Proof for Homeopathy

The first question about homeopathy is this: Can serially agitated high dilutes (SADs),  which are the constituent solutions used in homeopathic remedies, be identified from their liquid vehicles?

Although it does not conclusively rebut the placebo accusation, if we can see a difference in SADs within the water from whence they came, this in itself suggests that there are physical attributes in homeopathic medicine that may affect living organisms. 

Through supramolecular chemistry we have been given a look into what the homeopathic remedy is structurally.  The homeopathic remedy is not a chemical compound, it is a molecular complex.

Through the action of van der Waal forces, hydrogen bonding within aqueous solutions creates polymer like structures, akin to ice crystals, that mimic the the shape and function of the mother susbtance. These structures were seen by early chemists such as Sir Humphry Davy and Michael Farraday and referred to as “hydrates,” and basically regarded as curiosities.

In the 1940’s Marcus Powell named a particular class of hydrates “clathrates,” which means lattice or cage, because of their cagelike structure.

Using the terminolgy of host guest chemsitry, Greek Nuclear phsyicist George Anagnostatos has gone further to describe how the homeopathic remedy is populated with these clathrates.

Using beta scintillation French phsyicists Yves Lasgne and Rolland Conte have recorded the radiant output of the homeopathic medium, described in their seminal work, “Theory of High Dilutions.”

A review of the literature spanning a century reveals reports of many ways to answer the question, and the conclusion is that there are indeed many ways by which to make the identification. The effects of high dilutes have been seen on bacterial, zoological and botanical subjects. Physical measures have been made. Biochemistry has been employed. The reports have been positive enough to suggest that although the molecular structure of SADs is not well understood, they do differ from their liquid solvent vehicles, have a dynamic action and subsequently suggest specificity in the sub atomic field. 

  1. 1902 P.Jousset investigated the effects of silver nitrate up to 25c on mycelium. He found significant results in their weights, finding that the silver nitrate stunted growth. (reported by Gabriel Bertrand) “The Extraordinary Sensitiveness of Aspergillus
    Niger to Manganese.” Comptes Rendus Academie des Science; 154, 616, 1912
  2. 1906 Boericke and Tafel made an unusual observation of the emanations from a high dilute of  radium bromide (30c), to photograph a picture of the outline of a key. (Tafel’s Jottings, 1906.)
  3. 1923 Lilli Kolisko, Physical and Physiological Demonstration of the Effect of the Smallest Entities. Der Kommende Tag, A-G Verlag,  Stuttgart, 1923  pp. 1-10
  4. 1923 N.P. Krawkow-  Demonstrated 15c histamine increased the blood flow in isolated rabbit ears 25% and using 12c microdoses of adrenaline, strychnine, histamine and quinine was able to affect the change of pigmentation in the isolated skins of frogs. Controls were used. “Beyond the Boundary of Sensibility of Living Protoplasm” Zeitschrift fur die Gesamte Experimntalle Medizin, 34 pp.279-306
  5. 1925 G. Stearns & M. Stark reported the action of microdilutes on fruit fly tumors. In this fascinating study we see that microdilutes actually altered the genetics of their subjects. A genetically determined tendency to tumor formation ceased to exist after the administration of a microdilution of the tumor itself (isopathy). Controls were used. Other microdilutes were used to no effect. “Experiments with Homeopathic Potentized Substances Given to Dropsophilia Melanogaster with Hereditary Tumors”, The Homeopathic Recorder, 40.
  6. 1925 G. Stearns tested microdilutions of salt on guinea pigs and demonstrated adverse affects from 30c to 1000c sodium chloride. He noted loss of appetite, aversion for bread, loss of weight, their young poorly nourished and scrawny, less active, indifferent, hair less glossy, rough, untidy, eyes watery, lack luster. And homeopaths brag that their “remedies” (which are actually legal drugs) can do no harm!  There were 16 female control animals, and they all  became pregnant, whereas only 31% of the 48 female experimental animals became pregnant. At the end of five months over half, 55% of the experimental animals were dead compared to only 35% of the control animals “Experimental Data on One of the Fundamental Claims in Homeopathy”, The Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 18.
  7. 1927 Karl Konig used microdilutes to experiment on frogs and fungi. He discovered that by using dilutions of of lead and silver nitrate ranging from 1 to 15c he could cause a premature metamorphosis in Rana fusca (common frog tadpoles) or kill them or the fungus in the water. Once again here we see that homeopathic drugs can have negative organic affects. Controls were used and the sinusoidal curve that we see in many
    experiments of diverse measures is first noted here. “On the Effect of Extremely Diluted (“Homeopathic”) Metal Salt Solutions on the Development and Growth of Tadpoles. Zeitschrift fur die Gesamte Experimentalle Medizin, 34, pp. 279-306
  8. 1928 JUNKER, Hermann The Effect of Extreme DIlutions on Microorganisms Phluger’s Archiv fur die Gesamte Physiologie, 219, pp 647-672, 1928
  9. 1929 Vladimir Vondracek repeated Konig’s work, and instead of lead and silver nitrate used gold chloride and a different species of frog. At 12c he also reported a significant increase in the mortality of tadpoles, and also obtained a repetition of the sinusoidal curve. “The Mortality of Tadpoles in Ultra Solutions” Zeitschrift fur die  Gesamte Experimentelle Medizin. 66 pp. 533-538
  10. 1930 Persson, WM enzymes, The Principles of Catalysis in Biochemistry and Homeopathy, J Am. Inst. Hom.  23, pp 1055-1089
  11. 1932 George Russell Henshaw discovered a method for influencing  serum flocculation in rabbits. Using Bryonia alba and Baptista tinctoria he showed a reaction in some of his subjects  “A New Method of Determining the Indicated Remedy by a Flocculation Test of the Serum The Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 25
  12. 1932 Joseph Roy The Experimental Justification of the Homeopathic Dilution, Le Bulletin Medical, 46, pp. 528-531, 1932
  13. 1936 Boyd, WIlliam Research on Low Potencies of Homeopathy, London, Heinemann
  14. 1938  Pierre Narodetzki, On the Establishment of a Technique for Studying Homeopathic Doses. Thesis. University of
    Paris, 1938   
  15. 1938 Perrson, WM enzymes, Effeats of Very Small Amounts of Medicamentws and Chemicals on Urease, Diastase and Trypsin,  Archives Internatales de Pharmodynamie et de Therapie, 46, pp. 249-267 
  16. 1941 PATTERSON & BOYD  Potency Action – –  A Preliminary Study of the Alteration of the Schick Test by a Homeopathic Potency, The British Homeopathic Journal 31,  pp. 301-309
  17. 1941 Boyd, W.E. The action of microdoses of mercuric chloride on diastase Br. Hom J  31:1-28
  18. 1941 Heintz used UV spectra conductivity to make measurements and IR analysis of high dilutes. Physikalische Wirkungen hochverdunnter potenzierter Substanzen Naturwissenchaften  29:713-25  
  19. 1942 Boyd, W.E. The application of a new biologic heart rate recorder to the study of the action on the frog ehart of small doses of Crataegus, DIgitalis, Strophanthus gratus and of traces doses of  Strophanthus sarmentosus  Br. Hom J  43:11-23 
  20. 1946 Boyd, W.E. “An investigation regarding the aciton on diastase of microdoses of mercuric chloride when prepared with and without mechanical shock” Br. Hom J 36:214-23 
  21.  1951 J. Jarricot showed that veratrine sulfate 30c could decrease muscle contraction in frogs, and that Iberis amara in dilutions of 18c to 118c could slow the heart beat of turtles. The work appeared to be well controlled. “The Infinitessimals of Homeopathic Physicians Editions des Laboratoires P.H.R,.
    Lyon
    23.  1952 Gay-Boiron , galvonmeter, A Study of the Physics of Dynamization, Edition des Laboratories P.H.R.,
    Lyon France,
  22. 1953 Gay/Boiron, galvonometer,)A Physical Demonstration of the Real Existence of the Homeopathic Remedy,Edition des Laboratories P.H.R., Lyon France  
  23. 1954 Boyd, W.E. enzymes, “Biochemical and biological evidence of the activity of high potencies” British Homeopathic Journal 44:6-44 
  24. 1964 Heintz, polarography, Les “maximums”
    del la Polarographie et la force electromotrice de mouvement C.R. Seances Academy Sience 1962       
  25. 1966 Smith & Boericke, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, Modern instrumentaion for the evaluation of homeopathic drug structure,  Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy  
  26. 1966 Brucato & Stephenson, 50 KV Alternating Current Dielectric Tester, Dielectric strength testing of homeopathic dilutions of HgCl2, Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy  
  27. 1968 Smith & Boericke, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, Changes caused by succussion on N.M.R. patterns and bioassay of bradykinin triacetate (BKTA) succussion and dilutions, J Am Inst Hom 1968: 61 197-212 
  28. 1972 Heintz, electronic measures, La mesure de l’action de dilutions successives a l’aide, Ann Hom Fr 14:275-84        
  29. 1975 Young, Nuclear magnetic resonance studies of succussed solutions J Am Inst Hom  68:8-16        
  30. 1975 Luu-D-Vinh, Raman-Laser spectroscopy, Etude des dilutions homeopathiques par effet Raman -Laser  
  31. 1977 NOIRET and CLAUDE, Enterobacter cloacae, Lysteria monocytogenes, Streptoccocus bovis, Activitie des diverse dilutions homeopathiques de Cuprum sulfuricum sur quelques souches microbiennes, Ann Hom Fr 19:91-109
  32. 1979 Kumar and Jussal, surface tension measurements, A hypothesis on the nature of homeopathic potencies, Br Homeopathic Journal 68: 197-204
  33. 1980 Boiron & Luu-D-Vinh, Raman Laser spectroscopy, Etude de l’actionde la chaleur sur les dilutions hahnemanniennes par spectrometrie raman. Ann Hom Fr  22 (2):113-18
  34. 1982 Jussal, Meera, Dua, & Mishra, measured capacitance, resistance and dielectric dispersion, H-ion concentrations, electrode pontetials using an LCR bridge, time domain   reflectance spectroscopy, digital pH meter, and nonpolarising electrodes.  Physical effects on the suspending medium by compounds asymptotically infinite dilutions, Hahnemannian Gleanings, 3: 114-120
  35. 1983 Jussal, Meera, & Dua Dielectric dispersion of weak alcoholic solutions of some drugs at high frequencies using Time Domain Spectroscopy Hahnemannian Gleanings, 8: 358-36638.  1983 Jenkins & Jones yeast and wheat seedlings, Comparison of wheat and yeast as in vitro models for investigating homeopathic medicines. British Homeopathic Journal, 72, 3: 143-14739.  1983 Sacks, A.D. nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy,
    Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopy of homeopathic remedies J. Holist. Med. 5, 2: 172-177
  36. 1988 De Guidice, E. Preparata, G. Vitello, G. Water as a free electric
    dipole laser Phys. Rev. Lett. 61: 1085-1088
  37. 1988 Davenas, E., F. Beauvais, J. Arnara, M. Oberbaum, B. Robinzon, A. Miadonna, A. Tedeschi, B. Pomeranz, P. Fortner, P. Belon, J. Sainte-Laudy, B. Poitevin & J. Benveniste (1988) “Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE”, Nature, 333(6176):816-18. 42.  1990 Weingartner, O. Nuclear magnetic resonance NMR features that relate to homeopathic Sulfur potencies. Berlin, J. Res. Hom. 1, 1:61-68
  38. 1992 Demangeat, L., Demangeat, C., Gries, P.,Poitevin, B., Constanstinesco,A. Nuclear magnetic resonance. In this study vortexed potencies of Silicea in a concentration of 1.66X 10-5 to 1.66x 10-29 moll Silicea in 0.9% NaCl were investigate by means of NMR. Special attention was to the relaxation times T1 and T2 of the hydrogen protons Modifications des temps de relaxation RMN a 4 MHz des protons du solvant dans les tres hatures diltuions
    salines de silice/lactose
  39. 1994 Shui-Yin Lo, photo microscopy, (see pictures of Ice Electric, or “homeopathic” crystals below) In this unusual and controversial experiment, the Lo team, according to Dana Ullman, used an still yet unknown technique to actually photograph hydrogen bonding in water, revealing the suggestion that homeopathic drugs are a type of liquid crystal  “Anomalous State of Ice,” Modern Physics Letters B, 10,19(1996):909-919.  See also, “Physical Properties of Water with IE Structures,” Modern Physics Letters B, 10, 19(1996) : 921-930.
  40. 1996 Conte, Berliocchi, Lasgne and Vernot, nuclear magnetic resonance, infrared, beta scintillation, In this amazing little book this interdisciplinary French team presents the first nuclear theory for homeopathic drugs. According to the authors when matters disappears by dilution and is potentized by succussion, it leaves the opposite of the well known super dense black hole, what the authors call a WHITE HOLE and discuss a new atomic particle, the HYPERPROTON. This investigation they believe reveals the first model for the drive of animated matter. In this report they evidence  the emission of Beta radiation from homeopathic drugs. Theory of High Dilutions, Polytechnica,
    Paris
  41. 1997 VAN WIJK and WIEGANT, Using a step down arsenite treatment with 100M or 300M arsenite followed by an incubation of rat liver cells with lower concentrations of 1-10M dilutions, cells were shown to exhibit increased sensitivities to low concentrations of sodium arsenite.  There was an additional increase in the synthesis of protector proteins when low concentrations of arsenite were applied to arsenite pretreated cells. Stimulation of cellular defence of stressed liver cells by subharmful doses of toxicants HomInt R&D Newsletter, 1:/1997: 12-14
    Karlsruhe
  42. 1999 Vittorio Elia and Marcella Niccoli, thermography, “Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, June, 827:241-248. 48.  2001 Geckeler, Kurt andSamal, Shashadhar at the Kwangju Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea discovered fullerenes, football-shaped buckyball molecules, formed aggregates in solution, and when diluted, the size of the fullerene particles increased. Cyclodextrin molecules behaved the same way. So did the organic molecule sodium guanosine monophosphate, DNA and sodium chloride. Dilution made molecules cluster five to 10 times bigger than those in the original solutions. Growth was not linear, and depended on the original concentration. Geckeler and Samal found that the more dilute the solution inthebeginning, the larger the aggregates become, and only worked in polar solvents like water, in which one end of the molecule has a pronounced positive charge while the other end is negative. Chemical Communications, 2001, page 2224; there is no volume numberNewScientist.com http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1532  
  43. 2003 Bell I., Lewis D., Brooks A., Lewis S., Schwartz G. Gas Discharge Visualization Evaluation of Ultramolecular Doses of Homeopathic Medicines Under Blinded, Controlled Conditions. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Volume 9, Number 1, 2003, pp. 25-38.
  44. 2004 Belon, P., J. Cumps, M. Ennis, P.F. Mannaioni, M. Roberfroid, J. Sainte-Laudy, & F.A. Wiegant (2004) “Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation”, Inflammation Research, 53(5):181-8.

