Homeopath challenges skeptics with homeopathic date rape drug

Homeopaths and their desperate opponents . . who interminably deny homeopathy’s effects . . have been at each other’s throats now for several weeks on a blog by a notorious homeopathy hater.

Homeopathy is, of course (much to the horror of the medical establishment)  curative medicine, an alternative treatment that has been working quite successfully for people who either can’t afford, and/or have been screwed by, the common brands of what pretend to be medicine.

The blog in question is on a site especially reserved for health professionals. The title of the offending article is entitled “Stop the teaching of pseudoscience,” and I certainly applaud the idea if it means the author will shut up; it does the school where he holds a chair no credit to have a man in their employ noted for endlessly publishing self-referencing studies.

The name of this hater of real medicine is Edzard Ernst, a fake professor of “Complementary Medicine” at the University of Exeter’s Peninsular Medical School, apparently another shill for the phony medical racket that now dominates health  care in the Western world.

So far it has broken all attendance records on the PULSE site as small team of intrepid homeopaths and their supporters, armed with evidence and logic, are confronting myths about homeopathy and the mythomaniacs that tell them.

Most interesting in all of this is a challenge issued by Roger Barr, an Australian homeopath, who has suggested that to end the argument, skeptics put homeopathy to the test . . on themselves.

Here’s commentary on Ernst’s PULSE blog by Oliver Dowding, a dairyman who has used homeopathy extensively on his herds, in which he reasserts homeopath Roger Barr’s challenge to skeptics . . on Ernst’s PULSE blog . . to more or less engage in a bit of a proofing using Stramonium, Eagle and Scorpion . . to which I’ve added a fourth remedy .

DOWDING: Roger Barr challenged those of you such as Simon Barker, and others are sceptical disposition, to undertake the following trial. All I’ve seen is trite dismissal of the challenge is being something of an irrelevance. I don’t remember the exact words used, but I believe it went along the lines of its pointless because there’s nothing in it. Should that be the case, you’ll be absolutely fine, so why don’t you use your mouth and try these remedies as directed, it would be interesting to see whether you get the same reaction as Roger’s lawyer whom he challenged. I’m sure you’ll be absolutely fine, because as you say, and I’m sure you must believe in your own argument, there’s nothing in the remedies being offered. Should you refuse to answer this, or should you refuse to take up the challenge, I think we’ll all have to take that as indicating you fear that you might be wrong, and there could be something to homoeopathy after all, and you don’t want to be the one who learns the hard way. I’ll look forward to your response to this specific point, and this point only, as raised by Roger, which I’ve copied in case you’ve lost it in the threads. You can answer all other points in a separate reply. Roger said, 2.9.11, “I would urge anyone skeptical of homeopathy to do a proving of a homeopathic remedy. Best to do it with a supervisor but it can be done on your own. Just take a remedy in an ultra-dilute potency, say 12C up to 30C just so you can be especially skeptical, once a day for 7 days. Do something “fun” like Stramonium, or Eagle, or Scorpion! Report back. I challenged a lawyer who was quite skeptical and actually legally attacking homeopathic pharmacies. After the proving he stopped such activity. Enjoy. After it drives you crazy we will let you know how to stop the process.”
———-

Now, MY suggestion for a remedy to challenge sketpics to try is one I just put to the test. It’s called fluoricum acidum (fl. ac.) i.e. homeopathic fluoride. It just so happens that I decided to put it to the test, on myself, when a week ago  I tried ONE (1) little pellet of it for a study of fluoride, for an article I’m writing on it.

Well, I sure got my money’s worth . .

Among several mental symptoms that affected my behavior, such as suddenly becoming happy go lucky, and caving in to a bottle of whiskey, I noticed a sensitivity in my teeth, and I didn’t like it one bit. It’s still hanging on in my front teeth after a week.

The feeling is that it didn’t do me any good. Thank God I took it only once!

HOMEOPATHIC DATE RAPE DRUG

Fl. ac. has some other unusual symptoms in the category of hypersexuality, narcissism, paranoia  and debauchery, like satyriasis for the gentlemen, or for the ladies, nymphomania, and alcoholism for all of us together, in an orgy I presume, as it reportedly imparts extraordinary pleasure in coition . . and after it’s all over, a self-satisfied feeling while entertaining the delusion of being surrounded by enemies; the sudden desire to break off the engagement, fire the servants, chase the children out of the house and end the marriage . . tireless strength is given as a bonus, the ability to exercise the limbs perpetually.

And why shouldn’t it have these symptoms, for it is what is most commonly used in as an anti-depressant. Fluorine is the main active ingredient in fluoxetine drugs such as Prozac. A Brailian study actually compared fluoxetine to homeopathi treatment and found them equivalent in effectiveness, which considering the contras, makes homeopathy hands down superior.

Oh, did I mention it causes atrophy of the brain? Yes, recent studies have shown it actually lowers I.Q.  in chidlren. the health authorities are now recommending that baby formula not be made with tap water, since most of it now has fluoride in it.

