Can the Physics of Homeopathy be Known?

The Physics of Homeopathy discussion is continued from yesterday . .

In a message dated 8/28/2013 10:19:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Elham writes:

Dear all,

Don’t want to be rude or anything but if you ever think a Homoeopath is going to solve the mystery of potentization you are mistaken. We will use its powers and let the skeptics shout and yell at us as much as they like, but we won’t solve its mystery. It will need science to advance much more and technology to advance much more and then there might be a slight chance that a scientist might come up with some explanation. In the meanwhile let us continue with our work that is curing the sick and let others worry about how Homoeopathy works

Best regards


John Benneth writes,

What? A homeopath won’t ever solve the mystery of potentization? Come on Elham . . since when does being a homeopath rule out understanding the physics of his remedies? Any homeopath worthy of the title should be digging into this, it’s not as impossible or difficult as you seem to portray it to be. And you’re not being rude, but because I don’t want to be rude I won’t say what I think you’re being . .  except to say you’re as bad as the skeptics. Historically anyone who starts talking about this and starts coming up with a physico-chemical explanation of homeopathy is immediately booed down by both sides, discredited, not just by pseudo-scientists, but by homeopaths as well . .

It seems to be the one thing that the homeopathy haters and homeopaths agree on, that because there shouldn’t be an explanation there isn’t one, because if there was it would make too many people look stupid, the mystagogues who have been banking on the ignorance of it.

Naturally you haven’t read any of the pre-clinical literature for homeopathy, you haven’t even tried, you probably are not even aware it exists. Nor will you accept it, I suspect.

Homeopaths don’t need to discover the science on their own, it’s already been done for them by non homeopaths. Three of the most revealing biochemical studies of “homeopathic remedies” were done by non-homeopaths, all three were respected “orthodox” immunologists and two of them have been Nobel prize winners . . Emil Behring (awarded the first Nobel prize for Medicine, for the diphtheria anti-toxin, which he claimed was homeopathic, like all vaccines) , Jacques Benveniste (renowned French immunologist, head of INSERM) who was crucified by James Randi, Nature Magazine AND homeopath George Vithoulkas (!) for essentially doing nothing more than replicating a biochemical test that to date has been replicated more than two dozen times; and Luc Montagnier (2008 Nobel prize for AIDS) who discovered some really remarkable things about homeopathy.

The thing that Benveniste did that really blew the lid off the can was he discovered electromagnetic indices for the materials in question, and this was replicated by Montagnier in 2009, who in addition found evidence that supramolecular structuring in the “remedies” was transducing background radiation into unique signals, verifying Hahnemann’s claim that the action is magnetic, i.e. paramagnetic. When Montagnier shielded from ambeint it or filtered out the cystalliferous structuring, the remedy stopped “working,” stoppeed emitting EM.

As to the physics of the “homeopathic remedy,” a seminal report in 2005 on The Structure of Liquid Water, Novel Insights from the Material Sciences and Potential Relevance to Homeopathy was done by three professors of the material scientists, two of them heads of their departments (Roy and TIller) and a professor of psychiatry known for her physical tests of “homeopathic remedies” (Bell).

Most of the important physical and in vitro tests of homeopathic remedies have been done by non homeopaths.

The only thing left to determine is how supramolecular transduction works, which is a hell of a lot more than allopaths can do for their patented crap.

There is no chemical reaction in a “homeopathic remedy.” The change isn’t just in the electron shell, its a change in the nuclei of the H2O molecule. In other words, the action comes from a nuclear reaction, it’s radioactive. “Homeopathic remedies” are medically in the class of low energy radiopharmaceuticals.

Now I’ve given you some things to chew on. Let’s see if you can respond by moving just one piece, without knocking all the others off the board to end the game, like the skeptoids do.

Elham, to suggest there is no physical explanation for the dynamic action of supramolecular substances as used homeopathic medicine is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, because as long as it remains unexplained, you can peddle it as magic instead of as the science of real medicine.

Mark my words, the people who refuse to understand what these materials used as medicine are electrochemically, will get run out of the business.

John Benneth

Subject: Re: [Minutus] Response to Elham regarding the physics of homeopathy

Paul writes,

Actually, I agree with Elham. And by the way, even if we can work out how the remedy “imprints itself” on the H2O medium (bearing in mind one can also triturate in lactose) – we still need an explanation as to how the “remedy” affects the VF.

Ideally a quantum physicist who becomes a homeopath may be able to provide some answers, but in as much as physicists are not homeopaths, homeopaths are not quantum physicists.



In a message dated 8/29/2013 2:34:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD writes

Dr. Jurgen Schulte is a physicist, quantum physicist and homeopath.

At the 2012 Brisbane conference, he gave a talk about quantum physics and homeopathy, where he described in detail the experiments he performed to explain the mechanism of action through quantum physics. The conclusion was that he could not, the experiments were inconclusive.


Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. “The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind”. NMD.

“The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind”.

NEXT: Response to Dr. Rozencwajg

SUBSCRIBE to the John Benneth Journal for the latest news on the physics of homeopathy.

