AMERICA’s LEADING HOMEOPATH IS FURIOUS . .
He says there’s no cure for gay, I say he knows there is.
Dana Ullman, MPH is America’s leading homeopath. He has written eight books on homeopathy, most notably “The Homeopathic Revolution.” He is a publisher and supplier of homeopathic supplies, remedies, books and CD’s.
He is currently the writer of a popular blog on homeopathy on the Huffington Post.
He has taught homeopathy at the University of California at San Francisco and has served as a member of the Advisory Council of the Alternative Medicine Center at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons.
In previous years he has been the chairperson for the National Center for Homeopathy’s Annual Conference, and has been consulted by Harvard Medical School’s Center to Assess Alternative Therapy for Chronic Illness. According to Wikipedia he is a regular speaker at universities, medical schools, pharmacy schools, and hospitals.
John Stossel of ABC News says Ullman is “homeopathy’s foremost spokesman.” (Wikipedia)
Ullman isn’t just a homeopath. He’s a force. He is a researcher and edifier of the world’s greatest medical epic. He knows his subject well.
He is probably the most admired and well known homeopath in the world.
I love Dana Ullman. And I have been his friend, his best friend . .
. . his only friend.
Lately, however, he took issue with a report, linked to from this blog, that said he had cured 10 people of homosexuality after homeopathic treatment.
This may sound like nothing more than what Ullman claims it to be, a silly spoof. But I was led to believe it, because Ullman would not have been the first to report homosexuals reverting to, or becoming heterosexual.
Other homeopaths have reported seeing the same thing happen.
Not long after the blog appeared, Dana Ullman contacted me, insisted that it wasn’t true, demanded that I sever the link to the offending site, change the statement and apologize.
Here is commentary from him posted on Sunday’s blog.
Submitted on 2011/10/30 at 6:46 pm by Dana Ullman
“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.
I RESPOND:
Stop playing me for a chump, Dana. After first blowing up on me in private correspondence, I worded the question to you very carefully to leave no room for ambiguity, to ask if it is right to say that you have never known of a homosexual becoming a heterosexual after homeopathic treatment and you responded to say,
“That is right,” proceeding then to change the subject by launching into a furious flow of abuse, which is continuing here, this time over nuance of “said” and “contends.”
Yet here in this blog, in both commentary by a reader and testimonials from several experienced homeopaths, there have been reported instances where homosexuals have reverted to the normal state after homeopathic treatment.
And you have confirmed your knowledge of it in your own references to Kent!
You write “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.”
If I had taken it out of context I would have been doing you a favor, you’re the one who put the symptoms of “aversion of men to women’ into the context of homosexuality, not me.
Again, repeating from an earlier blog , you write, on your own website, “The bushmaster (Lachesis) is also known for its high sexual energy. An eastern zoo has recorded two bushmasters copulating for twenty- two continuous hours. Surprisingly enough, homosexuality among bushmasters has been documented. It is therefore no surprise that Lachesis is one of the few homeopathic remedies known for its homosexuality. Kent lists it as “aversion of men to women” and “falls in love with member of her own sex.”
In trying to validate this, I find no reference in Kent to homosexuality!
None at all!
Kent simply refers to “aversion to women” as a mental symptom indicating eight remedies, of which Lachesis is one. He makes no reference “of men” in this symptom in my materia medica! The “aversion to women” symptom listed in Kent could be by women a well as men. Slipping in “of men” was done by your conjecture!
Show me where he does, or admit that “homosexual” is something you put there.
Or do you have a different edition of Kent?
Maybe Kent erased it in mine. If not, then according to you, by Kent’s account, there are 11 remedies for homosexuality!
And he doesn’t write “falls in love with her own sex.” Not exactly. But isn’t using just the exact word what you’ve been screaming about? Kent writes “love sick with one of her own sex.” Not falls in love.
And you complain I used the word “contend” instead of “said?” How sloppy! Were you even dressed when you wrote that sentence? Had you been drinking?
Come on, Dana. If you can’t show me the exact quote by Kent, then by your own standards you’re not quoting Kent, you’re quoting yourself!
So stop playing stupid and quit lying to me. You have a masters degree in public health. You should know an epidemic when you see one. And as a homeoapth, you should know how to handle one.
You know that homosexuality is mentally ill. You know homosexuality is satyriasis and that it’s hand in glove with pederasty.
You know that one in nine homosexuals has AIDS. You know that they have twice the rate of suicide. You know that they live a quarter of a century less.
These are the symptoms of a syndrome called homosexuality
You know that the symptoms are not because of condemnations.
Two dozen studies now support the conclusions that the degree of all these problems is the same in countries where homosexuality is condemned and in countries where it’s been normalized.
And you know that it’s a reversible condition.
YOU KNOW IT’S REVERSIBLE!
John Benneth, Homeopath
Uncontrollable urges? Overweight?
503 819 7777
PS: If condemnations could kill, I would have been dead long ago.
The John Benneth Journal 
Reblogged this on Hydrogen2oxygen and commented:
YOU KNOW IT’S REVERSIBLE!
(one of the best posts from John)
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] also: – ‘GAY CURE’ IGNITES FIRESTORM by johnbenneth – AIDS can be cured – Healing Energy and it’s properties – […]
LikeLike
Is not the qualifier how the individual feels about their sexual orientation? If someone is unhappy with it then it is a condition requiring treatment and there is no reason why Homeopathic medicine might not be able to help.
LikeLike
Precisely!
If they are griping about a change in sexual orientation, are they also griping about sex change operations?
By the way, I love your poetry . . More please!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lmao at these comments
LikeLike
It must not be screwed on very tightly. Check your head while you’re at it.
LikeLike
Lmao at these comments
LikeLike
[…] two reality-deniers pulling each others’ hair and moustaches in a fight over who said what. ‘GAY CURE’ IGNITES FIRESTORM screams the headline. It’s the Big Match of the night, the headline […]
LikeLike
Hi everyone here, can someone just post the recipe for homosexual cure instead of never ending debate here?
At least we can go to try on some homeopathy & see if it does work.
LikeLike
Good idea! Read the reply to Endless Repetition below and let us know what you think!
LikeLike
These endless repetition means nothing, it’s like digging a hole deeper & deeper.
No one will find a way out if “wining an argument is so important”.
Please start writing what homosexual people can do NOW, short & simple.