It’s especially hard on the kidneys. It destroys them. Then the body is unable to excrete the stuff and it builds up in the bones and soft tissues causing cancer, caries, brittle bones.

Ironic, isn’t it, that Ben Goldacre, MD, Prof. David Colquhoun, Amazing Randi, PZ Myers, all the great minds of our day,  aren’t hopping up and down screaming about THAT like they do when they hear the H word?

Well, here we have a substance made from it that counteracts it. And they say it doesn’t work. Too bad. I can feel it now in my teeth as I type.

Now, I am quite aware that this sounds like I’m making it up, but if you check Clarke’s materia medica you’ll find I’m simply quoting authorities with credentials and experience greater than my own.

So just think about it. It’s prima facie.  If we are to take the cinema and news as replete with our delusions, then I think I am justified in saying the materia medica references are accurate in what fluoride poisoning from our water and other sources has done, can do and WILL DO.

But wait, there’s more . .

Did you know they now put fluoride in candy bars for bicycle riders in the guise of concentrated green tea extract? Yes, in fact a normal cup of tea, green or black, contains the same amount of fluoride as you’ll find in 7.8 liters of fluoridated tap water!

And that’s just from the fluoride in the tap water.

It gets worse.

Chlorine’s a whole n’other subject. When it comes into contact with organic matter, such as bits of leaves and things that fall into the reservoir, or that cabbage you had last night for supper, it forms chloroform, which in homeopathic form is noted for inducing in the prover the desire to kill.

You read that right. Chlorine, when it turns to chloroform . . and tests show that chloroform is indeed in tap water, gives you the impulse to kill! (Clarke)

Anyone I presume.

Now . . I wonder what would happen if we were to divide the homeopathy deniers into two camps, one which would take fl.ac. everyday for two weeks and the other homeopathic Chloroformum.

Then bring the two groups together in a room, LOCK THE DOOR and RUN!

Perhaps we could add fl.ac. an chloroform to Barr’s list of homeopathics to try.

No wonder we’re all going to Hell. If you haven’t succumbed to them you’re probably a wreck from fighting off the impulses.

Perhaps Ernst et all will get there ahead of time.

Advertisements

38 comments on “Homeopath challenges skeptics with homeopathic date rape drug

  1. 財布 ブランド 女性

    Like

  2. Jackie Scarpa says:

    just found your site and really enjoyed reading your amusing banter. It’s nice to hear a homeopath having the guts to be facetious in public – we usually try to defend ourselves timidly and respectfully, hoping not to attract too much ire from ‘the powers that be’. Although Prof. Ernst’s pseudo-scientific assault on homeopathy is enough to make the most timid amongst us utter something unpublishable! I wanted to say that I sympathize with your sceptical correspondents, because I too was highly sceptical until I tried homeopathy and accidentally took the right remedy for my condition. After that I trained as a homeopath and have seen some amazing cures. I have also prescribed remedies that I thought were correct, but had no effect, and had people prove remedies that were close to the correct one but instead brought out new symptoms belonging to the remedy not the patient. I have also had patients who had no remedy response of any kind (until I finally got the right one). So your sceptical friends need to understand that it is normal to be disbelieving of something that flies in the face of all they’ve been told about medicine and healing, and that it is possible to take a remedy and not notice any effect, but yet if they once take a remedy that does have an effect (curative or proving) they will know beyond a doubt that homeopathy is real, even if homeopaths themselves don’t always get it right (we’re only human after all!)

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Hi Jackie . .

      Thanks for your encouragement, it’s always a relief to hear from another homeopath. I know what you mean implying the oxymoron of a “fighting physician,” I think its what got JC crucified, there really is something to be said about following the Hypocritical oath, which homeopathy is designed to follow. However, I feel that with the exception of the late Kaviraj, the doctrine has been in need of more “assertive forensics.”
      I love your comment about provings, symptoms belonging to the remedy and not the patient, which I’ve seen dramatic examples of, so much so to make the homeopath want to run and hide, dropping assertions about placebo, decoys in his wake, that actually in practice invalidates the placebo hypothesis more than anything else . . “Holmes! The patient’s growing a second head, where’s that coming from?” . . “It’s the remedy working, Watson, send him a second bill!”
      The point I’d like to make about “skepticism” is that what we encounter beyond our own is not, at least it’s not in the classical view of it, which globally embraces our own conclusions. Prejudice is a natural state of mind. We want more information and confirmation than what we have, and for the sake of time need to either shift or . . due to the angle of the grade . . stay in the same gear.
      What WE encounter is always pathological, the localized variety of “skepticism,” where he picks the subjects he wants to disprove, irrationally defends the rest, and always excludes his own observations as made impenetrable by exclusions he’s cobbled together as “logic.”
      What the denialist posing as skeptic can’t acknowledge is that the second hypothesis of homeopathy, material dynamization by serial dilution and succussion, can create medical materials, a puzzle and a leap we’ve all had to deal with.
      But why is it that some of us are able to accept the evidence of action as being intrinsic to the remedy and are able to cross what appears to be the void of reason without it stopping us from making use of these materials . . and some don’t? I submit that it’s pathological, like brand loyalty, neither logical or scientific. Kent said atheists can’t be homeopaths, and I have found that to be unerringly true, those who oppose the loudest us as “skeptics” are always atheists. For instance, without him stating it or even implying it, the chemical engineer who goes by the name of “Endless Repetition” and has been recently challenging me in the commentary of GAY CURE IGNITES FIRESTORM, is an atheist. Put it to the test and ask him. I could be wrong or he might be lying, but I think he’s probably too proud to say he’s not.
      This is why I say opposition to homeopathy is pathological, not scientific.

