Homeopath challenges skeptics with homeopathic date rape drug

Homeopaths and their desperate opponents . . who interminably deny homeopathy’s effects . . have been at each other’s throats now for several weeks on a blog by a notorious homeopathy hater.

Homeopathy is, of course (much to the horror of the medical establishment)  curative medicine, an alternative treatment that has been working quite successfully for people who either can’t afford, and/or have been screwed by, the common brands of what pretend to be medicine.

The blog in question is on a site especially reserved for health professionals. The title of the offending article is entitled “Stop the teaching of pseudoscience,” and I certainly applaud the idea if it means the author will shut up; it does the school where he holds a chair no credit to have a man in their employ noted for endlessly publishing self-referencing studies.

The name of this hater of real medicine is Edzard Ernst, a fake professor of “Complementary Medicine” at the University of Exeter’s Peninsular Medical School, apparently another shill for the phony medical racket that now dominates health  care in the Western world.

So far it has broken all attendance records on the PULSE site as small team of intrepid homeopaths and their supporters, armed with evidence and logic, are confronting myths about homeopathy and the mythomaniacs that tell them.

Most interesting in all of this is a challenge issued by Roger Barr, an Australian homeopath, who has suggested that to end the argument, skeptics put homeopathy to the test . . on themselves.

Here’s commentary on Ernst’s PULSE blog by Oliver Dowding, a dairyman who has used homeopathy extensively on his herds, in which he reasserts homeopath Roger Barr’s challenge to skeptics . . on Ernst’s PULSE blog . . to more or less engage in a bit of a proofing using Stramonium, Eagle and Scorpion . . to which I’ve added a fourth remedy .

DOWDING: Roger Barr challenged those of you such as Simon Barker, and others are sceptical disposition, to undertake the following trial. All I’ve seen is trite dismissal of the challenge is being something of an irrelevance. I don’t remember the exact words used, but I believe it went along the lines of its pointless because there’s nothing in it. Should that be the case, you’ll be absolutely fine, so why don’t you use your mouth and try these remedies as directed, it would be interesting to see whether you get the same reaction as Roger’s lawyer whom he challenged. I’m sure you’ll be absolutely fine, because as you say, and I’m sure you must believe in your own argument, there’s nothing in the remedies being offered. Should you refuse to answer this, or should you refuse to take up the challenge, I think we’ll all have to take that as indicating you fear that you might be wrong, and there could be something to homoeopathy after all, and you don’t want to be the one who learns the hard way. I’ll look forward to your response to this specific point, and this point only, as raised by Roger, which I’ve copied in case you’ve lost it in the threads. You can answer all other points in a separate reply. Roger said, 2.9.11, “I would urge anyone skeptical of homeopathy to do a proving of a homeopathic remedy. Best to do it with a supervisor but it can be done on your own. Just take a remedy in an ultra-dilute potency, say 12C up to 30C just so you can be especially skeptical, once a day for 7 days. Do something “fun” like Stramonium, or Eagle, or Scorpion! Report back. I challenged a lawyer who was quite skeptical and actually legally attacking homeopathic pharmacies. After the proving he stopped such activity. Enjoy. After it drives you crazy we will let you know how to stop the process.”

Now, MY suggestion for a remedy to challenge sketpics to try is one I just put to the test. It’s called fluoricum acidum (fl. ac.) i.e. homeopathic fluoride. It just so happens that I decided to put it to the test, on myself, when a week ago  I tried ONE (1) little pellet of it for a study of fluoride, for an article I’m writing on it.

Well, I sure got my money’s worth . .

Among several mental symptoms that affected my behavior, such as suddenly becoming happy go lucky, and caving in to a bottle of whiskey, I noticed a sensitivity in my teeth, and I didn’t like it one bit. It’s still hanging on in my front teeth after a week.

The feeling is that it didn’t do me any good. Thank God I took it only once!


Fl. ac. has some other unusual symptoms in the category of hypersexuality, narcissism, paranoia  and debauchery, like satyriasis for the gentlemen, or for the ladies, nymphomania, and alcoholism for all of us together, in an orgy I presume, as it reportedly imparts extraordinary pleasure in coition . . and after it’s all over, a self-satisfied feeling while entertaining the delusion of being surrounded by enemies; the sudden desire to break off the engagement, fire the servants, chase the children out of the house and end the marriage . . tireless strength is given as a bonus, the ability to exercise the limbs perpetually.

And why shouldn’t it have these symptoms, for it is what is most commonly used in as an anti-depressant. Fluorine is the main active ingredient in fluoxetine drugs such as Prozac. A Brailian study actually compared fluoxetine to homeopathi treatment and found them equivalent in effectiveness, which considering the contras, makes homeopathy hands down superior.

Oh, did I mention it causes atrophy of the brain? Yes, recent studies have shown it actually lowers I.Q.  in chidlren. the health authorities are now recommending that baby formula not be made with tap water, since most of it now has fluoride in it.

It’s especially hard on the kidneys. It destroys them. Then the body is unable to excrete the stuff and it builds up in the bones and soft tissues causing cancer, caries, brittle bones.

Ironic, isn’t it, that Ben Goldacre, MD, Prof. David Colquhoun, Amazing Randi, PZ Myers, all the great minds of our day,  aren’t hopping up and down screaming about THAT like they do when they hear the H word?

Well, here we have a substance made from it that counteracts it. And they say it doesn’t work. Too bad. I can feel it now in my teeth as I type.

