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.


84 comments on “FIRE PZ MYERS!

  1. Adam says:

    Taken from one of the studies listed in the knol on Homeopathy:
    “The study has to be considered as
    preliminary, because of the limited number of subjects,
    but it could be an important example of proving
    methodology and evaluation.”

    Preliminary and “could be” are the key words here. Studies like these don’t prove or disprove anything. They can provide insight to help shape and design future trials, but drawing a conclusion and claiming anything stated in them as fact is just irresponsible, and IS NOT science.


    • johnbenneth says:

      “Adam” talks about irresponsible medical testing? The world’s largest drug manufacturer, Pfizer, tested a drug for measles on 100 Nigerian children and half of them reportedly died. These children weren’t volunteers. Pfizer has been charged with TESTING an unproven drug on children without their parents knowledge that the drug was experimental.
      But I don’t read Adam and other critics of homeopathy having any ethical concerns about that.
      The same can seen in the administration of new vaccines, most of which have not been tested on human subjects.
      Subjecting humans to medical tests without their knowledge or consent is a violation of basic human rights, ethics, international laws and the Nuremburg Code.
      But I don’t read Adam and other critics of homeopathy having any ethical concerns about that.
      Anti-cancer drug Avastin increases the rate of fatal side effects by almost 50% when added to traditional chemotherapy, compared with chemo alone. The daughter of a friend of mine recently was diagnosed with brain cancer. After repertorizing the case tI suggested homeoapthic plumbum. She was then examined by a naturopath who confirmed my opinion. After taking the plumbum the tumour began to shrink. But the allopaths got hold of her and gave her Avastin. She died a very painful death from the usual side effects of Avastin, perforations in the stomach or intestines.
      But I don’t read Adam and other critics of homeopathy having any ethical concerns about that.
      The central dilemma about Avastin, however, is that doctors today have no way to know which specific patients will benefit. But heir was no informed consent in the administration. So, doctors tend to give it to all eligible patients, hoping for the best, but knowing that Avastin can sometimes hasten a patient’s death. And I am told that no one told her that there was a chance it might kill her.
      So Adam’s come up with his criticism based on what? One trial? What about the thousands, if not millions of cases worldwide where homeopathy has been used successfully? Adam seems to be quite happy to be blind to everything except that which he chooses to look at what’s right in front of him.
      The fact of the matter is that what we know about the action of homeopathic drugs is purely from testing them on volunteers and subequently homeopathy has been proven by trial and error over centuries of use to be a superior form of medicine. It grew out of situations 200 years ago that were similar to those we face today, overdosing people with toxic drugs that are given based on a single sign or symptom, or even worse, type of symptom, such as Avastin being given for various types of cancers.
      The problem with homeopathic drugs is that they can’t be patented, so they make nowhere near the money that patent medicines do. So the real issue here is not testing, its the capital interests of the producers being put ahead of the health interests of the public. Sound familiar?
      But I don’t read Adam and other critics of homeopathy having any ethical concerns about that.
      All I hear about here are these vague denials which seem to confuse clinical testing with tests for biological action. In other words, Adam is using taking the results from one clinical trial and and saying that it doesn’t demonstrate anything to his satisfation.
      Adam is either confused about what constitutes evidence for biological or is another flaming hyporcrite, probably both.
      But I don’t read Adam and other critics of homeopathy having any ethical concerns about that.


  2. AntiChildRape says:

    If homeopathy works, how come people taking massive overdoses of homeopathic “medicine” don’t notice anything whatsoever?


    • johnbenneth says:

      Could it be because they aren’t massive overdoses? Your side is always after us to use the scientific method, where’s yours? You talk about how useless anecdotal evidence is, then you start spouting it, using nothing but anecdotes to back up all your grade school superstitions about what you want everyone to believe is science. Why is it, that after every inspection, you always end up on the receiving end of your own charges, looking worse than what you portrayed us to be? For example, what do you mean by a massive overdose? Homeopathy is about trigering the healing process, not getting drunk, doped or drugged. What do think this is? A massive overdose of what?
      How do you know that the people who take these things ddon’t get horribly ill from them?
      James “the Amazing” Randi, Rik Adams’ sawed off little shill who started the overdose on homeopathy craze amongst you pseduoscientists, now has intestinal cancer. Surgeons removed a tumor the size of a grapefruit out of his guts. Now maybe it’s coincidental, maybe it’s from all the lies he’s swallowed, I don’t know, but this is a very important point: Randi has admitted to taking the most indicated homeopathic remedy there is for intestinal cancer, which is Arsenicum. Now maybe he didn’t know that out of the thousands of homeopathic remedies, Arsenicum is the most indicated one by cancer.

      Now I’ll answer your question. We homeopaths have noticed the same thing, that the greater amount of homeoathic pills given at any one time doesn’t seem to have a proportional effect . . in fact, it seems like one little pill has more of an immediate effect than the whole bottle does, when taken all at once. But the same thing is true with all effects involving molecular self assembly, like crystal growth. It requires one starting point so the transformation “runs” without interfering with parrallel assemblies. The peripheries from multiple starting points collide. You might liken it to the idea that too many cooks spoil the soup.
      Now, if you want to overdose, try taking one Belladonna pill once an hour for several days, the higher the potency the more aggravating the effects. Perhaps you’ll end up where you belong, in the nuthouse.
      BTW, I’ve seen the nasty little comments you’ve tried to post here, and barely let this one through only because it was a reasonable question. And if you’re really so interested in protecting children from rape, then go do the right thing with Randi, and give him my regards . . and don’t pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about.


  3. Rich says:

    Quit hating on homeopathy. Gotta thin the herd somehow. Homeopathy is a blessing. Let them have it.


  4. JakeD says:

    So if water has “memory”, does that mean that all water processed through a waste treatment facility contains feces? And if homeopathy is correct then the more dilute the waste water, the more feces it contains?

    Maybe I misunderstand homeopathy completely, but I don’t understand how highly diluted “desirable” active ingredients could be separated from undesirable ingredients. Could you enlighten me, John?

    – Jake


    • johnbenneth says:

      Yes, Jake, it’s simple. The opponents of homeopathy have essentially admitted that through homogeneous structuring around contaminants, water can maintain a memory, but the structuring, they claim, doesn’t last long enough to be of any use. The monkey wrench thrown into the “aqueous amnesia theory” is the clathrate.
      The second item is that homeoapthic solutions are made with more than just water, they’re made with ethanol, which fixes clathrates in solution, which can them transfer them to lactose sugar. No one has been able to disprove this item because clathrates are material facts.


  5. Bryan Benner says:

    You, John Benneth, are a charlatan and a hack. You couldn’t even get someone to peer-review your grammar. So you’re an illiterate charlatan and hack.