      Like

  3. Homeo Hater says:

    I don’t care about scientific or pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. I have only one criteria when judging a given course of treatment: The treatment must work without producing side-effects negating benefits of the treatment. I have tried many homeopathic treatments for various problems over the years. These treatments were recommended by various local homeopaths after extensive consultations. None worked. None produced side-effects either.

    This led me to wonder if homeopathic remedies have any discernible impact. I came across this article and decided to give the basic idea a try.

    I’ve been taking 1 dose of 30c fl. ac. daily for the last fifteen days. I have noted no effects.

    I am now of the opinion that homeopaths are guilty of the offense they charge big pharma with. I think they are waging a massive campaign of disinformation in an effort to protect their way of life and rake in the dough. They destroy those they purport to help. They are cannibalistic animals, culling the weak from the herd to fill their bellies and wallets.

    Don’t be too quick to disregard the anecdote I have presented. My anecdote is just as valid as those presented by the blood-thirsty homeopaths. The difference is I’m willing to acknowledge that I have presented an anecdote, while those scamming sacks call their anecdotes evidence or studies.

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Settle down, hothead. I don’t know what you did. Maybe you didn’t do anything at all. Maybe you’re a pathological liar and a shill. So far all I know of your case are pixels on a sreen. Didn’t you see my offer to consult with you for free? Why haven’t you taken me up on that?
      You come on here saying you went to “various local homeopaths” for “various problems over the years,” revealing prima facie evidence you’re lying.
      If you went to one homeopath for a problem and then to another one for another, the first problem must not have been a concern any longer by the time got to the second homeopath, meaning that you were healed of it with the first treatment.
      Oops!
      I’m curious. Who were the homeopaths you went to? Let’s see all these case files.

      And if somebody did sell you fl. ac. maybe you left it out in the sun, the rain or on the stove. Where did you get it from? The neighbors? James Randi? The water bureau? In a dream?
      And if you did take it, what are you feeling? Can you feel . . anything . . at all? Maybe the alcohol you’ve been swimming in now has made you so numb you haven’t noticed that since taking fl. ac. all your teeth have fallen out.
      And whatever gave you the idea to take it daily for 15 days? I would have told you to just take one. A second dose can counteract the first. I took one dose weeks ago and I still feel it . . in my front teeth.

      You skeptizoids are all the same. You come on screaming about there being no science, and then you fail to do even a relevant simple test on yourself. When did I ever say you had to leave science at the door?
      And once again, where did you get this fl. ac.? The butcher shop? Let’s see the receipt. And when your computer stops running and the auto fix doesn’t work for you, do you also see that as a conspiracy . . between Bill Gates and Radio Shack?
      When your catalytic converter blows up because you put the wrong octane in the gas tank, is that also a conspiracy . . between BP and your skateboard?
      Or, maybe what it is, is that you’re feeling the side effects but think it’s just normal, you get that funny feeling in your teeth all the time.
      Or maybe this is just a big put on. Who’s running acam now?
      If you do plan to get in touch with me, don’t get in touch with yourself first or it you won’t have an out. And settle down. Nobodies trying to trick you into “buying homeopathy.”
      Call me. I want to hear your bullshit for real.
      Or more likely, homeopathy isn’t for you. Run away. It takes more honesty than what you’ve shown so far.

      Like

  4. Hello.
    I accept the challenge. I’ve already been through a month’s challenge by a homeopath: one pill daily of 20C aurum metallicum – this was sourced from Helios in London. There was no effect. I extended an extra month to make sure. Still no effect, and no alteration in my appreciation of classical music, or any of the other predicted results.
    Still I’m open to being convinced on the efficacy of homeopathy, so am happy to take any homeopathic remedy you think will produce an unequivocal result – also happy to be part of a double-blinded test.
    I live in London, let me know the details.
    I’m also not anonymous, My name is Milton Mermikides.
    John, you and I have conversed in the past discussing Randi’s challenge. Last we left it I emailed you a form for the application, helped fill it out, it just remained for you to confirm the details, sign it off and email to JREF. It doesn’t seem like you did, but let me know if you had any problems.

    Regarding your challenge, just message me on twitter – @miltonline and I will respond very quickly.

