Controversy dogs homeopathic treatment for homosexuality

The offer by German Catholic medical doctors to treat homosexuals homeopathically draws protest from the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) community.

The debate rages on over the homeopathic treatment of homosexuality.

I get some troubling comments from my friend.

Homeopath Mark O’Sullivan writes:

Hi John,

I’ve been discussing this article with Kaviraj and Vinton McCabe on Facebook. Kaviraj just posted this response to your referring to him in this article on my FB profile. I thought it would be worth re-posting.

The following is from Kaviraj

“Hi John,

“I can speak for myself. What I say or do not say is my prerogative. I find this discussion in bad taste and I demand you cease and desist using my name to make your case. I happen to disagree with a lot of what you say here. So do not associate me with your views, because then you are dishonest towards the public. You do not have my permission. I disagree 100% with your conclusions and the tone you set, but I shall defend the right to do so equally 100%, as long as you leave my name out. I do not support your conclusions.

“I have never stated that I see it as something to cure.

“To me a cure is peace of mind for the patient and that is regardless which sexuality he chooses, to have that peace of mind. Some in my clinic have chosen to be hetero and others to remain homosexual. If a person is happy to be so, who am I, trying to change that? So I never tried to change people and let them chose for themselves.

“And I only treat those who come to me of their own free will. Mandatory treatment? Sounds much like a Big Pharma/Big Brother idea to me.

“VD Kaviraj ”

Also, for your readers, a relevant blog post by Vinton McCabe in response to this recent troubling direction you’ve been taking with your writing.

“Homeopathy, Allopathy, Skeptics & That Amazing Old Randi–All’s Fair in Love & War & ‘Homeophobia’?”


Mark O’Sullivan Lic.I.S.H. ISHom

Well okay then, I’ll rescind my nomination of Kaviraj for the Nobel prize for his work in curing some people of homosexuality . . and nominate Carol Boyce for it instead.

In an online article “America’s leading homeopath” Dana Ullman (author of The Homeopathic Revolution) is reported saying he’s cured 10 people of it, some them going on to raise families.

Ullman hotly contends the article is a spoof, and when I asked him if it would be right to say he did not know of any cases, either of his own or anyone elses, where after homeopathic treatment a homosexual became heterosexual or lost his homosexual impulses, he replied “that is right.”

He has demanded an apology: Okay, Dana, I’m sorry this has offended you.

But something doesn’t sound right. I do a quick check and find that he has written there are homeopathic remedies for homosexuality, most notably Lachesis.


“Lachesis is one of the few homeopathic remedies known for its homosexuality,” writes Dana Ullman. “Kent lists it as ‘aversion of men to women’ and ‘falls in love with member of her own sex.’

On a well known UK homeopathy discussion group email list, Boyce has reported people being cured of it.

“I have also treated many who would identify as homosexual and I have the same experience as  Kaviraj,” says Boyce, “those who are in anguish resolve that anguish – some by ‘going straight’ since that is their natural state – others by remaining homosexual in their gender preference but  released from the agony of confusion and feeling of oppression and able to live healthy meaningful lives.”

Vis a vis, Kaviraj says he’s seen heterosexuals become homosexuals after homeopathic treatment.

“If the patient says he has troubles with being something he feels he is not, but is driven by something outside of his control,” says Kaviraj, “then that is the only thing I need to consider as a physician. If that something is homosexuality, either in the male or female, I have to take that serious, if I am to be a good homoeopath. And I have the duty to cure him of this thing and it is none of my business whether he will come to accept or reject it, as long as it no longer troubles him. If that makes me a homophobe, I shall
wear that badge with honour.”

O’Sullivan says, “To me a cure is peace of mind for the patient and that is regardless which sexuality he chooses . .”

What? Before we push the button on your applause sign, isn’t the common belief  WE ARE BORN THAT WAY!

So when did we become choosers?

Is O’Sullivan trying to tell us we choose our diseases? If he believes that, isn’t it his responsibility as a physician to warn us of what statistically the consequences may be of that choice?

Or, if we have fallen into a hopeless state, believing that it is genetic, like Republicanism, that it is not what allopathy would have us believe, that it is incurable, should he not tell us that it is?

So I don’t understand what it is that Dr. O’Sullivan and others think I’m guilty of. Homophobia? Homoeophobia? And how is it relevant except to shut own the discussion of the facts? I’ve yet to see the statistics contravened.