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

133 comments on “Proof for Homeopathy

  1. Sonia says:

    Interesting and informative. Babies and animals know nothing of the so called placebo effect. For example the ewe found in the paddock with broken leg and the dose of arnica that dramatically and quickly addressed the extreme swelling. The baby who suffered from teething and symptoms sorted within minutes with homeopathic remedies, when Panadol would take 20 minutes to show some but only marginal relief. Perhaps my most dramatic example would have to be my 11yr old daughter who had been really out of sorts, argumentative, looking for a fight, impossible to reason with and dredging up every perceived incident from the past, for days. A dose of Kali Phos did the trick within 5 minutes and she thought I was treating her for itchy skin, (the recovery of her normal cheerful demeanour was dramatic) and has been repeated quite a few times few times since.

    Like

  2. Serially Agitated high Dilutes (SADs) is not the correct term. Potentization or Energization could be correct terminology for Homeopathic medicnes. What happens in agitated dilution is more important.

    The electron levels of the molecules in the carrier solution, water or alcohol, gets elevated by agitation. The levels of transferred energy are based on the basic remedy or the medicine. The help to elevate the energy level is by getting energy from negative ions (each ion, charged to one ev) of the atmosphere. The negative ions, called cosmic energy, plays a major role in the life of bio systems. The ‘Chi’ in acupuncture is also the same energy transferred thru needles to the meridians.

    Potentization in higher dilution is like sharpening to needle from a crowbar. Energy level is same but high energy. The energy level decides the frequency of the EMF released. The energy provides the amount of impact.To eliminate the disease, the EMF released shall match the resonance frequency of the disease element, bacteria or virus, what ever one calls it.

    Disease is eliminated only by energy and not any material. Material helps to carry and transfer the energy to the bio system. Please note: a bullet never kills an animal, only the energy of the bullet does. Bullet after hitting the target lies idle. Energy disappears killing the target.The energy in the bullet affects the target. Type of bullet depends on the energy that has to carried to overcome the strength of the target animal. The carrier has to carry the energy of the remedy which has to overcome the disease element.

    Carrier, either water or alcohol, is used to carry the energy without disturbing the energy level of the remedy or the medicine. The carrier can strengthen or concentrate the energy without affecting the energy level.

    Each material can transfer a bunch of frequencies based on their molecular structures. The strength depends on the potency.

    Like

  3. Paandu Rangan K. says:

    Serially Agitated high Dilutes (SADs) is not the correct term. Potentization or Energization could be correct terminology for Homeopathic medicnes. What happens in agitated dilution is more important.

    The electron levels of the molecules in the carrier solution, water or alcohol, gets elevated by agitation. The levels of transferred energy are based on the basic remedy or the medicine. The help to elevate the energy level is by getting energy from negative ions (each ion, charged to one ev) of the atmosphere. The negative ions, called cosmic energy, plays a major role in the life of bio systems. The ‘Chi’ in acupuncture is also the same energy transferred thru needles to the meridians.

    Potentization in higher dilution is like sharpening to needle from a crowbar. Energy level is same but high energy. The energy level decides the frequency of the EMF released. The energy provides the amount of impact.To eliminate the disease, the EMF released shall match the resonance frequency of the disease element, bacteria or virus, what ever one calls it.

    Disease is eliminated only by energy and not any material. Material helps to carry and transfer the energy to the bio system. Please note: a bullet never kills an animal, only the energy of the bullet does. Bullet after hitting the target lies idle. Energy disappears killing the target.The energy in the bullet affects the target. Type of bullet depends on the energy that has to carried to overcome the strength of the target animal. The carrier has to carry the energy of the remedy which has to overcome the disease element.

    Carrier, either water or alcohol, is used to carry the energy without disturbing the energy level of the remedy or the medicine. The carrier can strengthen or concentrate the energy without affecting the energy level.

    Each material can transfer a bunch of frequencies based on their molecular structures. The strength depends on the potency.

    Like

  4. Paandurangan K. says:

    Serially Agitated high Dilutes (SADs) is not the correct term. Potentization or Energization could be correct terminology for Homeopathic medicnes. What happens in agitated dilution is more important.

    The electron levels of the molecules in the carrier solution, water or alcohol, gets elevated by agitation. The levels of transferred energy are based on the basic remedy or the medicine. The help to elevate the energy level is by getting energy from negative ions (each ion, charged to one ev) of the atmosphere. The negative ions, called cosmic energy, plays a major role in the life of bio systems. The ‘Chi’ in acupuncture is also the same energy transferred thru needles to the meridians.

    Potentization in higher dilution is like sharpening to needle from a crowbar. Energy level is same but high energy. The energy level decides the frequency of the EMF released. The energy provides the amount of impact.To eliminate the disease, the EMF released shall match the resonance frequency of the disease element, bacteria or virus, what ever one calls it.

    Disease is eliminated only by energy and not any material. Material helps to carry and transfer the energy to the bio system. Please note: a bullet never kills an animal, only the energy of the bullet does. Bullet after hitting the target lies idle. Energy disappears killing the target.The energy in the bullet affects the target. Type of bullet depends on the energy that has to carried to overcome the strength of the target animal. The carrier has to carry the energy of the remedy which has to overcome the disease element.

    Carrier, either water or alcohol, is used to carry the energy without disturbing the energy level of the remedy or the medicine. The carrier can strengthen or concentrate the energy without affecting the energy level.

    Each material can transfer a bunch of frequencies based on their molecular structures. The strength depends on the potency.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. A new proof of the phenomenon of particles ‘joined’ or ‘entangled’ in distance by Quantum physics: this could explain the causal effects of how a totally diluted homeopathic remedy retains a link to its original source as well as a patient to the homeopath doctor through radiesthesy.

    From: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/teleporting-toward-a-quantum-internet

    “Shrink down to the level of a photon, and physics starts to play by bizarre rules. Scientists who understand those rules can “entangle” two particles so that their properties are linked. Entanglement is a mind-boggling concept in which particles with different characteristics, or states, can be bound together across space. That means whatever affects one particle’s state will affect the other, even if they’re located miles apart from one another”.

    Also more mind-boggling data here:
    http://www.nature.com/news/entangled-photons-make-a-picture-from-a-paradox-1.15781

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      I think you’re on to something here with quantum entanglement within the ionized solute. When particles dissociate shouldn’t they retain their entanglement to the asymptote? I believe this demonstrates a 5th phase of matter.

      Like

  6. rosross says:

    There are many things which science accepts purely because of what it knows from demonstrated effect. Homeopathy has been practised for the same reasons. One you accept and one you reject. Double standards if not irrationality.

    Quote:

    The force of gravity is another glaring example. We can see and feel how gravity affects us through its effect on physical objects, but we cannot actually see the force of gravity itself. If we could “see gravity”, then surely someone would have been credited with discovering gravity before Sir Isaac Newton in the 1600’s. Again, a force which in itself is not visible or physical, but has profound effects on the physical world surrounding us.

    When you hear modern alternative philosophers use the term “energy” or assert that “everything is energy”, these are some of the types of energies that they are referring to. This theme of non-physical energy only being experienced through their ramifications on physical entities seems to be evident throughout science, yet the idea has little credibility in the scientific community.

    http://fractalenlightenment.com/33059/issues/its-time-for-a-new-paradigm-of-scientific-thought

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Danielle says:

    Hi There, recent chemistry graduate here. This post is full of gibberish, scientific terms which would make zero sense in the sentences John has put them in to an actual scientist, just like typical pseudoscience. I will not address you John, but rather anyone reading these comments in case they are capable of thinking like a scientist.

    “The first question about homeopathy is this: Can serially agitated high dilutes (SADs), which are the constituent solutions used in homeopathic remedies, be identified from their liquid vehicles?”

    What you are really asking is whether or not a solution with one molecule or less in it behaves just as a solution of water which is identical to it in every way otherwise. The answer, from anyone vaguely scientifically literate, is of course, no. A typical cup of water has more than 7 x 10^24 molecules of water. For anyone to think one molecule in that water is going to make a difference to the health of a patient (other than via placebo) has got to be seriously misguided, or stupid. Chemistry (including human biology, and life) would be vastly different if one molecule out of 10^24 could have a significant effect. Imagine being in the lab, using water as a solvent and having it violently react with a substance, because the water has one molecule of acid, this is ridiculous.

    “Although it does not conclusively rebut the placebo accusation, if we can see a difference in SADs within the water from whence they came, this in itself suggests that there are physical attributes in homeopathic medicine that may affect living organisms. ”

    Except that we do not see this – you have cherry-picked all your “evidence”, counting the hits and ignoring the misses. As Ernst has pointed out, one would be a contender for a Nobel Prize if they could prove (scientifically, not anecdotally or with non-repeatable results) that homeopathy works.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492603

    “Through supramolecular chemistry we have been given a look into what the homeopathic remedy is structurally. The homeopathic remedy is not a chemical compound, it is a molecular complex.”

    A HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY IS A CHEMICAL COMPOUND BY DEFINITION. Using scientific terminology whilst spewing out gibberish is typical of those supporting homeopathy, or other pseudoscience. A molecular complex is a loose association with 2 or more molecules. It’s a pretty vague term, and the “association” between one molecule and another molecule billions and billions of atoms away is absolutely negligible – if not, then your body wouldn’t work properly. But whatever, you can’t claim it isn’t a chemical compound, water is a chemical compound.

    “Through the action of van der Waal forces, hydrogen bonding within aqueous solutions creates polymer like structures, akin to ice crystals, that mimic the the shape and function of the mother susbtance. These structures were seen by early chemists such as Sir Humphry Davy and Michael Farraday and referred to as “hydrates,” and basically regarded as curiosities.”

    Van der waals forces and hydrogen bonding isn’t relevant to homeopathy, as stated before, you are talking about over 10^24 water molecules in a cup of water. What is more significant than whatever molecule that has been diluted to the point of one molecule or non-existence, is the minerals such as calcium in the water. And the most significant is the water itself.

    “In the 1940’s Marcus Powell named a particular class of hydrates “clathrates,” which means lattice or cage, because of their cagelike structure.”

    Again, irrelevant. Clathrate cages are typically formed due to disfavoured/hydrophobic reactions between molecules and water.

    “Using the terminolgy of host guest chemsitry, Greek Nuclear phsyicist George Anagnostatos has gone further to describe how the homeopathic remedy is populated with these clathrates.”