    All best,
    Milton

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Dear Milton,

      Thank you for commenting and putting homeopathy to the test . . if that’s what you really did 😦
      I mean, I don’t mean to be a contrarian or one who yammers on about hypocrisy, but what again are the criteria for scientism supposed to be? Wasn’t it you who said that all test of the subject in question should fit some stated criteria, which we take to as global? Or was that someone else? What’s good for one test shoulde applied to another, shouldn’t it? None of this self referencing and anecdotalism, but the test, to have any meaning, should be performed under rigorous laboratory conditions, double, triple blind, the index pasted on the roof and the screwed up results published in Scientific American?
      And what’s this prattle again about that little pederast Randi? How many times do I have to print out the latest version of his phony challenge, get it notarized by a criminal psychologist and rubber stamped by an atheist for him to descend from Olympus Mons to argue with me over a protocol for yeast for another 10 years? And what is it I’m supposed to win again? A all expenses paid by me trip to Guatamala to pick up a handful of bearer bonds with all the coupons ripped off?
      Look, don’t bother Randi, he”s suffering from his latest illness du jour, I think now its IDENTITY THEFT, who knows, if he keeps going like this Merck is going to run out of paper updating their manual ahead of time to include all his latest twists on Alzheimers. He’s already tried every mental illness there is and the poor man is now scrambling around like the seven dwarfs on speed trying to raise money to get his boyfriend Carlos out of jail, shove him in the old inner tube and tow him back to Cuba.

      John

      Like

      • I’m not sure to what you are referring. All I’m saying is I put homeopathy to the test in the form of a challenge by a homeopath. Nothing happened. This is not an RBCT (but a ‘proving’ in homeopathic parlance) it was simply a challenge which I accepted as I was open to the possibility, but the results of that one test were completely unconvincing despite assurances that they would be unequivocal. So I’m happily accepting your challenge, get in touch, and I’ll do it.
        Re: Randi, I’m not sure about the motives of your attacks but you didn’t apply, plain and simple. So it seems you are just posturing. As for your preoccupation with homosexuality I’m sure you have your reasons.
        So you’ve made a challenge, and I accept. Please get in touch on twitter- @miltonline.

        Like

        • johnbenneth says:

          Milton, you’re going to have to be more clear than that. What are you taling about? In one sentence you’re talking about some vague “test” you took . . earlier you had written that you had taken a 20c of . . what was it, Aurum? Where did you find a 20c of Aurum?. I’ve never heard of anyone using a 20c of anything for anything. And what does Randi have to do witht this? You’re stating I “didn’t apply?” and you want to take some sort of yet to be defined challenge? And then you imply I’ve made some kind of attack on homosexuality? Like all the other self appointed “skeptics” you’re failing to apply your “skepticism” globally, you’re not calling for a relevant question, llike “Am I nuts?”. What is it your’e trying to do? Disprove homeopathy? Its not happening! You’re not making any sense. How are you going to prove a negative?
          And you want me to “Twitter” you? Come on, grow a job, do something useful with your life rather than try to commit suicide with homeopathy to prove it doesn’t work. And this follows YOUR claim that there aren’t any GOOD experiments that show the biological action of high dilutes.
          Make sure you have a copy of your comments on the John Benneth Journal so that when you see your psychiatrist he can show them to the cops when they come to take you to the hospital for sedation.

          Like

          • How strange, you make a challenge smugly stating that ‘skeptics’ won’t accept and will remain anonymous, I accept it, state who am I clearly and you start back-pedalling, making insults and talking gibberish. Clearly you have issues. Tell me what to take and for how long, and I’ll do it. make the specific challenge or else it’s clear that you are simply posturing, as you are with Randi’s challenge.
            P.S. Incidentally that should have read 200C, I do apologise, an even more powerful remedy, and no it wasn’t suicide, because it didn’t work. If you think that you can produce an effect make the challenge to me clearly and specifically (you can make your frothy insults if it’s important to you) and let me accept it. I await.

            Like

            • johnbenneth says:

              I’m sorry if it appears that way to you Milton. It’s just that Ihear the antagonists preaching one thing and doing another. They complain about the scientific method, we show them some, they say that’s not good enough, but when they propose a trial, its just monkey business.
              Hahnemann faced the same sort of hting 200 years ago. All this squabbling and insisting there’s nothing to it because it doesn’t make any sense. Well, neither much does anything else, when you really get down to it, but that’s never stopped you from using it, has it? Do yo0u really know anything works chemically, magentically or electrically? Can you eplain something like quantum entanglement?
              What Hahnemann had to say to his critics then stands true for today. If you’re really hell bent on discrediting this science, if you really want to debunk homeoapthy, then put it to the test in the way prescribed.
              Listen, I know how difficult this must be for you, and my heart sinccerely goes out to you. A lot of people who attack homeopathy for being a hoax it turns out are really suffering from some dire illness that they’re seeking relief from, but are afraid of being taken advantage of. It seems it should be impossible that homeopathy, for all that it is touted to be, even if it works in the least for some things, has not been seized upon by the medical establishment and put to use, at least in some small way.
              But let’s not be naive. It IS used by some medical doctors in the US more in Europe and by a large number in India, but we all can understand that altruism is not what primarily drives enterprise.
              So rather than do this as a challenge, perhaps you know someone who has a real problem that regular medicine isn’t helping them with as they wish it could, or perhaps they are worried about the side effects, someone who would be willing to give homeopathy a try. Now there’s a good challenge, right? Why don’t you have that person call me? I’ve been putting at the end of my blogs that I’ll consult for free. If it works for them, if they’re happy with it and they feel compelled to contribute to my cause, fine, I readily accept any and all donations. I’ll simply say what remedy to try, have the person try it. The only cost is the remedy, and you can get it from whoever you choose.
              That’s fair enough, isn’t it?