LikeLike
Lets start with 3 homeopathy cure for homosexual
1. Platina
2. bottom Indium
3. Nux vomica
Now the question is, what potency is recommended?
please write in short & simple language, so that even people who are new to homeopathy can understand & do something NOW. thankyou =)
LikeLike
It’s not good homeopathic practice to be guessing at the remedy because everyone’s different, it’s better to visit a homeopath and get an assessment. If you can’t do that, study the remedy picture of each and see which one you think fits you best. You’re welcome to call me for more information and I’ll do the best I can to help you find an answer.
The general rule is to take the remedy until you feel a change and then stop and let your reactions do the rest. Sometimes one dose of OTC 30C is all it takes to get the ball rolling. Take 3 pellets under the tongue in a clean mouth and wait 24 hours. Note your dreams. Indium is indicated for the depressed homosexual, Platina for the self absorbed narcissist and Nux v for the angry . . but these are all just indications.
Reading the Sermon on the Mount won’t hurt either: Matthew 5,6,7.
best wishes,
John
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, two years after the fact and your article still makes a good read.
As layman, I won’t take sides on academic squabbles between fellow professionals but I can say that what appears to be lacking is peer-review and organizational oversight. Over the years we’ve seen snake-oil salesmen come and go and obviously common folk like myself are not going to review every development going on in medicine. We rely on governing bodies like the AMA and the APAs to protect us from the junk-science and guide us responsibly through their official recommendations, licensing, oversight, research guidelines, etc. Now I’m big believer that “truth will out”, as they say. No matter what political or social pressures exist to obscure or spin the facts whatever they may be, ultimately they find their way to the light.
Now I’m a gay man so understand next remarks as far from objective.
I see two possibilities here. One, you’re a snake-oil salesman or two, there is actually something to what you say in regards to a treatment for homosexuality. Let’s take the optimistic view of the later. If you’re actually on to a treatment for homosexuality then by all means, broadcast your findings as loud and wide as possible. You have no idea how many reluctant homosexual individuals and disappointed parents who’d be happy to lionize your name for the next 100 years if your work produced something akin to a cure. While gay folk might be accepted in some more sophisticated locales, generally speaking nobody really wants to be gay. Ask a significant sample of prospective parents (under a lie detector) if they desire a gay child and you’ll get very few, if any, affirmative responses. Politics and cultural conflicts aside, homosexuality as a condition is something affected people accept rather than desire.
Please seek peer-review and organizational oversight. This is critical if you ever want laymen like myself to take your seriously. You’re a professional and I’m sure you know how to popularize controversial research. I’ll point out there is extreme potential for financial profit as well as humanitarian gratitude if your work proves itself. I daresay you won’t be lauded at the same level as the person who discovers a cure for all cancers, but you’ll definitely have your paragraph in the annuls of medical history.
Finally, if you are really on to something then don’t give up. I know what you have to say is unpopular at the moment and you’re making few friends with postings like this one. Furthermore, the dynamics of our society’s recent acceptance of gay people necessitates a certain skepticism to your claims. Still, I do not believe that social dignity and medical truth should be at odds in this debate. Your work should be judged on scientific merit rather than cultural impact. Objectively our society very well might be able to accept homosexual individuals but I doubt any society will ever judge us preferable. Always remember just how many hearts you have the potential to lighten.
LikeLike
Dear Endless Repetition:
The fact of the matter is, homeopathy is the real medicine and its counterpart, “allopathy,” the other one, is the fake. Allopathy, the popular, traditional, “conventional” practice of “medicine,” is actually the administration of nothing more than placebos. Allopathy is not medicine. The word “medicine” refers to healing . . so in allopathy, where’s the healing? There’s no healing involved in the use of allopathic medicine. That’s not what it’s used for . .
Just what are the scientific principles of allopathy? If you know, or can find out, let me know what they are, because I haven’t been able to find them.
If psychiatry means “soul healing” . . then where’s the healing? What are these allopathic “psychiatrists” scientifically referring to in essence by calling themselves “soul healers?” I mean, this is a joke, right? And you talk to me about scams? What you’re comparing homeopathy to is the scam. And you talk to me about getting peer review for homeopathy? LOL! Get serious and grow up. Study what it is you’re commenting on before you start expressing an opinion about it. There’s all kinds of peer review for homeopathy, both in and out of it. The materia medica of homeopathy, the materials used in homeopathy as remedies for physical and emotional problems, is the only truly peer reviewed pharmacy on the planet. The reference literature for homeopathy was created over the past 200 years by medical doctors who tested these materials on themselves and countless “provers,” volunteers who reported on their effects, and of course their patients. Where do you see that in the patent medicines you take for your problems nowadays? There’s no system to allopathy. Just bribe it past the FDA and you’re in the clear to make a billion bucks. If the materials used by allopathic psychiatry were properly tested for their effects before they pushed them on the public they’d never get out of the dope mill.
If you look at the material medica, the reference materials for homeopathy, you will find more about the psychopathy of allopathic drugs than you will find in allopathic literature . . and you will be given a system of medicine, something that doesn’t exist in allopathy.
Let me give you an example. What is the major complaint psychiatrists get today in their practices? Depression, right? And what do they prescribe for depression? Prozac? Well, Prozac, along with other drugs like it, are fluoride based, similar to what goes into your drinking water, toothpaste, cookware, etc.
Okay, if you go to Kent’s homeopathic materia medica, read what this homeopathic MD had to say about the action of fluoride on the human psyche.
Oh, it temporarily cures depression alright, as long as you take it, you won’t give a shit about anything, yourself or anybody else. But look what else it does. You think you got sexual problems? Read what fluoride does to a person in the sexual sphere: http://www.homeoint.org/books3/kentmm/fluor-ac.htm
So can you imagine, a person with a sexual addiction goes to the psychiatrist, and neither one of them has the slightest inclination that the anti depressant the psychiatrist is going to give for the depression will exacerbate the hyper sexuality.
KENT: “In mental depression and melancholy, with great sadness, in young men who have destroyed the nervous system by vicious practices, by secret vice. It is particularly suitable for that disorder of the human economy where men have continuously changed their mistresses. There is a state in which a man is never satisfied with one woman, but continually changes and goes from bad to worse until he is a debauchee. If a young man cannot keep away from women, he is not so bad off if he will only keep to one, but he goes from one to many, until he stands upon the street corners and, in his lust, craves the innocent women that go along the street.