Now, I am quite aware that this sounds like I’m making it up, but if you check Clarke’s materia medica you’ll find I’m simply quoting authorities with credentials and experience greater than my own.

So just think about it. It’s prima facie.  If we are to take the cinema and news as replete with our delusions, then I think I am justified in saying the materia medica references are accurate in what fluoride poisoning from our water and other sources has done, can do and WILL DO.

But wait, there’s more . .

Did you know they now put fluoride in candy bars for bicycle riders in the guise of concentrated green tea extract? Yes, in fact a normal cup of tea, green or black, contains the same amount of fluoride as you’ll find in 7.8 liters of fluoridated tap water!

And that’s just from the fluoride in the tap water.

It gets worse.

Chlorine’s a whole n’other subject. When it comes into contact with organic matter, such as bits of leaves and things that fall into the reservoir, or that cabbage you had last night for supper, it forms chloroform, which in homeopathic form is noted for inducing in the prover the desire to kill.

You read that right. Chlorine, when it turns to chloroform . . and tests show that chloroform is indeed in tap water, gives you the impulse to kill! (Clarke)

Anyone I presume.

Now . . I wonder what would happen if we were to divide the homeopathy deniers into two camps, one which would take fl.ac. everyday for two weeks and the other homeopathic Chloroformum.

Then bring the two groups together in a room, LOCK THE DOOR and RUN!

Perhaps we could add fl.ac. an chloroform to Barr’s list of homeopathics to try.

No wonder we’re all going to Hell. If you haven’t succumbed to them you’re probably a wreck from fighting off the impulses.

Perhaps Ernst et all will get there ahead of time.


Passionflower of the Skeptic

John Benneth, Homeopath vs. James Randi, Pseudoscientist

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

Herbert Spencer

It’s been said John Benneth carries a grudge against James “the Amazing” Randi because 12 years ago Benneth took Randi’s Challenge to prove homeopathy . . and Randi backed out.

But it could also be said the Benneth carries the torch for Randi, because Randi has been regarded as the King of the Skeptics, a man with a kind of laser like x-ray vision who can see through any kind of deception, detect any kind of fraud, and I, John “the Prosaic” Benneth just keep plodding along in search of the facts.

Take this video for instance. Note the differences in Randi between his stage appearance at TED in 2007 and the video recording done in the JREF library in  2011.  Notice especially his eyes.  It is my suggestion here that Randi’s continued abuse of Calms Forte, which essentially is not homeopathic, but slips past FDA regulations by claiming to be homeopathic, has created irreversible effects, both seen and unseen . . the unseen being intestinal cancer.

Make your own investigation here. Watch the video and then read my commentary below. decide for yourself what is real, what is illusion . .

What follows the commentary is a transcript of the video for your analysis and search engine indexing.

This gets even more mysterious when we examine the item Randi slam dunks . . Calms Forte . . more closely. It isn’t  homeopathic. It may say it’s homeopathic, and by US government standards of the HPUS it may technically may be homeopathic (although I doubt it), but neither are the ingredients of Calms Forte being used homeopathically, nor are they of a truly homeopathic potency! 

That’s right. It only says it is. Because it says it is, the majority of users assume it is.  Homeopathic “drugs” are not subject to the same testing requirements of commercial patent medicines, and so this allows the manufacturer to bring an actual  drug, in it original molecular form, to market without question.

I’ll prove it to you, slowly, inexorably, but with a dogged appetite for reason..

“Why John, why?” you may ask, and the answer is simply this. This is inextricably woven into how we think about what is medicine, healing and cure. This is about a racket, probably the world’s greatest operating sub silentio, protected by illusion, supported by the likes of a confessed charlatan.

Zicam did exactly the same thing, calling a crude molecular concentration of zinc “homeopathic” for its cold remedy, and then got in trouble with the Feds when people began reporting that after using it they were losing their sense of smell . . permanently!

Now how could people lose their sense of smell from something that James “the man with the x-ray eyes” Randi  insists has nothing in it? Because if you read the ingredients, you’ll find that the ingredients are well below Avogadro’s limit, which is the point of dilution where none of the original substance remains, the point where the energetic powers of the solution take over completely, reversing the effect of the diluent, the substance that left its elctromagnetic imprint in hydrogen bonding on the solution used to “medicate” the tablets or pilules, the “little sugar pills” as skeptics love to call them.

Here’ the catch: A substance does not have to be devoid of a molecular substance to be homeopathy. The word homeopathy does not necessarily mean diluted past recognition, as Randi is inferring Calms Forte to be. It is not. Calms Forte has a lot of an herbal sedative in it!

If it seems I’m beating this thing to death, in this case hopefully appearances aren’t deceiving.  I want to make this perfectly clear that Randi is fooling his audience at TED, and anyone else who cares to be duped by this rascal, that he is ingesting an inert susbtance that has no detectable substance of what is listed on the box! And the question that follows should be why?

Why is he gulping something that has a measurable quantity of sedative in it (Passionflower, the main ingredient in Calms Forte), traditionally known for its ability to influence sleep without narcotic effects, when he could just as easily do his demonstration with a homeopathic remedy, indicated for sleeplessness, that is truly without any detectable active substance in it?

“I am satisfied it (Passiflora, Passionflower) is no narcotic. It never stupefies or overpowers the senses. A patient under its full influence may be wakened up and he will talk to you as rationally as ever he did ; leave him for a moment and he will soon be off to the Elysian Fields again. I have tried it, my friend, in all sorts of neuralgic affections, and have usually astonished my more enlightened patients with it. Many times I have them to ask me what in the world it was that had such a sweet influence over them.” Dr. L. Phares, of Newtonia, Miss., States.) from the chapter on “Passiflora” in New, Old and Forgotten Remedies by Edward Pollock Anshutz.