              Like

              • I would never recommend the use of unproven treatments for a friend, enemy or stranger – but in the case of homeopathy which I’ve researched- am happy to demonstrate the inefficacy on myself. It seems that you are somewhat retreating from your clear challenge of fl. ac.? Is that the case? Perhaps you fear that if I went ahead and took a pill a 3 or 30 absolutely nothing would happen? Maybe your faith in homeopathy is not as strong as you proclaim here, it is of course hard to change deeply held belies. When I took up the challenge of aurum, homeopaths like yourself (actually including you) claimed I was committing suicide, but I went ahead nothing happened, and then the hand-waving began. Wrong remedy, etc. I will accept any challenge as I’m open to being wrong. Are you? Would you be able to tell apart your homeopathic remedies without labels using any method(including Roy’s) Are you sure? I’m going to take this fl.ac. since you’ve made the challenge generally (any recommendations on dose/potency?30c?). If absolutely nothing happened to me, would you have a flicker of response? Somehow I doubt it. Maybe, just maybe, there are non-homeopathic reasons why you drink entire bottles of whisky – after all, it’s important to stay open-minded ( as I – you must admit – am being). By the way, I’m deeply interested in-and know a far bit about- in quantum entanglement and the like, I grew up and learned alot at CERN after all. Unfortunately subatomic offers no endorsement whatsoever to, for example, the treatment of feelings of isolation, with ultra-diluted fragments of the Berlin Wall. THat’s just a case of special pleading. If for example, I claimed I could levitate, because of the 2-slit photon experiment- you would understandable be sceptical. So now you know someone who is deeply skeptical of homeopathy, knows more about it than the average proponent, who is willing to be shown evidence, states their name clearly, and put themselves ‘on the line’ so to speak to be proven wrong.
                All best,
                Milton

                Like

                • johnbenneth says:

                  Prof Dr. Milton Mermikides,
                  Oh well now, look who’s making all the big claims. Maybe I should consult with Professor Dr. Mermikides when people are coming to me about their deep seated serious illnesses, like a young man I know of who’s got leukemia. Maybe Prof. Mermikides could suggest the best PROVEN treatment for that. After all, he has stated that he would NOT recommend any unproven treatment, and to my knowledge, outside of of homeopathy, which he rejects, there is no proven CURATIVE treatment for leukemia. Maybe we could use HIM as a trial. What do you say, Professor? You want to select the remedy, and we’ll see how it works?
                  The point is, we seem to be stuck on a particular one, as I find myself making it repeatedly. You’re not being very honest with me. First you speak of “unproven treatments,” and make a vague reference to the longstanding delusion of so called “skeptics” that there is no evidence to support the claims of effetiveness by users, and when finally presented with a study or statement by a Nobel laureate or two, and the opinion of medical doctors, it suddenly turns out you got better credentials, the ones you gave yourself, and you are able to say what’s wrong with the test, what poor quality any and all tests that support homeopathy are . . and yet when it comes to backing up your attempt to prove a negative, all you can do is ONCE AGAIN reference ONLY yourself and yourself only, which wouldn’tbe so bad if you weren’t a waling talking set of contradictions anyone can see. “Oh I tried to commit suicide by taking Aurum 20c.” But was your test peer reviewed? RCT? Double blind? Did James “the Amazing” Randi design the protocol? Did you videotape your suiide attmept an put it on Youtube? Was it published in a prestigious science journal . . or did you take out a classified ad in Superman Comics?

                  I have three rules as of late.

                  1. You see it once you’ll see it again, and it’s probably been making the rounds for quite a long time now.
                  2. All positive skeptics are liars. There are homeopathic remedies for this.
                  3. If you think can’t find the answer it’s because you already found it.
                  Come on professor godman, gave us from ourselves, come down from your mountain top with the new operating manual for human health and wisdom you chiseled into the marble tablets.
                  Similia,
                  John Benneth, Homeopath

                  Like

  5. “it causes atorphy of the brain? Yes, recent stuies have shown it actually lowers I.Q. inchidlren”
    Not using a spellchecker doesn’t actually prove it had that effect on you, you know.