Kent refers to the state that is homeopathically proven by fluoride as “condition of enfeeblement of the mind and that disorder of the human economy that makes man so low, that we have the state described as ‘low mindedness.'”
May I be sold to suggest that “low mindedness” is exactly what is epidemic today among the masses? Is it so far fetched to suspect that it may be psychochemically induced by fluoride in drinking water, toothpaste and anti depressants? Fluoride and chlorine both are halogens that replace iodine, another halogen (like repels like) from the blood, which circulates through the thyroid every 17 minutes. The thyroid uses iodine to disinfect the blood. When iodine is deficient in the body, it causes a condition of hyperactivity, ADHD in children, and makes everyone more prone to cancer and other diseases.
To understand what Kent is saying about fluoride, you have to understand the distinction what the disease fluoride will cause in its crude state, it will cure in potency, i.e. its electromagnetic signature from its diluted state.
KENT: “There is a state in which a man is never satisfied with one woman, but continually changes and goes from bad to worse until he is a debauchee. If a young man cannot keep away from women, he is not so bad off if he will only keep to one, but he goes from one to many, until he stands upon the street corners and, in his lust, craves the innocent women that go along the street.”
Now, there are three (3) homeopathic remedies I know of for sexual perversion. So if sexual perversion is your problem, which remedy is best for you depends on what kind of sexual pervert you are. Top man remedy is Platina, bottom Indium. Nux vomica is for the for the angry, irritable business man. But the most common remedy I have seen prescribed for homosexuality is Platina, especially for the self absorbed and affected.
Some of the diseases of homosexuality, such as Karposi’s sarcoma, AIDS, anal cancer and STD’s should be treated with other homeopathic remedies as well. But psychopathically Platina can take the edge off the impulsive passion of homosexuality. .
See a doctor trained in classical homeopathy. To find a good homeopath, read the Organon of Medicine (pdf online) and question your prospective doctor about it. If he or she hasn’t read it or think they know better than Hahnemann, move on until you find one who has read it and follows it. Use the LM potency once you know if Platina is right for you and stay on it in the manner prescribed by Hanneamnn and your doctor until you’re cured.
As far as being lionized, if I started pushing a cure for homosexuality I’d get lionized alright, as in cat food. Why don’t you try homeopathic Platina, or whatever is prescribed, and if you get cured of perverse desires, see what happens when you start broadcasting it!
BTW, thanks for posting your thoughts . .
Good luck to you my friend, and best wishes.
John
LikeLike
John, part of the snake-oil salesman’s pitch is convincing the mark to make a judgement about pharmacology, rather than leaving it to a licensed physician. I’m not going to make that mistake. The AMA and the APAs are your judge, not me. When you convince them you will already have convinced me.
LikeLike
Okay Mr. Wiseguy, I took the better part of a day responding to YOUR phony pitch, what I assumed was an honest request for help, which you just threw back in my face, just what I should have expected from someone who’s suspected remedy is Platina.
Apparently what you don’t understand is that a lot of practicing homeopaths are licensed MDs. In Arizona, for example, you now need to be licensed to practice homeopathy by the state. Homeopathy is now being taught by a growing number medical schools around the world, most notably the American Medical College of Homeopathy in Phoenix that certifies physicians for licensure in AZ.
So now that you don’t have that objection anymore, why don’t you now go see a LICENSED homeopath and take one more gay guy off the streets, if that’s what you feel you need, and write when you get straightened out?
And by the way, the nation’s top cancer clinic, MD Anderson, recently collaborated with an Indian cancer clinic, Banerji, and found homeopathy to be effective against cancer, pre-clinically, in vitro, and in over 20,000 cases clinically, so there goes your AMA objection . . they’re already convinced as much as they have to be, along with the FDA, the chief sponsor of the FDCA just happening to be a LICENSED homeopath, Senator Royal Copeland, MD.
Anything else? Gripes, excuses, fairy tales, expressions of ignorance, delusions of grandeur?
LikeLike
No gripes, just a qualification. The AMA & the APAs also certify therapies, not just practitioners. Doctors are technicians, not magicians. A licensed therapist employing an unproven treatment is experimental medicine. Experimental medicine practiced without peer-review and organizational oversight is quackery. As a professional homeopath with a potential block-buster medicine in development, it’s up to you to get their stamp of approval and up to me to applaud when you do. I’m sure you understand how tainted is this particular field of therapy. Younger gays and parents of younger gays are often desperate and vulnerable to anyone offering a shred of hope. The news is littered with stories about opportunistic therapists promoting false and sometimes even dangerous treatments for homosexuality. Some healthy skepticism and process is warranted. That’s my habit. As a scientist, that’s your profession. I have absolutely no objections to your recommendations or the homeopathic approach. Your just at too early stage in the process to be making prescriptions. As I said before, when the AMA and the APAs are willing to sign-off on this (and we’ll know because you will be collecting a Nobel Prize), you won’t have to convince me.
LikeLike
I appreciate your sentiments, but obviously there’s a lot of things you don’t know about this little canard . . so before you set me up for a round of apotheosis I’m compelled to tell you that you’re quite wrong about everything . . that is to say your notions about what’s known about homeopathy are charmingly paleolithic, as is your knowledge about medicine . . and science. I doubt you even know what it is. You say you’re a chemical engineer . . how is that science? I mean, really, if it’s not an excuse to see the world without compassion, what do you think science is, anyway?
What do you do as a chemical engineer, design two headed sheep? And on Sundays, do you just wander into churches and go up to the pulpit and start preaching atheism, offer Randi’s million dollar prize to anyone who can prove the existence of God and then laugh at them when they throw themselves at the microphone? Isn’t that basically what you and a long line of pseudoscientists have done here in my pathetic little blog over the years?
You ought to offer the money in pieces of silver and then pay them off in derivatives. LOL!
You say “it’s up to you to get their stamp of approval and up to me to applaud when you do.” Well who the hell are they? Abbott and Costello? Glaxo Smith Kline? The Wright Brothers? What are you talking about?
Stop pretending to be stupid. The Nobel prize committee already was tricked once into awarding their Brownie badge to homeopathy the first time they passed it out in 1901 when they laid it on Behring for the diptheria vax, and the bastard turned around and said he owed it all to Hahnemann and homeopathy, so I doubt they’re going to fall for that again.
And yet you seem to think that before you can use it, homeopathy requires some mysterious stamp of approval by the Illuminati, or the Board of Regents at Hogwarts, like you, some anonymous arbiter of magic.