So here is my question to you: Could it be that Randi has found, that repeatedly doing this demonstration  with an actual high dilute as used in homeopathic remedies, has caused long term adverse effects?

It could be possible. The old school medical doctors, who saw the effects of homeopathics on thousands of subjects, reported that too many applications of a remedy of too high a potency could actually graft  symptoms permanently onto the patient!

Perhaps Randi knows this and has found himself to be in too deep, to deep to return tothe Styxxian shore.

Look at his eyes!

The clip of Randi on stage is from TED talks. TED is an acronym for “Technology Entertainment and Design.”  It is a series of conferences, presented globally, produced  by a private non-profit organization . . the Sapling Foundation, which was formed to disseminate “ideas worth spreading.”

The lecture featuring Randi was recorded in February of 2007. The “idea” he presents isn’t worth spreading. It’s a confusion, a menace to the public health. It should either be continued or put into it proper context as it has been done here.

It as worthless as what he claims homeopathy to be.

Two piece of prima facie forensics to note here. One is that Randi explicitly tells his audience to ignore the instructions for use . . the warnings . .  for what are labelled as sleeping pills.

The TED audience seems to think this is funny.

I don’t.

“I’m going to take some medication,” he says, “a full bottle of Calm’s Forte . . ignore the instructions, that’s what the government has put in there to confuse you, I’m sure.”

He then appears to dump the whole bottle of what he just said is medication, a substance used for medical treatment, in his mouth.

Is this a scientific experiment? Entertainment? A publicity stunt? Mass delusion, at $4,000 a throne?

After telling us we need to think critically, he asks us to join him in his assumptions. And the TED audience gullibly swallows it as quickly as he dumps the contents of the container into his mouth.

Randi is a proponent of critical thinking?

What hypocrisy!

“But Pee Wee, what does it mean?”

The word critical is a borderline one-word oxymoron, for it has meanings that are comparatively contradictory . . it can mean expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of something . . or it can mean simply expressing adverse or disapproving comments.

So where’s the science?

What if someone, a young person for instance, who is confused about what is “homeopathic,” repeats this stunt to impress his friends, and in doing so takes something that isn’t as inert as he thinks it is, whether it’s homeopathic or not?

Does he end up with intestinal cancer, like Randi did, two years after this stunt? Or might he  end up dead with little or no idea what caused his final illness?

What Randi is saying, “don’t bother to look more closely at this thing I’m  doing, I’ve got it covered.” In this way it may seem to be a very coherent act, to the impressionable . . which is what magicians want you to be. And Randi is a lifelong magician. And one thing I’ve noticed about magicians, is that they can’t help but eventually reveal the mechanism of their deceptions . . because they’re essentially show oafs, and like most criminals, they actually want to be caught . .

“Nay, indeed, if you had your eyes, you might fail of
the knowing me: it is a wise father that knows his
own child. Well, old man, I will tell you news of
your son: give me your blessing: truth will come
to light; murder cannot be hid long; a man’s son
may, but at the length truth will out.”

Launcelot, The Merchant of Venice

Magicians want you to keep your seat. They can’t have you wandering up on stage to look behind and deeply into things, spoiling their act.

And so Randi doesn’t want you Googling the ingredients of Calms Forte, even after it seems he’s have impllied TED should use critical thinking, but not invetigation, to do just that, for these people will see only what he wants them to see, when he wants them to see it.

He’s living off your assumptions.

If you attempt closer analysis, without his invitation or approval, he will metaphorically, or by simile, hang an “Out of Order” sign around your neck . . or call security.

“No no no!  Stay away from that! Don’t go there! Don’t look behind the JREF curtain!”

In Randi’s World, you’re not supposed to read the instructions . . THE GOVERNMENT PUT THEM THERE TO CONFUSE YOU!

You MIGHT actually stumble upon the actual ingredients!

Now, all of what has transpired here  is implied by presentation and performance, and here Randi is demanding critical thinking  about things outside of his venue . . but . . not within. Only things other than what are in his own hands are to enjoy the chimera of scrutiny, at a distance, by dint of the moderator.

But time has caught up and passed Randi. Now we have the Internet. We don’t have to pay $4,000 a seat to watch some high school drop out try to pull the wool over our eyes. We can just sit here for free . . and then watch him pull the wool over our eyes . . or we can  let our fingers do the walking and rip off the hoodwink!

Google the ingredients for Calms Forte.

See for yourself what it is made of. 1x means one part in ten! And here they say it is triple strength!  Does that mean that a third of it is the sedative Passiflora?

There is a heavy, measurable crude dose of Passiflora incarnata in Calms Forte . Here is what is listed as the actual ingredient of what Randi is over-ingesting.

Passiflora (Passion Flower) 1X triple strength HPUS
Avena Sativa (Oat) 1X double strength HPUS
Humulus Lupulus (Hops) 1X double strength HPUS
Chamomilla (Chamomile) 2X HPUS
Calcarea Phosphorica (Calcium Phosphate) 3X HPUS
Ferrum Phosphorica (Iron Phosphate) 3X HPUS
Kali Phosphoricum (Potassium Phosphate) 3X HPUS
Natrum Phosphoricum (Sodium Phosphate) 3X HPUS
Magnesia Phosphoricum (Magnesium Phosphate) 3X HPUS

Here Randi can’t demand passivity from his audience given the authority of the stage, the license he’s using to control what he has made out to be an investigation of homeopathy. . but which in fact is a hoax that has more than one layer of illusion.