    Except that when you dilute the solution, the larger molecules (ie clathrates) are diluted out faster. In addition, you could easily actually measure these clathrates if they existed, however, you have just cited a hypothesis paper of Anagnostatos’. Clathrates can be around 40 atoms, which is nothing in the scheme of the water solution, and in addition, if these clathrates form for a single homeopathic molecule, they would also be formed from other atoms that exist in water that is not water (which is a lot in comparison to the number of molecules of a homeopathic molecule)

    “Using beta scintillation French phsyicists Yves Lasgne and Rolland Conte have recorded the radiant output of the homeopathic medium, described in their seminal work, “Theory of High Dilutions.”

    Wow that sounds really enticing, I mean pseudoscientific. Radiant output, beta scintillation you sound so science, except that it has literally no relevance. You might want people to think that there are different properties for a solution that only contains one molecule different to another (even though water constituents vary a lot in terms of minerals, like fluoride), and yet the scientific community, especially chemists, are well aware that that one molecule will not cause the difference. When I throw a sample of water into a spectrophotometer, I see peaks in the same spot each time, because the properties are virtually identical.

    “A review of the literature spanning a century reveals reports of many ways to answer the question, and the conclusion is that there are indeed many ways by which to make the identification. The effects of high dilutes have been seen on bacterial, zoological and botanical subjects. Physical measures have been made. Biochemistry has been employed. The reports have been positive enough to suggest that although the molecular structure of SADs is not well understood, they do differ from their liquid solvent vehicles, have a dynamic action and subsequently suggest specificity in the sub atomic field. ”

    NO this is just not true. The molecular structure of “SADs” does not differ from “liquid solvent vehicles” by that you’re referring to “normal” water. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492603

    There is a reason why chemists laugh at homeopathy. See “Homeopathic A&E on YouTube.

    Goodbye.

    Liked by 1 person

    • rosross says:

      The reason why chemists laugh at Homeopathy is because they try to apply materialistic chemistry to non-materialistic Homeopathy. Homeopathy works beyond the material level at an energy level which quantum physics can explain and chemistry cannot. Simple really.

      And the fact that Homeopathic remedies work on plants, animals, body tissue, cells as well as human beings, child and adult, conscious or unconscious, makes it pretty clear that it is effective and it does work, even though how it works will always be beyond those locked into pure materialism.

      Like

      • Danielle says:

        Quantum physics does not explain Homeopathy; this is why physicists also laugh at Homeopathy. Homeopathy claims it works in a way which is non-measurable both energetically and physically; this is unscientific. This is why scientists scoff at it.

        Liked by 1 person

        • rosross says:

          I meant ‘can explain’ as in being a methodology with the potential to understand and explain. To clarify, of course not even quantum physics can explain Homeopathy yet – but it is the one area of science, although biophysics is also a possible, which is most likely to be first to explain it.

          Homeopathy does not claim it works in non-measurable ways, in fact quite the opposite. Countless meticulously recorded case studies reveal very measurable results of cure. These results may not be measured energetically but they are measured physical, i.e. the remedy brings cure.

          And the only scientists who scoff are those whose minds are imprisoned in a materialist and mechanistic mindset. There are open-minded, intelligent and curious scientists, albeit a minority, who do not scoff. There are also many MD’s, universities, medical schools, hospitals and medical professionals who are sourced in the scientific system who do not scoff.

          And only the ignorant ever scoff. Those who are true to science remain open-minded and curious, something you seem not to be which is a loss both for you and science.

          Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      I agree with you, your post IS full of gibberish, Danielle. It sounds like you wandered into a class on fiction writing and mistook it for chemistry. You’re certainly not giving anyone an example of what you think “science” should be, you’re not examining the voluminous amount of in vitro and in vivo evidence for the action of the materials you’ve characterized here as inert.
      If you’d actually study the evidence you wouldn’t be so quick to start insulting somebody’s intelligence. What you’re doing is pitting hypothesis against evidence, and as we’ve seen repeatedly before with others, you have become so enamored with your elementary “science” education, no amount of evidence, clinical or otherwise, will suffice for you to stop your carping attacks and take an investigative approach to the problem, which should be a challenge to the science minded instead of a vendetta.
      The only way then I can see to cut through this is to pose some questions that challenge your assumptions.
      Four parts per million (4.0 ppm) is the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in tap water by the EPA. By the homeopathic standards of the FDA, that’s more than a 5X dilution. How is it then that 4 ppm of fluoride in drinking water is thought to harden teeth, when 99% of that 4 ppm goes down the drain? How is 4 ppm fluoride in water even detectable in such minute amounts? In other words, at that concentration, how can a ppm act as a discreet particle and still have biological effects?
      Now here’s an even tougher one for you. You’re implication here, like that of James Randi and all the other non scientists who choose to express their scientific opinions about homeopathy, is that pure water cannot hold a charge or specific “memory,” and so therefore cannot retain specific biochemical effects of previous guest solutes. If pure water cannot hold a charge as homeopathy demands, how do you explain the radioactivity of 3H2O, super heavy water, ditritium oxide, pure water made radioactive naturally in the environment?
      Is 3H2O not used as a medical isotope?
      In other words, could it be that a common chemical explanation doesn’t exist because the explanation for the action of the homeopathic remedy, like 3H2O, is nuclear?

      Like

      • Danielle says:

        As I have said before, you have been cherry-picking – if you had bothered to read the analaysis of meta analyses which I linked you to, you would see this is clear that you simply count the hits and ignore the misses. A meta analysis can show consistently that homeopathy does not work better than a placebo.

        This was in the abstract of the meta paper I sent you:
        Eleven independent systematic reviews were located. Collectively they
        failed to provide strong evidence in favour of homeopathy. In particular, there was
        no condition which responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than
        to placebo or other control interventions. Similarly, there was no homeopathic
        remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different
        from placebo. It is concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available
        to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice

        “Four parts per million (4.0 ppm) is the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in tap water by the EPA. By the homeopathic standards of the FDA, that’s more than a 5X dilution. How is it then that 4 ppm of fluoride in drinking water is thought to harden teeth, when 99% of that 4 ppm goes down the drain? How is 4 ppm fluoride in water even detectable in such minute amounts? In other words, at that concentration, how can a ppm act as a discreet particle and still have biological effects?”

        How many fluoride molecules are in a glass of water with 4.0 ppm?

        If we take a 250 g glass of water, there is ( 250 g / 18.01 g / mol ) x 6.022 x 10^23 mol = 8.359 x 10^24 molecules of water.

        So if we have 4.0 ppm of fluoride, we have (8.359 x 10^24 / 1,000,000 ) x 4 = 3.34 x 10^19 molecules of fluoride in a glass of water. Absolutely incomparable to the number of molecules in typical homeopathic solutions, such as one molecule per litre.

        Homeopaths claim that the more dilutions are done, the stronger the effect. It is funny that you’d bring up fluoride, as someone in support of homeopathy is inconsistent; as if dilutions made something more potent, then fluoride would be worse for you at lower concentrations. This is not the case, toxic molecules such as arsenic are much worse for you as the concentration gets higher. If concentration is low enough, there may be no ill-effect at all.

        “Now here’s an even tougher one for you. You’re implication here, like that of James Randi and all the other non scientists who choose to express their scientific opinions about homeopathy, is that pure water cannot hold a charge or specific “memory,” and so therefore cannot retain specific biochemical effects of previous guest solutes. If pure water cannot hold a charge as homeopathy demands, how do you explain the radioactivity of 3H2O, super heavy water, ditritium oxide, pure water made radioactive naturally in the environment? Is 3H2O not used as a medical isotope?
        In other words, could it be that a common chemical explanation doesn’t exist because the explanation for the action of the homeopathic remedy, like 3H2O, is nuclear?”

        Tritium is rare naturally made, it is from cosmic rays. There are common chemical explanations for isotopes; the majority of elements have several isotopes. Tritiated water is not very common, so the low concentrations in tap water do not harm people. It has nothing to do with memory. In addition, when an atom such as hydrogen has a greater mass (because of a neutron), there is not a “holding charge”.

        Liked by 1 person

        • johnbenneth says:

          You’re not answering the questions, Danielle: Again, how is it that 4 ppm fluoride can remain discreet particles in tap water and still have profound biochemical effects? By your non ionized phase theory of action, you’d have to drink two and a half gallons of water to ingest just one drop of fluoride. That’s the problem with Avogadro, your theoretical molecular limit, which is actually a measure of gas, the supposed gate between gas and plasma. In other words, your high school chemistry education didn’t explain ionization, just as it didn’t teach you to investigate anomalies. You come into this forum claiming to solely represent scientific thinking, but instead of exploring anything, you start shooting your mouth off with a lot of notions that are flat out wrong. You’re not asking questions, you’re simply repeating what you’ve been told to think, namely that the materials used in homeopathic medicine are inert. If you were applying rigorous scientific standards, you’d be seeking to falsify your null hypothesis, especially in view of prima facie evidence that contradicts it. You’ve given me one discredited review: Ernst’s “Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews,” apparently without even reading or checking the author’s assertions. I’ve written in this blog extensively on Ernst’s work; he even goes so far as to state that the Linde review is a technically superb meta analysis, then proceeds to mischaracterize the results, suggesting that Linde concluded homeopathic drugs are placebos when in fact Linde concludes the opposite, that homeopathic drugs are NOT placebos, the same conclusion reached by every major credible meta analysis, all of which show the clinical action of homeopathic drugs.
          In subsequent entries of this blog I have openly challenged Ernst to produce at least ONE good study that demonstrates the homeopathic placebo effect and he can’t do it: You can’t either because it doesn’t exist.
          Ernst also fails to address, just as you must fail to do, biochemical and physical assays, which show what you can’t stand to see, that homeopathic drugs are biochemical agents as they are described in law (FDCA). And as we might expect, Ernst has been defrocked at Exeter for academic misconduct.
          Here are some actual studies, tests and assays that completely contradict you and Ernst:
          1/8/15 Vet Hum Toxicol. 1995 Jun;37(3):259-60.
          NON-MOLECULAR INFORMATION TRANSFER
          FROM THYROXINE TO FROGS
          By Means of Homoeopathic Preparation and Electronic Processing
          Endler PC1, Pongratz W, Smith CW, Schulte J.
          http://giriweb.com/endler.htm

          Demangeat JL “NMR water proton relaxation in unheated and heated ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine: Evidence for an air-dependent supramolecular organization of water” http://www.similima.com/pdf/histamine-dilution.pdf

          Here are links to peer reviewed studies:
          Am J Pharm Educ tinyurl com/7htoejq
          Int J Onc tinyurl com/7n9939c tinyurl com/6m2dpnd
          Integr Cancer Ther tinyurl com/7r7zajg
          Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg tinyurl com/cb88aym
          UK Parliament tinyurl com/7666q5g
          Nature tinyurl com/davenas tinyurl.com/hirstsj tinyurl com/7aelcv9
          Inflam Res. tinyurl.com/6fj9jsn
          BMC Public Health tinyurl.com/7r7zajg
          Lancet tinyurl.com/84xt56k
          NY Acad Sci.tinyurl.com/6w7t4bf
          RHINITIS BMJ2000;321:471 tinyurl.com/bemiring
          https://johnbenneth.wordpress.com

          Sandra Courtney writes: “There is no doubt that when properly prescribed and used, homeopathic remedies are extremely effective and safe. Sadly, the same cannot be said for many conventional medications, especially for children. With that in mind, I am taking the liberty of posting a link to a 30 minute introduction to homeopathy, made by the BBC in the 1990s. It so impressed the British Medical Association that they gave it their “Medicine in the Media” Gold Award – the BMA’s highest possible accolade. Since the film was made, four major reviews of the clinical data for homeopathy have confirmed that homeopathy works, despite the fact that its mode of action is hard to explain in terms of current scientific theory.”

          A systematic review of clinical trials, published in the BMJ stated ‘we would accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if its mechanism of action were more plausible.’ http://tinyurl.com/kleijnen.

          JOHNSON, Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07. “Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? “Several meta-analyses concluded that homeopathic treatment is significantly better than placebo” tinyurl com/7htoejq ; The Johnson study was done at the Univ. of Toronto Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy and is a good place to begin a study of the controversy for a fair and balanced appraisal by professionals, not glory hogs.

          DANIELLE: Explain how it is that he Univ. of Texas MD Anderson clinic is using these materials to cure brain cancer.