So now read this old chum and tell me what you think of it, Mr. Chemical Engineer: http://hpathy.com/research/Roy_Structure-of-Water.pdf . . and thanks for the game,
wink wink,
John
LikeLike
John, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck … well I think we can just leave it there. You’re a quack.
You cannot avoid a demand for PEER-REVIEW AND ORGANIZATIONAL OVERSIGHT. i don’t care how many names you use to log in here with to support junk-science and irresponsible claims. The AMA and APAs serve to protect us from CHARLATANS JUST LIKE YOU.
All the snark and insult you lay down is just another indication that your claims are unsupported and unprofessional. Now get it straight. The AMA and/or the APAs must approve your research and your medicine or YOU ARE WRONG. End of story. End of discussion. End of your nonsense. Who the hell do you think you are to prescribe an unapproved, untested medicine? I’ll tell you who you really are – A CON MAN.
I have nothing against homeopathy or any other philosophy of medicine so long as they accept the same standards for proving efficacy, safety, and side-effects. I gave you a shot and you turned out to be another snake-oil salesman.
LikeLike
“I have nothing against homeopathy or any other philosophy of medicine so long as they accept the same standards for proving efficacy, safety, and side-effects …”
Duuuude, then we should stop the entire pharmaceutical lobby, because they have proven to be a criminal organization!
LikeLike
LOL! Since you can’t seem to respond to material sciences view of homeopathy by Roy, here’s something simpler for you, what you want everyone to believe doesn’t exist, a list of those peer reviewed publications, including one by the AMA . .
Peer reviewed pubs
Am J Pharm Educ http://tinyurl.com/7htoejq
Int J Onc http://tinyurl.com/7n9939c http://tinyurl.com/6m2dpnd
Integr Cancer Ther http://tinyurl.com/7r7zajg
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg http://tinyurl.com/cb88aym
UK Parliament http://tinyurl.com/7666q5g
Nature http://tinyurl.com/6rc3jy http://tinyurl.com/7aelcv9
Inflam Res. http://tinyurl.com/6fj9jsn
BMC Public Health http://tinyurl.com/7r7zajg
Lancet http://tinyurl.com/84xt56k
NY Acad Sci. http://tinyurl.com/6w7t4bf
RHINITIS BMJ2000;321:471 http://tinyurl.com/bmjrhin
And here’s something else as a bonus of “peer review,” meta analyses . .
Meta Analysis and Systematic Reviews
http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/meta-analysis-and-systematic-reviews/
BORNHOFT: Homeopathy in Healthcare http://tinyurl.com/78fzhl2
FISHER: hi quality experiments yield positive results. http://tinyurl.com/7666q5g
JOHNSON: meta-analyses conclude homeopathic treatment significantly better than placebo http://tinyurl.com/7htoejq
SHANG<Ludtke Rutten: find significant effect beyond placebo http://tinyurl.com/ludtkerutten
LINDE: results incompatible with placebo hypothesis http://tinyurl.com/84xt56k
CUCHERAT homeopathy more effective than placebo http://tinyurl.com/cucherat
KLEIJNEN clinical trial evidence positive http://tinyurl.com/kleijnen
It should be pointed out that no matter what you may think the importance of them to be, homeopathy in its materia medica remains the most peer reviewed pharmacy in the world. Ironic that a chemical engineer should be accusing a homeopath of quackery . . what else should we call the petro chemical synthesis that makes up the patent medicine industry? How many people do you think the AMA estimates chemical engineering in the drug industry killed today, in hospitals, using "properly prescribed," "properly administered" drugs, designed by chemical ENGINEERS like YOU? I think you're DUCKING charges of mass murder.
If people like you put out the same kind of stink about the crap you peddle as you do about homeopathy not being "peer reviewed" and properly tested, how many more people do you think would be alive each year? According to your precious AMA it's over 100,000 annually.
You don't suppose your charges of quackery could be subconscious projection on your part, now do you?
You talk about quackery . . what a joke, when your snake oil industry has been indicted by the US Justice Department and levied with billions of dollars of fines, not to mention the civil suits, and yet it just keeps chugging along.
LikeLike
John, your argument is not with me. You will either adhere to the AMA and APA standards for proving your practice and treatments or you are a quack. End of story.
You want to put your readers in the position of judge over medical research. Unqualified individuals should never do such a thing. I won’t take your bait.
Medical professionals certified by the AMA with experience using responsible treatments, certified by the AMA are your judge. Convince them, not me. Science and engineering are disciplined practices. You don’t like the rules. That’s too bad. You’re a quack.
LikeLike
Can you be more specific? Can you clarify your charges of quack? How is it that my quack is distinct from your cluck?
Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for you to respond to all the lies I’ve published under pseudonyms, or for you to gerrymander your assertions in a hastily assembled court of banana peels. I mean really now, you certainly don’t expect people to take your lies seriously now when they are made without any references to other lies by authority of other pseudonyms, now do you? DO YOU?
ANSWER ME!
Now let’s see if you can answer a question instead of just clucking . . apparently you aren’t reading anything, because if what you say is true, then how do you explain a recent act by the Arizona state legislature (not the AMA) to license homeopaths and the American Medical College of Homeopathy in Phoenix (not the AMA) to train MDs to use this quackery in their practices, and a state Board of Examiners (not the AMA) to certify them to quck? The FDA regulates homeopathic products, NOT THE AMA!
So please teach us, good rabbi, Explain to everyone here reading this now just what the AMA’s official capacity is in determining what are viable drugs and practices in using them, and just how that applies to homeopathy. Explain to us how it is that these drugs mangage to slip by the AMA into TV ads every night?
Do you suppose it’s because of mental illness problems brought on by moral turpitude rather than the high carbohydrate diet as we have suspected? Maybe the AMA needs to talk more to the APA, don’t you think?
Now here’s another question for you not to answer: By accusing me of being the lone quacker in the universe, are you saying that all these august bodies of government, professional associations, echelons of higher learning and the enterprises that support them . . have all fallen for my canard?
For one man’s con job . . that I singlehandedly victimized them all?
Why, you must believe I’m some kind of super villain who mows down reason like Douglas Fir in a clearcut?
Well, actually I appreciate the compliment and your perspicuity because you’re actually right for once. It was me that got your precious little AMA to publish in one of its journals Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg http://tinyurl.com/cb88aym a study that shows the efficacy of homeopathy! LOL!
Those fools!