    Homeopathy is dangerous and kills people both dumber than yourself and also those smarter but more credulous.

    You are slowing the progress of mankind.

    At least placebos–when administered by real doctors in clinical settings with appropriate follow-up–are safe. There are many cashcow therapies to ride the coattails of placebo that don’t harm people. I might see you as a lesser snake if you championed ‘crystal healing therapy’ as supplement to doctor administered chemotherapy in treating cancer patients. Then maybe you would have the right to sleep at night in your bed laden with the dollar bills you’ve stolen from the credulous and hopeful.

    I hope you get malaria and when you are having multiple organ failure, I hope you continue to take your homeopathic dilutions faithfully.

    And if you were ever worth a thought in my mind, I might deliver a moment’s Mona Lisa smile when I thought of your unvisited grave and (un)necessary death.


    • johnbenneth says:

      Homeopathy is administered by real medical doctors. I know of several.
      At one time homeopathy was administered solely by medical doctors.
      The FDCA was sponsored by a homeopath who was also a medical doctor, Sen. Royal Copeland, MD, the former health commissioner for NYC duyring the kill erinfluenza outbreak of 1918, inwhich homeoapthy outperformed conventioanl medicine 10 to 1 in saving lives.
      Homeoapthic meidcine is an influnce, not an intervention likeallopathic drugs are. It canhelp alleivate the issues you list by simply reducing stress. It can also help by assisting in rebalncing the individual. it works on an emotional level aswell as a physical level.
      For instance, we have found Staphysagria to be helpfult o people who have been raped, ledum plaustre to help people who have suffered a puncture wound. It helps people to heal faster.
      But its a complex subject. It does take some unusual intelligence and a bit of study and patience to usnderstand it. Its a different way of thinking.
      And if I am everything you say I am, I am in good company. Many of the men and women throughout the ages who have used homeopathy have been of the highest character, integrity and intelligence.
      As I say to PZ Myers, if you are everything you imply yourself to be, then you will put homeopathy to a real test.
      Will you?


  6. Sandiseattle says:

    Loved it. Nice to see someone call these idiots on their shit. I go to PZs site mostly for amusement. Despite his tags, most article on the blog are not science.
    I do think homeopathy does need more research. But I’m not sure that I’d label Myers as a ‘pseudo’-scientist. Maybe a pseudoskeptic, as I would also apply that label to James Randi, Charlatan. Be suspicious of anyone who starts their critic of a subject with “i am a skeptic”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Helena Constantine says:

    Its just water. It doesn’t do any thing. It doesn’t work. No study has ever found any significant results. Are you laying to others to protect your income, or lying to yourself?

    If water has a memory of what was shaken up in it (do you still use a bible to strike the flask like Haeneman did?) as you claim, then it’s simple to prove. Take two unknown samples and reliably say what the water is remembering. Oh, you can’t do it? Oh, there isn’t even a theoretical basis by which such a thing could possibly be done? Poor baby.


    • johnbenneth says:

      You’re wrong Helen. Biochemical in vitro and biological in vivo testing has shown the action of high dilutes on numerous subjects. And phsyical distinctions have been observed by top material scientists, like Rustum Roy.
      Is that why you’re so angry? Poor baby!


  8. Just another Nice Post i will keep up with this one Nice Post mate and Happy 2011


  9. JB says:

    Hehe… funny guy. Love your subtle use of bold font and funny names…the very artistic and anatomically accurate pic really sealed it. And PZ likes it too!


  10. Miracle Healer says:

    Completely agree “Doctor” Benneth .

    But don’t worry, the more diluted scientific appraisal is for homeopathy, the stronger it will get!


  11. Funkydebunker says:

    Pardon my inability to speak in scientific jargon, as I am a complete moron. I just want to see if I understand something basic about the issue. When a homeopath proves a plant or whatever, they do it by giving it to a whole bunch of people. If a lot of those people get sick with symptoms smilar to a known disease, then the item has been proved. The theory goes that if you dilute this new thing by a huge amount, the fact that it mimics the symtoms of a disease will actually cure the disease. In fact, the more you dilute it, the stronger it gets! Now, as a total imbecile, I just can’t understand the numbers, language or reasoning in the scientific journals that people from both sides of the issue reference. However, it kind of sounds to me like the “Evil Pharma” test their poison on sick sheeple, which introduces too much chaos into the equation. A sick person could be that way due to a quantumn harmonic disturbance caused by the alien lizard overlords or something. So because you can’t know for sure if a person is sick or why, you can’t know if it was the the pill or something else that did the trick. If you test on healthy people, you have controlled for all unforseeable errors. I mean that’s Sesame Street version of the argument, isn’t it? I read recently (sorry no reference- moron)that oregano oil was supposed to be something wonderful. It was tested by isolating it and then adding it to a test tube of some thing nasty. However, that is not saying the same deal works when it enters the human body, because it gets digested and stuff. Maybe thats why “Evil Pharma” comes up with a new drug every few months- once the sample size is vastly increased the true worth of the drug is learned. Or maybe they just invent useless or even harmful drugs so that they can make a profit. Thank goodness that homeopaths are above such base motivations! Anyway, I don’t want to be a bother to all you smart folks, I was just wondering if I see the argument correctly. The thing is you see that in a homeopathic dilution, there is not the possibility of enough (or any) mollecules of the good stuff to do anything. So that would mean that if it worked it would have to be some other way. That is what I have trouble wrapping my tiny head around. However, the fact that we are uncertain about the method shouldn’t cause us to dismiss the evidence now should it? Now, although I posess a barely functional brain (or because), I still lean toward the scientific approach, which leads me to be very comfortable with uncertainty. You see, scientists are not in the business of providing certainty- that is the duty of our community, spiritual or moral leaders. I pay at the collection plate every Sunday, and leave very reassured. Scientists are like the ultimate macho man: they won’t commit to anything. The best you will ever get out of a scientist who is being truthful is that they have a certain percentage of confidence in a theory. Its all about probabilities and quantumn thingies, or so I am told. That is why it is a theory of evolution. The rational, scientific approach is to be open to the the possibility that new information will change what we think about how stuff works. If homeopthy were proven to work, think of how exciting it would be! Brand new vistas for scientists to explore, loads of new jobs, great for the economy…
    Anyway, I have already taken up too much of your time. Before I go, let me just ask if their is any real proof that this stuff works, and can anyone explain how it does work, if it does?


  12. Nate says:

    If I took that pic you made of PZ and put it into a glass of water and diluted to the right strength do you think it will treat this bad case of atheism I have. I really need some help this logical thinking is hurting my brain


  13. al Kafir says:

    “My name is John Benneth. I’m a homeopath.”