          International Journal of Oncology Feb 2010 V.36, 2
          Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells
          http://tinyurl.com/7n9939c

          INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 23: 975-982, 2003
          Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes: A novel treatment for human brain cancer
          http://tinyurl.com/6m2dpnd

          Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):362-72.
          Effects of homeopathic preparations on human prostate cancer growth in cellular and animal models. tinyurl.com/integrcancerther12-2006
          MacLaughlin BW, Gutsmuths B, Pretner E, Jonas WB, Ives J, Kulawardane DV, Amri H.
          Source
          Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
          Our study clearly demonstrates a biologic response to homeopathic treatment as manifested by cell proliferation and tumor growth.
          tinyurl.com/integrcancerther12-2006
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17101766

          Here’s an essay by a professor of chemistry:

          ENNIS: Basophil models of homeopathy: a sceptical view PDF
          tinyurl.com/skeptennis
          http://www.similima.com/pdf/basophil-model-homeopathy.pdf

          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. jonathan.davidson@duke.edu

          Vecchi Experiments past and future: Hirst et al. , the Burridge report, Ovelgönne et al. , the BBC Horizon “scientific experiment” and more …
          tinyurl.com/7aelcv9
          http://weirdtech.com/sci/expe.html

          UK Parliament 2009
          UNCORRECTED EVIDENCE Homeopathy: the Evidence from Basic Research, Fisher high-quality and repeated experiments have yielded positive results.
          http://tinyurl.com/7666q5g
          http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/homeopathy/ucm2102.htm

          Med Hypotheses. 1995 Sep;45(3):292-6.
          Molecular mechanism of biological responses to homoeopathic medicines.
          Matsumoto J.
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8569554/

          CHAPLIN:Memory of Water http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory.html
          RAO: “The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy”
          Homeopathy. 2007 Jul;96(3):175-82.
          The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy.
          Rao ML1, Roy R, Bell IR, Hoover R.

          ABSTRACT: “The key stumbling block to serious consideration of homeopathy is the presumed “implausibility” of biological activity for homeopathic medicines in which the source material is diluted past Avogadro’s number of molecules. Such an argument relies heavily on the assumptions of elementary chemistry (and biochemistry), in which the material composition of a solution, (dilution factors and ligand-receptor interactions), is the essential consideration. In contrast, materials science focuses on the three-dimensional complex network structure of the condensed phase of water itself, rather than the original solute molecules. The nanoheterogenous structure of water can be determined by interactive phenomena such as epitaxy (the transmission of structural information from the surface of one material to another without the transfer of any matter), temperature-pressure processes during succussion, and formation of colloidal nanobubbles containing gaseous inclusions of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and possibly the remedy source material. Preliminary data obtained using Raman and Ultra-Violet-Visible (UV-VIS) spectroscopy illustrate the ability to distinguish two different homeopathic medicines (Nux vomica and Natrum muriaticum) from one another and to differentiate, within a given medicine, the 6c, 12c, and 30c potencies. Materials science concepts and experimental tools offer a new approach to contemporary science, for making significant advances in the basic science studies of homeopathic medicines.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17678814

          Here’s the notoriouis assays done by a Nobel Prize winner
          Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81–90
          MONTAGNIER Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures
          Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences http://tinyurl.com/montagnier
          When dilutions of the M. pirum filtrate were recorded for wave emission, the first obvious phenomenon observed was an increase of the overall amplitude of the signals at certain dilutions over the background noise and also an increase in frequencies. This change was abolished if the tube to be analyzed was placed inside a box sheltered with sheets of copper and mumetal (David, 1998). Fourier analysis of the M. pirum signals showed a shift towards higher frequencies close to 1000 Hz and multiples of it.
          http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/media/news/MontagnierElectromadneticSignals.pdf

          Witt long term study
          http://tinyurl.com/7evvmkb

          Comp Therap Med
          WITT: The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature http://tinyurl.com/7n9sedq
          http://www.nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/files/in-vitro-evidence-high-potency.pdf
          http://tinyurl.com/7n9sedq

          SWISS REVIEW
          Bornhoft: Homeopathy in Healthcare Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs tinyurl.com/78fzhl2
          http://www.homeopathyheals.me.uk/site/images/stories/pdfs/homeopathy%20in%20swiss%20healthcare.pdf

          BMC Public Health.
          WITT: Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients. http://tinyurl.com/7r7zajg
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16266440

          How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment? – Results from a long term observational study
          Claudia M Witt*1, Rainer Lüdtke2, Nils Mengler1 and Stefan N Willich1 http://homeopathyplus.com.au/chronicillness.pdf

          hong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao. 2012 Mar;10(3):337-46.
          Potential of the homeopathic remedy, Arnica Montana 30C, to reduce DNA damage in Escherichia coli exposed to ultraviolet irradiation through up-regulation of nucleotide excision repair genes.
          Das S, Saha SK, De A, Das D, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.
          Source
          Cytogenetics and Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani, Kalyani 741235, India;
          CONCLUSION:
          AM-30C helped repair the DNA damage through up-regulation of repair genes and also ameliorated the oxidative stress through the reduction of ROS generation and suitable modulation of anti-oxidative stress enzymes.
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22409925

          JONAS/DILLNER: Protection of mice from tularemia infection with ultra low serial agitated dilutions prepared from franciscella tularemia infected tissue. Jonas WB, Dillner D
          Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 35–52, 2000
          http://www.homeopathy.org/research/basic/14.1_jonas_dillner.pdf

          The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy Rustum Roy1, W.A. Tiller2, Iris Bell3, M. R. Hoover4
          “The most distinctive feature of bonding in liquid water is not only the “well-known hydrogen bonds, but the necessary presence of a wide range” of van der Waals bonds between and among the various oligomeric (cluster) structural units. It is this range of very weak bonds that could account for the remarkable ease of changing the structure of water, which in turn could help explain the half-dozen well-known anomalies in its properties. In its subtler form, such weak bonds would also allow for the changes of structure caused by electric and magnetic fields and by radiation of all kinds, including possibly so-called “subtle energies”,
          which are the basis of an enormous range of claims about specially “structured” water.
          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.
          http://tinyurl.com/7fap5m4
          http://hpathy.com/research/Roy_Structure-of-Water.pdf
          http://www.fixherpes.com/roy_structure_water.pdf

          These are but a few examples of the growing body literature on homeopathy.
          If you click on http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=homeopathy you will be taken to PUBMED where there are at his time 4,989 articles mentioning homeopathy. Here’s a statement from the abstract of one recentlty published:

          Cad Saude Publica. 2014 Nov;30(11):2368-2376.
          Evidence-based medicine and prejudice-based medicine: the case of homeopathy.
          Wicked ambigram down there! – Body Art Diary (BodyArtDiary)
          Barros NF, Fiuza AR.
          Abstract
          “In recent decades an important social movement related to Complementary and Alternative Medicine has been identified worldwide. In Brazil, although homeopathy was recognized as a specialist medical area in 1980, few medical schools offer courses related to it. In a previous study, 176 resident doctors at the University of Campinas Medical School were interviewed and 86 (49%) rejected homeopathy as a subject in the core medical curriculum. Thus, this qualitative study was conducted to understand their reasons for refusing. 20 residents from 15 different specialist areas were interviewed. Very few of them admitted to a lack of knowledge for making a judgment about homeopathy; none of them made a conscientious objection to it; and the majority demonstrated prejudice, affirming that there is not enough scientific evidence to support homeopathy, defending their position based on personal opinion, limited clinical practice and on information circulated in the mass media. Finally, resident doctors’ prejudices against homeopathy can be extended to practices other than allopathic medicine.”
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25493990
          John Benneth

          Like

          • Danielle says:

            “how is it that 4 ppm fluoride can remain discreet particles in tap water and still have profound biochemical effects? By your non ionized phase theory of action, you’d have to drink two and a half gallons of water to ingest just one drop of fluoride.”

            Firstly, you are comparing apples and oranges, trying to relate homeopathic remedies which have one molecule ie typically either a 0 : 8.359 x 10^24 ratio or a 1 : 8.359 x 10^24 ratio of a chemical which is “healing”, to the water molecules.

            On the other hand, in a fluoridated glass of water with 4 ppm, you will have a ratio of 3.34 x 10^19 : 8.359 x 10^24 molecules of fluoride to molecules of water. This is incomparable to a homeopathic remedy.

            I didn’t mention anything about “non ionized phase theory of action”, I am talking directly on the dependence of concentration on biochemistry. This is scientific common sense, there is lead in tap water, arsenic in rice, and benzene is produced in volcanoes. People are exposed to these chemicals, but in low enough doses there can be no significant effects.

            And in any case, the EPA set a limit of 4 ppm as a level in drinking water at which no adverse health effects are likely to occur.

            “You come into this forum claiming to solely represent scientific thinking, but instead of exploring anything, you start shooting your mouth off with a lot of notions that are flat out wrong. You’re not asking questions, you’re simply repeating what you’ve been told to think, namely that the materials used in homeopathic medicine are inert. If you were applying rigorous scientific standards, you’d be seeking to falsify your null hypothesis, especially in view of prima facie evidence that contradicts it.”

            Hey, ad hominem right there. Except that there is NO reason to see evidence to falsify the null hypothesis. It’s not even a null hypothesis though, if homeopathy worked, modern day chemistry would be completely different.

            Ernst pointed out that Linde’s results were not properly interpreted, “he conclusions of this technically superb meta-analysis expressed the notion that homeopathic medicines are more than mere placebos. The authors also stated that no indication was identified in which homeopathy is clearly superior to placebo”

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874503/

            “In subsequent entries of this blog I have openly challenged Ernst to produce at least ONE good study that demonstrates the homeopathic placebo effect and he can’t do it: You can’t either because it doesn’t exist.”

            You’ve challenged him to show one study that demonstrates placebo for every article that shows a positive effect of homeopathy, but this is a problem in medicine; Ben Goldacre sums up publication bias:
            ” Why else might there be plenty of positive trials around, spuriously? Because of something called “publication bias“. In all fields of science, positive results are more likely to get published, because they are more newsworthy, there’s more mileage in publishing them for your career, and they’re more fun to write up. This is a problem for all of science.”

            There are studies that do not show a positive effect from homeopathy . Also, the null hypothesis is that homeopathy does NOT work, because it denies fundamental chemistry and biology and physiology. Here is just one article that shows it is not having any effect better than placebo.

            “Evidence of efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond placebo was not found in this study, but the design can be useful in subsequent larger trials on individualized homeopathic treatment.”

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0442.2004.00661.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

            “Ernst also fails to address, just as you must fail to do, biochemical and physical assays, which show what you can’t stand to see, that homeopathic drugs are biochemical agents as they are described in law (FDCA). And as we might expect, Ernst has been defrocked at Exeter for academic misconduct.”

            I’m not sure what your point of ad hominem is, but his early retirement wasn’t from poor quality journals or science, and it really adds nothing to the discussion.

            “JOHNSON, Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07. “Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? “Several meta-analyses concluded that homeopathic treatment is significantly better than placebo” tinyurl com/7htoejq ; The Johnson study was done at the Univ. of Toronto Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy and is a good place to begin a study of the controversy for a fair and balanced appraisal by professionals, not glory hogs.”

            This proves very clearly your confirmation bias; as I looked at this article, not only was your link broken, but the journal did not even show homeopathic treatment is better than placebo.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1847554/

            “Of the 44 papers reviewed, 38 claimed to have found positive results for homeopathy, meaning that the dilutions were active in some way. However, of these 38 positive experiments, only 6 were considered to be of high methodological quality. The authors of the review suggest that the high number of positive trials may reflect a publication bias against publishing negative trials. The authors also caution that most of the trials were performed without adequate controls, randomization, blinding, and/or statistical analysis.”

            “The fundamental tenets of homeopathy are completely different from modern medicine, pharmacology, and chemistry……These conflicts, coupled with the existence of some high-quality trials that did not show a benefit with homeopathy have caused many pharmacists to conclude that homeopathy is nothing more than quackery”

            Yet you just claim it supports what you want, which is the definition of cherry-picking. The way science works is that you have all of the knowledge accumulated from experiments, ie of well-established basic science, and the default and scientifically valid way to think about it is that you do not support ideas that contradict the vast bulk of scientific knowledge unless there is irrefutable and consistent evidence of efficacy, which there is not for homeopathy. Poor quality trials and publication bias are responsible for these journals you have cherry-picked.

            “DANIELLE: Explain how it is that he Univ. of Texas MD Anderson clinic is using these materials to cure brain cancer.”

            This is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority. If a small minority of climate scientists deny climate change, or a small minority of geneticists don’t believe evolution, it does not mean I should use them as “Explain how it is that this person supports this” as an argument for it being right.