It was ME who tricked Duke University into publishing “Homeopathic treatments in psychiatry: a systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled studies.” Davidson JR, Crawford C, Ives JA, Jonas WB. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21733480 Source: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Oh, those idiots! How easily they can be duped by me!
I know you won’t believe “that not all procedures in medicine are condoned by all practitioners.” No! You’re you and I, we’re too smart for that! We’re not one of the “little people,” are we? I can see that you’re of noble birth, what gives you such a noble mind! If homeopathy works, then everyone would be using it, n’est ce pas mon ami? Cognoscente! Yes! If the AMA is the final arbiter, then how could it be so lax as to fall for a practice that has been known to be false for two centuries? . . unless of course it was ME who did it, the Evil Genius, who, like you, has the power to cloud the minds of millions! Of course we do it differently. You do it with petro chemical synthesis, I do it with VOODOO, isn’t that right?
Everyone else thinks this is a joke, but you know its true! Don’t you? Admit it! You get down on your knees, you put your hands together, mumble sacraments to your atheist god (Yourself) and then flush your ablutions down the toilet.
Ha ha ha ha! But wait, there’s just one more thing. You know of course it was me who slips into your lab at night and turns your good drugs bad, its all my doing that AMA drugs are sickening so many people every year, and getting your employers in trouble with the US Justice Department with all those terrible civil suits for the miracle drugs you offer the public in those TV ads (Mephistophlean laughter).
LikeLike
You are repeating yourself endlessly. In order to accept a truth you don’t need “peer-review”, just logic reasoning and an experiment on yourself.
See what wikipedia says about “reason”:
Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.
And in contrast see what wikipedia says about “denial” (which applies to you):
Denial, in ordinary English usage, is asserting that a statement or allegation is not true. The same word, and also abnegation, is used for a psychological defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deny)
So what you are doing is building up a defense mechanism because you are faced with facts which are too uncomfortable to accept. Maybe you even understand the implications of this insight, but you reject them because it would change your worldview. Or you simply don’t care about the truth and you work for some coward public relation agency who paid you some money in order to spread lies.
LikeLike
John, one name on this board should be sufficient for you. Padding the forum with your own pseudo-sycophantic replies achieves nothing although it is not surprising. I’ve done a brief web-search on your activities and you’re obviously a joke in both medical and homeopathic circles.
LikeLike
Well, at lest I’m not corresponding with a joke . . or am I?
LikeLike
LOL! I quack, you cluck . . with a lisp. ASIDE FROM THAT, I’m still praying for you to refer to something other than your own imagination. Next thing I expect to read is you accusing the mailman, the next door neighbor and the potted plant of being me, just as you’ve done with all the other respondents on this blog. It’s no wonder you’re having such a problem seeing reality, you actually think the APA can cure you of mental illness.
I heard of a someone just like you who took one dose of Platina 30c, looked in the mirror and saw the image slowly changing . .
LikeLike
John, your ravings, lack of any medical qualification, and notorious egotism are not the topics of this blog. Originally I inquired about your proving your medicines. Unfortunately I overestimated your qualifications and knowledge. You revealed as much in your evasive, ambiguous, and blatantly irresponsible replies. At that point, our conversation turned to the necessity for expert oversight in disciplines requiring deep specialization such as medicine and pharmacology. That apparently infuriated you. Your response was to dismiss the whole of standard medical practice and indict the entire pharmaceutical industry. In fact, each time we exchanged, you drove the topic back toward yourself and away from any mention of oversight or peer review of your claims.
So, you’re obviously a quack, a witch-doctor, a snake-oil salesman. Why you attempt to peddle this junk is anyone’s guess and beyond my qualifications to speculate.
LikeLike
Endless Repetiton- It’s been noted in neurological studies that when the human brain faces evidence that contradicts a long held belief, such as ‘there is no peer review of homeopathy,’ it will delete the evidence. I pasted the links to homeopathic studies published in peer reviewed journals, which apparently your brain has blocked out.
Here they are again . . including one by the AMA . .
I’ve included in the meta analyses a brief conclusion.
Peer reviewed pubs
Am J Pharm Educ http://tinyurl.com/7htoejq
Int J Onc http://tinyurl.com/7n9939c http://tinyurl.com/6m2dpnd
Integr Cancer Ther http://tinyurl.com/7r7zajg
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg http://tinyurl.com/cb88aym
UK Parliament http://tinyurl.com/7666q5g
Nature http://tinyurl.com/6rc3jy http://tinyurl.com/7aelcv9
Inflam Res. http://tinyurl.com/6fj9jsn
BMC Public Health http://tinyurl.com/7r7zajg
Lancet http://tinyurl.com/84xt56k
NY Acad Sci. http://tinyurl.com/6w7t4bf
RHINITIS BMJ2000;321:471 http://tinyurl.com/bmjrhin
And here’s something else as a bonus of “peer review,” meta analyses . .
Meta Analysis and Systematic Reviews
http://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/article/meta-analysis-and-systematic-reviews/
BORNHOFT: Homeopathy in Healthcare http://tinyurl.com/78fzhl2
FISHER: hi quality experiments yield positive results. http://tinyurl.com/7666q5g
JOHNSON: meta-analyses conclude homeopathic treatment significantly better than placebo http://tinyurl.com/7htoejq
SHANG<Ludtke Rutten: find significant effect beyond placebo http://tinyurl.com/ludtkerutten
LINDE: results incompatible with placebo hypothesis http://tinyurl.com/84xt56k
CUCHERAT homeopathy more effective than placebo http://tinyurl.com/cucherat
KLEIJNEN clinical trial evidence positive http://tinyurl.com/kleijnen
Maybe the ability to blank out such evidence is part of your job description as a chemical engineer.
Anyone but YOU apparently can read the evidence trail left here in black and white. You came into this discussion with the belief that there is no peer review for homeopathy, and I provided you with two points, the external reviews, as once again listed above, and that in homeopathy there is constant internal peer review of the clinical effects of it's pharmacy via "provings," experimentation on healthy subjects, to see what the effects of individual materials in potency are, and case notes that are organized into materia medica, the backbone for homeopathic prescribing.
In addition to internal peer review, there
In other words, because homeopathic materials are not designed for any particular disease or condition, as are the patent drugs you peddle, homeopathic prescribing is entirely dependent on the observations made in experimental tests and clinical notes of prior homeopaths over the last two hundred years.