    Hi, John. Our 12-step program can help you..


  14. John A. Davison says:

    John Benneth

    I am disappointed that you didn’t publish my second message. I have reproduced it on my weblog on the “Welcome to my weblog” thread. I am used to being deleted or blocked so I use this device so I don’t waste my time composing messages that otherwise will never be read.

    I will go away now.


  15. Jimmy says:

    Hmmm… I wonder if my comments will be censored again for no reason… The best part about your Big-Scary-Evil-Pharma conspiracy theory is that it requires you believe that there’s not one person in a position of power at one single pharm company that either A). agrees with you or B) has enough of a conscience to circumvent their tyrannical, money-grubbing superiors and reveal the truth about the efficacy of homeopathy. That’s the hardest part of any conspiracy. It requires that you believe all involved were aware of the plot yet unwilling to speak out against it.

    It’s too easy to reach the masses these days to suggest some conscientious scientist with a twitter account wouldn’t just blow the whole conspiracy wide open in less than 140 characters.

    One person can reach the masses via the internet.


  16. Scott D says:


    Given that I came here from Myers’ site, you can count me as a skeptic. However I am a layperson, and often times various standard scientific terms at first go over my head, so I did a little more research on some of the basics. Sadly, MOST of the things that I have read, pro or con your position fail to sire sources, which seems to be the norm for most people and is often troubling. To your credit you have cited your sources, so know problem their. The difficult part for a lay person is then following up on those sources and evaluating them further.

    As a skeptic, one must always be skeptical of personal, systemic bias as well, and be open to the possibility of paradigm changing knowledge.

    All of that is rather beside the point however of my next statement. One of the non technical articles I read was the following from 2001:

    In the above article is the following:

    “Despite my reservations against the science of homoeopathy,” says Ennis, “the results compel me to suspend my disbelief and to start searching for a rational explanation for our findings.”

    What I am curious about is what, if any work has been done to find those “rational explanations”. If Benveniste made valid discoveries several decades ago, what follow on work has been done not just to corroborate, but to explain why these effects are NOT predicted by conventional scientific understanding.

    Can you clarify this for me?


    • johnbenneth says:

      Homeopathic remedies contain clathrates, nano crystalline inclusion molecules that have electromagneitc indices. The EM signal triggers the organism’s response.
      Montagnier “Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences.”
      Montangier used Benveniste’s equipment for signal detection. Montagnier is the Nobel prize winner for the discovery of the HIV virus.

      For follow up studies, as of 2007 there were 25 successful demontrations of basophil degranulation by high dilutes, done by different labs.

      Here’s a recent one:
      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.(2009)

      John Benneth, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)


      • Scott D says:


        Thank you for your response. I read the paper by Mr. Montagnier. Please continue to bear in mind that I am not a chemist or biologist, so certain terms go over my head, but I do believe I understand the crux of the study. That being said, I have the following questions.
        “An aliquot of the unfiltered supernatant did not show any signals above background up to the 10−38 dilution, in- dicating again the critical importance of the filtration step for the generation of specific signals.”
        can you clarify for me the filtration v dilution? how would one get a sufficiently dilute sample from a nondilute sample with a method other than filtration? Could this indicate that infact the filtration technique is causing or contributing to the effect?
        In addition, please clarify for me any distinction, if any between the documented dilution levels here and those in some of your proposals. It is my understanding that you claim that a sample diluted to such a state that not a single molecule of the original substance is likely to exist in the sample can still have an effect, and as related to this particular study, likely to be resultant from said EMS. Is there a difference between the dilution levels you propose and those documented in this study?

        “At the high dilution of 10−13, calculations indicate that there is no DNA molecule of MW larger than 105in the solution, making it unlikely that the EMS are produced directely by the DNA itself, but rather by the self-sustained nanostructures induced by the DNA.”
        Given that Montangier does not mention Clathrates, is this where your proposition of Clathrates comes into effect, that specific Clathrates are formed by specific DNA molecules and it is from these Clathrates that the EMS are emitted?

        “We have studied the decay with time of the capacity of dilutions for emitting EMS, after they have been removed (in mumetal boxes) from exposure to the excitation by the background. This capacity lasts at least several hours, some time up to 48 hours, indicating the relative stability of the nanostructures.”
        Has the apparent lifespan of this effect or propert ever been tested as the cause of other studies inability to show such effects?

        For what the source is worth(, in the section labeled “Legal Battle” there seems to be a legal battle regarding patents of the process described above, or related to such, whereby one of the central claims of conspiracy by pharmaceutical interests against homeopathy, in that there is no profit to be made are damaged, if not refuted. Do youy have any comments on this?

        -Scott Devlin


      • Helena Constantine says:

        Montagnier’s work concerns the electromagnetic detection of bacteria, nothing whatsoever to do with homeopathy. By citing this source you make it clear that you are lying and hoping your readers will either not bather to read the source, or will be too stupid to understand it.


        • johnbenneth says:

          You’re wrong, Helen. He’s studying the same dilutions, made by the same process of serial agitation and dilution usedin homeoapthy, using equipemnt designed by Benveniste, the notrious virologist who proved homeoapthy.
          Only the best scientists can put homepaa[thy to the test, for only the best scientists can afford to be attacked. Read my next blog, I address this issue in depth.


        • johnbenneth says:

          Dear Helena,
          Technically, Montagnier’s work is not directly about homeopathy, as homeopathy describes a particular way remedial agents are administered. WHat it is about is the action of the serial agitated dilutes of the type that are used in homeoapthic medicine. Does that make you feel better?
          And it is not the first study to reveal what it reports, nor is it the first study of its kind conducted by a scientist the caliber of Montagnier, nor will it be the last.
          So who really is against the progress of science, Helena? I suggest you are. The scientific method depends SOLELY on its approach to ideas that challenge the way we perceive how things works.
          The challenge to you Helena, is todrop your prejuices and start asking intelligent questions.
          John Benneth


  17. latsot says:

    Can you explain how PZ is a pseudoscientist and how that accusation isn’t libel?


      • Sir Craig says:

        And there you have it – an answer so diluted that it overwhelms any possible retort, or comprehension. This is how homeopathy works.

        Perhaps a bit of rewording is in order. “Doctor” Benneth: Would you please be so kind as to explain how you can refer to Dr. Myers as a “pseudoscientist” and think this does not constitute libel or slander, particularly when Dr. Myers’ c.v. seems a bit more impressive than your own? Seriously, this whole article is little more than a huge rant with a great number of ad hominems swimming about in it.

        I won’t hold my breath.