            Throwing a range of studies, of various quality of research and source (ie one of the sources was from “fixherpes.org”, wtf), at me is not really legitimate, especially when you have sent me links and claimed they say one thing, when they do not.. such as the Johnson study which said the opposite of your claims. Again, the said ability of homeopathy goes against physiology and basic chemistry, and the default position from a scientific perspective would be to keep a null hypothesis until definite conclusive, well-designed with a large number of subjects, in a repeatable (and repeated) study comes up to show it is definitely working better than a placebo.

            Liked by 1 person

            • rosross says:

              Danielle,

              You said:

              Again, the said ability of homeopathy goes against physiology ….

              And this demonstrates that you have no understanding of Homeopathy or perhaps physiology. Allopathic treatment goes against physiology because it seeks to trick, confuse and deceive the body in order to remove, repress, hide or diminish symptoms which is utterly alien to the human organism in a physiological sense!

              Any understanding of physiology can see the complex, interconnected, process of healing which is involved in the appearance of symptoms and their disappearance and this is the brilliance of Homeopathy because this is how it approaches the body.

              Homeopathy seeks always to understand the organism in order to find the correct remedy which can trigger healing by the body, for always it is the body which heals.

              Allopathy seeks only to remove symptoms in any way possible and often with chemical means which are toxic and do more harm than any good.

              There is a wealth of evidence that Homeopathy is more than placebo and even, increasingly, despite the limitations of research within the materialist reductionist paradigm of science a this point in time, evidence coming out of trials which even the most closed minded of scientific acolytes cannot deny.

              I never cease to be amazed at the level of ignorance displayed by those who oppose Homeopathy and supposedly from a scientific basis, when science purports to apply rigorous objectivity, research and data gathering to form conclusions, something that you and other detractors clearly fail to do.

              Like

              • Danielle says:

                Actually, the article John Benneth said the following:

                “The fundamental tenets of homeopathy are completely different from modern medicine, pharmacology, and chemistry……These conflicts, coupled with the existence of some high-quality trials that did not show a benefit with homeopathy have caused many pharmacists to conclude that homeopathy is nothing more than quackery”

                Liked by 1 person

                • rosross says:

                  Danielle,

                  “The fundamental tenets of homeopathy are completely different from modern medicine, pharmacology, and chemistry……These conflicts, coupled with the existence of some high-quality trials that did not show a benefit with homeopathy have caused many pharmacists to conclude that homeopathy is nothing more than quackery”

                  does not translate into – the ability of homeopathy goes against physiology.

                  The fundamental tenets of homeopathy are completely different from Allopathic medicine, pharmacology and chemistry but they are completely in line with physiology in ways that Allopathy is not.

                  Having said that, the fundamental tenets of homeopathy are in line with advanced understandings of chemical and pharmacological potential, which is not yet understood or recognised by classical chemistry or pharmacology. But it will be in time.

                  Hahnemann was a chemist and pharmacist and a qualified physician and this knowledge and experience, while pushing him toward more effective and less destructive answers than Allopathy offered, also provided high levels of scientific understanding, knowledge and expertise as a background to his research.

                  How you got homeopathy goes against physiology from the comment made is difficult to devine, unless one takes a position that you approach everything in regard to Homeopathy with a fixed mind and great prejudice, i.e. you find what you want to find even if it does not exist.

                  Like

                • johnbenneth says:

                  Danielle complains about me cherry picking, but then she demonstrably does it herself while remaining oblique about just what studies she’s referring to, some unidentified assays or trials that reportedly produced negative results. I have found in every instance of criticism of homeopathy by self appointed skeptics bearing assumptions as science, that they are always misleading, most if not all of their assertions un-referenced, and whatever reference they do bring to the table cherry picked, either Ernst or Shang, and just flat out wrong. And speaking of Shang, as equivocal as it was, before it was debunked by Ludtke Rutten it was the only major meta to suggest homeopathic drugs are “placebos,” which to begin with is a trick word implying that homeopathic drugs are inert, the point arising that if it was true it would be much easier to simply point out h-drugs are demonstrably duds. Ernst et al, however, can’t do this because 38 out of 44 biochemical assays of h-drugs found positive results, just as a review of instrumental assays of the physical qualities of h-drugs reported numerous physical attributes due to aqueous structural changes, such as an increase in electrical activity and an increase in radioactivity.
                  The retort to this is that of the 44 only six were of high qulity, but convedniently do not note the low quality or equivocation (Hirst) of negative results.
                  Critics, who usually start their attacks on h-drugs by insisting that because some (but not all) h-drug solutions are so diluted in water they are in effect nothing more than that . . pure water, and therefore, especially in such miniscule amounts, must have the same biological effects as pure water. This is of course a moot argument because users report that whatever the cause may be, h-drugs can have dramatic and permanent curative effects. On hearing this, skeptics like Danielle start getting nasty and ad hominem, and here is where I believe their opinion goes zombie and becomes intractable, because at this point they have to resort to accusations of stupid crazy liar.
                  For this reason I think it’s of paramount importance to continue to press the 3H2O ditritium oxide argument, because this is the common proof from mainstream recognized science that shows pure water can do what skeptics say is impossible, i.e., as a medical isotope, cause a biochemical/nuclear reaction. It proves that water theoretically can be made radioactive by nothing more than exposure to ionizing radiation.
                  The “Avogadro’s limit” argument then is a false corollary. Danielle and others like her forget that water is two gasses that when combined mysteriously change phase to liquid. It is no coincidence then that theoretically, 10^23, Avogadro’s Constant, actually is the notation for the material phase change between gas and plasma, and the radiolyzing capability of water, the ability to ionize guest particles, is unparalleled in the liquid material index. According to Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D. chief architect of the FDCA, ionization is actually complete by the 5X dilution. http://www.homeowatch.org/history/reghx.html. So if we can accept the radioactive qualities of water in 3H2O (superheavy water), why can’t we accept them for use in homeopathic medicine?
                  Regarding references, Daniellle is no better than most homeopathy bashers. WHen pressed to provide published online references, they usually come up with Ernst 2002 or Shang 2005 and deny the rest. As expected in this case Danielle has put forward only ONE reference, shopworn Ernst, a study by a discredited homeopathy basher, who held the world’s first chair of un-complementary medicine until he was dismissed from Exeter for academic misconduct. If you look at his Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy Research, it is the typical self referencing argument of pathological skepticism, a grand exercise in avoiding the facts. Eleven out of 32 of his footnoted references are papers which he authored.
                  Cherry picking? Ernst conveniently fails to “review” the follwing systeniatic reivews, as does Danielle:
                  FISHER: hi quality repeated experiments yield positive results tinyurl.com/7666q5g
                  JOHNSON 2007: metas find results for h-drugs significantly better than placebo tinyurl.com/7htoejq
                  SHANG 2005: Ludtke Rutten: find significant effect beyond placebo for h-drugs tinyurl.com/ludtkerutten
                  CUCHERAT 2000 homeopathy more effective than placebo tinyurl.com/cucherat
                  LINDE 1997: results for h-drugs not compatible with placebo hypothesis tinyurl com/84xt56k
                  KLEIJNEN 1991 The results for h-drugs showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. tinyurl.com/kleijnen

                  Like

            • johnbenneth says:

              “Firstly, you are comparing apples and oranges, trying to relate homeopathic remedies which have one molecule ie typically either a 0 : 8.359 x 10^24 ratio or a 1 : 8.359 x 10^24 ratio of a chemical which is “healing”, to the water molecules. On the other hand, in a fluoridated glass of water with 4 ppm, you will have a ratio of 3.34 x 10^19 : 8.359 x 10^24 molecules of fluoride to molecules of water. This is incomparable to a homeopathic remedy.”

              Wrong, Danielle. The FDCA establishes guidelines for what constitute “homeopathic” drugs, not you, and as such “homeopathic” drugs don’t need to be hydroxyl solutions totally void of any other content to be regarded as legal. The concentration of fluoride in tap water is LESS than what is required by the FDCA to be to a homeopathic drug. “Homeopathic” does not explain the physics of dilution and radiolysis. “Homeopathic” refers to a semiologcal therapeutic strategy, it is not a physical standard of dilution, as you are requiring it to be. You literally do not know what you are talking about. The level of dilution of fluoride in tap water is just one example of how you are unable to explain the phenomena you claim to be able to explain and customize your arguments to fit your preshaped beliefs about what should be acceptable as “scientific” thinking, which is really nothing more than your ticket to fantasy land. Wherever you went to school ripped you off. IF I were you I’d ask for my money back. They produced a person who is totally incapable of examining the evidence of action when it doesn’t fit the theories of self appointed authorities. It’s pathetic!
              Danielle writes, “Ernst pointed out that Linde’s results were not properly interpreted, “he conclusions of this technically superb meta-analysis expressed the notion that homeopathic medicines are more than mere placebos.”
              Expressed the “NOTION?” Rather than quote an old fabricator like Ernst why can’t Danielle go directly to the study and report what they said EXACTLY? Ernst couldn’t do it and neither can Danielle, because Linde comes to a conclusion she can’t stand.
              Danielle writes, “The authors also stated that no indication was identified in which homeopathy is clearly superior to placebo.”
              All five major metas, or reviews of the literature, conclude homeopathy to be more than placebo. Read them & see for yourself, listed below. Ernst simply replace’s Linde’s conclusion that homeopathy is not placebo by reiterating that metas do not test for any single condition, using this to be proof for placebo, as you are now attempting to do. Like WikiErnst, all Danielle can do is ref her own fantasies.
              Danielle writes,”“JOHNSON, Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07. “Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice? proves very clearly your confirmation bias; as I looked at this article, not only was your link broken, but the journal did not even show homeopathic treatment is better than placebo.
              http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1847554/

              The broken link didn’t stop Danielle from finding the article, but apparently it stopped her from reading it. She says, “the journal did not even show homeopathic treatment is better than placebo.” Wrong! Read it again! Johnson says, “A growing body of scientific studies have investigated the clinical efficacy of homeopathy. See Table ​Table11 for a summary of systematic reviews of homeopathic clinical trials. In the last 3 decades, a number of high-quality, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled homeopathic studies have reported that homeopathically prepared products are more effective than placebo for a variety of conditions . .”
              So once again, Danielle, like so many people in the “scientific” community is supposedly reading meta analyses, reviews, studies, tests and assays and thinking that what they’re reading confirms what they want to believe, when in fact the opposite is true! It’s incredible that she can actually read this stuff and twist it in her mind to mean something else!
              Just to be entirely clear about this, this is prima facie evidence of delusional thinking, and it isn’t confined to Danielle, its a widespread disease: The pharmaceutical report says studies have found that ” . . homeopathically prepared products are more effective than placebo for a variety of conditions . .” and yet Danielle here in writing says the report doesn’t say that, she claims it says just the opposite!

              This is the kind of thinking we’re up against in medicine today.

              Even if Danielle could show proof for her precious placebo effect, and she can’t, it wouldn’t matter, because she denies its global context, within her mind it applies only to homeopathy, when in fact psychosomatic effects must apply to all therapies, especially those that are immediately palliative and palpable. This should be self evident to people, that the placebo effect cannot be localized to a particular therapy. If it works for homeopathy, because of mere suggestion, how must it work for allopathy with all its mummery and hype?
              Danielle is like a person who presents herself as an authority on a foreign country she never visited to people who live there, and thinks she can set standards for them and declare their lives to be hoaxes. How ridiculous she sounds to somebody that has worked with these materials! There are licensed medical doctors who have had years of schooling and experience with homeopathic drugs, there are scientists who have studied them for years, but because Danielle took one class in “chemistry” she thinks she knows more about it than they do!
              Did somebody actually teach her to think like this, or did she make it up all on her own?
              UNBELIEVABLE!
              GO AWAY, DANIELLE! Go back to your Barbie dolls, or take up flower arranging, but stay away from science and medicine.

              Like

              • Danielle says:

                A 12C solution is equivalent in number of molecules to a pinch of salt in the atlantic ocean. Sure, you might be arguing in talking about a 1C or 3C solution, but I clearly compared the number of molecules of fluoride to a typical homeopathic solution. Not only do homeopaths claim that a 3C solution is more potent than a 1C, but homeopathy includes 6C, 12C, 13C, 30C and 200C solutions, which are incomparable to a 4 ppm solution of fluoride. As I have stated before:

                “So if we have 4.0 ppm of fluoride, we have (8.359 x 10^24 / 1,000,000 ) x 4 = 3.34 x 10^19 molecules of fluoride in a glass of water. Absolutely incomparable to the number of molecules in typical homeopathic solutions, such as one molecule per litre.”

                I also stated “Firstly, you are comparing apples and oranges, trying to relate homeopathic remedies which have one molecule ie typically either a 0 : 8.359 x 10^24 ratio or a 1 : 8.359 x 10^24 ratio of a chemical which is “healing”, to the water molecules.” I was CLEARLY referring to the more dilute (and more supported by homeopaths because they typically claim that more dilute is more potent), solutions, which you ignored.