If your brand of medicine had to be similarily applied by cross indexing symptoms and remedies to find the best remedy to address the most symptoms, your pharmacy of palliation simply wouldn't exist as it is today. The strategy of modern conventional medicine, i.e. allopathy's prescribing, is to prescribe an ongoing schedule of administering a different drug for each symptom. The result is to palliate a host of symptoms making a regular client, i.e. vioctim of the patient, serving to drain his financial resources.
Homeopathy, given its internal peer review sees a pattern within the symptoms that match a particular remedy, and with one dose corrects it, and instead of the patient the homeopath goes broke.
So in pitching your manure don't expect it to collect on my doorstep. You're the patent medicine salesmen here . . and when it comes to credentials, look at your own. You're anonymous, which means you're a nobody. Without any citations, links or references, you have no position at all for YOUR snake oil pitch. Who are you? Nobody. What is your opinion worth here? Nothing.
LikeLike
John, I’m not qualified in medicine so my opinions regarding the specifics of medical practice are indeed, worth nothing. So are yours. You’re not a qualified practitioner and you have no business encouraging unqualified individuals to do their own medical research. You so-called medical arguments end there.
I’ve done a bit of reading on you since I made my first post and you are little more than a jester in the courts of medicine. You’re an joke even in homeopathic circles. They have found a use for you, however. You’ve apparently have become their bad example.
LikeLike
EndlessRepetition YOU are not qualified at all. You are annoying and useless.
LikeLike
John, no matter how many ids you create, you can’t hide your weaselly attitude. This issue is not homeopathy. The issue is your lack of qualification in commenting on it. Your so-called knowledge and eminence in the field of homeopathy is a topic of humor among licensed physicians who support some homeopathic practices. They don’t seem to have a problem applying the same measures for therapeutic efficacy. You, on the other hand, seem to BE one of their problems as a discredit and a stain on the entire field.
LikeLike
EndlessRepetition, please follow this instructions:
with your right hand touch your nose and say aloud:”I’m lacking of qualification, proper education, mental healthiness, emotional stability, and above all of an meaning in life, therefore I hate people who do the right thing, who are open minded and searching the truth, therefore I persecute them with my cowardly polemic, without mentioning any valid argument, no argument at all, by being just annoying, repeating myself endlessly, Amen!”
LikeLike
Endless Repetition- Bravo! It appears we’re starting to get through to you. You finally made a correct statement, you finally admitted your ignorance, as had been made abundantly clear to you here: You admitted you are not qualified in medicine, so your “opinions regarding the specifics of medical practice are indeed, worth nothing.”
Now, if only allopaths, the patent drug dealers who work for the poison pill industrial complex would admit the same, the world would be a safer place.
Unfortunately after your confession, your admission of the truth ends and you go back to sputtering more assumptions, endlessly attacking the messenger with the same accusations. But I’m used to it. It’s what I’ve been getting from homeopathy antagonists for almost 14 years now, the S.O.S. the Same Old Stuff.
One thing I’ve learned, and that is when it comes to whatever people like you think they know about homeopathy, its ALWAYS wrong, its ALWAYS based on a myth, fallacy, misconception, rumor or lie, its always an unfounded allegation, its never an adduction. In fact, what you believe is real medicine is actually the scam, and what you think is the scam is the real medicine. You think allopathy, the practice of what you take to be conventional medicine, is the real thing and homeopathy is fake, when the opposite is true.
And you know in your heart that what I’m saying is true. You’ve read about the criminal indictments, the huge fines imposed on the drug industry for a petro chemical synthesis that has no curative action that harms rather than heals. And rather than finding the mote in your own eye, you come here seeking mine, crying about lack of peer review while your drugs are killing people.
You know you have a serious problem you need help with. You know the drugs you create don’t work for anything, certainly not the problem you have, you’re perfectly well aware of the harm they do, and although you think its just wishful thinking, you think that maybe, just maybe there is something in homeopathy that MIGHT help, and secretly you’re just as desperate to find a solution for your own personal problem, which you have projected on to what you sense might help you. You think “if only homeopathy was peer reviewed I might be inclined to drop my guard and secretly try it . .”
Then when you are told its already peer reviewed, your only objection, your only excuse for not changing falls away leaving nothing but your naked rage.
You are the joker, not me. Get serious. This is my lifework. What I have to convey nobody else has yet done.
And because you have been living a lie you see the one man who tells you the truth as a joker, when in fact you are seeing nothing but yourself.
The problem is you’re deeply confused. Wake up! Calm down. It’s just a bad dream. You don’t understand what science is and you don’t know what medicine is. But you can learn. So it’s best to just keep quiet, stop antagonizing the people who are here to help you and study real medicine by reading two things, the two most important statements made to Mankind. (1.) The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5,6 and 7) and (2.) The Organon of Medicine by Christian Samuel Hahnemann, 6th edition [PDF online http://hpathy.com/wp-content/uploads/group-documents/41/1330840219-organonofmedicine.pdf%5D.
Meditate on them.
best,
John
PS: Subscribe . .
LikeLike
John, you’re not a homeopath. You’re not a physician. You’re not a researcher. You’re just a quack. You are nobody to make therapeutic recommendations and the only renown you have among medical professionals who support some homeopathic practice is as an embarrassment. Your (bad) reputation follows you no matter how much you continue to prattle on here. You promote irresponsible practices and poor individual decisions in health and medicine and all in the name of your own self-styled expertise and ego. If you have any respect for the practice you claim to promote, you’ll stop talking about it and remove the clownish distraction.
LikeLike
Do you realize that everybody is able to recognize that you don’t deliver arguments, but only hysteric polemics? Who are you?
LikeLike
Excellent! I see we’re making some progress. Your first complaint was that you believed there was no peer review for this mysterious little practice of homeopathy. Now it appears you have finally accepted that there is, and you appear to have also recognized that there are indeed licensed, accredited medical doctors of the type you demand, members of the AMA who are certified to practice homoeopathy. Bravo!
And I really should thank you for attacking my qualifications, as hubris is every physician’s ultimate nemesis, hiding in his “credentials,” LOL!
Now then, unless you’re just trolling, why don’t you pick one of those AMA homeopaths you so desperately seek, avail yourself of his or her services, and see if one of them can pry the monkey off your back? In all fairness to the unwitting, show your prospective victims some of your correspondence here . .
via con Dios!
John
PS: Listen to Alabaster Zirutra, he has something to say too, you know . .
