In a message on the Minutus homeopathy discussion list 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”.

[Joe Rozencwajg is the author of [ Third Millenium Homeopathy ]


On Fri Aug 30 2013 John Benneth writes,

Joe, what has quantum physics explained? Not anything that I can think of . . at the moment. It’s raised some very interesting anomalies, like entanglement, but I suspect they may have made it seem inexplicable.

Regarding Scholten, isn’t he known for his periodic table of supramoleculars? Can they really can’t be considered as legitimate homeopathics until they’re properly proven? It is sort of like Colin Griffith and his dream provers in “The New Materia Medica,” taking a detour around the lengthy, hard work of proving. 

Where were Scholten’s physical “experiments” published? What were they? What was he testing for and why, for what purpose? There have been numerous pre-clinical tests of supramoleculars that show their physical distinctions and biochemical action that I believe can be explained in the terms of classical science, although I don’t know anymore where the line is drawn between classical and quantum science. 

You say he’s a physicist AND a “quantum” physicist? Why should there be any difference between the two? Does a physicist stop reading when he runs into the word quantum?

So really, what does it mean when he says he doesn’t know? Why should that come as a surprise?

So far, I’m not too impressed with physicists. They seem to be very good at creating messes and entirely incompetent at cleaning them up. Hanford in Washington State USA  is a prime example, so is Cherynoble, so is Fukishima, and hundreds of other disasters around the planet that will eventually happen unless somebody figures out how to undo what they did, and homeopathy offers the only solution I can think of . . [!]

From what I’ve seen, physics is an unmitigated disaster, like little children lighting matches and playing with fire, indoors, under the drapes. If the human race disappears from the face of the planet, it will be because of physicists who made it and homeopaths who failed to clean it up.

Physicists do the crime, homeopaths do the time.

What surprises me is how little they seem to know about classical science and reality in general, and nuclear physics in particular. From what I’ve seen they can’t ask questions and can’t even say how they got home last night.

Homeopathy doesn’t need quantum physics to explain it. I think homeopathy can be explained by piecing together the physical experiments that have been done with the known classical science of the material and plasma sciences, and sp[ecifically the sciences regarding water . As Professor Rustum Roy, head of Penn State’s material sciences said, its up to the skeptics to disprove homeopathy:

“This paper does not deal in any way with, and has no bearing whatsoever on, the clinical efficacy of any homeopathic remedy. However, it does definitively demolish the objection against homeopathy, when such is based on the wholly incorrect claim that since there is no difference in composition between a remedy and the pure water used, there can be no differences at all between them. We show the untenability of this claim against the central paradigm of materials science that it is structure (not composition) that (largely) controls properties, and structures can easily be changed in inorganic phases without any change of composition. The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent. The principal conclusions of this paper concern only the plausibility of the biological action of ultradiluted water remedies, they are based on some very old (e.g. homeopathy) and some very new (e.g. metallic and nanobubble colloids) observations which have been rejected on invalid grounds or due to ignorance of the materials research literature and its theoretical basis. This constitutes an excellent example of the common error in rejecting new scientific discoveries by using the absence of evidence as evidence for absence.”

The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy. Materials Research Innovations Online 5 77

best wishes,

John Benneth

You have to read what’s next:  Heavy Water! Transduction and Homeopathy

Read it here first: SUBSCRIBE to the John Benneth Journal . . do it now!




  1. Gold says:

    Also, when are you going to fix your commenting system. Every comment submission takes you to a “Something went wrong” page.


  2. Gold says:

    As Professor Rustum Roy, head of Penn State’s material sciences said, its up to the skeptics to disprove homeopathy

    This just demonstrates that the Professor didn’t grasp the very basic concept that those making a claim have to demonstrate it. Homeopathy supporters made the claim it works first. The ball is in there court to demonstrate it works.


