THE BLACK LIAR and the lies he tells

The key argument against homeopathics is that because they contain nothing but pure water as their active ingredient they must therefore be placebos. I have countered this by revealing, in classical scientific terms, the supramolecular (supra, not super) makeup of the remedy to be electromagnetic from crystalline hydroxl analogs of the intended molecular content. So on September 25th, 2010, I was invited by Hahnemann College of Homeopathy in London to share my findings with homeopaths from the United Kingdom, India and other countries. I also received an invitation from physicist and Nobel laureate Professor Brian Josephson to give the same lecture at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge on October 1st.
This created a usual outrage in the establishment, for having a heretic like myself talk about such a controversial subject at such a prestigious place.
Stooges for the pharmacetuical companies went to work on me.
One in particular, an Englishman I think, is such a prevaricator he has even given himself a nickname in French. Le Canard Noir.
The teller of black lies.
His name is Andy Lewis.
Dear Andy, in his Quackometer column, has created another black canard about Josephson and me, about what the Professor said about my little talk at the Cavendish. Someone threw it at me in the commentary on one of my videos, so I ran the quote, and it came up on Lewis’ blog, but nowhere else . . in other words, it appears Lewis reconstructed things which Josephson said in the past to fabricate a quote that even had me fooled. When I first read it, I passed over it as unfortunate but ASSUMED IT WAS TRUE.
When someone posted it in the comment section on my Youtube video FLAMING HYPOCRITES (and the lies they tell) on the Bandershot channel, I Googled the phrase in question, and all that came up was Lewis’ blog . .
Suspicious, I clicked on the link he gave as its source, and found that the damning quote appears nowhere in it!
Check it out and let me know what you think I should do. Here’s the link to Lewis’ blog where that black lie is:

And here’s what he links to as its source:;jsessionid=1CC5B0A9560E74B2FA93747DB5F9655D?format=mp3&quality=high
Even though I had read the original quote, I accepted the quote as being real until I went back and checked it out. It was so skillfully done that it sounded like something Josephson had indeed said in the past, such as the part of conferring with a colleague, and other things that were paraphrases of actual quotes, but twisted into maligning statements.
This, I think, is what Lewis prides himself on, the facility to create false statements.
But here’s what is the jaw dropper. In the actual review of the lecture, Josepshon predicts what Lewis would do!
He says,
“The fact of the matter is that no argument is better than the assumptions on which it is based, and almost all arguments contain hidden assumptions. It is obvious, is it not, that if chemical reactants are mixed the system will proceed monotonically to its equilibrium state? And so everyone thought, until they were forced to accept by the evidence of their own eyes that oscillatory chemical reactions exist. And so it is with arguments against memory of water; unsustainable assumptions are slipped in before believers’ eyes, and not noticed, in a way that magician James Randi, also someone whose presentations might be thought problematic, would be proud of.

An unsustainable assumption, slipped in before my eyes, and not noticed, in a way that magician James Randi, also someone whose presentations might be problematic, would be proud of.

And, further, from Josephson:

‘belief that something is impossible, however strongly held, does not constitute proof that it actually is impossible’ “


5 comments on “THE BLACK LIAR and the lies he tells

  1. Andy Lewis says:


    You appear to be getting a little over excited. I have addressed your charges of me being a liar here…

    Naturally, as a man of honour, you will be posting a comprehensive apology.




  2. Adam Gordon says:

    Once again John you have shown a cavalier disregard for the truth; it can be clearly evidenced that the page in question was changed after the quotation you take issue with (which was accurate).
    I understand that you and Andy have significant differences of opinion, largely based on your flawed understanding of what constitutes evidence, but to slander him in this way is quite reprehensible, if not unexpected.
    I, like so many others in the blogosphere, enjoy lively debate over issues of health and science, and so would request you not use such debates to denigrate others.


  3. Andy Baker says:

    Please don’t accuse those that disagree with you as being ‘stooges for the pharmaceutical companies’.

    Most of us are just in favour of evidence in science and are critical of bad research and flimsy argument whether it comes from the complementary side or the inarguably crooked pharmaceutical companies.

    Whilst you guys are a softer target, you have begun to dominate the public discourse in a way that is damaging to both public health and the advancement of medicine as a science.

    I wish more people were tackling scientific fraud by big pharma too but everyone chooses his own battles.


  4. Guy Chapman says:

    The thing is, web pages in content management systems can change. Before calling someone a liar you have first to check whether the page originally said what Le Canard Noir says it did. As far as I can tell, it said exactly that but was subsequently changed by Josephson.

    One of the things that distinguishes Ben Goldacre from people like you, incidentally, is the conspicuous absence of your binary mindset: in a scientific world, scepticism /is/ neutrality and the extraordinary claims of homeopaths have to be supported by scientifically robust evidence, including reproducible experiments that can demonstrate your core tenets. Forget water memory, you first of all have to prove the law of similars. A great way of doing that would be to conduct a large randomised double-blind trial where people were assigned one of (a) the “correct” remedy; (b) a randomly selected remedy and (c) placebo. That is a very simple experiment to arrange and would nail a large part of the scientific world’s criticism of homeopathy. It’s trivially easy to demonstrate a different biological response between an emetic and an anti-emetic in the world of mainstream medicine, so it should be equally straightforward to demonstrate this in homeopathy.


  5. Rob H says:

    I remember reading the page and the comments quoted by Andy Lewis were there.
    Have you checked with Josephson whether Josephson edited the page to remove the comments which Lewis quoted?


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

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s