LikeLike
Pseudoskeptic!
LikeLike
Not in the slightest. I’m a chemical engineer by trade. Process is everything.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter how you earn your money. It’s your behavior what matters, your way to ignore facts. There is only one way to convince a real skeptic that homeopathy works: make a self proof of homeopathy. But a pseudoskeptic would never make such a proof, because they just don’t want to believe or they work for some coward public relation agency.
LikeLike
That is a snake-oil salesman’s pitch. You just advised me to make an irresponsible and unqualified decision way outside of my expertise. Desperation might propel a man to make such a stupid leap but the process serves as a caution.
LikeLike
Ya? Then everybody here should know that endless repetition of a lie does it not make true! This is one of the main tactics of the coward public relation agencies: tell a lie until everyone (or the majority) believes it.
LikeLike
I read all the replies and all I can see in your responses is a big fanatic who refuses anyone who can produce a counter argument. Full of historic and scientific misconceptions. Maybe you shouldn’t be where you are a let a more capable person take your place.
LikeLike
Well, I can understand why you might feel that way. My apologies if my words have upset you. I hope things go well for you.
best wishes,
John Bnneth
LikeLike
[…] two reality-deniers pulling each others’ hair and moustaches in a fight over who said what. ‘GAY CURE’ IGNITES FIRESTORM screams the headline. It’s the Big Match of the night, the headline […]
LikeLike
[…] two reality-deniers pulling each others’ hair and moustaches in a fight over who said what. ‘GAY CURE’ IGNITES FIRESTORM screams the headline. It’s the Big Match of the night, the headline […]
LikeLike
Dear johnbenneth,
I believe there is cure for Homosexual (if this is fake, i wonder why so many people spend lots of time blogging, gives negative feedback… etc. as if as they “TRY TO STOP PEOPLE FROM REACHING THE TRUTH”)
I admit I do have suicide attempt several years ago when life turn real bad, I’ve asked God many times to change me to heterosexuality, I guest this is why I end up here for HELP.
Can you kindly gives us some reference of what INGREDIENT used in homeopathy to cure homosexual? or at least some hints or clue, very appreciate.
This can really safe lots of life who has the chances to read this.
LikeLike
I am sure homeopathy can help you. There is always a remedy for everyone, and there is no doubt in my mind that there is a coursse of action specific for you. But it would be ill advised to take one without getting more information first.
LikeLike
I just can’t believe what i’ve read… I only have one word for your post… disgusting.
I am an homeopath.
I am gay.
WHAT you are asserting comes from a sick mind. And the fact that you so outwardly published an email exchange between you and Dana Ullmann confirms that very big emotional imbalance, that you try to spread like truth on the web.
And what bothers me the most is that, unfortunately, you are giving tons of ammunitions to anti-homeopathic lobbies, for publishing such stupid and crazy thoughts.
(Sorry for the mistakes. English is not my mother tongue.)
LikeLike
Dear Paul,
Your English is just fine.
The commentary by Ullman was not an email exchange. It was publlished by him as public commentary on a previous entry to this blog, so ONCE AGAIN you’re jumping to conclusions.
Now, with that said. I don’t have to add my opinion of homosexuality for people to see what it is from the hard cold facts. I have asked your side repeately, if you don’t agree with the rates of mortality and infection among LGBTs stated here, then please simply post what the correct figures are.
So far all I’ve gotten is mumbling.
You’re a health professional, let’s see how well you know your clientele.
John Benneth, Homeopath
LikeLiked by 1 person
I apologize for the fact that indeed, Mr. Dana’s intervention was public.
But i maintain that your post is still inadequate, biased, arrogant and depicts a mind blinded by its own fear of homosexuality. Lots of confusion too here : in your response to my comment, you kind of switch things around by asking me if i agree that infection among LGBTs is higher. What is this? Now, you are putting Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transexuals in the same category. Why? And what are we discussing about now? The pathologies affecting a certain group of people – we call this epidemiology – or sexual orientation as a pathology per se. What kind of an homeopath are you if you mix everything up?!
And what are the symptoms of your so-called Homosexual Syndrome? What needs to be cured exactly if you have a gay person with no physical symptoms, high vitality, good mental concentration and memory and on top of that, that is achieving his highest purpose in life – you probably think it doesn’t exists – ? You still think there is something sick about him or her? Something that needs to be reverted? So if you revert this syndrome, is he or she going to be protected by the infections affecting that population?
And how do Bisexuality and Transexuality fit in your picture? You can revert those too? Where do you find the Rubric in Kent? Has it never crossed your mind that Kent was living in a particular historical and cultural context? And that because of it, he wrote «love sick of one of her own sex.»? It surely didn’t cross your mind either that at that time, people feeling love and attraction towards their own sex must have suffer an overwhelming ordeal due to that cultural context where homosexuality was considered as a crime among other bad and wrong labels that still pervades some cultures and religions. How naïve was I, thinking that homeopaths were just a bit more evolved…
My only hope, is that a young gay man or woman, or a teenager who is now struggling with accepting who he is doesn’t read your post – and make him believe that he could be cured.
I tried to find a way to report this post as homophobic and have it deleted but i didn’t find how yet.
LikeLike
Dear John, your understanding of the social dynamics (and psychiatric dynamic) of homosexuality (and perhaps sexuality)- what is healthy and unhealthy sexual expression – is myopic and superficial.
If you believe that homosexual expression is abnormal, kindly detail an example of normal expression.
Nicholas Roddis
LikeLike
Dear Nicholas,
Thank you for your what I’m sure is a well considered comment.
Given an epiphany of the figures, which have yet to be superceded or contravened, I’d say what should be normal is homophobia. Otherise I’d say what is norrmal in the US and Denmark is rampant sodomy, AIDs, STD’s, suicide, confusion, pederasty and homosexual rape.
What normal person would not immediately investigate a reported cure for uncontrollable impulses, that if acted upon, would shorten his life by a quarter of a century?
best of luck to you, health and happiness.
John Benneth, Homeopath
LikeLike
Dear Nicholas,
It would apperr to me by observing current -pratices, homosexuality is considered to be normal. But no matter how myopic you think I may be, it doesn’t change staistics from a growing number of studies on my desk that show that homoseuxality is a political idnetty,not a biolgicalone. it’s only biolgoical marker is the abnormal percentage of sexually transmitted diseases.
For example, the CDC reports that in 2010 “men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. Men who are HIV-positive are even more likely than those who are uninfected to develop anal cancer.”
