throw this on top of the materia media, it makes a pretty big heap of evidence for the biological action of the remedy.

This will take some time for the world to assimilate. It confirms what immunologist and homeopathy investigator Jacques Benveniste announced in his notorious lecture at the Cavendish where he announced the EM paradigm for disease (6).

Benveniste/Montagnier conclusion: DISEASES ARE RADIO TRANSMISSIONS

The 21st century handwriting is written on the monitor. There is now no turning back for science from the new evidence for homeopathy.

HOLY GRAIL OF MEDICINE

Roy, for example, defers to Prof. Martin Chaplin of London Southbank University as “the guru of water.” In his June 2010 article on the memory of water, Prof. Chaplin writes, “Water does store and transmit information, concerning solutes, by means of its hydrogen-bonded network.” (6)

This is the most important statement of our age, relevant to medicine.

EVIDENCE CONCORDANT

Polymorphic structural and electromagnetic evidence for the action of high dilutes in the 21st century bears witness to similar concordant speculations by the founder of homoeopathy in the 19th:

“The steel needle itself becomes magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetizes other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowed previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small pox or measles, that is, infects at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. Purely specific, conceptual influences from one child to another small pox or measles works in the same way the magnet communicates to a nearby needle its magnetic properties. (8)

THE GRAND DELUSION

If homeopathy is a delusion, then it is a grand one tricking governments and countless medical doctors and their patients alike. If it is not, and most assuredly it is not, then the delusion belongs to its critics!

(If you can’t accept this you have a serious problem with cognitive dissonance.)

BOTTOM LINE

The evidence all leads down the same old dusty corridor to the assizes: If a case could be made for homeopathy being fraud, it would have been made in courts of law long ago.

Now, with new support from the material sciences, the case for ending the practice of homeopathy is dead.

Now, with search engines and PUBMED, the evidence is perspicuous.

THE END OF ALLOPATHY

The card house of traditional overdosing with synthetic chemicals by allopathic “medical” dinosaurs is collapsing under the increasing gravity of supramolecular EM medicine.

Say goodbye to the old chemo-medical paradigm. Say hello to the new curative medicine: Homeopathy.

The John Benneth Journal, October 14th, 2011.

Tough problem? Seen it all, physical, mental.
Call for free homeopathic consultation 503 819 7777

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

REFERENCES:
1. DEMANGEAT: Evidence for an air-dependent supramolecular organization of water Jean-Louis Demangeat – 16/11/2009 http://www.guna.it/news.php?id=311
2. ROY Materials Research Innovations 9-4: The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy
http://hpathy.com/research/Roy_Structure-of-Water.pdf

3.) ROY AUDIO/PP How Homeopathy Works http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU5ukds8G8o&feature=channel_video_title
4.) WITT: Complementary Therapies in Medicine (2007) 15, 128–138 The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies – A systematic review of the literature
5.) MONTAGNIER: Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81-90 Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences https://commerce.metapress.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=byqfa245i3bq5t554jwzsd45&sh=www.springerlink.com

6.) BENVENISTE: March 10, 1999, video of Jacques Benveniste Cavendish lecture Electromagnetically Activated Water and the Puzzle of the Biological Signal. http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/871684
7.) CHAPLIN: Memory of Water, http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory.html
8.) HAHNEMANN; The Organon of Medicine, 6th edition, Aphorism 11. http://medicinegarden.com/homeopathy/Aphorism_11.htm

MALICE: Hate campaign against homeopathy

Homeopath, author, supplier of books and remedies Dana Ullman, (The Homeopathic Revolution) one of our best advocates of homeopathy, has written another great column for the Huffington Post, Disinfomation on Homeopathy: Two Leading Sources.

This time, amongst other things, Ullman hits on a topic I have been personally involved in with two people I have had some intense dealings with over homeopathy: Stage magician and professional homeopathy antagonist James “the Amazing” Randi, and Nobel laureate and physics Professor Brian Josephson of the Cavendish Laboratory.
I first became acquainted with both men back in 1999 when I applied for the magician’s, to date, phony Million Dollar Challenge (MDC) offer to prove homeopathy.

After a notarized application and months of “negotiations,” which were really nothing more than stalls, Randi stated he was dropping my application for another he said was made jointly by Prof. Josephson and Jacques Benveniste. [Click here to watch Jacques Benveniste’s lecture at the Cavendish, “Electromagnetically Activated Water and the Puzzle of the Biological Signal.”]

A query to Prof. Josephson revealed that they had not applied for the MDC, as Randi had claimed. Neither Benveniste or Josephson wanted anything to do with it. It was merely wishful thinking on Randi’s part, or a dodge. I had the proof and it was going to cost him a million bucks for me to show it to him on a level playing field.
As it turns out, no matter how many times Randi has reworded his “Challenge,” it always ends up being the same:

You have to prove it to him, you have to prove it to Randi. Who is dumb enough to think that Randi is going to pay $1,000,000 to someone to prove him wrong after years of calling it criminal fraud? You couldn’t prove to him that the sky is ever blue or that shit doesn’t taste good, not when he’s got  a million dollars riding on it!

Isn’t Randi  the one who’s always crying ab0ut “critical thinking,” “random-controlled double-blind trials,” “publication bias,” “scams,” “how scientists can be fooled,” and then, when faced with his own platinum jewel- studded standard, he does his vanishing act. Where’s Randi? He’s offered a million dollars for Walgreen’s to prove homeopathy to him, and what am I, chopped liver? WHat do I need to do to get him to return a phone call, change my name to Justin Bieber and speak in falsetto?

It’s an old fashioned greased pole contest! “A million bucks to anyone who can shimmy up this here wooden pole.”