    I don’t live near London, but I’m perfectly happy to join in the “experiment”. I can find a local homeopath to administer and supervise, and even alert the press so the whole thing can be mediatised.

    Oh, I libe in France. Perhaps Boiron would like to sponsor the whole thing?

    Like

    • (pointless rants deleted)
      ” Go right ahead, videotape it, put it on Youtube, nobody’s stopping you from doing a test. If you can’t find anyone then take one pellet of Fluoricum acidum 30c and tell us what you feel ”

      OK. I should be able to find a local homeopath to judge all this, unless of course they’re as slippery as you. In which case it’ll be a doctor and a lawyer. I promise not to seduce either on-camera.

      I won’t even look up what your pills are supposed to do, so that I won’t be biased in any way.
      If I show any unusual symptoms, you win £10K for the charity of your choice. If all that happens is an hour of perfect normality, you stop punting homeopathy as being effective for anything.

      Deal?

      Like

      • johnbenneth says:

        Okay, it’s a deal . . if we can agree on terms to do a straight forward, fair, classical homeopathic proving . . especially if it involves as many opponents and skeptics of homeopathy as possible and is filmed for a reality TV show or documentary. I want as many people as possible to witness this.
        Perhaps we could also do it in Hollywood with the participation of the James Randi Educational Foundation, since Randi has ignored my application for his award for over ten years now while stating that the marketing of homeopathic remedies is criminal.
        If you agree to enter into negotiations with me over this, then I’ll email you so we can exchange information, such as legal name, address, and contact information.
        Is that fair? What do you say?
        I think it would make a fascinating documentary, and we need the money.

        John Benneth, Homeopath

        Like

  6. Ron Lewis says:

    Hello John and Roger,

    I would like to accept your challenge.

    1. I will bet you £10,000 that a homeopathic proving cannot produce in me the symptoms you claim will appear.

    2. Therefore, over the course of seven days, I will take one 30C dose of homeopathic chlorine, once a day, at a time you specify.

    3. I live near London. You may appoint any person (or persons) to supervise me as I take each dose (or you may supervise me yourself, if you prefer). If you appoint any such persons, it is your responsibility to make the arrangements for them to visit me, at the specified time of day.

    4. After each dose, I will sit in a room with a volunteer for one hour. If, on any of these occassions, I attempt to murder the volunteer in cold blood, you win the bet, and I will pay you £10,000. Furthermore, if I succeed in killing the volunteer, I will pay an additional £10,000 towards the unfortunate victim’s funeral expenses. Once I have paid up, you are free to notify the police of my heinous crime, so that they can make arrangements for my immediate arrest, trial and imprisonment.

    5. However, if I am able to resist my homicidal impulses, you lose the bet, and you must pay me £10,000.

    Do we have a deal?

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Very funny. But what would make you think it would be in cold blood?
      Seriously though, why not put homeoapthy to a real test as Roger suggested? You don’t need to lose any money on it. Take a high potency dose of a homeopathic substance given to you in a double blind, a substance which you and the controller of the test do not know the idnetity of, and you and the controller honestly note your reactions.
      This is how all homeoapthic provings are done.
      That’s reasonable, isn’t it?
      Inf act, why shouldn’t we approach members of the 10:23 club to participate in a proving?

      Like

      • Ron Lewis says:

        Hi John,

        Your suggestion that the test be double-blinded is a good one. I will nominate another sceptic, with whom you will agree what kind of symptoms constitute a successful test.

        Can you think of a homeopathic preparation that will make my hair fall out, cause me to vomit uncontrollably, or make me incontinent? Then there could be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the bet has either been won or lost.

        (Please don’t worry about the consequences of me losing so much money. You can spend your winnings any way you choose, perhaps using it to fund research or to support your favourite charity.)

        Ron

        Like

        • johnbenneth says:

          Well, Ron my question to you is do you think you could e serious about this? Forget the challenge part of it. It just becomes a block to doing a real experiment. I’m not interested in “winning” your money. If you feel compelled, at the end of this, to send me (I don’t have the pound sign on my keyboard)10,000 because you want to contribute to my homeopathic malaria clinic in Africa, then that’s a different deal. I don’t think I would turn it down for that, but if ts put up as a bet, then it becomes just about winning, not aabout eploring this in a real way, unobstruted ay. do you think that’s fair? That’s not how science works. What I like about you that is different form other “skeptics” is that you seem to be open minded about this and you don’t seem to be hiding anything.
          What I’m suggesting is that we do a classic homeoathic concultaiton and you try a remedy I chooose for you, which you agree to be blind to. After I talk to you I’ll select the remedy and convey this to someone in (London?) to give to you. You journal your feelings and thoughts as a real test, what you feel, we stay in contact, and I determine if you need another dose, or a different remedy. Let’s start out with one little pellet. Just one. See what that does. It may be a lfe changing event for you, it may not, but you have to be honest with me and yourself, and I’ll respect your privacy and not make your detailsknown to anyone. Okay? let’s start with that. What do you say?
          John .