                If you were so concerned about what the concentration is (ie if you were willing to accept that higher concentrations have greater effects, and solutions with one molecule will not make a difference).

                As far as the Johnson study goes, they have clearly stated “Pharmacists should also be aware that the data assessing the efficacy of homeopathy are mixed—there are rigorous, reproducible studies that show homeopathy is effective, and equally scientifically sound studies that show it is not.” You are cherry-picking.

                I think I’ve addressed all of your points, the rest of it was ad hominem 🙂

                Liked by 1 person

      • Jeff Boerst says:

        You’re a misguided and delusional idiot. Science is right and you’re ridiculous.

        Like

  8. Salahudeen A says:

    I am an electronics engineer and a fan of homeopathy for last 10 years. I have two theories 1. The remedy changes the molecular structure of water/ alcohol. 2. The dilution rate(potency) changes the electrical potency of water/alcohol. Today, a found a 2007 year research in US proving the first theory. Coming to debates on homeopathy, when the skeptics say the result is placebo, remember they agree that ‘there is result’. Now, the placebo theory is encountered with the results in kids, plants and animals. my friend, a homeopath is doing good business in plant medicine(homeopathic). No scientific evidence exists to suggest that plants have hearing capability or brain to process that voice. I have a forum called ‘Servants Of Nature’. We made a documentary on integrated treatment in cancer for total cure, titled ‘L Gulo Loss & A Wakeup Call’. 9446361406

    Liked by 1 person

    • johnbenneth says:

      Yes Salahudeen! I compliment you on your insight. Most theory I have seen, beginning with Barnard’s Microdose Paradox, believes liquid aqueous structuring at the molecular level to be involved in creating the mechanism that produces biological effects.
      The succeeding question then should be, how does that mechanism work? The best explanation I can come up with at this time is electrostriction, akin to the piezo electric effect, acting as a radioactive emissive pump, transducing the background radiation into an unique signal, analogous to the eluted material eponym.
      It is my peculiar assertion that the Standard Model of Physics has failed because it bases its calculations on the existence of a finite particle within a vacuum, when in fact there is no particle and there is no vacuum, except in the imagination of pseudoscientists. Moleclues, atoms, electrons and elementary entities such fermions and bosuns do not exist as separate “particles,” they are vortices in which energy is passing through, like whirlpools.
      If the prevous paragaph reads like a non sequitur, please note that the particle delusion has also been central in the opposition to the dynamic medical materials used in homeopathic medicine, in which the super-Avogadro potencies, by reason . . and most agreements (ne’ Chikramane), also contain no “particles.”
      Thanks for your contribution, and keep up the good work! How can we watch your documentary and attend your forum?

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Cyril W. Smith says:

    An interesting and useful historical summary.
    You might find something of use here:
    Smith CW Homeopathy – How It Works and How It Is Done –
    Chapters 1-7, January-July 2008 Chapter 8, January, 2014
    Plants may be slow but they are not stupid! April 2009.
    Hpathy Ezine, http://www.hpathy.com

    Liked by 1 person

  10. nyeurt says:

    Dear John and others on this blog,

    Thank you very much indeed for this most interesting discussion. Coming from a family of homeopaths and radiesthesists, I can vouch for the effectiveness of these remedies ‘ahead of their time’. My grandfather Marius Ehny was a great propoment of homeopathy, and discovered a ‘hands free’ pendulum imbibed with a high-potency homeopathic solution that reacted positively as a radiesthesist would to the ‘vital force’ of all living things, and the magnetic field of the Earth (http://www.homeoint.org/hompath/articles/3140.html). Many allopathic doctors often doubt the effectiveness of very high dilutions homeopathic medicines, considering them akin to placebos, simply because they miss the point that the two kinds of treatment do not work at all in the same manner. One works at the molecular scale treating only symptoms, while the other works at the sub-atomic ‘energy’ level, treating the imbalance in the system at the cause of the illness. So in summary, traditional medical science still needs to catch up to fully explain the observed principles of homeopathy, but homeopathy is just as equally scientific and in many cases much more effective with far less side effects than allopathic treatments.

    For those interested in Marius Ehny’s work a book (in French) exists (http://www.amazon.fr/La-raison-choses-homoeopathie-radiesthesie/dp/B003X1F7GA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398557390&sr=8-1&keywords=ehny) but I also have a privately-published English version from 1971, with an updated discussion, which I can gladly share with those interested.

    Regards,

    Antoine

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Blogging is something which has taken the online world
    by a storm. Admit it, you can’t lose that much weight in 1 month. The only drawback is that the dresses cannot be altered, so all of the attendants need to be able to fit into standard sizes.

    Like

  12. Pest and Disease Management of Potato Crops with Homeopathic Preparations and Germplasm Variability – http://orgprints.org/12452/

    The Plateau of Santa Catarina state, Brazil, is the main potato seed producer of the country. Its regional climate, however, with wet summers has been pointed out as the main factor for restricting productive quality and raising prices. This research had, thus, the objective of studying the efficacy of homeopathic preparations, homemade formulations and genetic variability in the management of pests and diseases at field conditions on organic farming systems of potato crops. Two field experiments were installed during the 2006/07 crop season. In experiment 1, the following genotypes were planted as treatments: Catucha and Epagri (landrace), Monalisa and Agata (Holland), and Panda (Germany). In experiment 2, the statistical design was a split plot with the Monalisa, Catucha and Epagri genotypes as sub plots, and nine spray preparations as the main plot as follows: Chamomilla 60CH, Silicea 60CH, Kali 60CH, Thuya 60CH, biotherapic of Phytophthora infestans 60CH, water 60CH, the homemade preparations of Bordeaux mixture at 0,3% and of propolis extract at 0,5%, and, finally, a no-intervention treatment. Results showed that the Catucha genotype, a bred landrace, yielded 21 t ha-1 and presented the lowest disease incidence. Even though no preparation differed significantly from another; the Thuya homeopathic treatment yielded the best results with more than 26 t ha-1. Natural enemies were not affected by any of the spray preparations.

    Liked by 1 person

    • johnbenneth says:

      Excellent work, Alabaster. Thank you very much for sharing this information. This is the kind of proof we need to show the world that the materials used in homeopathy are not inert “placebos”, but biologically active substances! If you know the workers on this study, please thank them for me and give them my compliments.for the great work they have done for Mankind.

      Like

    • “The proof of the pudding is in its eating” — One who has tried homeopathy and have experienced it’s miraculous benefits will never ever doubt it again.

      Skeptics who still doubt homeopathy should first try it upon themselves or family members to actually have first hand experience of its great curing effects. All doubts will vanish in no time…..

      Homeopathy is “nano technology” invented some 400 years back. It works at the sub-atomic level and not at the level of atoms or groups of atoms (molecules).

      Much of the sub-atomic properties of various types/kinds of atoms are yet to be found out or fully understood by science. There are evidences of zillions of sub-atomic particles in the “particle zoo”. Not much is known about their individual properties.

      Therefore, to understand the benefits of homeopathy one has to go by the “clinical observations” of it’s success upon millions of patients worldwide over last 400 years or so and NOT by so called scientific theories based on incomplete knowledge of sub-atomic particles.

      That is my view on this subject.

      Best Regards to all

      Sumanta Bhattacharya

      Like

  13. sar79 says:

    I dont think placebo effect accusation holds bcoz:
    My daughter who is just 11 months and few days old(young, rather); suffered from cough and what a violent coughing which increased at night just 1 to 1.5 hrs after sleep (say from 11 to 12 at night), also chest congestion and difficulty in breathing. This went on for a week, my wife used to give her own treatment of some medicines like Girilinctus and some other Brochodilator, Mucolytic and Expectorants; but to no avail. Then, I consulted a very famous Child specialist here in Bhopal (MP), India, and he diagnosed her with Bronchitis and what not. REMEMBER: I(father), was also Asthamatic from the age of 5 till 21 years. So there is a family history.

    He Prescribed the same category of medicines although different brand which my wife was already giving b4 consultations, He added one more thing that is Nebulization with BUDESNIDE(BUDECORT) AND ASTHALIN. Also changed to IPRAZEST+BUDECORT.

    Now I had to take her for nebulisation to clinic which 4 Kms away from my home. So I bought Omron NE-C28 Model of Nebulizer from an online medical shop for Rs 2500($48), and continued to nebulize her after every 4 hrs(Doc recommended every 2 Hrs). This also failed to produce any desired result; at times I felt her chest more severly congested after nebulization.

    After lot of tension I asked my friend who runs a homeopathic medicines shop wether homeopathy has some cure for this case – which was now a month old – and he gave me a medicine with “ARALIA RACIMOSA Q” sticker on it and told me to give 5 to 6 drops every 4 hours with water. At first I was sceptical and thought that if these allopathic medicines have not affected in doses of 5 ml (2 or 3 syrups) ie 15 ml in all 3 times a day; what will 4 ot 5 drops do.

    But when I gave her the drops first dose(I reached home at abt 7PM) and 2nd dose at abt 11 pm. to my surprise she had only 1 bout of coughing at night while rest of the night she (and we) slept well. I continued the dosage for 4 more days and now the medicine is finished and she is cured (Thanks Allah and my friend) with no signs of either cough or Asthama, coughing or wheezing; that too when the temperature in India has started to dip, especially at night and we are moving towards winter which aggravates the situation. I have a reciording of her coughing in my wife’s mobile and I listen to it sometimes, and if anyone want to have it for record I am ready to make all the documents and prescriptions public!

    She is cured with just Rs 12/- in homeopathy while I burnt my pocket on Nebulizer and approx Rs 2000/- on conultation and syrups and nebulizer respules.

    The case in point is that she is so young to understand that she is taking medicine or medicine is being given to her and now she will get cure for her malady. How did this all happen with a few drops? I dont think I need any scientific explanation but I firmly believe that Homeopathy waorks as it did in my daughters case.

    Thanks
    Abdur Rahman
    +91 9893507007

    Liked by 1 person

    • johnbenneth says:

      Hi Abdur,
      Thanks for sharing your story with us.

      John Benneth

      Like

    • K Pandurangan says:

      Experience is the life mover and only experience makes one to believe and trust. Homeopathy is a science or not is a question. Many in Science are blunders and many scientific products spoiled the human health. Yesterdays best in science ( penicillin, chloroform DDT etc) is today’s curse. Todays best will be tomorrow’s hell.
      Homeopathy to be experienced to know what it is.

      Like

    • rosross says:

      Homeopathic remedies have demonstrated effect in the following situations where it cannot be put down to purely placebo, if indeed, any placebo:

      1. on body tissue and cells
      2. on plants
      3. on unconscious human beings and animals
      4. months or weeks after the remedy is taken

      Like

  14. […] Proof for Homeopathy, by John Benneth. “Can serially agitated high dilutes (SADs),  which are the constituent solutions used in homeopathic remedies, be identified from their liquid vehicles?  Although it does not conclusively rebut the placebo accusation, if we can see a difference in SADs within the water from whence they came, this in itself suggests that there are physical attributes in homeopathic medicine that may affect living organisms” … more Anecdotal evidence: This is just one story out of millions… Marc’s Story — FUNDRAISING REEL from Blind Dog Films on Vimeo. […]

    Like

  15. Excellent work John.. Please God protect the anti homoeopathy people to not get a disease requiring such treatment, they would look stupid in their approch “wording against facts”; Obviously they like to be known like general Cambrone for that;

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Thank you very much, Dr. Conte. I can’t think of a better person to receive a compliment from than you, as you were the one who opened my mind to pre-cinical testing 12 years ago. YOu are a REAL scientist, ot one of these poseurs who do nothing but speak for the money.
      You have been my inspiration, you were the one who convinced me that high ddilutes can have biological effects.

      Like

  16. Paul says:

    Hello John and others–a few months ago I spent what ammounted to 6 weeks or so of fighting off the vicious, anti-scientific, bigoted, biased, abusive, ignorant and generally not-too-nice guys on youtube/the net who call themselves “skeptics” because I posted a comment favourably for homeopathic medicine. It was a real eye-opener as to the mental health status of these types (I haven’t gone toe-to-toe with them before but have observed them in situ for years and have been generally disgusted with their closed mindedness. The group-think and herd mentality of these types who align themselves with the fraudulent medicine and science coming from the mainstream/coporate world displays very evidently their fear of complexity,of the ‘unknown’ and of losing the ole priviliged white male thang! I tried every type of argument in an effort to be ‘heard’, to no avail. One thing I discovered just after switching off my youtube account was the newly translated report by the Swiss Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme entitled

    Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs
    published by Springer

    It was published in november 2011

    It came too late for my ‘crusade’ but turns out to be all that I asked for in terms of ammunition against the conspiracy that is raging in the english speaking world regards homeopathy. It puts to rest the ridiculous anti-scientific findings of the Lancet “meta-analysis” (the most quoted piece of “evidence” by those with no knowledge whatsoever of homeopathy btw) It would be a wonderful experiment to get a “skeptic” to read it under controlled conditions and to then pronounce on it to show how far true-believers will go in their denial of science and evidence-based medicine.Would make a good youtube video methinks haha. I think you should read the book and write up a review if you aren’t already in the proceess of doing so John, get it out there far and wide….fabulous stuff!!