Looks e-z2du!

What you don’t know is that the pole is greased, and if you come back with professional pole climbing gear he accuses you of trying to cheat and yanks the offer. This is Randiland, Fantasy World of Science Magic.  Randi’s the judge, jury and executioner of the award. If this isn’t so, then the Challenge to Randi is to put my 12 year old claim to the test once and for all.

Proof that my claim on Randi’s greenstamps was widely recognized isthat the BBC emailed me, begging for permission to jump my claim before they could conspire to  produce  their flop. 

In case you haven’t got it,  the point to this is is, Randi’s Challenge isn’t science: It’s a stunt.

This is proof that Randi and his posse of pseudo scientists are simply gaming everyone’s ignorance to solicit malice for an effective and legal medical practice. It gives them an excuse to call it “fraud”, “a scam” and “criminal.”

Read Dana Ullman’s excellent Huff Post article to see how Randi produced phony “replications” of biochemical tests of homeopathy that failed for TV cameras after the Benveniste experiment was reproduced by European scientists in a multi-centered trial.

The BBC crocumentary was built around an Irish chemistry professor who participated in the multi-centered test and found that the supramoleculars used in homeopathic remedies had biochemical effects. Watch it anask yourself the question, why aren’t these people watching her repeat the test? How can they epect a reasonbale outcome with inexperienced person tyring to replicate it it?

Randi had to discredit this test, and so they “idopathicized” it as much as they could, what they must do with all succesful homeopathy experiments . . make it seem like it’s the only one ever done and that it has no ties whatsoever to science, tologic or to medicine,  or to any other evidence at all, when in fact it always does. Not only are these biohemical tests replicable, they are also explainable hemically as supramolecular substances, meaning their action is  found in the specific, unique signal particular to each remedy. The action,or mechanism of homeopathic remedies is electromagnetic, and these indies can be now be detected.

Now get this: Ennis’ work has not only been replicated, the in vitro tests she and others did showing biochemical action of high dilutes were themselves replications of numerous tests done previously, such as those by Jacques Benveniste, and even his tests were replications of previous tests by other scientists, such as Poitevin!

Between 1984 and 2007, the basophil degranulation test, was replicated 24 times and published in Nature TWICE, by Benveniste and by Hirst!

Now get this: Hirst shows, as unbelievable as it may seem, that there was a significant biochemical effect demonstrated by homeopathic high dilutes, even though Hirst et al still could not believe their own results!

Read Italo Vecchi’s report of Hirst’s testing at weirdtech.com, and Prof. Martin Chaplin’s view of it in his Homeopathy article at the LSBU.edu Water Structure website.

Benveniste’s original results, although dismissed by “skeptics,”  Chaplin writes  “were, however, confirmed in a blinded study by the statistician Alfred Spira  and also in a rather bizarre Nature paper purporting to prove the opposite.” !!!

Don’t take my word for it. Do a little digging. INVESTIGATE! Don’t just take it from a guy living off the interest of $1M, see for yourself what the experts say. Homeopathi remedies are real medicine that have helped a steadily growing number of people who have been afflicted with serious, life threatening diseases.

For more comprehensive information about the biochemical testing of high dilutes, Google Witt, “The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—–A systematic review of the literature.”

The Witt PDF is available here online.

You will see that not only have there been numerous replications of the trial Benveniste was crucified for, but that there have been other biochemical tests of high dilutes/supramoleculars as used in homeopathy. Benveniste was crucified by the medico-indutrial cople as a warningto all other scientists: Do not attempt to do what this man has done . . or we will put you out of business or have you fired from your job,  and you will never work again!

Their threats did not stop the man who won the Nobel prize for discovering AIDS, virologist Luc Montagnier from investigating what Benveniste had discovered . . and he in turn produced one of the most remarkable tests of  homeopathy ever produced, a huge medical discovery: Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences.

What is so remarkable about the Montagnier study is that it goes beyond simply validating homeopathy. It shows five different things about the supramolecular sustances used in homeopathic remedies.

It shows evidence for polymorphic structuring of these susbtances; it shows they emit a detectable signal beginning at 1 Hz; it shows the signal causes aqueous replication in non contiguous water, i.e. in another test tube; it shows the signal is generated  by the Schumann resonance (the Earth’s back gr0und radiation) and it shows that water can replicate solutes that pass through it.

If that isn’t enough to put the scientific world into a state of shock, here’s a bonus item, a trial that was done after Witt, by Sainte Laudy: Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: a sensitive and reproducible model for the study of the biological activity of high dilutions. Click here to see that report.

As all pre-clincial tests such as Montagnier’s and Sainte Laudy can do, the Witt review clearly shows that these substances, without one molecule left of the originally intended substance in them, do indeed have biochemical . . and thereby biological effects! This doesn’t include tests on plants and animals, experiments anyone can easily do to see the impossible action of high dilute supramoleculars!

Matched with popular use and legal support of these substances by the courts and government, the scientific reports mentioned here and many others not, this is what makes up what is undeniable proof for the amazing effectiveness of homeopathy. Once you’ve seen this proof, the reason for the extreme malice for it begins to sharpen.

This  is why they hate it: Homeopathy is a huge threat to the medico-industrial complex. Homeopathy is curative medicine. It is the only comprehensive, systematic curative medicine of its kind  on the planet.

It doesn’t make addicts and debt slaves of its customers. It doesn’t make them dependent on it. Most people who are smart enough to use homeopathy are smart enough not to get sick. So, as you may surmise, it is not a big money making business.

Unlike the usual medicine,  it doesn’t keep you coming back.