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter: <a href=”http://www.twitter.com/JBennethJournal”><img src=”http://twitter-badges.s3.amazonaws.com/follow_me-a.png&#8221; alt=”Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter”/></a>

Transcript of video:

JOHN BENNETH: My name is John Benneth, honorary post graduate of Hahnemann College of Homeopathy, London,

JAMES RANDI: Hello, I’m James Randi, founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation

JOHN BENNETH: And we’re about to have a little discussion about homeopathy.

JAMES RANDI: I’ve used demonstrations to show audiences the importance of thinking skeptically about pseudoscience.

JOHN BENNETH: Good idea. Let’s take a skeptical look at what Randi is claiming, which you will see is in itself a prima facie example of pseudoscience, beliefs and practices that claim to be science without employing the METHOD of science, So in this case instead of an objective experiment, scientific test, or ranom controlled trial, Randi is using a dangerous stunt to try to prove what he wants to be true.

JAMES RANDI: One demonstration I’ve done many times is downing an entire package of 32 homeopathic sleeping pills. (cut to TED lecture) I have to do something uh now which seems a little bit strange, for a magician . . but I’m going to take some medication . . this is uh . . a full bottle of Calm’s Forte . . I’ll explain that in just a moment . . ignore the instructions, that’s what the government has put in there to confuse you, I’m sure.  I will take enough of these  (appears to empty bottle into mouth)  mmh . . indeed the whole cantainer. (Drinks water. Loud swallowing sound) Thirty two talets of Calms Forte.

JOHN BENNETH: Which is an example of pseudoscience. Randi is asking us to think skeptically about pseudoscience and then uses himself as an example to show exactly what it is that he’s talking about.

JAMES RANDI: The recommended dosage by the way is two to three pills. just to show that these scam medications have no effect.

JOHN BENNETH: Oh yeah? Well, look at his eyes, he can barely keep them open. Don’t do what this man is doing until you’ve heard the whole story, or . . you may saddle yourself with lifelong symptoms. I agree with Randi that you’re being scammed, but the scam here is Randi’s. And in this and other videos I prove it to you. Because homeopathic remedies make use of such highly diluted substances, it is understandable that some people may be doubtful as to whether or not these substances can have any biological action whatsoever, but that isn’t any reason to substitute a pseudoscientific stunt of the type Randi is performing here for the scientific method. Plants, for instance, make much better subjects for testing the action of homeopathic remedies, and likewise extensive testing has been done on plants using homeopathic remedies, objectively showing their biological action. There are simple tests you can do yourself. Homeopathic remedies can either accelerate or stunt plant growth, and they can be used phytopathologically , which means they can be used to control plant pests and diseases. If they work on plants, then it stands to reason tht they can also work on other living subjects, such as biochemical subjects. But Randi, who purports to be a proponent of the scientific method, is not talking about the extensive biochemical testing done on homeopathic remedies. This is a powerful form of medicine that is challenging what is thought to be the only treatments for human illnesses.

JAMES RANDI: There’s a warning on the box to call the poison control center .

JOHN BENNETH: There should also be one of the box made especially for him to call a psychiatrist. This man is publically encouraging people to intentionally overdose on substances he knows little if anything about in order to further a dangerous racket. However, the manufacturer of those homeoapthic sleeping pills would probably sell twice as many if they put a picture of him on the box.

JAMES RANDI: But that’s a joke.

JOHN BENNETH: So is James Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge, and I will prove that to you too in alater video.

JAMES RANDI: But that’s a joke . .

JOHN BENNETH: Tune in and turn on to homeopathy, real medicine that really works and watch as Randi and I continue go head to head on homeopathy. Two men go in, one man comes out. Listen very carefully to what Randi says. Its been carefully scripted, and I will reveal to you his lies. Subscribe to the Bandershot channel here on Youtube for more about the Million Dollar Challenge to homeopathy, and homoepathy’s trillion dollar challenge to the patent medicine racket.

JAMES RANDI: I’ve overdosed on homeopathic medicine many times and my eyes are still open.

JOHN BENNETH: Toothpicks.


(April 2011)

THE ELECTRIC ORGANON: Theory for the Structure and Action of the Homeopathic Remedy

A lie will circumnavigate the globe five times before the truth gets out of bed and puts it shoes on.

This has been hanging fire for months now. It is time to release it, lest I suddenly be assassinated by the interests it challenges . .

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Lying in bed this morning I was thinking about the the blogs I am writing, concentrating on the physico-chemical discoveries of Luc Montagnier, what the next blog will be about. When do I stop talking about the skeptics and focus on the physics? When do I discuss the clinical?

I have now written 12,000 words on an essay entitled The Homeopathic Repertorization of Jared Lee Loughner. It took days to write.

I’ve put it aside to focus first on Montagnier and the chemistry and physics of the homeopathic remedy. It is wrong to put theoretical physics before the tried and true treatments of people such as homeopathy has to offer,  but I seriously doubt that over the clash and trash of the media fighting over “who dunnit,” whose politics motivated Loughner to start shooting, anyone but homeopaths, students of homeopathy and enthusiasts are going to take such a piece seriously without first understanding how it works. It is the theoretical physics, then, that is indeed what is interfering with the use of real medicine to treat real problems with.

