The Case Against the Case Against Homeopathy

Have you read the previous blog? I hope so, it might give you a better context into which to put . .

The Case Against the Case Against Homeopathy

SHOUT OUT to homeopaths in the home of Hahnemann, Germany; and homeopaths all over the world, in Ireland; Austria; Pakistan; Chile; Poland, Canada; Australia; India; the Netherlands; Croatia; Argentina; Iceland; Togo; the home of Clarke, the United Kingdom; and the home of Kent, the US of A, all who have been reading this column. Thanks for your support . . theoretically

You can stop reading now: THERE IS NO CASE AGAINST HOMEOPATHY.

There never has been and there never will be.

The rest of this blog is entertaiment of the type you’d find on a Roman holiday.

THE PROBLEM WITH theoretical reasoning, it always falls and fails under the grinding wheel of everyday use, and should it ever be hauled into the assizes, there’s always a jury: Half who knows somebody who has tried homeopathy  . .  and swears by it . . and half who knows somebody who hasn’t . . and swears at it.

Homeopathy isn’t easy to explain to people who aren’t familiar with it, and even harder to explain to people who are . . or think they are. Bu then again nobody has really been able to explain gravity very well, either. Those who have tried it swear it’s for real, but like homeopathy, try to explain it to someone who isn’t familiar with it’s effects and you may get a puzzled look, and hear them say they’d rather stick with levity.

And just because we can’t explain how something works doesn’t stop us from using it if we know it does. Thank God we don’t have 13th century scientists following us around in pushcarts telling us we can’t listen to our radios or watch our TVs, use our toasters or launch our pets and heroes into outer space, because they “don’t know how it works, it’s too implausible . . its the work of the devil!


And presumably, to them, neither do we know how all these rather obtuse things work, because our explanation for how they do won’t suffice for the zeusophobe who has already decided it’s psychogenic, i.e. the operator is responsible, possessed by the Devil, or in 21st century terms, in the mad thrall of a placebo.

Though they’ll never admit it, the sad fact is there are a number of things that don’t make sense, even to the most gifted atheist or prize winning scientist, things such as ontology, the study of Being, or why it is that hasn’t crushed by its own weight yet?

The rest of us lamebrains are compelled to ask, why must Atheists and Intelligent Design authors fight? Why must Creationists and Evolutionists quarrel like dogs over what is Holy to them? What is there in Bible ink that doesn’t jibe with chalk dust?

In the sage words of Rodney King after his Hyundai was pulled over for breaking a hundred MPH downtown (and he was truncheoned into a flapjack) “why can’t we all just get along?”

Exactly . . although maybe not going as fast as Romney, but who’s to criticize another man’s direction? I don’t hear our Australian jurists trying to kick that one out of bed.

This digresses down to demands for minute details as examples, like the contradicting figures “scientists” give us for the size and age of the observable Universe, a 48 billion or so light year radius mistake that made it to that size in only 13.7 billion light years. Talk about speeding, even Rodney King couldn’t explain that one.

Oh, they will surely cough up some hairball explanation for it, to be sure, mumble something about an “expanding Universe,” but common sense impounds us not to make it worse with a dumb excuse like that one, just take Rodney’s advice and STFU the next time you break the light speed barrier, talk to my hand, call my attorney, get a job.

Confused? Well let me put it this way. Why is it that the objects most distant from the eye, those galaxies, quasars and nebulae, look about the same age as those much closer . . ? Shouldn’t they all be proto galaxies, quasars and nebulae?

These calculating minds, such as the one that prepares bulls against homeopathy in Australia, and the one that touts it in the UK Guardian, should be able to explain to us why it is that telescopes can view perfectly modern galacti well beyond what should be the limits of astronomical observations, the radius of 13.7 billion light years . . i.e. 6.85, an eight of what all these logically attuned, homeopathy-hating astromoners claim it to be.

I SUGGEST TO YOU THIS is why junior James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) astronomer and homeopathy-hater Neil deGrasse Tyson is in a state of perpetual hyperventilation; why JREF astronomer and homeopathy-hater Phil Plaitt runs away from cameras held by believers; and why JREF eponym James Randi has to play three card Monte with the code to the double blind for every homeopathy biochemical lab test he witnesses.

 Well, pshaw you say, what about shooting all the homeopaths? What do the sunspots on Arcturus have to do with that, that’s why we’re here isn’t it?

Well, I say, I may seem to be rambling because I can’t see my prepared notes due to the blindfold, and I haven’t finished my cigarette yet, and I thought that besides supper the condemned gets a few last words in edgewise, you see, and I find it fascinating, if not celestially funny, that the spoken size of the Universe, in total, matches Avogadro’s number, 10 to the 23rd, the point in serial dilution, when it so happens, by some wild coincidence, the homeopathic remedy ascends from the material to etheric, where the van der waal forces take over in structure from what was formerly the domain of heterogeneous molecular composition, and not one, not one in a Godzillion of the intended molecule is left in solution, when it goes from dumb science into the spiritual dimension.

But wait!

This can also be put into the atheist’s dimension of astronomical and homeopathic wonders by saying that what we see, (although it may look like a lot) is hardly worth mentioning. In fact, like they say of the high dilute, it‘s nothing at all. The theoretical size of the unseen Universe, that which is beyond myopia, is estimated (without any intended regard to homeopathy) to be 10-23rd power times larger than the observable Universe.

By material standards, in our observable Universe, we are real enough, but in our theoretical one we are nothing at all.

Same as the case against homeopathy.

NEXT: Implausible as it may seem . .

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter


5 comments on “The Case Against the Case Against Homeopathy

  1. MeMe says:

    @skeptotroll… loved your posts on DC’s ‘science’ site 😉 keep on truckin kiddo!


  2. Who are these people who’ve never experienced the effects of gravity?


  3. the skeptotroll says:

    Come now, John, of course there is a case against homeopathy.

    It is a case often forcefully presented by a cultish special interest group, the so-called Skeptics (unconscious footsoldiers for the pharmaceutical illdustry, “useful fools”), and is characterised by misrepresentation.

    It’s an argument blinded by Science.

    In summary, it boils down to this:
    “Homeopathy isn’t basic chemistry, and it competes with pharmacology.
    Pharmacology is good, I learnt about it in school.
    There is no evidence that homeopathy works, I know there isn’t because I don’t accept any of the evidence.

    Of course there are corollaries, but they don’t hold water, either.

    It is of course, a very bad case, one could say an empty case, positively “homeopathic” in its substance. If only one could knock some sense into it and apply it to the right people, it might become a very powerful remedy to promote non-toxic healing.

    So, what is the case FOR homeopathy?

    It does not seek to impose:
    Its patient-centred aim is to cure individuals – rapidly, gently, completely – rather than to produce an income stream by keeping a herd of them ill and “treating” them (often treating them to further side-effects & another sales opportunity).

    In practice, it largely succeeds in this aim.


  4. Skepticat says:

    You are a truly great ambassador for homeopathy. Well done.


  5. John, if there was no case against homeopathy your entire site would be redundant, especially this post.


What do you think? Question? Answer? Please comment. Your thoughful reply will be appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s