This is why I offer a free consulation to anyone with any problem. I want you to know that there’s an alternative to the crappy dramabeing prtrayed as mediine you’re getting now. Homeopathy is superior medicine, superior to what you’re getting now at a fraction of the cost!

Don’t let the health scare system destroy you. Put homeopathy to the test. Experience it for yourelf. See if it works. And then when you’ve been cured, make a video telling the world “Homeopathy Works for Me!

Do not deny yourelf of this opportunity. Try homeopathy. It works.

John Benneth, Homeopath

For free consultation call 503 819 7777

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter: Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

I Challenge PZ Myers: PUT HOMEOPATHY TO THE TEST!

 
 Like a domestic spat,
or like any argument at all,
where one side is being held to account
for some nasty business,
and violently changes the subject . .
so it is
when homeopathy holds allopathy
to account for genocide.

Man oh man

I’ve never seen such traffic in all my days. I was about to write that yesterdays numbers were the highest ever, ten times that of my most highly viewed blog, one of the most viewed blogs on WordPress — but today’s has already broken that record.

Wow! Wowee!

I’m a star, just like mama used to say.

Fire PZ Myers, in one and a half days garnered over 17,000 views. But judging from the commentary, only a few really bothered to read it. They wrote mostly obscenities for commentary.  If someone did ask a question, it was a leading one, or a question  that was already answered in the article. Or it was complaining about their obscenities in previous commentaries not being published, and then complaints that their complaints weren‘t being published, etc. etc.

But every now and then a gem appeared, like something from Kaviraj, what for him is a scrap, what for the rest of us is a meal.

It just proves my point, that that the only intelligent commentary is coming from the homeopaths, and all the idiocy from the allopaths.

Let me give you a profound demonstration of what I say.

The allopaths say there’s nothing to homeopathy, that it’s a placebo. Of course they don’t define what they mean by placebo, they don’t show any tests that prove placebo either. The next thing we hear from these whiz kids is how powerful the Placebo Effect is. SO does that mean that homeopath , compared to placebo, is powerful medicine? LOL!

The next tact from these acolytes of scientism is to fire off another broadside from the other side of their sinking ship, like “there‘s no science to back it up.”

Okay, so when we show them some clinical trials they say, “they weren’t properly double blinded.”
Okay, so when we show them clinical tests that were double blinded, they say “it wasn’t published in a peer reviewed magazine.”
Okay, so when we show them double blind clinical tests published in peer reviewed non-homeopathy journals, they say “there are no reputable tests published in prestigious, non-homeopathy peer reviewed journals that show the effects of high dilutes to be no greater than placebo.”

Well, here’s one that was published in an AMA journal.

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885.
Homeopathic vs Conventional
Treatment of Vertigo
A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study
Michael Weiser, MB; Wolfgang Strösser, MD, MB; Peter Klein, MS

To this the answer has been “it was discredited.”

In other words, somebody didn’t like it because it compared homeopathic treatment against an allopathic drug without a third set of victims given . . placebo.

But wait a minute . . I thought they said homeopathy was the placebo! Oh, bwahahahahahaha!

[Note the interjection of the  word "victim."  How would you like to be somebody's science project.  If PS Myers had have a real problem, do you really think that he would take a chance and be part of the placebo group. This is the main problem with clinical testing, which, if you read on, I shall correct]

Here’s an exhaustive collection of references to homeopathic research in a google knol by Dr. Nancy Malik. . Google it.

Scientific Research in Homeopathy
by Dr. Nancy Malik
Triple Blind studies, Double-Blind Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trial, Systematic Reviews & Meta Analysis, Evidence-based Medicines for specific disease conditions, Ultra-molecular dilutions, Animal Studies, Plant Studies
130+ studies in support of homoeopathy medicine published in 52 peer reviewed international journals out of which 46+ are FULL TEXT which can be downloaded

So we’re answering allopathy’s wild shots with pinpoint accuracy, and they’re going down with the ship, sinking under an epidemic of heart failure, diabetes, cancer . . diseases sufferers could be helped with through  homeopathy.

Look, at this point we’re not trying to make assertions about how well homeopathy works, we‘re just trying to show that it does. The problem is that the public is getting that mixed up in their minds. The anti-homeopathy crowd is substituting evidence for how well it works for evidence that it does work. We are avoiding simple decisive tests.

We have extensive records comparing homeopathic with allopathic treatment, both modern (Bracho) and old (Bradford) . . but comparison is a point that should be examined after we see that the substances used in homeopathy have objective indices not found in clinical trials.

Just as no one symptom should be taken alone as the only indicator for which homeopathic remedy should be used, neither should any one test for homeopathy be used to determine its efficacy, and pre-clinical testing should come first in examining homeopathy as a potential clinical modality.

If you’re out in the woods and you’re scrounging around for food and find something that looks palatable but you’re not sure of, you feed it to the dog first. If he doesn’t get sick, then you eat it. That would be a pre-clinical test.

But oh no, the pseudoscientists dive into this subject answers first . . and the questions that support the answer second, without first finding out if these substances have physical, biochemical and biological action.

What the wise will do is first consult the literature on the subject.

This is what James "the Amazing" Randi looks like without his glasses and phony beard, taking my phone call. He accepted my application for his phony "Million Dollar Challenge" 11 years ago and is still running from me to this day!

That brings us to the first real question in this investigation. What do we know of pre-clinical tests for high dilutes?