    • johnbenneth says:

      The case that homeopathy works has been made by proponents and opponents alike, ad nauseam, by FDCA legislation and in courts of law. Skeptics shrug it off as the “placebo effect.” But there is no reasonable doubt that it works as actinic chemistry, demonstrated by physical assays, explained by ionic theory. So stop doubting and start reading the FDCA recommended literature on the topic instead of watching videos by people who think they found an anomaly unsupported by science. And stop trolling. Make an honest inquiry. Confront who you really are . . Read this and see if it fits:
      I think it does.


  3. Hentrich says:

    What has quantum physics explain? How about how the electrons which power your computer work?

    I find it hilarious that you feel qualified to pass judgment on supramolecular chemistry and quantum physics when, based on discussions we’ve had on YouTube, it’s obvious that you don’t have even a basic understanding of high school chemistry (such as the difference between fluorine and fluoride) or introductory physics (like the laws of thermodynamics which make perpetual motion impossible).
    If you can’t demonstrate a rudimentary command of these disciplines, what business do you have pontificating on these elaborate theories that purport to prove that homeopathy works? The Feynman Lectures were just released online at I highly recommend you read them before you declare that physicists don’t understand classical science.


    • johnbenneth says:

      Dear Heintrich,

      How nice of you to write. I thought our discussion, wherein you declared a perpetual motion machine to be impossible, had left you completely befuddled . . after being confronted with my Atmos Clock, a veritable perpetual motion machine, which draws its energy from the quantum vacuum fluctuation, the energy for all perpetual motion machines, the largest being the Universe, and what also appears to be the same trigger for supramolecular EM.
      IF I remember our past “discussions” youu seem to think you’ve found the grail of my stupidity with the word “fluoride,” as if it wasn’t a real word. Fluorides are compounds of fluprine with one or more elements of radicals, and as psychochemicals have transmogryfing effects, i.e. stop swallowing your toothpaste, it’s makes you . . estranged.
      Regarding physics, the word has become anachronistic. Maybe that;’s why they’re having such a hard confronting what they insist is inexplicable, because in their antiquated terms and theories, in their way of thinking, it IS inexplicable. For eample, quanitifcation is the limitation of quantum phsyics. If they can’t slap a number on it then it doesn’t exist to them. Physicists certainly doesn’t explain anything in a way that anybody I know can understand; and they don’t even really try, obviously because they don’t want to. If they did, they’d lose their status as mystagogues and have to support themselves htrough honest labor. YOu wawnt proof? Okay, their greatest trimumph, “splitting the atom,” has become the world’s greatest debacle, perhaps even the end of it. This comes from the equivalnet of basement bomb making, mass destruction and aeons of deadly radiation. The average physicist is just another terrorist, and it starts with an attitude like yours.
      Now, as to my education (which you seem to be in awe of) it is much more advanced than your high school chemistry, which you can check out for yourself, regarding the supramolecular chemistry of homeopathic medicine. The definition of supramolecular in the John Benneth Journal is not a neologism. Whereas your traditional bump and grind hi skool chemistry focuses on the covalent bond, supramolecular chemistry examines the weaker and reversible noncovalent interactions between molecules, such as hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic and van der Waals forces, pi-pi interactions and electrokinetic effects. To see how it applies to homeopathy, Google and read online the plausibility for homeopathy from the perspective of the material sciences in “Structure of Liquid Water” by Roy, Tiller, Hoover and Bell.
      Study. Go back to school, but make sure it has more than one room this time.
      And seriouisly now, will you please just drop this hatchet you bear for me (and my study) and read up on this subject by people who know it, not those who like yourself are out of their reasonable minds on a homeojihad.
      your friend,


      • Hentrich says:

        No no no no no…the Atmos clock does not draw its energy from quantum anything, merely small but measurable changes in heat and air pressure. Your need to pontificate on matters scientific is exceeded only by your ignorance and arrogance.


  4. conte says:

    is anybody who reproduced conte experiments, during the last 10 years? NO, smarts or bad? of interest? The are: B.S


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