          Like

      • skepticat says:

        You missed out the requirement that the subject should not take any coffee, alcohol or other drugs.

        Like

  7. Shantanu Bhave says:

    Nice article John!
    What I don’t understand is why is there this opposition to homeopathy?

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Thank you sir. I think it is because of several reasons. It’s diffiult to understand yet it is accessible to lay people for very little cost. It’s pharmacy can be created by anyone from anything. It competes with the profit incentive of allopathy and it imore effective than allopathy an so it infuriates the elitism of science.

      Like

      • And, above all, it doesn’t work, so people using it instead of real medicine are a major health risk.

        Like

        • johnbenneth says:

          Let me ask you a question. How is it that you expect to get a real answer from anyone about something if the challenge you’re posing to people is nothing more than your own conclusions made up out of theory?. What questions did you ask in order to get to the conclusion you’re now putting in front of people? Do you have any references for what you’re talking about?
          In the US, when they pick a jury, one of the things that they usually are pretty concerned with is a person’s ability to look at the evidence without prejudice. So the question to you is, what evidence brought you to the conclusion you have made about homepathy? Are you simply saying it doesn’t work because it shouldn’t work? Or have you studied the literature? Maybe you actually put it to the test? So really, isn’t trying it honestly with an open mind the best way to investigate it and make up your mind about it? Or are you approaching this as an enemy?
          If you’re seriously honest about this, there’s no way you’re going to walk away from a proper trial of it without having a belief . . that implausible or strange as it is, it produces surprising biological effetcs.
          Now, I’ll work with Ron Lewis, because he has the honesty to use what I trust is his real name, but I won’t work with you until you’re prepared to use yours.
          Anonymous doesn’t work here.
          Bottom line..
          John

          Like

          • Not anonymous, dear frothy boy, but pseudonymous. Obviously I would need to go public if I’m inviting the media in.

            Or don’t you want that?

            As for the “looking at the evidence without prejudice”, is that just your little way of saying you’re not really interested in doing this with anyone of a scientific or logical cast of mind? That, in short, you’re not interested in going through with your loudly announced bet with skeptics?

            I have to say I’ve seent hese wriggling tactics before. Come on, you’ve got two volunteers in two different countries, one of which is especially sold on homeopathy and therefore unlikely to get away with faking anything. Why so afraid? If homeopathy works, it should work whether I believe in it or not, anyway.

            Like

            • johnbenneth says:

              You mean pseudoanonymous like pseudoscientific? Look, you’ll have to get in line, I’m all out of straightjackets right now.

              Like

            • johnbenneth says:

              Alright, what’s your protocol? How do you plan to pull this off? If you’re the subject, how do we know what you’ve taken and what the results are unless you’re closely watched in case you try to hang yourself with your shoelaces? And anyone who’s wathing you is going to go to sleep within five minutes..

              You talk about a scientific test, yet you haven’t proposed anything yet. I’ve seen this all before. Talk about science, “go back to school, get an eduation, RCT’s, double blinds, statistics, peer review, respectable publications, bias, placebo effect, reporting, sticking the index on the ceiling, doing sleight of hand while people are trying to complete the experiement, taking drugs in the baathroom, getting loud and grumpy, drinking the ethanol from the wrong bottle, etc etc, yet when it comes to actually designing this fabled gold standard study, it turns out to be a fantasy and you turn out to be a full of hot air and donuts.

              And who judges the outcome. You or me,? Who designs the test, organizes the volutneers and codes the double blind? You, me, James the Amazing Randi, Jose Alvarez, Moamar Khadafi? And where did you get the idea that I bet anything?HOw about i I bet your money? That’s fair, isn’t it? I’m still waiting for Randi’s check to clear.

              All I said was get a bunch of you skeptoids in a room, feed half of you a pellet of Fluoricum acidum and the other half Chloroformum, shut the door and run. The hope was that one half of the room would become sexually aroused and the other half would want to murder the first half for maing a pass at them, and that way whoever isn’t dead would be in jail for the rest of his life anthe world a better place. I know you want to do it. Go right ahead, videotape it, put it on Youtube, nobody’s stopping you from doing a test. If you can’t find anyone then take one pellet of Fluoricum acidum 30c and tell us what you feel besides numb and dumb You can lie about it all you want, say you changed the speed of light to fit E=MZ5, just like you’re doing now. Nobody’s getting in your way, do it! Maybe it will finally stop your brain from atrophying and you might have your first original though, start praying to God and speaking in tongues.

              Like

    • There are only three real objections to homeopathy, as far as I can tell.

      1. There is no reason to believe it should work. The “law of similars” is not a law of nature, it’s a theory extrapolated form a single data point and is known to be generally false, the “law of infinitesimals” is similarly not a law of nature and with a few well documented exceptions is also known to be generally false.