In 2003 Becker-Witt C, Weibhuhn TER, Ludtke R, Willich SN sought answers to that question in a study entitled, “Quality assessment of physical research in homeopathy” . J Alternative Complementary Med. 2003;9:113–32.
Becker-Witt reports:

“Objectives: To assess the evidence of published experiments on homeopathic preparations potencies) that target physical properties (i.e., assumed structural changes in solvents).
“Method: A suitable instrument (the Score for Assessment of Physical Experiments on Homeopathy SAPEH]) was developed through consensus procedure: a scale with 8 items covering 0 criteria, based on the 3 constructs, methodology, presentation, and experiment standardization.
“Reviewed publications: Written reports providing at least minimal details on physical experiments with methods to identify structural changes in solvents were collected. These reports were scored when they concerned agitated preparations in a dilution less than 10^23, with no other restrictions. We found 44 publications that included 36 experiments (the identity of 2 was unclear). They were classified into 6 types (dielectric strength, 6; galvanic effects, 5; light absorption, 4; nuclear magnetic resonance [NMR], 18; Raman spectroscopy, 7; black boxes of undisclosed design, 4).
“Results: Most publications were of low quality (SAPEH , 6), only 6 were of high quality
(SAPEH . 7, including 2 points for adequate controls). These report 3 experiments (1 NMR, 2 black boxes), of which 2 claim specific features for homeopathic remedies, as does the only medium-quality experiment with sufficient controls.
“Conclusions: Most physical experiments of homeopathic preparations were performed with inadequate controls or had other serious flaws that prevented any meaningful conclusion. Except\ for those of high quality, all experiments should be repeated using stricter methodology and standardization before they are accepted as indications of special features of homeopathic potencies.”

To summarize, Becker-Witt found six different physical tests for homeopathy. Eight criteria were rated, generating a potential total score of zero to 10. Reports for tests that had scores of six or less were considered to be of low quality, which they said constituted most of them.

Seven trials were found positive results were of high quality. Two out of seven high quality studies claimed distinctive features for homeopathic remedies.

What is important about Witt is she reveals more than one method for finding distinctive features which “science,” inplied by the Myers mindset, says does not exist.

Out of NMR 18 studies, only two were unable to get positive results.

The highest NMR SAPEH scores, went to three studies conducted by one name, Demangeat et al.
Since the 2003 Becker Witt review, Demangeat  continued with his NMR investigation
Here is a 2008 report by Demangeat that can be read online.

2008 July 26 Journal of Molecular Liquids, Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81–90
 NMR water proton relaxation in unheated and heated ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine: Evidence for an air-dependent supramolecular organization of water
Jean-Louis Demangeat, Nuclear Medicine Department, General Hospital, Haguenau, France

“We measured 20-MHz R1 and R2 water proton NMR relaxation rates in ultrahigh dilutions (range 5.43·10-8 M–5.43·10-48 M) of histamine in water (Hist-W) and in saline (Hist-Sal), prepared by iterative centesimal dilutions under vigorous agitation in controlled atmospheric conditions. Water and saline were similarly and simultaneously treated, as controls. The samples were immediately sealed in the NMR tubes after preparation, and then code-labelled. Six independent series of preparations were performed, representing about 7000 blind
measurements. R2 exhibited a very broad scatter of values in both native histamine dilutions and solvents. No variation in R1 and R2 was observed in the solvents submitted to the iterative dilution/agitation process. By contrast, histamine dilutions exhibited slightly higher R1 values than solvents at low dilution, followed by a slow progressive return to the values of the solvents at high dilution. Unexpectedly, histamine dilutions remained distinguishable from solvents up to ultra high levels of dilution (beyond 10-20 in Hist-Sal). A signi!cant increase in R2 with increased R2/R1was observed in Hist-W. R1 and R2 were linearly correlated in solvents, but uncorrelated in histamine dilutions. After a 10-min heating/cooling cycle of the samples in their sealed NMR tubes (preventing any modi!cation of the chemical composition and gas content), all of the relaxation variations observed as a function of dilution vanished, the R2/R1 ratio and the scatter of the R2 values dropped in all solutions and solvents, and the correlation between R1 and R2 reappeared in the Hist-W samples. All these results pointed to a more organized state of water in the unheated samples, more pronounced in histamine solutions than in solvents, dependent on the level of dilution. It was suggested that stable supramolecular structures, involving nanobubbles of atmospheric gases and highly ordered water around them, were generated during the vigorous mechanical agitation step of the preparation, and destroyed after heating. Histamine molecules might act as nucleation centres, amplifying the phenomenon which was thus detected at high dilution levels.

“These unexpected findings prompted further investigation, notably in other conditions, in order to rule out artefacts, such as possible interactions of silica with the glass material used for the preparation, or possible misinterpretation of the NMRD data due, for instance, to an unknown dependence of the frequency dispersion on the dilution level. So, the present study was carried out at a fixed frequency of 20 MHz and with histamine as solute, beyond the 4th centesimal dilution, i.e. beyond the known threshold of NMR sensitivity to detect histamine protons or any paramagnetic contaminants of the solute. It will be shown that the variations in R1 observed as a function of ultrahigh dilution in the NMRD study [16] are reproducible with histamine at a fixed frequency, and that these variations totally vanish after heating of the samples.

Here is the most recent and what I think is the best physical test of all:

2009 Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences
Luc MONTAGNIER1,2*, Jamal A¨ISSA1, St´ephane FERRIS1,
Jean-Luc MONTAGNIER1, Claude LAVALL´EE1
1(Nanectis Biotechnologies, S.A. 98 rue Albert Calmette, F78350 Jouy en Josas, France)
2(Vironix LLC, L. Montagnier 40 Central Park South, New York, NY 10019, USA)

Abstract: A novel property of DNA is described: the capacity of some bacterial DNA sequences to induce
electromagnetic waves at high aqueous dilutions. It appears to be a resonance phenomenon triggered by the ambient electromagnetic background of very low frequency waves. The genomic DNA of most pathogenic bacteria contains sequences which are able to generate such signals. This opens the way to the development of highly sensitive detection system for chronic bacterial infections in human and animal diseases. Key words: DNA, electromagnetic signals, bacteria.