What I have yet to hear from the pitchfork and torch wielding mob outside my door, or anyone else on O’Sullivan’s side of the gender gap, is how we explain ignoring an easily correctable condition that shortens life span by 24 years, that statistically leaves its victims depressed and in danger of committing twice as much suicide as heterosexuals.

The argument in oppostion doesn’t seem to be decided on what the actual cure is for those who desperately want it and need it: 1.) getting me to shut up or; 2.) homeopathy.


“It is also a cop-out to not look at any other possibility for this behaviour and is the sign of a lazy mind, which excuses itself by saying, ‘ah well, nothing  you can do about it.’ Thus leaving people who are not happy being homosexual to their supposed fate. Now THAT is really cruel and disturbing.”

I concur. If we really love our fellow man, then between the hugs and kisses,  weshould tell him what the consequences are statistically for his symptoms if he doesn’t get it fixed, if he can, without getting slapped by him or punched by her.

And he can get it fixed.

Or, prove the statistics wrong.

Until then, saints like Kaviraj and Boyce have proved it right.

There’s no acrimony here between me and this subject.

And if after reading this you’re still not convinced that I’ve been more of a cause than a cure for a man’s woes  then the remedy you should use for it is JOHN BENNETH, 30c.

Send me $50 bucks and I’ll send you some.

John Benneth, Homeopath

A defintion for disease: “A particular quality, habit, or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people.”


24 comments on “Controversy dogs homeopathic treatment for homosexuality

  1. […] that was low. Low. Why so vicious? Is this a grudge match? Well, look at what Ullman himself posted on Benneth’s blog the day […]


  2. […] had plenty of popcorn ready in anticipation of fun and, boyohboyohboy, has my investment paid off: Controversy dogs homeopathic treatment for homosexuality. Sniping among the snake-oil […]


  3. […] that was low. Low. Why so vicious? Is this a grudge match? Well, look at what Ullman himself posted on Benneth’s blog the day before: John Benneth has been told by me that the quotes supposedly […]


  4. […] that was low. Low. Why so vicious? Is this a grudge match? Well, look at what Ullman himself posted on Benneth’s blog the day before: John Benneth has been told by me that the quotes supposedly […]


  5. […] had plenty of popcorn ready in anticipation of fun and, boyohboyohboy, has my investment paid off: Controversy dogs homeopathic treatment for homosexuality. Sniping among the snake-oil […]


  6. Mark D'Emmanuele says:

    Well, John, as they used to say on Reader’s Digest, Laughter is the best medicine


  7. Mark D'Emmanuele says:

    Gee, looking at the title of the article I thought Mr.Benneth was going to be able to cure my gay dog! Maybe a triad of John Benneth 30c, Thick Mousttache 200c and Ever So Slightly Old Fashioned Glasses 1m would work.?


  8. I’ve been away from your blog for a bit now, John, but, upon returning, I see that little has changed.

    First, I notice that your journalistic skills have in no way sharpened. In this one post, you have two–two!–of the world’s best known and best respected voices on homeopathy standing up and demanding that you not warp, change or include in your posts quotes that they simply did not say. The fact that I have already experienced such behavior at your hands less than two weeks ago, thanks to your October post that started it all, only makes me more convinced that, instead of being the benign, skilled homeopathic practitioner that you present yourself to be, you are, instead, as KV suggested here, someone who is himself suffering from a deep emotional upset. And that, somehow, the discussion of your inappropriate attacks on The Amazing Randi and on homosexuality and homosexuals in general, has exacerbated the upset.

    Second, I note that in this present post you do you best to contain yourself and present yourself as the person who has been “put upon,” in that a good many people have now told you how offensive your words have been. But let me remind you that it was you yourself who has been on the offensive, as again the post from the 22nd will show.