        • johnbenneth says:

          if you’re comparing CVs, how is Myer’s any better than that of Professors Rustum Roy’s, Brian Josephson’s, Luc Montagnier’s, William Tiller’s, Madeliene Ennis’ Gary Schwartz’, Martin Chaplin’s, Jean Louis Demangeat’s, Jean Boiron’s, Sainte-Laudy’s . . these are all academics with advanced degreesm, two of them Nobel prize winning physicists, who have all contributed to undertanding the physical, biochemical, biological studies of high dilutes? Id on'[t read these people dismissing each others work as the work of kooks, I don’t read them dismissing their own or pthers evidence at all, they take it quite seriously. SO eplain to me what it is that Myer’s CV possesses that gives hijm this abiloity to see the truth of the matter without having to really put anything to any eamination?
          How does he explain the phenomeon in his own professional terms? Myer’s is supposerd to be a biologist? Why is that he can voice anopinion on wha these substances are and what they can or can’tdo without having publsihe his own superior of them?
          Does this make any sense to you? Apparently it doesn’t. I’m simply looking at the evience you say isn’t there,andthis makes me like all the rest of these academics a kook?
          If it isn’t what we say it is, then show us the proof that it is what you say it is, whatever that is.
          And don’t give us this subjective extaordinary evidence line. Its only extraordinary to those who haven’t seen the evidence for it. Explain what it is to me in the terms you’ve chosen for it. It’s approved by the FDA, millions use it, so its quite real, it eists. Why?


  18. Protocollie says:

    Look, I’m just gonna throw it out here that even though you’re probably sitting at home right now smiling at your computer screen at the smackdown you think you’ve delivered to PZ, bolstered by the ass-pats you’re getting from your echo-chamber of stupidity, pretty much every intelligent person still things you’re a childish idiot.

    That’s really the crux of this – you can be as smug as you want, you can be as wrong as you want as loud as you want with as much imaginary proof as you want, but you’ll still never sway a single person of any significant degree of intelligence to your side since there’s no logic or factuality to it. So go on, attack PZ personally and draw silly pictures of him, but know that you’re pretty much no different from the Anti-Vaxxers drawing pictures of Steven Novela eating babies for thanksgiving. You’re a joke in the eyes of everyone capable of critically assessing evidence, and all you’re doing by promoting this nonsense is hurting like-minded people who could theoretically be your small-minded friends with whom you meet weekly for tea and to chat about the latest study promoting new-earth creationism or the supposed efficacy of acupuncture or whatever other rot it is that stupid people like to talk about.

    If you ever sit down and assess your position in a logical manner then we’ll all be waiting over here with cake, pie and good medical care. Up until that point, please, you’d be best served by sitting down and thinking these silly things on your own, quietly.


  19. John A. Davison says:

    John Benneth

    Myers will not be fired because the entire academic community is dominated by left wing radicals who are congenitally unable to even imagine a role for any higher power in any aspect of the living world. Look at Myers’ motto –

    “random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.”

    I too called for the University of Minnesota Provost, Board of Trustees and Governor Pawlenty to at least censure this character assassin. No action ensued and Myers flaunted my letter secure that no action would be taken. We live in a world devoid of morality as never before. A generation ago Myers could not have prevailed. Today he has become an admired cult leader and so has Dawkins. They celebrate one another’s birthdays!

    This warped little pervert seeks only notoriety just as does his alter ego Dawkins across the pond. Go to Pharyngula and click on the red A (for atheism) and discover Dawkins exhorting recruits to “come out” and join in his frantic atheist “movement.” My God, they are peddling Tshirts, coffee mugs, bumper stickers, even jewelry all adorned with the big red A for atheism. Neither of these clowns are scientists and neither are their cowardly, pseudonymous, sycophantic minions.

    I see this blog too has its share of those who must hide their indentities as they freely condemn their named adversaries. I have no truck with such cowardice and discourage it on my weblog. Pseudonymy is nothing but therapy for the intellectually insecure and the mentally ill, both of which conditions typify Paul Zachary Myers and Clinton Richard Dawkins. Their blogs teem with pseudonymous blowhards, terrified at the prospect of becoming known. Scientopia, Panda’s Thumb, Uncommon Descent, Sandwalk, After the Bar Closes and Scienceblogs are no better. Myers, Elsberry and Dawkins play upon those poor dupes to support their hideous agenda which is to destroy the basis of Western Civilization. The Myers, Elsberry, Dawkins triumvirate represents the principle obstacle to the advance of evolutionary science in the English speaking world. Without their armies of illiterate sheep they would be nothing. With them they are doomed to oblivion. It is just a matter of time.

    I recommend you mention your pseudonymous users and pay little attention to what they say and if they continue with their cowardly behavior, ban them from further commentary. Only then will you have a productive discussion. It works for me. Of course, being a scientist, I don’t seek a fan club and can’t think of a real one who ever did. Can anyone?

    Good luck.


    • Ohnhai says:

      Ahhh John. I wondered where you had crawled off to after you departed the RDF forum of old…. No! Wait… I didnt..


    • Michael Clark says:

      John Davison – Saying Myers, Elsberry, and Dawkins each have an agenda to destroy the basis of Western Civilization has no proof at all. Even going with blatant speculation, why would they desire to destroy Western Civilization? So they can take over and rule as dictators? Honestly, being a scientist and having a college freshman see through your ridiculous statements is kind of sad.
      John Benneth – The fact you are calling a doctor of biology a pseudo scientist is laughable. Also, did you have proof that Randi switched the evidence during those experiments?


  20. Prophet Zarquon says:

    I’m itching to take one of the studies cited above (the abstract) apart (How was the randomisation done? Has nobody realised that it is extremely easy to find false positive results with a group of 21 people, who are then grouped even further? Etc, etc.) However, my main problem with homoeopathy isn’t the appalling lack of proper research; it’s in the lack of any plausible mechanism for how it could work. Basic chemistry teaches us that molecules exist in discrete quantities, and that dilution to homoeopathic levels ultimately results in solvent, with a minute probability of even a single molecule remaining. Can you explain how that works?


  21. Annie says:

    I haven’t viewed your video or read your publications, but I can tell by your declaration that Myers saying you’re wrong is HATE SPEECH, that you have very little understanding of what words actually mean. So I’m not going to bother.