Montagnier, being a Nobel laureate, strikes a hard blow for homeopathy, so a lot of pseudonymous posters want to say that Montagnier wasn’t testing the kind of dilutions used in homeopathy.

These criticisms come from pseudoscientists who haven’t read the study carefully enough. The equipment Montagnier used was designed by Benveniste for detecting EM signals in high dilutes.
The Montagnier study is one of the most remarkable scientific studies ever published, for it confirms the Benveniste assertion that homeopathy is a new medical paradigm.
The operative mechanism for homeopathic can be found in clathrate hydrates, nano-crystalline gas inclusion molecules, what Montagnier refers to as aqueous nanostructures. These liquid aqueous structures produce an amplified analog signal of the guest molecule.
Montagnier was able to actually filter them out, and in doing so was able to give them actual physical dimensions.
Once filtered out, the signal stopped.
Read the study, it’s fascinating for these and other anomalies it reveals.

In an article referencing homeopathy (online) entitled “The Memory of Water,” the world’s top authority on water physics, Professor Martin Chaplin, states “water does store and transmit information through its hydrogen bonded network,” once again implying hydrogen bonding as being critical to the homeopathic mechanism.

Exactly what I’ve been saying for years.

John Benneth, self portrait

So here we have two studies that support my hypothesis that the action of homeopathic remedies is electromagnetic and produced by measurable structuring in the solvent, nucleated around clathrates.
Material scientists Roy et al, in their seminal work, . The structure of liquid water; novel insights from materials research; potential relevance to homeopathy. (Roy R, Tiller WA, Bell IR, Hoover MR Materials Research Innovations, 2005; 9-4: 577–608.) confirm polymorphic structuring in water at liquid temperatures as the key to the homeopqthic mechanism.

“This paper does not deal in any way with, and has no bearing whatsoever on, the clinical efficacy of any homeopathic remedy. However, it does definitively demolish the objection against homeopathy, when such is based on the wholly incorrect claim that since there is no difference in composition between a remedy and the pure water used, there can be no differences at all between them. We show the untenability of this claim against the central paradigm of materials science that it is structure (not composition) that (largely) controls properties, and structures can easily be changed in inorganic phases without any change of composition. The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent . .

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

 

 

[YOU ARE NOW READING THE WORLD's MOST READ HOMEOPATHY BLOG]

 
“The principal conclusions of this paper concern only the plausibility of the biological action of ultradiluted water remedies, they are based on some very old (e.g. homeopathy) and some very new (e.g. metallic and nanobubble colloids) observations which have been rejected on invalid grounds or due to ignorance of the materials research literature and its theoretical basis. This constitutes an excellent example of the common error in rejecting new scientific discoveries by using the absence of evidence as evidence for absence.”

It is not such a difficult matter to explore this phenomenon, if you’re not PZ Myers, or one the similar horde. If that’s the case, then putting homeopathy to the test becomes impossible.

If you have comet his far in reading this it shows that you have the spirit of inquiry and not take the easy route by fashionably dismissing the evidence. Now that we have looked at the physical tests, let’s take a look at the biological.

Be assured that I’m moving in for the killshot. As tedious as it may seem, it is exploding myths propagated by phony challenges made by people like James “the Amazing” Randi, of whom I’ve included a picture of, sans phony disguise of Darwin like beard and glasses, as I did with my revelation of Myers in a previous blog. This is working up to a challenge to PZ Myers. More specifically, within Myer’s claimed realm of biology, there are more biochemical tests beyond those referred to prior.

After the 2003 review of physical tests, Witt and her team turned their attention to biochemical testing. Here, Myers ought to wake up from his napping.

For the biochemical assessments they used a modified version of the SAPEH test.

Their investigation found six different types of biochemical tests reported for homeopathy: non cellular systems, cultured cells, erythrocytes, neutrophile and basophil granulocytes, and lymphocytes.

(NB: If you think this is tough reading, consider what it’s like to type. But it’s important for this discussion. I haven’t seen this posted anywhere before.)

Witt produced the best and most exhaustive review of the literature for pre-clinical testing of homeopathics.

The WItt review shows that the basophil degranulation test has been done more than any other kind of biochemical test, but nevertheless is still only one type of biochemical testing among six.

Some of the most remarkable biochemical testing was done by William E. Boyd, MD, whose team spent years examining the action of dilute mercuric chloride on starch at Glasgow.

The Boyd experiments were designed by two Barbour scholars and overseen by Professor Sir Gowland Hopkins. The reporting panned 15 years, was extensive and elegant, designed for replication, representing a project that would be cost prohibitive by today’s standards.

Now we’re squarely in the bailiwick of Myers, reportedly an academic biologist who has taken what appears to be a knowledgeable stance on this problem. Neither opponent or proponent would be likely to say that it isn’t a problem.

If you’re looking at this problem objectively, you can see that there is a wide spread in the reported quality of testing  results. However, most reporters, like Ennis, conclude there should be more testing.

Where is the prudence in the face of this evidence, of not putting it to the test?

Since 2007, the basophil degranulation test has been done specifically for replication by two of its finest conductors, Sainte Laudy and Belon.

Homeopathy. 2009 Oct;98(4):186-97.
Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: a sensitive and reproducible model for the study of the biological activity of high dilutions.
Sainte-Laudy J, Belon P.