    When I posted a response to your attack on Randi, suggesting that somehow the fact that the man is a homosexual means that he is also shrouded in mystery and a likely sexual predator was inappropriate–it was, in my opinion,an obscenity–your irate answer to me, was in part:

    “And let me tell you something else. Michelle Bachmann is not only right about Gardasil, she’s also right about homosexuality being a treatable condition, a hellhole from which a lot of suffering people would like to escape. And I have every right to not like homosexuality and I have every right to express my opinion as such. I don’t like what it’s does to people, I don’t like what it does to families, I don’t like having to defend my sons against pederasts who would destroy their dignity, while trying to help them grow into good men who can have the blessings and happiness of families of their own without being tormented by what some guy did to them. But because of people like you, Vinton, its been a real struggle. You can’t imagine how tough it’s been. The only difference is I’m going to win and you, Randi and your little rat packs are going to lose. You can be assured of that. I promise you. You have my word on it. I think your homosexuality is disgusting and I think homosexuals and pederasts are sick individuals who are seriously in need of compassionate help of the type homeopathy can give them.
    blessings with love,
    John Benneth, Homeopath”

    Read it again, John, read especially that word “disgusting” and tell me that you are in no way homophobic, and that you have nothing but compassionate understanding to offer homosexuals. The fact that you lump all homosexuals in with pederasts and that you apparently have a shotgun loaded to protect your sons from the marauding hoards of gays coming at you from all sides (I say this to illustrate the fact that you not only seem to abhor homosexuals, but also seem to feel as if you are or have been under attack from them personally), only leads me to further draw the conclusion that this issue has little to do with Randi, less to do with me, and a great deal to do with you yourself.

    Perhaps you are, at this point, still waving your flag because you believe with all your heart that you are right. Or perhaps you wave on because you are, thanks to the controversy, enjoying an increased readership on your blog. Whatever, having been corrected time and again by your peers, isn’t it perhaps time to issue what apologies are appropriate (including, in my opinion, the Amazing Randi, who, in spite of the fact of the harm he has done to homeopathy, is blameless when it comes to similar personal attacks) and simply move on?

    –Vinton McCabe


  9. Dana Ullman says:

    John Benneth has been told by me that the quotes supposedly attributed to me about homeopathy as a treatment for homosexuality are a TOTAL fabrication, and yet, he has chosen to simply claim that I “contend” them to be un-true. There is no debate on this issue…they ARE un-true. To say or imply anything else is ethically questionable.

    Further, Benneth’s quote from me about Lachesis shows his tendency to take things out of context…and seemingly, he seems to not understand homeopathy well. When a homeopath says that a medicine is good for “gentle, mild, and yielding people,” a homeopathic medicine will not “cure” this personality traits. Likewise, just because a homeopathic medicine may fit certain homosexual tendencies in people, a homeopathic medicine will not change a person’s sexual orientation. I never said or even implied that homeopathic medicine can “treat” homosexuality…and his reference to me is irresponsible and academically sloppy.

    Ultimately, Benneth proves that homeopaths are not without serious flaws…we homeopaths, like any other group of people, are a mixed group, with some people with high ethical and academic standards and some NOT so. Ironically, some denialists of homeopathy assert that homeopaths are experts at producing a placebo effect. In actual fact, homeopaths are no more expert at this than anyone else…and in fact, many homeopaths, including Benneth, do not elicit positive healing vibes…Luckily, it is NOT our personalities that heal…it is our medicines that provide the primary benefit.


  10. 4tis says:

    And for a critique of other work on sexuality by Cameron I suggest you look here.


  11. 4tis says:

    You ask for a refutation of your statistics. Let’s take the claim about life expectancy, which I assume is based on the Cameron obituary study. There are a number of critiques available that show that this study is extremely flawed, for example
    Why did you choose to accept what is a quite astonishing claim?


  12. Kaviraj says:

    Look John, where do i say I turned heterosexuals into homosexuals? I have said that to me disease is lack of peace of mind. You obviously suffer from that. If I meet someone who has trouble with his sexual orientation and chooses to be heterosexual or stay homosexual and has peace of mind, I consider him cured.

    Sarcasm to me is ok. I have no problem with it. I think you are a little upset and you keep dragging in other people to make your points for you. Talk about your own work in this regard and you have something to say. Talk about others and you diminish your own argument.


    • johnbenneth says:

      Have you not seen heterosexuals become homosexuals after homeopathic treatment?


      • Bernard Honey says:

        I have had a conversation with an old friend of mine who went to an experienced homeopath for constitutional treatment for 2 years or so which she was happy with. However after staying for a week or so away from her home and lesbian friends, after her first or second prescription, she returned to her neighbourhood and, telling them “I didn’t feel that way anymore”, moved away and became a “well-adjusted heterosexual” from having been a “well-adjusted lesbian”. Was she cured? Or was it simply her treatment moving on a stage?