    • johnbenneth says:

      What do you mean you’re not going to bother? You just did! And are you saying that Prof. Myers is actually considering the evidence by his colleagues, like Professors Roy, Tiller, Hoover, Bell to NOT be the work of kooks? He takes it seriously? Are you saying that Myer’s is actually considering the work of ennis, Belon, Sasinte-Laudy, Poitevin and others to be of real consequence?
      Are you saying that Myers is going to engage Nobelist Professor Josepshon in a reasonable dialgoue about this. He’s going to sit with Professor Schwartz and diuscuss thae data ina arreaoanble way.
      He’sgoing to look at the 15 years bioloical evience reported by WIlliam E. Boyd, studies designed by Barbour scholars and overseen by Professor Sir Gowland Hopkins?
      He’s going to replciate the work of Nobelist Luc Montagnier? he’s goihng to read the work of Jean Louis Demangeat, anhd throw that aise too?
      He;’sgoint to carefully consider every biochmeical study that rated above a 6 on the SAPEH scale in the WItt review and trash it as being below his level of competence?
      Is that right? Fill in me Annie.
      Where and how am I supposed to form my opinion of this subject? By trying to verify my own personal experiences with scientiic reports done by people with advanced degrees, such as a scientists like Rustum Roy, who published over 1000 papers, or by listening to you and people who only have ane pressed opinion about it, who don’t seem to have done any eamination of it at all except what they’ve heard is the theory against it? Nasty little fould mouthed ankle biters who can only say that the work for it is not any good?
      What a hyprocrite you are.


  22. Eric C. says:

    As another comment has asked:

    1) If this “homeopathy” is so effective and grand, why hasn’t big pharm jumped in to reaped to financial rewards?

    2) Give us the scientific, peer reviewed, published in credible journals, double blind and repeated results. Can’t find them?

    I thought not.


    • johnbenneth says:

      Dear Eric C. The naivete of your first question explains the ignorance of your second. FDA regulated homeopathics are traditional medicines and are not patentable, so there is little money to be made off them. The patent drug industry was conviccted the RICO Act last year for bribing doctors to murder people with untested drugs, and fined four million dollars. They shrugged it off. THAT they can afford. But they can’t afford competition from homeopathy, which can put them out of business if the word gets out that it is effective.
      Despite the bias agaisnt homeopathy which can be found against most publications, there have been reports of successful trials published in peer reivewed journals. Google:
      Malik- Scientific Research in Homeopathy
      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

      Here’s an example of one 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, MBC; Wolfgang Strösser, MD, MBC; Peter Klein, MS
      Google it.

      You know, I hear statemenets like yours a lot, Eric C. “There’s NO scientific, peer reviewed, published in credible journals, double blind and repeated results. Can’t find them? I thought not.”
      You ask the the question snidely and then hastily answer it for yourself and run away. It reveals your mindset, which PeeZee caters to.
      I have never heard anyone, when they pose that question admit that they’re wrong, even though anyone can now see that they are. Instead they do one of two things, they either go into denial, and start changing the acccusation to new criteria, or they slink off and say nothing more.
      Which is it going to be for you?
      I bet you slink off and we never hear from you again.
      John Benneth


      • Ellie says:

        Of course you’ve never heard anyone pose that question admit they were wrong: you’ve never presented them with the evidence they requested.

        Why would Eric C bother commenting again when you ignored his question the first time?

        So go on then, you say you have the evidence, I’m listening…


      • Cornwallis Shiply says:

        Hey dude what about the countries (most of them besides the US) that have socialized / government sponsored health care? Wouldn’t it make a lot of sense for them to find the cheapest way to cure people? Wouldn’t it make sense that they would try anything that actually worked, especially if it was cheap/free?


        • johnbenneth says:

          Absolutely, and in such countries the government pays for homeoapthic treatment. Didn’t you know that? In Britain it is part of the National Health Service, and it drives the usual horde of pseudoscientists and skeptics over there stark raving bonkers!
          In Cuba over FOUR MILLION (4,800,000) doses of homeopathic medicines were administered by the government there to stop the annual leptospirosis epidemic at a fraction of the cost of conventional vaccination, and performed dramatically better . .


          • Mr Z says:

            Please explain these vaccines you speak of for an annual human leptospirosis epidemic in Cuba. If you are talking about this: I can’t see where there is a good control for this test. Results may have been skewed for a number of reasons: information/education in the test region, lack of similar conditions in the test region etc.

            But again, what human vaccine are you talking about?


          • Michael Clark says:

            Can you show the proof that shows the homeopathic medicines were more effective than the traditional medication? Just curious.


  23. Paul Burnett says:

    There are numerous photographs of PZ Myers available on the intenet. The childish scribble labeled “PZ Myers, Pseudoscientist” bears no resemblance to these photographs. Can you explain the difference, and the reason(s) for the difference? If you feel the crude scribble of Dr. Myers is factual, can you see any impact on your contention that homeopathy is factual?


  24. John A. Davison says:

    Paul Zachary Myers and Clinton Richard Dawkins are both miserable failures as practicing scientists who have turned against the Judeo/Christain ethic which allows their sociopathy to exist. In Russia they would be in a Siberian Gulag, in China dead. They are insecure hateful ideologues who seek only notoriety and power for themselves whatever the cost, Dawkins lives in a fantasy world entirely of his own construction. Myers is nothing but a character assassin. Neither has ever presented a scintilla of scientific progress on the great mystery of organic evolution. They are driven by their congenital atheism which blinds them to any explanation not compatible with Darwin’s atheist inspired Victorian fantasy. Like Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr before them they continue to attack every aspect of Western Civilization because they enjoy destroying the structures built by others, something they are incompetent to do themselves. They are a clear and present danger to scientific progress and have managed to attract thousands of like minded adoring disciples mostly pseodonymous cowards who all suffer from the same congenital defects.

    “Birds of a feather flock together.”

    “Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed.”
    Thomas Henry Huxley

    Get on with it!


    • johnbenneth says:

      Dear John Davidson — Thank you for a statement that is beautiful, elegant and oh so true.

      John Benneth


    • the Truth says:

      John, your claims seem to be a very good representation of character assassination upon Mr Myers.
      Can you back them up with evidence, or are we to take what you say on faith?

      As for the Huxley quote about people adopting a creed, is there a particular reason this is being used specifically to attack scientists and bloggers who have turned away from the Judeo/Christian creed?
      This seems a bit hypocritical.


      • johnbenneth says:

        Dear “the Truth” –
        Interesting that you would claim to be the truth and then give a flasse email address.
        If Myer’s character gets assassinated over this, its not my fault.


    • Chris says:


      I don’t have anything original to say to that, so I’ll just quote the owner of this webpage:

      “Most of the comments I get here are from fools like you, who have little more to say than ad hominems, insults, put downs, denials, lies, etc.”