Why is it that someone who comments on this subject as an expert witness, as Myers does, not provided us with a greater examination of the available evidence? If Pee Zee Herman here is the expert he makes himself out to be then why . . with his X-ray vision and the mysterious, supernatural ability to make such definitive conclusions about the awesome psychogenic powers of these homeopathic placebos, WHY does he not enlighten us as with the Holy Protocol  for Placebo?

Come on, Jesus of Science, if it truly exists, then give us the Placebo Commandment! Where are the Holy Writs, the double blind studies published in the sacred texts of prestigious peer reviewed journals?

Teach Me!

Why is P MYers not conducting his own biological tests, and proving to us, without a grain of prejudice, that homeopathy, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is NOT what the evidence has led many of his misguided colleagues have concluded it to be . . biologically active.

If this is a scientific inquiry and not a political argument, then why is it that so many people are trying to answer a pre-clinical question with clinical evidence?

The Myers mindset isn’t posing a question, it is merely answering an implied one with evidence that will lead the unwitting away from non prejudicial answers.

Let me answer it first philosophically. The anti-homeopathy argument, the infrastructure of which is atheistic, is based on the concept of non-Being. It is a decided feature of solipsistic thinking that has crept its way past the scientific method into science, to change it from science into scientism, from global skepticism into local skepticism, i.e. pseudoscience, that which masquerades as science, but in reality is serving the masters of capital and fashion.

For in order to believe in non-Being, one has to put Parmenidean logic aside. There is no such thing as non-Being. Placebo or not, homeopathy is a reality.

If this isn’t so in this case, then let us see PZ Myers put homeopathy to a simple yet proper biological test:

There is the literature, here are the methods, now let’s see some results!

And if Pee Wee Myers cannot reasonably find biological indices, then let us see him provide us with psychological indices drawn from trials that test for psychogenic effects, trials that show beyond the shadow of a doubt that homeopathy is nothing more than The Placebo Effect, and all the pre-clinical evidence the result of error and lies.

Let me put it more explicitly:

Professor Myers, do these substances, as used in homeopathy, as defined in the literature, have biological action on subjects not influenced by the placebo effect?

Simple question , simple answer that can be determined thorough simple tests. If Myers isn’t purposely avoiding the question and the literature that addresses it, then why isn’t he accepting that literature as evidence of non psychogenic action or why isn’t he submitting these substances to his own superior testing?

PZ Myers will have so much explaining to do, he’ll have to schedule extra classes in Pseudoscience and Advanced Prevarication!

For instance, we have reports from numerous sources, myself included, that have witnessed the phytopathological action of homeopathics on plant growth and diseases. That’s a simple, biological test any school kid can do. So why is it so far beyond the reach of Myers, reportedly a professional biologist?

The problem here that now confronts Myers, in order to meet my challenge, is that he’ll have to fish the evidence out of the looney bin, and if does find an effect, by his own previous criteria, he’s screwed.

Do you understand? Myers has effectively recused himself from obtaining negative results by having shown his bias.  

The only way for him to back out of this trap now is to collaborate with others who are experienced in biological testing, such as M. Brizzia; L. Lazzarato; D. Nani; F. Borghini; M. Peruzzi; L. Betti at the Department of Agro-Environmental Science and Technology at Bologna University in Italy, workers who have conducted extensive testing on heat, replicating the exhaustive work of Lilli Kolisko.

Professor Myers, I challenge you to commission a design for a simple biological test, done by people who know what they‘re doing, without having a stage magician with a million dollars to lose handling the key to the double blind, as he did with Benveniste.

Put it to the test. That‘s fair enough. Isn‘t it?

And now for our movie!

Prof. Rustum Roy vs. Steven Novella, the Homeopathy Hater

If you watch carefully you will see that the man standing in the shot as Professor Roy is being introduced is homeopathy basher Steven Novella, a professor of neurology at Yale and the President of the solipsistic New England Skeptical Society. Apparently Novella thought he was going to be introduced next. Watch and listen as Professor Roy takes him down a notch or two . .

 Man oh man,

FIRE PZ MYERS!

In light of evidence, University of Minnesota biology professor PZ Myer’s hate campaign against homeopathy just might backfire . 

 “High dilutions of histamine did indeed have biological effects.”
Professor Madeleine Ennis after replicating controversial experiment for homeopathy.
 
 One of the last  John Benneth Journal entries for 2010 , IN ONE YEAR,  has broken all previous viewership records and sparked more commentary and outrage amongst the pharmaceutical company stooges than any previous Journal entry, enlisting the usual fury and nasty responses.

Most notably is PZ Myers, an American biology professor and pharma stooge whose specialty is trashing homeopathic medicine at the University of Minnesota Morris (UMM).

His blog is Pharyngula. In 2006, it was the top-ranked blog written by a pseudo scientist.Myers has called IN ONE YEAR “nonsense.” Other commentary has been”mental straightjacket”and remarks too obscene to be reprinted here. 

It follows a posting by Myers of clips of my controversial video, “The Mechanism,” juxtaposed with scenes from Star Trek to characterize my supramolecular description of the homeopathic remedy as techno babble.
My name is John Benneth. I’m a homeopath.And this is story about biologists, three in particular, who have studied . . it.

It is fashionable with atheists and pseudo scientists like Myers to trash it and its research. It is a compulsion. They can’t help themselves. They have to do it, for it puts everything they hold dear at risk.

Trashing it is like a cheap magic trick, hawked as self working and E-Z-2-DO. It gives the trasher the feeling he’s accomplished something for himself under the guise of protecting society from what they characterize as ineffective medicine. But like the cheap magic trick, when it finally arrives in the mail, you realize it was misrepresented.

Pretty good trick . . on you.

PZ Myers, Pseudoscientist

Really what it is, it’s hate speech, using the same kind of tactics used against minorities by hate groups. It really shouldn’t have any place in academia, but pseudoscience has become the infrastructure of higher education.