        So tell us do you treat your homosexual patients for the lack of peace of mind or homosexuality? Has your treatment ever resulted in them having peace of mind and remaining homosexual or have they always/sometimes changed to heterosexuals with peace of mind? When you treat smokers who are happy being smokers, is your aim to cure them of the habit if they are happy smoking with its ill-effects on health?

        I think the important issue is whether someone has peace of mind with his state of being. In this reply you ignore Kaviraj’s reasons for treating his patients – that they lack peace of mind and are asking to be cured of this lack of peace of mind. In my opinion whether they change sexual orientation or not is not the issue. It is whether their state changes so they have peace of mind.

        There is plenty of evidence that homosexual behaviour is common among wild individuals of non-human species, appearing therefore a natural form of expression in those species. Why is it so different in the human species? We appear to be one of the most malleable adaptable species with a wide range of behaviours in our species – homosexuality being one. If it is not a dis-ease for the patient, why do you disrespect their sense of what is right for them.

        What is your motivation for posting on this topic of treating homosexuals by homeopathy – provision of information or stirring up the sensational aspect? Your headlines “HOMOSEXUAL SUICIDE 200% MORE LIKELY”, “HOMEOPATHY HATER’s LOVER EXPOSED”, “OUTRAGE OVER RANDI EXPOSE”, “Controversy dogs homeopathic treatment for homosexuality” seem more tailored for the latter.


        • johnbenneth says:

          Dear Bernard,

          Thanks for sharing the information here about your friend.

          You ask about my motivation. Hard to ay what drives us. I suppose my interest in the subject is the same as yours.

          I make no apologies for my journalistic “style.”



          • Bernard Honey says:

            Dear John

            Thank you for replying to my first and last paragraph.

            Your reply to my queries about motivation supposes I have the same interest as you. I am a longterm homeopathic patient with an strong interest in homeopathy being accepted as a rational scientific form of medicine. I am not in favour of your mix of sensational headlines, confrontational exchanges and pointing out fraud with publicising supportive evidence in favour of homeopathy. Bluntly I think it spoils your presentation to mix the two. Especially when the sensational headlined pieces are ended with an invitation to be treated by you while less sensational headlines have less of this invitation at the end. Yes you have to make a living but there are ways and ways. Appearing to be a publicity hound doesn’t help your case and does it help your business short or longterm?

            I look forward to your reply to my second third and fourth paragraphs above.


            • Bernard Honey says:

              Dear John
              More than 18 months later, I’m still waiting.
              Bernard Honey


              • johnbenneth says:

                Bernard, thanks for your observations and my apologies for not answering you, especially since you’ve been waiting a year and a half. I reread your comment and have thought about it and am still kind of non plussed, I don’t know quite what to say. I can’t say I know what qualifies as “sensationalism,” just as I can’t say what impact my journalism has had on the subject, but I have always been a practitioner of an assertive if not confrontational presentation of it.
                Over the course of more than a dozen years my primary theme is that homeopathic materials are not biologically inert . . as was asserted by uppity natives and their magi . . as the doctrine emerged from the deep freeze of the 20th century . . and I’ve seen that change, dramatically. Due to the Internet, knowledge of homeopathy and (more specifically) pre-clinical and clinical evidence for its action has blossomed.
                I try not to care too much about what people think of me, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t . . didn’t care. But I have to remind myself: My personal aggrandizement and financial and material gain, are not as important as is the doctrine winning a more widespread acceptance and use.
                So when I get aggressive, confrontational, or I appear to sensationalize homeopathy, or I act in a way that might seem unprofessional . . when I’m criticized about it, I have reminded myself, that what I do appears to me to be unique, often not only in my presentation of it, but to date the material I’m presenting, the physics of it, appears to me to be non pareil, and for that I feel blessed with a commitment to my fellow man..
                Do I make money at this? No, absolutely not. I am a mendicant. Money hs been an irritating distraction. My work is too important, too intrinsically rewarding, too fascinating and too much fun to be spoiled by the pursuit of money or what some little cockbite thinks of it.


  13. For Hahnemann it is”homoeopathy” analog. The suposedd subject is it:
    homoeopathy for homosexual (similar)? or homeosexuals (analog)?
    That is the question: but remember that “homeopathy” does not exist, therefore cannot be demonstrated if rirgt oor wrong!


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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