    • Thumbnail says:

      If Atheism is congenital then may Dawkins and Myers breed like motherfucking rabbits. I certainly hope it’s a trait that my children will inherit from me. Atheism is the rational response to a total lack of solid evidence for the existence of any kind of supernatural being. Oh and don’t ask me to ‘prove’ it, I’m not the one making the assertion that a mythological skyfairy created the universe, the burden of proof lies on with the Religious to substantiate their claim. Much like homeopathy, astrology, new ageism and all the other bullshit practitioners. So far I’ve yet to see anything convincing.


      • johnbenneth says:

        Dear Thumbnail – WHat you say is quite understandable, as I haven’t seen anything to convince me of what you’re claiming, either. As you seem to be marrying anti homeoapthy to atheism, let me ask you, is there a state of being? Let me see if I can understand your position here. Are you saying that at one time there was a state of non-existence, of non being? If existence “began,” if it had a starting “time” what preceded it? Nothing? From a completely scientific, objective point of view, what preceded the big bang, and what before that?
        How is something obtained from nothing?
        At wht point do we admit we’re of our league?
        A similar point remains with homeoapthy. I can just as easily say that the science does convince me, especially when it is marrie to my personal observations. It serves me, I see it serve others, I see it bought and sold, it is FDA regulated . . so it does exist.
        The challenge then is to explain how it is that this phenomenon exists in scientific terms. We’re saying that it has biological action, that we’ve seen the evidence for it in vivo and in vitro action, and that we can see physical distinctions in it as well.
        What are you saying? How is it that homeoapthy exists globally? WHat are its dimensions? How many people use it and why? If you think that its effects are psychogenic, what evidence do you havae of that?
        As a matter of perspective, how much plutonium does it take to kill a man, and from what distance? How is that skin turns brown and syntheizes vitamin D from sunlight? How does radio work over such vast distances?
        All of these things are quite self evident, aren’t they? Some things we know to be true from experience, other things we are told.
        So, have you ever experienced homeopathy? What gives you the authority to pass judgment on it and me?
        It’s FDA approved, why shouldn’t I use it as prescribed?


  25. Harold says:

    Were you actually confident about your position on this matter, there would be no reason for you to censor comments. As it is, however, you are no doubt doing so in order to soothe your own cognitive dissonance. Your ego probably couldn’t survive your arguments being skewered in your own comment section either.


    • johnbenneth says:

      Dear Harold — Most of the comments I get here are from fools like you, who have little more to say than ad hominems, insults, put downs, denials, lies, etc. But if you have something intelligent to say, I’d be happy to give it a go here. I’d be happy to publish it and respond, but this isn’t your graffitti board. You don’t have a right to publish your nasty comments bespoiling the author on new book jackets, do you? No, and you don’t have a right to publish your comments here, except at my pleasure. Do you understand that? Good! Now go write trot along and write your own meanfingless, stupid blog, full of your hate and lies. No one’s stopping you.


  26. stay classy, john.


  27. Michael Dean says:

    I am a high school chemistry teacher.
    I HAVE conducted research in a universty lab setting.
    I am not in the employ of ANYONE with an bias on this issue.
    All *I* care about it truth and education.

    1) There is no reputable evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy beyond a placebo effect. All positive evidence consists of subjective opinions, anecdotes, etc. Show me a CONTROLLED, DOUBLE-BLIND study…the gold standard.

    2) FOR THOUGHT: IF homeopathy were effective, wouldn’t “big pharma” hop on that bandwagon for the profits????? Why haven’t they???? They did it for things like Aspirin (oak bark) and digitalis (foxglove) among others….and if they are so evil, why would they not sell snake oil if they could?

    3) There is no demonstable mechanism through which for homeopathy to work, especially in such minute doses. Efficacy usually follows a bell-curve (although the exact dosage varies with the drug)

    4) Science is the process of viciously weeding out false ideas, leaving the good ones. It is not hate speech…it is Science. Put up or shut up…(see #1)

    5) “The Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. Read it. YOU are the textbook example of a psudo-scientist, who refuses to admit error and bias, a paranoid individual who sees everyone against him as part of a conspiracy, the snake oil salesman with the miracle cure who uses misdirection, language, lies, and emotion to peddle his wares. Your arguments are the same as those for ESP, Alien abductions, and Scientology….

    6) What is the name for alternative treatments that have been shown to be safe and effective in scientific studies? Medicine.


    • Kaviraj says:

      1. Michael, there are 200 studies and several so-called gold standard RCt’s done with homoeopathy where it performs significantly better than placebo. That you are ignoring them is declaring your ignorance by your own admission. The ignorant can sometimes be educated but your strident tone of the bully does not give the impression of having the capacity to learn. You know it all already, of course. Making statements is not science.

      2. Your placebo argument has stumbled, fallen and broken its legs, after which it got run over by a truckload of 450 animal studies and over 100 plant studies. It is dead as an argument. Plants and animals do not labour under placebo effects.

      2. The RCT I have demolished as less than manure standard below, when it comes to both the quality of the test and the results, which are skewed by 2 uncontrollable variables and by one controllable, in 92% undeclared variable, employed to skew results in one direction. JAMA and BMJ consider RCTs completely unreliable for pharmaceutical drugs.

      3. Those same plant and animal test prove your assertion to be just that – bluff. Efficacy does not follow a bell curve, as the original tests by Arndt-Schulz will clearly show, but a sinus wave. You talk pharmaceutical distortion of the original law. How much they pay you for this drivel?

      4. I have shown you some science. Put up or shut up.

      5. “The Organon of medicine.” Read it.You are the textbook example of the drunk in the pub, who tries to over-shout those who know something, with so-called science and has nothing to back his claims up.

      6. what is the name for the guys who clean the labs? The janitor. Go back to sweeping and leave the adults to discuss science.


      • Matt says:

        And yet you provide no link for these apparent 200 double blind studies (you just made a statement.. which is not science.. as you said). Please provide a reference.


        • johnbenneth says:

          I can give you one. Look at the list of studies put together by Dr. Nancy Malik:
          Malik- Scientific Research in Homeopathy
          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.
          But if you would hve actually read the article, you would have noticed that Prof. Ennis claims to have found 1300 references in studies in Pub Med. WHy not go there and browse?
          See, it’s all before you. Stop listening to the stooges for the pharmaceutical industry, like Myers, and do some real research of your own. I’ts practically all available on the web. All you need is Google.

          BTW, Kaviraj is a world class homeopath. He alone is proof homeopathy works. He has treated countless thousands of people in India, Australia, the UK, Canada and other countries, people with diseases like AIDS and cancer. He worked in Haiti treating earthquake victims this last year. He also is the author of “Homeopathy for Farm and Garden,” the best selling book on agrohomeopathy.
          I will brook no disrespect of him here. If you have a question for him, ask it politely, otherwise it won’t get through.
          John Benneth, PG Hom. London (Hons.)