8 comments on “Can the Physics of Homeopathy be Known?

  1. naturamedica says:

    Did you ever ask permission from the people you quote to include them in your widely distributed newsletter? I personally do not mind, but it is a minimal basic courtesy and it also seems to breach the Minutus copyright….

    Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. “The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind”.


    • johnbenneth says:

      Dear Friend Joe,

      Well, my presumption was that such commentary is in public domain, but if it isn’t, then in my defense I guess I’ll just have to invoke the Fair Use Doctrine:

      “Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test.”

      The Internet wouldn’t be what it is without it.

      John Benneth
      PS: Thanks for all your good work and your fabulous book, “Third Millenium Homeopathy” . .


  2. Benveniste 1988 paper in journal Nature can be read at httpa://

    Montagnier 2009 paper can be read at

    Rustam Roy 2005 paper on structure of liquid water can be read at


  3. Dr Lionel R Milgrom says:

    Actually John and several others have hit this sucker right on the head…..the notion that homeopaths should or even would have closed their minds like those who hate homeopathy, I find totally abhorrent….Heaven forbid such heresy….!! And if you want to know about the real spirit of enquiry in homeopathy then check out the website for the 1st Homeopathy Research Institute Conference on homeopathy research held in Barcelona this summer

    What is clear from this is that we are slowly but surely closing in on the science of homeopathy (in the original meaning of the word “science”, from the Latin “scientia” – knowledge….) and to suggest that homeopaths are too ignorant to even attempt to get their heads around this is almost akin to saying that conventional doctors be ignorant of MRI and x-ray diagnostics….sure they don’t need to know how they work but that they work they really do need to know….we are nowhere near that yet but it won’t be long….and when it comes homeopaths will need to know that it exists, even if they cannot follow the arguments equation by equation….


    • johnbenneth says:

      Ah, Dr. Milgrom! WHat a plesant surprise. Thank you for your contribution here, and your latest book, Science and Homeopathy on Trial, which I urge everybody to read. I might add for the benefit of the reader here, that Dr. Milgrom is one of our staunchest proponents of the case for homeopathy and has revealaed some very interesting figures, and I’ve always been jealous of his command of the English language. He reveals that according to the 2007 Journal of Evaluative Clinical Practice (13:689–692) “… by end of 2010, 156 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) of homeopathy (on 75 different medical conditions) had been published in peer-reviewed journals of which 41% had a balance of positive evidence, 7% had a balance of negative evidence, and 52% were not conclusively positive or negative. A cursory glance at these statistics might cause one to think the ratio of positive to negative trials was clearly in homeopathy’s favour … except when one takes into account the number of trials for which no conclusions either way can be drawn, i.e., >50%. But when one then looks at similar statistics for RCTs of conventional medicine, something odd appears. So data, obtained from an analysis of 1016 systematic reviews of RCTs of conventional medicine, indicate that 44% of the reviews concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial (positive), 7% concluded that the interventions were likely to be harmful (negative), and 49% reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm (non-conclusive).
      This is really quite remarkable considering that the putative assertion has been that there is no RCT evidence at all for homeopathy, yet here according to the Journal of Evaluative Clinical Practice, the outocomes are almost exactly the same for homeopathic trials as they are for allopathic clinical trials. It is even more amazing considering the difficulty in conducting clinical trials of homeopathy.


  4. Laurie Willberg says:

    Oh and more lovely breaking news from a spin doctor trashing Homeopaths without Borders yesterday in the BMJ!


  5. Laurie Willberg says:

    Hi, John!
    I think this issue will ultimately be answered by the nature of the Quantum Universe:
    ” Have you ever wondered how the matter produced by stars is moulded into ordered patterns like spirals ? The shapes of spiral galaxies and shellfish are governed by the same elementary mathematical ratio, .618/.382 , known by several names, such as the Fibonacci Ratio , the Golden Mean , the Divine Ratio , or phyllotaxis , as it applies to plants, or anatomy in the case of organisms. The formative force responsible for this ubiquitous patterning is insensible , so it was difficult to describe it in terms of a physical phenomenon beating at this .618/.382 quantum rhythm before the development of instruments able to extend and supplement our senses and understanding.

    This ratio also describes the spacing between some orbits in the hydrogen atom , and this relationship is perpetuated throughout the cosmos when the electron and proton are liberated by a splitting process ( ionization ), only to be rejoined later ( recombination ). Collectively, these particles create rotating electromagnetic fields able to transfer their quantum properties to all material in any environment by remote action . By this route the quantum properties, hitherto though to be confined to the atomic domain, become universal via fractal harmonic resonance . Without being aware of it, we live in a Quantum Universe .”

    Joe Rozencwajg has repeatedly posted about his Fibonacci potencies.
    All I can say about Jurgen Schulte is that he needs to go back to the drawing board. Quitters never win…
    And in the process we’ll discover what the life force really is.
    We’re still scratching our heads trying to figure out how Hahnemann figured out homeopathy. What’s even more puzzling is how some ancient sages were aware of the Big Bang over 7,000 years ago…


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

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s