Although I doubt most allopaths have even a clue how their poisons work,  as an effective application homeopathy is still thought to be only theoretical if not outright quackery (although a cursory examination and common sense would reveal that there is something suspicious in theory) deeply troubled in a charge of quackery. We homeopaths know it works, we’ve seen it work, and we have felt it work, we’ve studied the literature on it, we’ve read about the men and women who support it, we need no more assurances to know it works.  But its not an easy sell. Its pharmacy is a crypto- molecular one and its application is counterintuitive to allopathic strategies.

Physico-chemical explanations for homeopathy do exist, in parts.  Reports of action are cryptic and scattered in lesser known journals and books, and to date, to my knowledge (tmk), no one has fully explained what it is and how it works. The literature, most notably by the Benveniste and Montagnier teams, has to date simply raised more questions:

If liquid aqueous structuring (LAS) is the cause of a biologically effective  electromagnetic signal, then

  1. How is it that the water can structure at liquid temperatures?
  2. How are these structures maintained beyond the time limit of the hydrogen bond?
  3. How does liquid aqueous structuring mimic inserted contamination?
  4. How does LAS produce an EM signal?
  5. How does the EM signal have known specific biological and psychological effects?
  6. How are the electromagnetic features of LAS transferred to the dry vehicle (such as lactose sugar)?

Well, let it be said that we homeopaths are quite familiar with what restraints there are on our businesses. The skeptics serve our purposes for free insurance against malpractice suits. It would probably serve us well to do just as they say and label our substances as placebos that must be administered by a skilled placeboist, such as homeopaths are characterized to be.

When the aggravation sets in, collaborating with allopathic “medicine” spoils and turn into dissolution of the victims internal organs, or when too strong a potency saddles its bearer with a lifelong symptom, it can all be said to be in the patient’s mind.

I know how far I’ve penetrated into this secret subterranean realm where allopathy collaborates with homeopathy. The allopaths produce most of the dramatic income, just as we homeopaths produce most of the dramatic cures, how few of them we are allowed, usually only those dire cases allopathy has backed away from, smiling, hands up, pronated,  palms out, exiting the room after sucking the victim dry.

What technically distinguishes what you have read in my blogs and seen in my videos, and what you are reading now, first and foremost in the homeopathy community, are my popularizations of physico-chemical explanations for the workings of the homeopathic remedy.  What you are about to read is particularly unique in the annals of medical science, for it aggregates and it explains what on a physical level other investigators such as Conte, Montagnier, Benveniste, Demangeat, Sainte Laudy, Poitevin, Ennis, Belon, Jonas, Roy, Tiller, Bell, Schwartz, Baumgartner, Chaplin, Del Guidice, Weingartner, Anagnostatos,  and others (which I apolgize for not listing here) have revealed in various parts in their in vitro, in vivo, physical and theoretical studies.

I thought about the conversation I had with Kaviraj  on Skype the day before. I had wanted to ask him what he thought about the Loughner case, and he had his usual brilliant insights and diagnosis, but when we were through analyzing Loughner, the conversation drifted over to what I consider to be my end of the table, the chemistry and physics of the homeopathic remedy.

At some point while I was talking I thought I heard him say something . . something about having finally understood something after my last lecture . .

“What? What did you say?” I asked

“I think I understand what it is you’re talking about,” he said.

I had to stop blathering for a moment. It was like being in a fog and hearing a voice coming from somewhere.

“The last time we talked,”  he said. “I think I understand what you are trying to say.”

Leave it to Kaviraj to be the first one to get it. I remember that he did say something in the last conversation that told me that he understood. I’ve spoken to many people about it, but I never had the feeling as if anyone really understood what I was saying. It was clear to me, what I knew, but it didn’t seem clear to anyone else.

If the view from classical science on the subject isn’t atheist, it is at least agnostic. To my knowledge, I am the only homeopath who has partially expressed, and for what has been left unexpressed, has a reasonably complete, cohesive theory for the electromagnetic, biological action of the supramolecular polymorphs used in homeopathic medicine called “high dilutes.”

As I lie in bed it runs over and over again in my mind. In order for hydrogen to bind with oxygen, energy has to be dissipated. In order for the same elements to separate, it has to be gained.  The atoms in H2O molecules suck in energy when they split and send it out again when they combine to form water again. Most likely the major operative element is hydrogen.

I became fascinataed with it as a boy when I learned that by passing an electric current through it I could produce hydrogen gas. I studied electrolysis and thought I had found a way to produce free energy from water. No, my teachers told me, it would take more energy to produce hydrogen from  water than the energy found in hydrogen.

However, it was all theoretical and I didn’t want to believe it. Water holds too many mysteries to be summarily dismissed.  Water is a very peculiar substance. It seems almost magical. It is conventionally recognized as the only common element that exists regularly on Earth in the three common, classical phases of matter, solid, liquid and gaseous, plus one of its own, supercritical, where it is under great heat and pressure, such as at the bottom of the ocean around volcanic vents, where it is superheated and under great pressure.

But there is yet one more, unrecognized form of water . . ionized . . and this is a novel key to understanding the H2O mechanics of homeopathy . . the plasma, electromagnetic phase of water. The Conventional focus of H2O physics for the most part has been on the structure of liquid water . .  a focus that  has bypassed ionization of the solute by hydrolysis.

This is the part that has heretofore been left out the water mechanics: the hydrolysis of the solute into an expanding electron. More on hydrolytic ionization later at which time the other shoe will drop.