      • MadGav says:

        “JAMA and BMJ consider RCTs completely unreliable for pharmaceutical drugs.”

        Could you please provide links to support this?


      • Michael Dean says:

        That is a too much time that I will NEVER get back, but the hallmark of critical thought is keeping an open mind (but not so open that your brain falls out).

        1) “Studies and RCTts” do not constitute conclusive evidence unless controlled for experimenter bias…that’s WHY double-blind matters. And meta-studies of flawed studies are likewise flawed.

        2) With very good reason…all researchers have bias, no matter how small, and a failure to control for it (especially when the bias is large) will result the expected results. Strange that I often had to do additional research to find that researchers are “believers” and had this large bias going in.

        3) Accusing me of being “in the pay?” Paranoia. Again, experimenter bias, lack of objective measurements (symptoms or appearance), and just plain fraud account for almost all of the positive results.

        4) No, you haven’t. You have shown misdirection, confimation bias, ignorance of basic research principles, paranoia, ad hominem attacks, and (if I read the DSM IV correctly) possible psychosis (although the DSM is too vague, IMO)

        5) Some interesting ideas there, but…still not science.

        6) Resorting to insults? I refuse to waste my time with YOU. I think that you are beyond thinking rationally about homeopathy and NOTHING will convice you that you are wrong. I respond only for those who might otherwise be convinced by your theatrics. And, in my case, I clean my own lab…I told you, I am a teacher…


    • johnbenneth says:

      Michael Dean . . .

      1. Here’s a controlled, clinical double blind study that was published in a 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

      Double-blind, placebo-controlled homeopathic pathogenetic trials: symptom collection and analysis.
      Dominici G, Bellavite P, di Stanislao C, Gulia P, Pitari G.
      Centro Omeopatico Vescovio, p.zza Vescovio 7, Rome, Italy.
      BACKGROUND: Homeopathic pathogenetic trials (provings) are fundamental to homeopathy. Since most of the data from available provings have not been statistically evaluated, it is unclear how specific reported symptoms are and how they differ from those reported by people taking placebo. METHOD: We combine and analyse data from two different homeopathic pathogenic trials–including 10 and 11 provers, respectively, and both including 30% placebo-to test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the number of symptoms in placebo and verum groups. RESULTS: The principal results were: Placebo reported less symptoms than verum groups. Symptom distribution according to predefined classes (common symptoms increased in intensity and/or duration-, cured, old, new and exceptional) was statistically different between placebo and verum group at a high level of significance (P<0.001). Compared to verum, placebo provers reported less new and old but more common (increased in duration or intensity) symptoms. Within repertory categories, other differences were detected. The two groups differ in terms of the duration of each symptom and kinetics of symptoms: most symptoms were more persistent in verum than in placebo groups and verum provers recorded a decreasing number of symptoms with time. Placebo provers did not show such a temporal pattern. CONCLUSIONS: If confirmed by other studies these results would demonstrate the non-equivalence between homeopathic medicines in high dilution and placebo and contribute to the improvement of proving methodology and evaluation.

      Homeopathic Individualized Q-potencies versus Fluoxetine for Moderate to Severe Depression: Double-blind, Randomized Non-inferiority Trial.
      Adler UC, Paiva NM, Cesar AT, Adler MS, Molina A, Padula AE, Calil HM.

      Here are a list of meta analyses and reviews of pre-clinical and clinical trials. All ofthem re reerenced online, many are full text.
      2009 FISHER: Homeopathy: the Evidence from Basic Research Memorandum submitted to Parliament
      2009 FISHER: Annual Evidence Update on Homeopathy. NHS
      2007 JOHNSON: Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? Am J Pharm Educ. Goto full article
      2007 WITT: The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med. Goto abstract
      2005 Shang: Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet Goto abstr.
      2003 BECKER-WITT Quality Assessment of Physical Research in Homeopathy. J Alt Comp Med Abstract
      2003 JONAS- A Critical Overview of Homeopathy Annals of Internal Medicine
      2001 LINDE Systematic reviews of complementary therapies – an annotated bibliography. Part 3: homeopathy. “While the evidence is promising for some topics the findings of the available reviews are unlikely to end the controversy on this therapy.” BMC Complement Altern Med. PUBMED
      2000 CUCHERAT: Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Euro J Clin Pharm Goto review ; PUBMED abstract
      1997 LINDE: Are the Clinical Effects of Homeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo. Lancet 1997; 350: 834–43 Goto article
      1994 LINDE: Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of Serial Agitated Dilutions in Experimental Toxicology Abstract; PDF
      1991 KLEIJNEN: Clinical Trials of Homeopathy Goto full article
      1984 SCOFIELD: Experimental research in homœopathy—a critical review Abstract

      Here is an online google.knol that links ouit to many online references, stuies, tests, trials:

      Malik- Scientific Research in Homeopathy
      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.

      Now let me tell you why you should be teaching. You have just made a fool of yourself. YOuhave vilaated your own creed. You have forcefully stated what you convinced yourself was a fact without first reading the literature on the subject, studies that any one of your students can now find and make a fool of you with.
      You took this as a license to come on to my blog and try to insult me in front of your students, characterizing me and any MD like Sentor royal COpeland, MD, sponsor of the FDCA, anyone who practices this modality of medicine as idiots and frauds.
      And yet now look at you. You said there is no reputable evidence for homeoapthy beyond the placebo effect, yet you have qualified your remark ad hominen, because now you are in the position of taking on your betters an calling them disreputable. Same thing with Myers. You probaably learned it from him, didn't you?
      To contnue your stupid argument now, you must characterize Nobel laureates such as Josephson and Montagnier and material scientists such Rustum Roy and William Tiller et al, who have put fprward theories or found evidence for homeoapthy, as DISREPUTABLE.
      Now who's starting to look disreputable? You are. Did you know that there are material scientists who are studying this? No of course not. You're to busy shooting your mouth off to learn anything.
      Go get another job, you fraud.
      2. FDA regulated, homeopathic drugs can't be patented, so the drug companies can't screw you with them like they do with their patented poisons that have now become one of the leading causes of death in the US.
      3. There IS a demonstrable mechanism, you just don't want to believe there is. According to Professor Martin Chaplin of London South Bank Univerrsity, water does store and transmit information through its hydrogen bonded network, and there are numerous methodds to demonstrate it. Look at supramolecular chemsitry for more information.
      4. I did just put up. WHat you seem to have so hyprocritcally missed is that you are putting forward untested assertions. You have yet to explain the action of of how homeopathy works as a placebo, what a placebo is, and how powerful the placebo effect is. According to some authorities, it is very powerful, so if homeopathy is to be equated with it by you, then you need to establish what that variable is and how to falisfy it. for instance, how is it that homeoapthy is able to affect plants and animals if it is a placebo? But then again, you haven't told us what you think placbeo is, that's your aescape hatch, isn't it?
      5. How do you know? You're making all of these assertions, similar to the assetions you say I make that qualify me as a pseudoscientist, yet you offer no definitive test of it or any curisoity to repplicate a phshyial or biological test of it yourself. You just want to sit back and scoff at others who report findings and cheer on those who find nothing. I have provided you with refernces to online studies that demonstrate the pre-clinical and clinical effects of homeopathy, and have done my best to present my research in lectures in the UK (Cavendish and Hahnemann College) and here online in video, website and blog. I've reported on the work of world famous scientists that supports the intrinsic capablities of these substaances as supramoelcular. And this qualifies me as a nut?
      Listen, I'd be happy to appear in a debate with you young man, in public or in front of your students, and then in front of your principal, because I don't think you should be teaching the scientific method,and there are better people than you who need the work. Obviously you haven't learned it yet. What you're teaching is "scientism." YOu put your answers ahead of the questions, and you're teaching your students to do the same. Because I can see your mindset, I predict you would fall to pieces within minutes. You don't have anything, nothing, to prove your assertions.
      6.) Homeoapthic medicine.