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Paul,

      I know EXACTLY what you mean. I’ve been dealing with the same anti-homeopathy campaign by these trolls for years. We all have. It’s black propaganda. They’re obsessive debunkers working or pharma who think they’re “on to something.” They’re like school yard bullies. When they see the muscle they run. And we have a ot o0 sule on our side, they have none, just boster.

      The one thing to always keep in mind when dealing with these “skeptics” is that every argument against homeopathy by “skeptics” is ALWAYS false.

      The 2005 Lancet meta (Shang) you mention, for instance, was a hoax. It was a response to the Linde meta, which Ernst, the main antagonist against homeopathy, had to conclude is a techinically superb meta. It appeared in the Lancet in 1996 and panicked the medical estabishment. Linde concluded homeopathy is NOT a placebo. Shang took its results from cherry picking, which is the same thing opponents of homeopathy have had to do in order to make their case putative. Shang had to be produced to slow the growth of homeopathy, but Shang doesn’t stand up in science or law.

      LINDE: “The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.” tinyurl com/84xt56k

      Shang’s meta-analysis based its conclusion on a subset of 8 larger trials out of 21 high quality trials out of 110 included trials. Two susequent reearchers, Ludtke and Rutten, performed a sensitivity analysis on various other meaningful trial subsets of all high quality trials noted but purposely not analyzed by Shang . They found that homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo tinyurl com/ludtkerutten http://tinyurl.com/ludtkerutten

      Don’t ever back down from these guys, Paul. They’re a bunch of losers that have nothing but lies, myths, fallacies and half truths to back them up, and if you are familiar with the literature you will always beat them. They brought a few rotten cherries they picked to throw at you in a gunfight where you’re holding the only gun.

      The best way to anwer them on Youtube is with a link to a tinyurl without the http:// , and the period before the com removed. WHen they’re confronte with real science the smarter ones will usually just slink away to find somehting else to pick on.

      Answering on youtube is an art. You have to get your message aross and a link to a cite within 500 characters, so write it out then edit it down using abbrivations if u hve 2.

      Here’s an example of statements I get from them and how I answer:

      RETORTS to commentary

      “IT’s JUST WATER”

      RESPONSE: “It’s more than just water. No one sells “just water” as homeopathic medicine. If I’m wrong, if it’s just water, show me the bottle, Honest Abe. Tell me who makes it and who sells it, where can I buy a bottle of your pure “homeopathic water” with nothing else in it? Come on big mouth. I hear it every day but I’ve been waiting for years to see it. It doesn’t exist. Its just another illusion by James “the Amazing” Randi.”
      (61 chars left minus header)
      links

      HOMEOPATHY IN PHYSICS

      ROY Structure tinyurl com/7fap5m4
      RAO Epitaxy tinyurl com/6nbl9jv
      CHAPLIN Memory tinyurl com/78445jp
      ELIA Thermoluminescence tinyurl com/6w7t4bf
      MONTAGNIER tinyurl com/Montagnier
      JOSEPHSON Molecular Memories tinyurl com/bdjosephson
      TILLER thermodynamics tinyurl com/billtiller

      “IT‘s A PLACEBO”

      RESPONSE: “You’re not meeting your own standard of proof for making a positive assertion. The belief here is that in order to be valid, a phenom, such as homeopathy, or in this case, the “placebo effect,” has to be supported by peer rev’d pub’d studies, tests & trials. So my question is, if you believe the biological effects of homeopathic remedies are solely due to psychogenesis, where are the studies in psych journals that prove it?”

      PEER REVIEWED PUBS pf tudies, tests and trials that show homeoathy is VERUM, not placebo.

      Am J Pharm Educ tinyurl com/7htoejq
      Int J Onc tinyurl com/7n9939c tinyurl com/6m2dpnd
      Integr Cancer Ther tinyurl com/7r7zajg
      Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg tinyurl com/cb88aym
      UK Parliament tinyurl com/7666q5g
      Nature tinyurl com/6rc3jy tinyurl com/7aelcv9
      Inflam Res. tinyurl com/6fj9jsn
      Comp Ther Med tinyurl com/7evvmkb
      BMC Public Health tinyurl com/7r7zajg
      Lancet tinyurl com/84xt56k
      NY Acad Sci.tinyurl com/6w7t4bf
      RHINITIS BMJ2000;321:471 tinyurl com/bmjrhin

      “Benvensite was debunked.”

      RESPONSE: “Entertainer Randi with a million dollars to lose was allowed to hold the key to the double blind overnight, played games with it. The results showed all the markings of tampering. What’s not known is the experiment JB did was the 4th pub’d rep, up until 2007 sucessfully rep’d 24 times. Witt in vitro review tinyurl com/7n9sedq

      Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, et al. Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: results of a European multi-centre trial. Inflammation Research, 1999; 48 (Suppl 1): S17–S18. tinyurl com/6fj9jsn

      WHen an independent replication of Benvenite was done for Nature, positive reults were obtained (Hirst), but the authors were so terrified of the backlash that they ascribed the results to some error and they called them negative, just like in the Shang review. Subsequent indepenent statistical analysis showed they were positive. Vecchi: Experiments past and future: Hirst et al. , the Burridge report, Ovelgönne et al. , the BBC Horizon “scientific experiment” and more tinyurl com/7aelcv9

      “The burden of proof is on you to prove homeopathy works.”

      RESPONSE: “No it’s not. In free countries the burden of proof is supposed to be on the accuser, not the accused.”

      “Homeopathy is a scam”

      RESPONSES:

      “Then why is itsold openly in grocery stores and pharmacies & adm’d by medical docs trained& lic. to use it? American Medical College of Homeopathy tinyurl com/ammedcol

      “If you think homeopathy is a scam, then why haven ‘t you and others taken it to court and won huge judgments?”
      LEGAL NCAHF VS KINGBIO tinyurl com/ncahfvskingbio

      “FDA Homeopathic drugs generally must meet standards for strength, quality, and purity set forth in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia. tinyurl com/fdahomoe

      The FDA webpage on homeopathy is the bottom line. This is Fedral law on homeopathics in the US. This is the argument killer. They can make up al the stories they want about it, that’s a scam, that’s its a placbeo, that it’s the work of the devil, it’s just water, blah blah blah but at the end of the day, its FDA regulated, protected, and approved.

      One of the best cites to throw at them is this one:
      Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07
      Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?
      “Several meta-analyses have also concluded that homeopathic treatment is significantly better than placebo” tinyurl com/7htoejq

      “WHy haven’t you collected James Randi’s million dollars?”

      RESPONSE: “Two well knkown homeoapths have applied for Randi’s hallenge, John Benneth in 1999 and Geo. Vithoulkas in 2003. In both cases Randi ran away, because his challenge is not a legal offer. Lawyer analyzes Randi challenge tinyurl com/vzammit

      Paul, Open up a new channel on Youtube an stay in touch. We need you, desperately, to go up against these guys. YOu can’t fail. If you ever have any problem asnwering a point with these guys, contact me and I’ll show you how to answer them, but just know, there’s nothing they can throw at you that you can’t handle.

      Like

      • Paul says:

        Thaks for the reply and the depth John, hope it’s useful to others as well. There are a few things here I wasn’t aware of…

        I’m familiar with the actions of the more reasonable guys who “slink away” when confronted with some ‘new’ facts-unfortunately they take their new knowledge/acknowledgement silently away with them without posting for shame, pride or otherwise? so their road-to-Damascus moment is never recorded amidst the chaos. The overwhelming majority of posters on a forum such as youtube are hardcore head-in-the-sand deniers,. They are like that “scientist” Brian Josephson spoke of somewhere who informed him that he “wouldn’t believe in homeopathy even if it were true”!! Indeed I used a number of reliable sources and respectable types in my ‘arguments’ but to no avail.
        You see social scientists have confirmed that for the modern person the baseline psychological state is the one of being in denial. The world is simply too complex now and contradictory (read:scary, thanks largely to misinformation campaigns waged in whatever fields designed to nullify the thinking abilities of people so they just give up and go with the flow of corporate governance I imagine) for anyone to risk putting their head up and getting it lopped off. Something like homeopathy is a relatively easy field to demonise and control responses to because of its ‘difference’ to the usual (corporate) way of doing medicine.

        There was ALWAYS something wrong with what I proposed in whatever form I proposed it: John Benneths Cavendish talk was a “major embarrasement” for the Institiute, bringing effusive “apologies”(!) ; Josephson got his Nobel for something NOT to do with homeopathy (!); Roy was not the right kind of scientist; the Journal of Oncology is a partisan journal not to be trusted; The Lancet is immune to attack becuase of its pedigree; CAM doesn’t work; “Without modern medicine we would all be dead”!!!; there is no research proving “the memory of water” findings (interestingly almost noone seems to have heard of the Benveniste witch-hunt–a new, younger generation of indoctrinated drones I imagine…..and so forth and so on…….. All the ‘arguments’ thrown back at me were emotive, anti-scientific (in method and facts) and generally religious in their allegiance to scientism and its percieved catholic infallibility. The other major ‘brick wall’ to get through was their beliefs in what they call “science”, “rationalism” and “skepticism” and other such linguistic constructions, automatically gave them immunity to being wrong in any way. Again this is merely a carry-over of the religious thinking that science sought to overthrow and replace and which quickly found new home in the new fields of the sciences. Unfortunately the human mind doesn’t change its thought structures as fast as we’d like to think it does in social context (and neither do social structures for that matter). Their allegiance to the above keywords/buzzwords is quite extreme and does the job of automatically nullifying new information coming in and of ‘protecting’ the views already formed in their mind.

        I’m off youtube for now, but continue to recommend and talk of homeopathy to whoever is open to it. thanks.

        Like

        • johnbenneth says:

          Look at it this way, Paul. It could be that without skepticism of homeopathy as it is, it would be unknown, but as it is, it’s growing at 30% a year.
          My strategy has been to use attacks on homeopathy as opportunities to promote it.
          Rather than just argue with them on Youtube, I use the tinyurl cite drops I listed in the other post, and it really stops them. They make an anecdotal statement, like “homeopathy is a placebo” and I hit them with the metas and reviews that state otherwise and ask for one study that shows the placebo effect. They say there’s no peer review, I drop in the tinyurls that link to peer reviewed lit. They say there’s no science, I hit them with the physical studies by Roy, Rao, Tiller, Bell, Conte, Demangeat et al. There really aren’t that many attacks on homeoapthy, and none of them are valid.
          Once you’re aware of the literature, its fun, it’s like having discovered how to get strikes in ten pin bowling every time, knocking these guys with their crazy arguments down.
          They say we have to prove it to them, my response is innocent until proven guilty, burden of proof is on the accuser, and why haven’t they won in court, an then I drop in a link to NCAHF vs King Bio and the FDA cite on it.
          If you like winning arguments with a lot o people an saving lives, this is your game. If you like watching people die for no good reason, don’t do it.
          WHat I’d like you to do is reopen a channel on Youtube and develop playlists, like one for of “Homeopathy Works for Me.” I[‘ve started one, but it’ss huge. Powerful videos. There must be a hundred. Go after these guys. Use them. You’ll be doing Hahnemann’s work and the world a lot of good. You WILL convert people to a superior form of treatment.
          We need you.

          Like

          • Paul says:

            ok, you got me. I need a breather but will re-enter the topsy-turvy world of the “skeptic”/liars den soon haha. I know homeopathy is growing exponentially-to the degree corporate medicine is/has failing/ed I imagine–this would explain the last ditch efforts by these types to hold on to their outmoded/never-were-relevant ideas of medical ‘science’ and its presently crumbling status and privilege. It’s a kind of Dr Strangelove world view these people have that would pull the plug on all mankind rather than admit to the failure of the project of the “white mans burden” represented by the “progress” obsessed/imperialist/colonialist etc etc (insert-your-own-word-here) mode of thinking about what science is and how grateful we should be for all its wonders….that’s my experience of them anyway haha. As Quantum Overload made it known: “without modern medicine we would all be dead”!!!