The elements of structure are not so mundane and stereotyped as one might think. In an average glass of water one molecule in every 3200 is supposed to be HDO, heavy water, the D standing for deuterium, hydrogen that has a neutron as well as the standard issue single proton. The average human body contains a few grams of heavy water.

It will be seen that the elements of radioactive transception (the ability to transmit and receive electromagnetic energy) by the water molecule are keys to understanding the mechanism of homeopathic chemistry.

Allotropy, or allotropism, is the property of some chemical elements to exist in two or more different forms. Allotropes are different structural changes in an element, where the atoms of the element are bonded together as in a different manner. Oxygen is an excellent example of an allotropic element, with four forms that are additional to that of plain oxygen, dioxygen, (O2), ozone (O3), tetraraoxygen, (O4), and octaoxygen (O8).

Water is an allotrope, made so by its ability to transceive electromagnetism.

Tritium is the great corollary of the electric organon. It is an even rarer form of hydrogen with three nuclei, one proton and two neutrons. In combination with oxygen tritum is super heavy water. The detection of tritium is used to determine the age of vintage wines, the implication being that with age, water changes at its most elemental phase.

So as you can see, the element of water is highly polymorphic. In fact, polymorphism defines a quality of some substances,  like water, to imitate other substances.

French physicist Rolland Conte and his co-authors, doctor of science Yves Lasne, mathematician Henri Berliocchi and software engineer Gabrielle Vernot, the authors of Theory of High Dilutes, report that homeopathic remedies emit beta radiation that is associated with tritium reactions.

When you squeeze the elements of water together, energy pops out, like lightning before the rain hits. To pry them apart, you have to put energy in, like in electrolysis, or in the warmth of the Sun.

My mind drifted from topic to topic, how the opposition is understandable but not excusable, whose ass I was going to kick, what I was going to write next.

I reached over and turned on the radio. Literally the first word out of it was “homeopathic,” spoken by a woman caller on the Dr. Dean Edell talk radio program. Edell’s is a program where people call in to have Edell, a 70 year old retiree who went into entertainment when he couldn’t make it as an opthomologist, answer their questions about their lumbago, their tetanus, their chancres and malarial ague, their iatrogenic fevers disguised as Krones, Alzheimers, coronaries, neuroses, hypochondria  and a host, a myriad of other weird problems.

It is a creep show of medical oddities. To give him his due, Edell, always has an answer and commentary for just about every problem and is a nice bedside Jekyll until homeopathy, alternative medicine, or iatrogenesis (mostly death by vaccine) is mentioned. During a lifelong career on the radio he has become a walking talking medical archive of useless facts, fantastical fictions, wild medical superstitions and 19th century prejudices worthy of only the most sophisticated abattoirs.

His is a Promethean genius rivalled by only by that  of Dr. Victor Frankenstein, MD.

Edell’s favorite punching bags are homeopaths. He hates them. He wants to get his long claw like fingers around the neck of one and choke the life out of him. He wants to burn another at the stake, submit others to vivisection and donate their organs to dog food companies. My cerbreal processes reeled. This woman had just as well of lit a fire under a pan of nitro glycerin.

She was asking for his advice as to whether or not she should forego regular chemo therapy treatment in favor of homeopathy.

OMG. Predictably Edell went nuclear, yelling that lymphoma could be cured by regular medicine . . and homeopathy, homeopathy, could do nothing.

He told an anecdote about how he had heard about someone who abandoned, who eschewed the orthodoxy of allopathy for the heresy of homeopathy . . and died. He said homeopathy is the ultimate quackery, and then he said with a quiver, “its so illogical.”

I rolled my eyes, turned off the radio and got out of bed.   The show was a re-run. Edell, you see, was finally kicked off the air on January 3, 2011.

Apparently the higher ups have been reading the John Benneth Journal.

I put my shoes on.

John Benneth Journal reader SCOTT DEVLIN asks the following questions about Luc Montagnier’s ground breaking study of high dilutes

SCOTT DEVLIN: “An aliquot of the unfiltered supernatant did not show any signals above background up to the 10−38 dilution, indicating again the critical importance of the filtration step for the generation of specific signals.”
Can you clarify for me the filtration v dilution? how would one get a sufficiently dilute sample from a non dilute sample with a method other than filtration? Could this indicate that in fact the filtration technique is causing or contributing to the effect?

JOHN BENNETH: You’ve focused on one of the most absolutely fascinating aspects of the Montagnier study. Diluting the solution was not enough to produce a signal generating solvent. The gross, larger material had to be filtered out first.

What Montagnier did by filtration, homeopaths do by triturating with mortar and pestle, grinding the starter material down to the finest powder possible. It would appear that Montagnier has discovered that filtration creates the same effect. This is what Kaviraj calls the nanophase, explained by the Law of Kosmotropy: the smaller the nucleator the greater the potential for order within its surrounding aqueous domain, theoretically limited to the smallest sized particle or bubble H2O molecules can enclose.

A kosmotrope is an order inducing particle.

H2O is a small polar protic molecule magnetically attracted to contamination (guest particles) and will configure around them according to the guest charge. This is how water structurally and dynamically imitates other substances. If the particle is too big for water molecules to uniformly assemble around it, the chunk then acts as a chaotrope, a disorder inducing particle.

By filtration Montagnier is creating kosmotropes, a kosmotropic solvent. The order created by these kosmotropes extends ubiquitously throughout the solution via the hydrogen bond network.