      If you wnat to keep your job, put it to the test. At your school, in front of your students, put it to the test on plants. Put it to the test on yeast. Test it on fish. Conslult respectfully with an expert like Kaviraj, or you will never get anywhere and I assure you, with such bigotry in your soul, you will lose your job.

      John Benneth, PG Hom. London (Hons.)


  28. J James says:

    It appears that no one has been able to replicate this “Ennis” study that you trumpet. Why not?

    And please work on your grammar and punctuation. It was very difficult to get though the first third of your post.


    • johnbenneth says:

      Read the post again. You missed the reference to Witt and the search Ennis did on Pubmed. According to the Witt review, the basophil degranulation in vitro has been replicated at least 25 times. So you were wrong about that. Ennis was part of a multi centered study. She and other laboratories performed replications of a test that had been done repeatedly by others.
      Now, the reason you were wrong is because you were getting your information from people like PZ Meyers.
      It might also behoove you to take a look at some of your other assumptions.
      Look at the work by Sainte Laudy and Belon. Read the WItt review. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—–A systematic review of the literature Claudia M. Witta,∗, Michael Bluthb, Henning Albrechtc, Thorolf E.R. Weißhuhna, Stephan


      • Interesting. A search of Pubmed brings up no such review in any medical journal. What journal was it published in? If I was a suspicious person, the act of citing a work without identifying the journal it was published in was willful obfuscation.

        And who cares about in vitro experiments? The proof is in the pudding, double-blinded, randomized, controlled clinical studies, as one commenter has already told you (except he forgot the ‘randomized’).


        • johnbenneth says:

          Dear Shamelessly Atheist- If you’re referring to the Malik collection, its online as a Google knol. It’s a collection of what it says it is, not a review. Just drop it in the Google search line and you’ll find it, and you can read the studies for yourself.
          Here it is again . .
          Malik- Scientific Research in Homeopathy
          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


  29. David says:

    Yes, fire PZ Myers from his role at Merck (or which ever company he work for). Let’s see how long he can keep writing his blog without that six-figure paycheck to support his industry-favouring public relations rants.


  30. Shyft says:

    If homeopathy works show me the double blind studies. That’s all there is to it. If you cannot do this then PZ is right to call you out.


  31. Kaviraj says:

    I propose we take the RCT apart.
    A medicine is tested on sick people, who suffer from a vaguely defined “disease”.

    1. The disease is the first unknowable factor, which has influence on the outcome, because it masks the action of the pharmaceutical drug in an unknown manner.

    2. The unknown side effects of the medicine, equally masked in an unknown manner and degree by the disease.

    3. The “placebo”, which is almost never declared. In the case of diabetes where sugar was used, it influenced the outcome favourably for the drugs. That is a bias that goes unmentioned.

    Conclusion: The RCT as a test for any efficacy of any drug is practically useless, since non-verifiable unknown factors skew the results either this or that way. There is no certainty and the test is as double blind as the scientists who conduct them.

    See, you quasi skeptics, that is skepticism. Moreover, it is on the basis of science, and not a bean-counter’s conclusion. We discusss the scientific basis of the RCT and discover the unknown variables make it completely unreliable!

    Opposed to that, Hahnemann, who was the inventor of the original double blind, developed the testing on the healthy, where no disease can mask any outcomes and “side effects” are therefore real effects. A medicine is only a medicine if it can influence the state of health on any level.

    This principle is used in provings and in which effects of medicines can be established with certainty. It is the only way in which medicines should be tested.

    Therefore, unlike with pharmaceutical drugs, where uncertainty has been elevated to scientific principle, we need not come up with new drugs every 3 months because the previous was a disaster.

    Homoeopathy has tried and trusted medicine, which is as useful today as it was 200 years ago. That is scientific, because science is supposed to provide certainty.


  32. Kaviraj says:

    I propose we take the RCT apart.
    A medicine is tested on sick people, who suffer from a vaguely defined “disease”.

    1. The disease is the first unknowable factor, which has influence on the outcome, because it masks the action of the pharmaceutical drug in an unknown manner.

    2. The unknown side effects of the medicine, equally masked in an unknown manner and degree by the disease.

    3. The “placebo”, which is almost never declared. In the case of diabetes where sugar was used, it influenced the outcome favourably for the drugs. That is a bias that goes unmentioned.

    Conclusion: The RCT as a test for any efficacy of any drug is practically useless, since non-verifiable unknown factors skew the results either this or that way. There is no certainty whatsoever and the test is as double blind as the scientists who conduct them.


  33. masterelectric3 says:

    EEZEE PEEZEE smacks of SLEEZEE…… Big Pharma who wants everybody to believe they can’t be “healthy” without consuming VAST AMOUNTS of expensive and poisonous pharmaceuticals. How could the inconsequential citizen with normal intelligence possibly know what is best for them? Such traitorous assumptions would start to chisel away at the foundation of one of the biggest SCAMS every built in our common history. *GASP*



  34. MadGav says:

    The final line of Ennis’ conclusion makes it clear that, at least in her mind, there are still questions to be answered, specifically: “How much of the effect is due to artifacts remains to be investigated.”
    “After standardization of a number of parameters, it is recommended that a multi-centre trial be performed to hopefully put an end to this “never-ending story”.”

    So – not proven.


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 )

Connecting to %s