            P.S. I forgot to mention the Swiss study was originally published in German in 2006. This throws an interesting light on both the length of time and the effort those involved in the denial of its findings can go to, particularly with regards the Lancet fraud.
            I’ll no doubt run into you again somewhere online…

            Like

  17. […] are over a 100 prior studies, some of these must be replications. Here are some of them …. Proof for Homeopathy The John Benneth Journal John Benneth has been rudely treated by 'skeptics' for years, as a result he has become rather […]

    Like

  18. Paul says:

    Woops–my apologies–the comment I originally made came up when I posted the other one–sorry!! Thanks.

    Like

  19. Paul says:

    You took my enquiry off about the debunking of the clathate hypothesis–why!!

    Like

  20. Paul says:

    Hello John, thankyou for your effort regards homeopathy–your site is like the eye of the storm if you get my meaning? I’ve just had an extended period of jousting/going mad with the “science”/”Skeptic” boys on various youtube vids and have an enquiry about some know-it-all University science boffin who told me he just “demolished” the clathrate argument using some equation on your blog–is this true? He also said you had censored his findings..his name was QuantumOverlord (what else haha) on youtube?

    Thanks, Paul

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Hi Paul, thanks for the thanks. Yes, I remember “Quantum Overload.” He first wanted to argue that clathrates didn’t exist due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then when it became apparent to him that they DO exist, he wanted to argue that they didn’t apply. Next he’ll argue that he was the one who invented homeopathy. He’s no different than all the other flatworlders.

      Like

      • Paul says:

        Oh Dear! I had more words with Qantum Overload and he INSISTS he demolished the clathrate argument. I know he is most probably full of it but in the interests of my deep interest in the science underpinning homeopathy I have to double check the facts regarding all this (though to be honest I haven’t actually seen any yet!–he claims they were censored when you kicked him off??). So, was there anything important in what he wrote that could lead to his assumption/delusion? regarding thermodynamical principles as relevant to overturning the argument for clathrates? Sorry VERY MUCH if this is a total waste of your time. Paul

        Like

      • Paul says:

        ok, I’ve done the ‘research’ on the little prat known as Quantum Overlord—I see it all clearly. In the interests of good blogsite content you can delete my comments thanks

        Like

  21. Extremely Impressed with this article. Excellent work! Congratulations & tons of thanks to you.

    I’m not a homeopath but have benefited immensely from homeopathic treatments and would love to see the whole world benefit from it.

    As regards the constant accusations of the so called “Placebo Effect” by some skeptics, I would like to state that on thousands of clinical trials on animals, homeopathic treatments have been found to be very effective & successful.

    Animals do not understand “Placebo” therefore surely the benefits of homeopathy is due to its medicinal properties and not due to any placebo.

    Best Regards
    Sumanta

    Like

  22. severn says:

    No ‘proof’ whatsoever of homeopathy here. Firstly, there may well be clathrates or other possible active molecular formations in the experimental samples. This is because even the purest obtainable water contains tens or hundreds of thousands of impurities close to or below detectable levels. However, if the sample is a genuine homeopathic remedy, then the notional ingredient will not itself be present. If you want to demonstrate that the effectiveness of the remedy (assuming it has any) is due to the notional ingredient, then you must rule out the possibility that the effectiveness is due to one or more of these impurities, as well as demonstrate that the structures in the water are due to the ingredient that is not present.

    Secondly, the fundamental principle of homeopathy is the ‘law of similars’ – you have to demonstrate the connection between this ‘law’ and the chemical phenomenon you are claiming as the basis of homeopathy – you have not done this.

    Thirdly, science does not deal in ‘proofs’. Science deals in theories that explain phenomena, and looks for evidence that agrees with or refutes theories. There may be (and are) other explanations for the results of homeopathy than the ones that homeopaths themselves believe. To have scientific support for homeopathy, you must find scientific evidence against these alternative explanations.

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Well, this is interwsting, as this particular blog doesn’t get much commentary, so as miserable as it is, I’ll let your comment pass.
      Your first technical error is assuming that for a substance to be “homeopathic” it has to be diluted beyond it’s ‘notional’ or intended molecular content. Homeopathic refers only to the law of similars, like cures like, which can be observed in chemistry solvents “like dissolves like,” not dilution. You can see homeopathy as such, the law of similars, working without dilution in vaccinations and magnetic polarities, which essentially explain the action of homeopathic dilutes, polymorphic magnetism. I suggest you bone up on your chemistry, esp. supramolecular, the stuff you missed in high school. I suggest that you read Structure of Liquid Water, Roy et als review of the scientific literature illustrating the qualities and action of liqueous aqueous structuring, andthe Witt review of in vitro evidence for homeopathy . . and the materia medica before you go posing as an authority here. You really don’t know what you’re talking about.
      Obviosuly you have fantasies about what science is melded into your mind by professional “skeptics”, but that’s nothing new. You’re simply another anonymous poseur trying to make himself look good with a bunch of technobabble and vague theories he heard from James Randi. In other words, everything you have to say here so far has been based on a fallacy and deception foisted by the pharmaceutical industry and skeptic poseurs. Science does deal in proofs. Science deals in evidence for anomalies, and when the evidence becomes overwhelming, as it has in homeopathy, it is the job of “science” to explain it, which in this case it has done . . for the most part . . better than it has done for other energetic phenomena, like graviity.
      Homeopathy has survived two centuries of the same stupid argument “Severn” is foisting here, testimony to its power. And what have has he got in default? Rackteering charges, fraud, lawsuits, the third leading cause of death. Go complain about that.
      We have a superior form of medicine.
      What has he got?

      Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      We’ve been hearing the same stupid arguments against homeoapthy for over 200 years now from people more intelligent than you, you blockhead.
      You don’t understand science so you don’t understand homeopathy. All you’ve demonstrated here is your ignorance, your delusion of thinking that you an impress everyone here with your screwy ideass.
      The law of similars has many examples through out science. In chemistry, for instance, like dissolves like in the action of solvents. In magnetisim, like repels like. YOu’re so delusional you can’t even see what a hil can see when palying with magnets.
      In medicine, the greatest accredited medical acheivement of all time is an obvious example of ike cures like, the smallpox vaccine.
      Now how do you feel? You came on here thinking you could look like you are smart, like nyou know something, by humiliating somebody by charaeriing them stupid, but all you’ve done is make yourself lool stupid, all you’ve done is humiliate yourself.
      You see? This is why homeopathy persists despite all ot the best efforts of people like you. You’re so deluded you think the burden of proof is on us to prove it to you, when in fact you know quite well that the burden of proof is on you, the accuser, to prove theat these substances aren’t not real, tha they do not work. Homeopathic drugs are FDA regulated and so they must be government APPROVED!
      But you’re more to be pitie than censored, as you are nothing but another victim of convicted racketeers who are in competition with homeopathy who want you to think and say things exactly as you have done.

      Like

  23. Albert Mojzeszowicz says:

    Dear John,

    I am a student of medicine in USP (University of Sao Paulo) and want to congratulate you for making public the true about homeopathy.

    Besides that, congratulations for the honesty of your statements. What bothers me most is not skepticism itself, but how emotional the skeptic maniacs get when talking about homeopathy. Frustrating.

    That said, I am offering to you all my help with anything that you may you need to broadcast this truth. Nothing would make me happier than being able to assist you in this journey. I am at you entire service. Feel free to reach out to me.

    Regards,

    A

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      Dear Dr. Mojzeszowicz,
      Thank you very much for your kind words. I feel humbled to receive this honor from you.
      There is something that you can help both me and Kaviraj with. Just this afternoon Kaviraj sent me the news of the first brand of wine, produced in Portugal, grown using 100 percent homeopathic agriculture.
      As Kaviraj and I do not speak Portuguese, we need some help in further developing the story.
      Can you help us in contacting the producers?
      Here is the link to the story: http://popsop.com/42532
      John Benneth, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)

      Like

  24. […] it’s anti-establishment.  The ABC Homeopathy site links to this video, and in this video, a prominent homeopath accuses a prominent skeptic of being a stooge for big phrama, a theme you’ll find repeated in […]

    Like

  25. Soroush says:

    Some one asked for ‘real science’, here it is when applied to homeopathy.

    Back in 2005, BB2’s Horizon programme tried to replicate Prof Innis’s work which was based on Jacque Beneviste’s work.

    The idea was to measure the effect of histamine solution on basophiles in dilution.

    I won’t go into details of how they did not comply with Prof Innis’s protocols for this experiment. It is the result which is of great interest.

    They used a vial of water (as control) and a vial of histamine solution. Both vials were subjected to serial dilutions and succussion – as one would prepare a high dilution potentised solution.

    At set intervals the solutions were then supposedly ‘double blind’ labelled and sent to two labs where they were tested on the basophiles.

    Now here are the interesting points in the finding:

    1- The results showed that some of the diluted water and some of diluted histamine solutions affected the basophiles.
    2- The results of one lab was the exact mirror image of the of the other lab’s results.
    This indicated to me either inadvertent or purposeful mislabelling.

    The conclusion was made that there was no difference between the water and the histamine solution and therefore Randi’s money was safe!

    Three questions were not asked:
    1- Why is there a mirroring of results between the two labs?
    2- Serially diluted histamine solution showed an effect by killing the basophiles. Why wasn’t this conclusion pointed out?
    3- Importantly, their results also showed that the serially diluted ‘water’ also killed basophiles. No one pointed this out either or say – hey guys there is a flaw about the conduct of this experiment. How can water kill basophiles? If that was the case, we would all be dead!!

    Like

  26. Indranil Nag says:

    There is no need to defend Homeopathy. Existing theories may not be qualified to substantiate the provings. The observations are not to conform to empirical laws, on the contrary if the laws are not able to explain the repeated observations, then there is a need to delve further and find relationships if one is bent upon that. The website mentioned below may answer some of the intriguing questions, Avogadro’s law et al. As a layman, and an intense follower of Homeopathy, having been benefited myself (where scientific allopathy failed miserably) and also others , I am least interested in the scientific footings of the potentized medicines as far as cure is concerned , beyond academic interests.http://physicsrevolution.com/ScienceofHomoeopathy.aspx

    Like

  27. Indranil Nag says:

    There is no need to defend Homeopathy. Existing theories may not be qualified to substantiate the provings. The observations are not to conform to empirical laws, on the contrary if the laws are not able to explain the repeated observations, then there is a need to delve further and find relationships if one is bent upon that. The website mentioned below may answer some of the intriguing questions, Avogadro’s law et al. As a layman, and an intense follower of Homeopathy, having been benefited myself (where scientific allopathy failed miserably) and also others , I am least interested in the scientific footings of the potentized medicines as far as cure is concerned , beyond academic interests.

    Like

    • angel guasch says:

      greetings,,,the only way you will advance at a good pace in understanding homeopathy is by continual personal practice with yourself, family and friends ,,, from them you will adquire feedback which will make you grow higher into understanding the magic of homeopathy.. two books gave me the grease for my ball bearings,,,both books cost about $20-$30….the books dont really teach you directly,,but indirectly,,,for they have photos of plants and minerals used….as you look, read and see, your psychic intuition will guide you thru the simplicity of it all…we all come from the earth and when we are ill, we are lacking certain minerals and components from the plants, and just a micro minute dosis, will re-establish your health or body needs… dont waste too much time in trying to understand,,,for that time can be better used in practice of the healing of the minerals and plants, spend and lose some money in buying multiple remedies and just try them. i strongly recommend dosis of x6 and x3,,,in my case i found that 12x and 30x potencies either they are hard to understand their workings or you need 40 years of practice.. the books are THE FAMILY HEALTH GUIDE TO HOMEOPATHY BY DR. BARRY ROSE,,,,AND THE COMPLETE GUIDE TO HOMEOPATHY BY ANDREW LOCKIE,,BOTH ARE OUT OF PRINT BUT THERE ARE PLENTY OF COPIES IN USED BOOKS IN THE WEB.,,BOTH BOOKS COMPLIMENT THEMSELVES IF YOU CAN READ IN BETWEEN THE LINES,,YOU CAN START HELPING OTHERS RIGHT AWAY,,,IF I CAN BE OF HELP LET ME KNOW BEFORE I DIE. HOMEOPATHY IS SO SIMPLE, THAT I THINK PEOPLE DONT REALLY TRY IT BECAUSE THEY CANT BELIEVE SOMETHING SO INEXPENSIVE AND SMALLL CAN REALLY HELP THEM,,,,PLUS ALSO THE ONES THAT LOVE TO BE SICK,,,SO THEY CAN COMPLAINT AND GET RECOGNITION THRU THEIR ILLNESS WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN GET SOMEONE TO TALK TO THEM…ANGEL

      Like

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:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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