MONTAGNIER: “In the course of investigating the nature of such filtering infectious forms, we found another property of the filtrates, which may or may not be related to the former: their capacity to produce some electromagnetic waves of low frequency in a reproducible manner after appropriate dilutions in water. The emission of such waves is likely to represent a resonance phenomenon depending on excitation by the ambient electromagnetic noise. It is associated with the presence in the aqueous dilutions of polymeric nanostructures of defined sizes. The supernatant of uninfected eukaryotic cells used as controls did not exhibit this property.
“In this paper we provide a first characterization of the electromagnetic signals (EMS) and of their underlying nanostructures produced by some purified bacteria.”

SCOTT DEVLIN: “In addition, please clarify for me any distinction, if any between the documented dilution levels here and those in some of your proposals.”

JOHN BENNETH: There are none that I can see. The dilutions used by M., although low, are within the range used in some applications of homeopathy, mostly acute. Constantine Hering introduced the use of remedies in the dilution range used by Montagnier. What M. refers to as a 10^18 dilution would be called an 18X dilution in homeopathy. According to Montagnier, there can virtually be no original particles left in dilution.

SCOTT DEVLIN: It is my understanding that you claim that a sample diluted to such a state that not a single molecule of the original substance is likely to exist in the sample can still have an effect, and as related to this particular study, likely to be resultant from said EMS. Is there a difference between the dilution levels you propose and those documented in this study?

JOHN BENNETH: No. By my calculations this would equal one million molecules within 10^23, or one quintillionth of a drop of water. These are still considered below the molecular limit, but they are regarded as homeopathic levels of dilution according to FDA regulations.

SCOTT DEVLIN: Given that Montagnier does not mention Clathrates, is this where your proposition of Clathrates comes into effect, that specific Clathrates are formed by specific DNA molecules and it is from these Clathrates that the EMS are emitted?

JOHN BENNETH: Yes. It should be noted though that “aqueous nanostructure” define clathrates, and that clathrates may not be the only form of liquid aqueous structuring (LAS). I focus on clathrates because they are known and accepted within classical science, and the formation of LAS can be explained classically through the analogy of clathrates, and it also fits the aerogeneous requirement for homeopathic solutions. It is an interesting distinction to note that homeopathics lose their biological action when they are made without enough air in the succussion chamber.
This is a striking distinction to make for homeopathics in the face of charges that they theoretically can have no specific biological action. It shows we’ve cracked the code. Clathrate means “cage” and clathrates have been referred to as cage molecules, analagous to the mantle that surrounds a light on a lamp post, hexagonal or polyhedral structures surrounding the utlimate kosmotope . . gas.
My theory is that an unique hydrogen bonded network is first established by particulate matter. Dilution removes he particulate matter and the network then nucleates around atmosphere that comes into dilution from agitation of solvent surfaces, forming aerogeneous clathrates.

SCOTT DEVLIN: “We have studied the decay with time of the capacity of dilutions for emitting EMS, after they have been removed (in mumetal boxes) from exposure to the excitation by the background. This capacity lasts at least several hours, some time up to 48 hours, indicating the relative stability of the nanostructures.”
Has the apparent lifespan of this effect or propert ever been tested as the cause of other studies inability to show such effects?”

JOHN BENNETH: Yes, we know from trial and error what works and what doesn’t. Without the introduction of ethanol, homeopathic solvents lose their biological capabilities within 24 hours. Ethanol is another solvent and appears to act as stabilizer for LAS. I believe that the internal tension from hydrogen bonding forces aerogeneous LAS to fall apart and the nanobubbles to aggregate, float upward and move to the surface. If you watch a glass of freshly poured water you can see it happening within a couple of hours, depending on how much atmosphere has been dissolved in it.
Rolland Conte et al, authors of “Theory of High Dilutions” have used NMR to study the effects of temperature, magnetism, photons on homeopathic solutions.

DEMANGEAT: Nanosized bubbles have been identified in liquid water [26–29], which are stabilized by traces of ions and tend to associate in fractal clusters, that scatter light. Removal of gases suppresses the small-angle laser-light scattering by water [30]. Radiofrequency(rf)-treatment has been shown to induce formation of arrays of stable (hours) nanobubbles in water and aqueous solutions; degassing of the treated water erases all the effects, and rf-treatment has no effect on degassed water (see [31] for review). The gas–water interface of the nanobubbles is hydrophobic, and therefore the water molecules may form clathrate shells with an “icelike” structure around the nanobubbles [32]. These ordered shells can induce long range structure up to the micrometer level [31]. Let us propose here that nanobubbles are generated during agitation, mostly through cavitation, and induce supramolecular organization of the water molecules in their vicinity, through hydrophobic forces and hydrogen bonding, responsible for the observed heterogeneity of R2.
. . .
Large-scale long-lived supramolecular structures of water around low molar mass compounds have been shown by laser-light scattering [45,46]. With the same technique, Jin et al. [47] showed that rather stable nanobubbles are implied within the supramolecular structures formed around small organic molecules.
According to these authors, bubbles stabilized by small organic molecules could even be a universal phenomenon.
NMR water proton relaxation in unheated and heated ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine Evidence for an air-dependent supramolecular organization of water Jean-Louis Demangeat Nuclear Medicine Department, General Hospital, Haguenau, France.

I went downstairs to the kitchen, poured myself a cup of black coffee in a black Harley Davidson mug. The heat from the coffee caused a color changing pigment in the shape of flames to change color from black to orange.  I climbed onto a high stool in front of my black laptop on the black granite counter top, and opened my email.