What can they tell you that you can’t find out for yourself now through the Internet? It’s not really education, it’s fashion.

What Myers says has very little to do with science and more to do with the politics of self aggrandizement.

Look at the case against it: It’s full of general, vague, contextual accusations and insinuations. But try to find within this haystack of lies a needle of truth. It contains more errors of commission and omission than the invasion of Iraq. It doesn’t state its criteria or identify or it sources for verification. It always ends up being exactly what it complains of, and PZ Myers provides us with a wonderful sample of it.

He wastes our time with anecdotal evidence and fails to adequately explain the etiology of the phenomena. If its effects are psychogenic, where are his proofs for psychogenic? If it’s bunk, what mechanism has made it so popular, where is the proof for the reported action? It’s usually nothing more than a sloppy pudding of self contradicting anecdotes.

“EZ Pee Zee,” a pudding of lies.

Science will always turn against the pseudoscientist.

Read on and watch it slowly turn against Myers.

We have heard repeatedly, over and over again, from people like E-Z Pee Zee Puddin’ Myers, that homeopathy doesn‘t work, but when asked “how do you know?” the best they can come up with is that it doesn’t work because it shouldn’t work.

That’s it. That’s all there is to it. Nothing more! 

No evidence of biological action is ever admitted without first seeking fault by the homeoapthy hater. Any corroborating tests are conveniently ignored.

I seriously doubt EZ PZ Puddin’ Myers could sustain much of a real explanation of its effects, because somewhere along the way he would have to confront things he didn’t know and doesn’t want to know, because they begin to work against his foregone conclusions.

Criticism by pseudo scientists like Myers is never global. It is always localized against something, like homeopathy. The evidence con is always given greater play over the evidence pro. And it avoids addressing the evidence pro in specificity within the context of explicit criteria.

For instance, the most well known in vitro test for homeopathy is a test on white blood cells, the basophil degranulation test. It was done by renowned immunologist Jacques Benveniste after his criticism of it was challenged. An assistant had found that water exposed to an allergen via serial aqueous dilution, could provoke an in vitro response, as if the allergen were present.
This is called basophil degranulation.
Benveniste, like other investigators, was puzzled by the results. What appeared to be pure water was causing a biochemical reaction.

Benveniste reportedly did the test over 1,000 times.

After he published the results of his testing in Nature, a prestigious science magazine, (to the resounding explosion of the usual outrage) Nature sent a team to investigate Benveniste’s work. The team consisted of Sir John Maddox, the editor of Nature, James “the Amazing” Randi, a notorious illusionist with a large sum of money to lose if proven wrong, and a debunker by the name of Walter Stewart.

According to Dana Ullman, the experiment was first replicated three times for the Nature team without any blinding of the experimenters. These first three experiments performed for the team showed positive results.
The fourth experiment blinded the person doing the counting of the basophils, and the results of this experiment were also successful. But the Nature team deemed this test invalid, claiming that the blinded experimenter knew in advance which test group she was counting.

The Nature team then began to behave disruptively. The next three experiments blinded the person doing the counting and the person doing the pipetting. Randi performed magic tricks during a crucial part of the experiment, making it difficult for the experimenters to perform their work, while Stewart was acting so hysterically that he had to be asked several times to stop shouting by Maddox and Benveniste.

All three of these experiments did not show any difference between the active verum samples and the inert control group. The Nature team immediately deemed that there was no evidence that the microdoses have biological action and reported that the tests failed to show convincing results.

Benveniste had violated the laws of Nature!

What they didn’t report was that the results were just what one would expect if someone switched the active samples with the inert controls.

Some of the samples, coded inert, produced a reaction, whereas some of the samples coded as active were reported inert. A switch had been made.

Randi had sabotaged the test by mixing up the results!

When you’re finished reading here, watch the accompanying video at the end of this article and hear Benveniste describe what happened. And particularly note Maddox, the editor of Nature, confessing that he went to Benveniste’s lab for the sole purpose of discrediting his work as fraudulent.

Skeptics herald this as conclusive proof that homeopathy doesn’t work.

There are some more facts that EZ Pee Zee doesn’t tell you, because without additional information we may be easily led to an incorrect conclusion about in vitro testing for homeopathy . .

What Pee Zee doesn’t tell you is that the basophil degranulation test for homeopathy wasn’t invented by Jacques Benveniste. JB’s test was the fourth replication of it. There have been many replications of it since, most notably a multi centered one that included homeopathy skeptic Professor Madeleine Ennis of the Respiratory Medicine Research Group at The Queen’s University of Belfast.

Here is a mashup of Ennis reporting on the activation of human basophils by ultra-high dilutions of anti-IgE, dilutions of the type used in homeopathy.

ENNIS: “This could be an exceedingly short paper, since in my opinion, from a conventional scientific background, when there are no molecules of the active agent left in a solution there can not be any biological effects. However, a search in PubMed combining homeopathy with basophil revealed 15 items. Interestingly this did not include the now infamous article in Nature or the papers that attempted to repeat the work. Changing the search to homeopath and basophil increased the total to 21. Including phrases such as ‘high dilutions’ or ‘extremely low doses’ only resulted in 33 publications.

“Witt and co-workers used several different databases in their review and found a total of 75 publications and further evaluated 67 of them. One of their sources was the HomBRex database which specialises in basic research in homeopathy and as of February 2009 contained 1301 experiments in 997 original articles including 1172 biological studies. Using the CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) Database and putting in basophil resulted in 95 hits. The question of publication bias is also worth considering – is it easier to publish a paper with negative results or with positive results? Normally, trials or studies with negative results are difficult to publish. However, it is possible that the opposite is true for studies using ultrahigh dilutions.