      2. There is no credible mechanism by which it can work. Homeopathic dilutions are well past the point that the water would be considered completely pure for the purposes of the most delicate experiments and most are beyond the point at which it is statistically unfeasible that a single molecule of the supposed active ingredient remains. If homeopathy is valid then everything we know about the nature of matter is not just wrong but spectacularly wrong. It would invalidate the theories that make my GPS, computer and mobile phone work.

      3. There is no good evidence that it does work, all recorded results thus far are entirely consistent with the null hypothesis of placebo plus observer bias. Homeopathy does not self-correct for error (e.g. oscillococcinum, see http://is.gd/quack) and does not follow the scientific method; all homeopathy experiments start from the premise of confirming the assumptions, pretty much the surest way of producing a biased experiment.

      So all the homeopaths need to do is fix these three trivial problems and opposition will melt away.

      Like

    • yonmei says:

      Really? I think that’s fairly obvious.

      Homeopathic preparations aren’t cheap, yet what they amount to is doses of water or chalk, pre-contaminated with belief.

      It’s a rip-off.

      Like

      • johnbenneth says:

        If you know where to get them and how to use them then they’re ridiculously cheap and effective. Seven bucks can buy you a lietime supply of a particular remedy.
        But if you don’t like it, if you bought a packaged preparation and you didn’t like it, did you ask for your money back?
        Doesn’t the store that you bought it from give refunds?
        Your complaint would work for just about anything. Like toothpaste.
        You say, ” my teeth are rotten it doesn’t work, its a rip off.”
        How do you now its a rip off. Did you even use it?
        Probably not. If you did, did you didn’t get it mixed up with the Preparation H, did you?
        You soundlike the kind of person who would.

        Like

  8. Peter says:

    A very interesting post. Thanks John!

    So we have now a list of remedies suggested by several practitioner of homeopathy:

    – Alumina (suggested by Dr. Vithoulkas)
    – Fluoricum acidum (suggested by John)
    – Chloroformium (suggested by John)
    – Barium carbonicum (suggested by me, Peter)

    Why Barium?
    So far all substances mentioned are on the top ten list of toxic substances in conspiracy theories. Fluoride was used first time by the Nazis during the second World War to lower the will-power on the people. Alumina and Barium is actually sprayed by airplanes all over the world (known as “chemtrails”) and this substances lowers awareness and will-power too. Then chlorine is a substance that has two different effects on the population, some become apathetic and the others transforms into zombies, with the desire to kill (please watch the sci-fi movie “Serenity” … plot: They discover a log recorded by an Alliance survey team explaining that the Alliance administered a chemical designed to suppress aggression, which killed off the populace. However, one tenth of a percent of the population instead became hyper-aggressive and unstable.)

    If there is a real conspiracy and the governments try to decimate part of the population and homeopathic remedies could prevent this, then the pseudoskeptics would make part of this conspiracy too, or they are victims of substances sprayed by airplanes like Alumina, because Alumina has all symptoms typical for pseudoskeptics … they use cuss words, never satisfied with proves or evidence …

    Oh let me write down some thoughts on Alumina:
    The homeopathic remedy shows strange mind symptoms … “Confused as to personal identity”, look, agnostic atheists believes in nothing, because they are not sure of anything … this is a pathological state of mind, they are not even sure that they themselves exist. And yes, here is the most common pathological symptom of the mind of all pseudoskeptics:”Obstinate, and contradictory humour” … this kind of obstinacy together with the contradictory humour is concentrated on the only possible cure we have today … as if they have a fight inside themselves against homeopathy because it could cure them from their pseudoskepticism, and I am sure they would never never never try to make a homeopathic proving of Alumina C200, one dose a day for one month. This is like offering them the red pill. Even Obama would take the blue pill and continue to sleep, living on a low level of awareness, ignoring the Truth.

    Normally I am against complex remedies, but if I could create a complex remedy that would be labeled as “Wake Up Remedy” then it would be made of the four remedies in the list.

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      And thank you Peter, this is a very interesting response.
      My suggestion of fl.ac. and chlrf. were done somewhat facetiously, and not as cures for skepticism. Peter Bailey in Homeopathic Psychiatry claims skepticism is almost solely the domain of Lycopodium, perhaps the most common remedy among Westerners. I recetnly thought of it as the wolfpack remedy, the remedy of demoncracy.
      The symptoms of Alumina do indeed seem to fit Obama, but I didn’t suspect it until your post, and furthermore, yesterday, I concluded that Obama doesn’t know who he is either. I also suspect it about myself, and was also talking about it yesterday to a man who I had given a dose of alumina to without regard to the equivocal aspects.
      I also like your suggestion of baryta. One of the symptoms of skeptics is hiding, which is typical of baryta.
      I think that this touches on miasmatic toxicology. How much of it is intentional I am not convinced. I think that chemtrails, or instance, co0uld be done to create a geoparasol to counteract global warming or UV.
      As always thanks for commenting on my blog.

      Like

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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