See Primary and Secondary Syphilis—Reported Cases, 2008, by Sexual Orientation.
Now, since the figures i hve presented have been challenged by innuendo, I have asked for what the correct mortality and infection rates are for homosexuals, but you and your cohorts have failed to provide them.
The best you’ve done so far here to make your cae is to weaken the credibility of numbers you don’t like.
Since you don’t want to answer the pertinent question, and now that you’ve concluded what my eyesight is on this issue, let’s test yours:
What percentage of homosexuals become heterosexuals?
What percentage of heterosexuals have had homosexual encounters and have remained heterosexual in orientation?
Are there any diseases that are peculiar only to homosexuals?
What is the percentage of gays of the total popualtion?
What is the rate of alcohol and drug abuse among homoseuals?
What are the rates of diseases among homosexual?
You do the reporting or I will.
John Benneth, Homeopath
LikeLike
Just for the record, the claim that homosexuals “live a quarter of a century less” is straightforwardly untrue. The only plausible basis for it was a study by Hogg et al carried out in 1997 in Canada http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.short at the height of the Aids epidemic, which found that gay men aged 20 could expect to live 8-20 years less than a straight man, due to the ravages of that illness. However, nowadays Aids is a very treatable disease, so the statistical difference in life expectancy is negligible. Hogg and the other authors explicitly reject the suggestion that their original study suggests that gay men nowadays suffer shortened lifespans in a 2001 followup: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1499.full
The other source, of course, is the notorious Paul Cameron trial, which was based on the ages of deaths in gay newspaper obituaries in the 1980s – skewed hugely towards Aids victims, for obvious reasons – and which led the vociferously anti-gay Cameron to be struck off and/or condemned by the American Psychological Association, the Nebraska Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association and the Canadian Psychological Association. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cameron#From_professional_organizations There’s a good analysis of his statistical errors here http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.3/ross.html
The ASA were particularly damning: “It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron’s writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been ‘appalled’ at the abuse of their work.”
One (non-academic) website that looks at these things makes a tentative estimate that the prevalence of HIV/Aids among gay men nowadays reduces the group life expectancy by around 1.2 years. http://grantdale.customer.netspace.net.au/Update_of_Hogg_00.html – not insignificant, but hardly the ludicrous scare stories bandied around by Cameron and the like either.
LikeLike
Dear Tom,
Thanks for commenting here and helping to clarify the gay illness and mortality discussion with the rebuttal to what the Cameron denunciation has evoked.
As is true with all negative arguments supporting localized skepticism, your position is based on a position of mandatory ignorance of the facts.
The only real evidence you can muster against one study among concordant dozens so far is “a tentative estimate that the prevalence of HIV/Aids among gay men nowadays reduces the group life expectancy by around 1.2 years.”
A tentative estimate? How did the researchers come up with that feeble excuse for a conclusion? Counting how many phone numbers had been scratched off of the restroom wall at the Embers?
Probably got it off a Quijji board.
This argument for gay normalcy is turning out to be no better than the argument against homeopathy, based mostly on “I don’t want to believe it” refusals to recognize the facts as they stand, in not just one study, but study after study after study that proves you wrong.
It’s obvious. Modern homosexuality has turned what used to be occasional discreet fornication in designated areas, punishable by law, into what now are gangs of naked men publicly swimming in open sewers.
It’s sick and digusting, but because of political correctness I’m supposed to choke back my nausea and celebrate diversity? Instead of giving me specific answers specific questions, all you can muster is hyperbole, hypothesis and ad hominem regrets. I ordered the full course dinner you said was coming, and all I get from you are a handful of drugs.
WHAT IS HOMOSEXUAL LIFE EXPECTANCY? Camerom says it’s 50, and from what I’ve seen, 50 is concordant with other figures.
From minds that have brought us 19th century keyboards and fully automatic weapons still in use in the 21st century, nuclear power, six manned moon landings and 430 episodes of Bonanza, certainly you must have something that is far better than what you are offering me now. Give me the facts. If you’re so smart to inist that Cameron can’t give me an accurate figure for gay suicide, then certainly you can. Don’t bother me with defamations of him, tell me what you know is the tue suicide rate is for gays.
Same for all the other figures you’re disscrediting Camewron with. You’re the accuser, the burden of proof is on you. Cameron is innocent until proven guilty, and so far from what I’ve seen, you couldn’t even indict Dahmer for bad cooking.
I don’t want to hear me about Cameron getting kicked out of the APA, what I want to hear from the APA is how much of their practice is devoted to homosexuals. How much money are they making off of the idea that these guys were born mentally ill?
Let’s see your study that stands up to your “rigor.” SO far the only rigor I’ve seen out of your side of the grave is rigor mortis.
Let’s see better criteria than Cameron’s if you can come up with any criteria at all, and let’s see how you weight it.
Until then I’m sticking with the literature as it stands now, which is more than just Cameron’s.
You want to show a little compassion for homo sapiens? Then practice first on homo dumbo, like Richard Dawkins, Gepetto, or that drunk, Christopher Hitchens, and the legions of puppets that swarm them.
Try homeopathy. It’s the way for gay.
best wishes, love and respect,
John Benneth, Homeopath
LikeLike
“Try homeopathy. It’s the way for gay” Sounds like you know about it!
XD
LikeLike
“homosexuality is mentally ill” … right!
I think the problem here is the so called “fear of man” (Trembling at men is what lays a snare). Many fear that they could get problems if they admit that homosexuality is indeed a perversion. Or that someone could say “you are very intolerant” … but it is not right to be intolerant against perversion? Should we permit every perversion to spread?
Whatever! Homosexuality is not always something to be cured. Sometimes people are simply perverted in their heart, they hate the good and love the bad. How ever could we think that something like wickedness could be cured? On the other side there are young people who are confused by their sexuality, maybe because of a syphilitic miasm that is on the base of every perversion illness or maybe because of the media … yeah, the media! Take a look on the movies from the 80s, suddenly the gay appeared there in the movies, shown as someone who you have not to fear, a nice but stupid guy, a ponce, trying on women’s shoes, talking strange like a woman (but a woman would never talk like this) … Hollywood has introduced the gay into the show, and then even Cowboys (real mens) which are attracted to each other like magnets … oh God!
And now, relax, make yourself comfortable, watch a movie: http://youtu.be/sa9OmP5BOo4
LikeLike