“In 1988, Poitevin and colleagues published a paper in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology in 1988 which was a follow-up to an earlier paper which had reported that incubation of basophils with high dilutions of the homeopathic drug Apis mellifica was able to inhibit allergen-induced basophil degranulation. In this paper, they reported that very low concentrations of anti-IgE (ca. 10–100 molecules per well) activated basophils and that this was inhibited by very high dilutions of the preparations

“Overall, using the histamine degranulation assays, as standardized by Sainte-Laudy, it was found that histamine at both conventional pharmacological concentrations and at high dilutions inhibited allergen and anti-IgE induced basophil activation. Examining a range of dilutions from 5c to 59c, the response was periodic in form, with maxima at ca. 7c, 17c, 28c, 40c and 52c.”

“This work was pioneered by Sainte-Laudy and colleagues beginning in the 80s and continuing to the present day… I first heard about this work at the 1984 meeting of the European Histamine Research Society where Sainte-Laudy bravely presented his data to a crowd of extremely skeptical and rather hostile scientists and clinicians.

“Apart from the natural scientific objections to solutions containing essentially water having a biological effect, a number of other issues were raised:
(1) the biological validity of the test;
(2) the reproducibility of the phenomenon,’
(3) the subjectivity of cell counts and
(4) that the data nearly all came from the same laboratory. In answer to these points, at that time, this form of examining basophil activation was a recognized procedure. Sainte-Laudy had performed repeated experiments, indeed in a series of 6 experiments he repeated each measurement 16 times and got the same answer.

“In order to answer points (3) and (4), it was decided to perform a multi-centre European Trial and it is at that point that I ‘dipped my toes into the waters’ of homeopathic research. As an ardent sceptic, I was invited to take part in the trial, which involved one coordinating laboratory and laboratories performing the research. This study has been published.

“In brief, all the laboratories were trained in the basophil counting method, with the counts verified by Sainte-Laudy’s laboratory. The dilutions were made in 3 different laboratories and coded by the coordinator (histamine and water solutions made up identically from 15c–19c). All study materials were from the same source and shipped to the performing laboratories. The data were returned to the coordinator and then analysed by an independent biostatistician. When the results for the histamine solutions were compared to those for the water solutions, there was a small but statistically significant inhibition of basophil degranulation caused by the lowest concentration of anti-IgE used in 3 of the 4 laboratories. When all the data were combined together, there was a statistically significant inhibition for the histamine containing solutions. Thus this multi-centre
study indicated that high dilutions of histamine did indeed have biological effects.

“In the multi-centre trial described above, 3 of the laboratories independently examined the effects of high dilutions of histamine and to a varying degree all demonstrated inhibition of basophil activation with these dilutions. Flow cytometric is employed in most immunological laboratories and there have now been a series of independent laboratories investigating the phenomenon. These will be discussed in detail.”
Basophil models of homeopathy: a sceptical view, Madeleine Ennis, Respiratory Medicine Research Group, Centre for Infection and Immunity, Microbiology Building, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

The Witt review of in vitro tests for homeopathy carefully analyzed and scored all known biochemical testing, up until 2007. You don’t see the criteria employed by Witt being employed by those who conclude that homeopathy is merely the use of inert substances.

Like Pee Zee, they have to make up their own, unknown, unseen,  OCCULT criteria!

PZ Myers claims to be a biologist. But look at the way Myers approaches the problem before him. Instead of giving you the full story, Myers gives only what he wants you to hear, which is mostly ridicule. Myers doesn’t mention his colleagues who have actually conducted the basophil degranulation test. He hasn’t done it. So how is it that we are supposed to believe Myers over Ennis, Sainte Laudy, Belon, Benveniste and all the others and their staff assistants, and the hundreds, possibly thousands of repetitons of these tests, unless Myers is presenting an answer we want to hear?

I’m trying to think of careers and activities that would be more suited for telling people what they want to hear, other than science. How about politics? LOL! No wonder his blog is so popular! Most people aren’t interested in science for anything more than the status it gives them in the eyes of others.

Being a skeptic gives you that “cachet.”

But when it comes to the real complexities of science . . please! Don’t confuse me with the facts! Let’s just pretend we’re scientists, okay?” 

Ennis on the other hand, rolls up her sleeves and gets her hands dirty. She then, as a real scientist, is compelled to truthfully report what her colleagues are loath to hear . .  the truth about homeopathy. What was it again? Oh yes . . “high dilutions of histamine did indeed have biological effects.”

I hear Myers screaming when he reads this, holding his head, “Noooo! I hate homeopathy!”

Ennis comes up with the same statement that Benveniste, Poitevin and dozens of others have come up with. In the glass the truth about homeopathy has been found.

Benvneiste proposed a whole new biological paradigm. Does Myers have the courage to do the test? Or is he more likely to try to sabotage it with word and censure?

If Pee Zee Myers cannot be a real scientist and meet the challenge of homeopathy head on, as Professor Ennis and others have done, then I say fire him and let him go on writing his stupid blog as the prime example of pseudoscience. Why would anyone but the opposition want a joker like Myers poisoning the minds of our youth? He doesn’t teach biological science, he teaches political science. Look at his useless, mindless deblogatory activities

How embarrassing for such a fine institution like the University of Minnesota! To have such an unscientific voice as Myers blathering away while his hands are doing nothing useful, when there are real scientists, like young versions of Rustum Roy at Penn State, who could be teaching biology at the University of Minnesota.
Education should not be about destroying people, as PZ has made it out to be. It should be about building people up, not tearing them down, and learning how things work in world.