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: http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1074586;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!
“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’ “