An email notification said I had a message on Facebook. I opened the website. It was a message from a friend of Rolland Conte’s who wanted to contact Montagnier to inform him about Conte’s work, and wanted to know if I had any contact information for  Montagnier.

Conte is a French physicist and statistician, collaborating with doctor of science Yves Lasne, computer programmer Gabrielle Vernot and mathematician  Henri Bertilocchi, who has done what may be the most comprehensive analysis of high dilutes, using nuclear magnetic resonance and beta scintllation, corroborating studies done by Lilli Kolisko. Their findings were reported in a book entitled “Theory of High Dilutions and experimental aspects.”

Conte claims homeopathy saved his life, and claims that spectral analysis can be used to identify the correct remedy for the treatment of cancer and other diseases.

I sent what I had, adding a pessimistic note.

Montagnier has been unable to obtain funding for further research. Montagnier says that other labs have not published their research on high dilutes for fear off losing their funding sources, which is what happened to Benveniste.

Like Conte, like Benveniste, Montagnier is finding that no one wants to touch his work with a ten foot pole. As much as Montagnier has avoided the label of homeopathy, like Conte, it has been close enough to brand him. He has committed heresy.

And so Montagnier is moving his laboratory to Beijing, where the Chinese, unrestrained by capital interests,  are awaiting for him with open arms and a brand new eponymous institute.

For those who have forgotten what eponymous means, it means named after him.

There are several major developments here that in relation to homeopathy are confirmations of old theory and  new considerations:

  1. Liquid aqueous structuring (LAS) is the distinguishing and motive featured force within the remedy.
  2. The size of the relevant LAS is between 20 and 100 nMs.
  3. LAS lasts for hours, apparently without non aqueous-host stabilization (such as ethanol and lactose sugar)
  4. LAS emits biologically significant electromagnetic (EM) signals.
  5. The biological signal from LAS can be replicated by transmission of the signal from one container to another.

This leaves basically two other details.

  1. How is it that LAS can produce the signal?
  2. The answer lies in the same dynamics of the piezo electric effect.

Piezoelectricity is a charge that accumulates in crystals and other materials, including  organic matter such as DNA bone,  DNA and proteins in response to pressure applied mechanically. Piezo means “to squeeze or press.” Piezoelectricity is the direct result of mechanical stress on crystalline substances. For those who are skeptical that water has any crystalline features, I will be so bold as to point out that the word “crystal” comes from a Greek word meaning “ice,” and all homeopathic remedies are  crystalliferous.

At this particular moment, please note your place in time and date, for at this point the key to one of the world’s greatest mysteries has opened a black strongbox previously sealed and now revealed . . the Electric Organon. 

This crystalline aqueous piezoelectric effect demonstrates, scientifically, the basis for the electrodynamic  effects of the homeopathic remedy.

It is a reversible process. Materials that have this ability to internally generate a direct piezoelectric effect, an electrical charge resulting from mechanical pressure,  also have the reverse ability to store it, as is known by observing structural changes in matter resulting from an applied electrical field.

Crystals will generate measurable electricity when their structure is changed by pressure, and also will deform when  subjected to an electric charge, or field.

It should be noted that the molecular structure of H2O is very similar to that of silica, the major elemental constituent of the most common crystalline material in the Earth'[s crust. Silica, water and other crystalline materials have tetrahedral components within their structure.

In water the dynamic is extremely facile. The crystalline structures that originate the motive force for homeopathic remedies act as reciprocal pumps, taking in energy and sending it out again in unique electromagnetic signatures. This is what accounts for the oscillating sine wave  found in the results of every successful record of action of a homeopathic remedy. It is why homeopathic remedies have varying effects at different potencies.

According to Rolland Conte in his Theory of HIgh Dilutions, the radio transmission from the homeopathic remedy is received by an antenna like array in the cell, and the array turns in accordance to the signal. It could very well regenerate the signal throughout the immune system as to the nature of the disorder and even an illusory location of it.

Water is classically known to be a diamagnetic material. It is sensitive to and  easily overpowered by paramagnetic forces and responds to an induced magnetic field. This explains Montagnier’s cross talk experiments which show the ability of water to assemble specific aqueous structures that imitate structures in the sending unit. It shows that molecular self assembly can be initiated in water with a magnetic field.

This is in complete concordance with theory postulated by Hahnemann 200 years ago, for even then, during the infancy of electrical technology, he knew that the only plausible reason for the action of the homeopathic remedy was magnetic.

A homeopath (left) is assisted by the author (right) with the homeopath’s usual daily case load.

Bones contain ferromagnetic crystals. The greatest concentration of them are in the ethmoid bone, which is at the base of the nose under the eye sockets, attesting to the direction “follow your nose.” This is the center for what might be thought to be intuition, probably is engaged in the detection of scent, and also explains why homeopathic remedies have been found to be effective when sprayed in the nose.

So there it is. I could be wrong, but in the last ten years of studying this subject I have yet to find any real contradiction to it. It all fits in . . for me.

I know I’ll get the usual ton of crap about it from the usual poseurs, I’m sure there are refinements that will be made, all the incomplete sentences and typos I make will have to be corrected,  maybe redactions, retractions and complimentary action made, but for the most part, I think I’ve nailed it.

The material sciences have buckled under the weight of the facts, homeopathy is explainable. Professor Martin Chaplin of London South Bank University has come down from the mountain top and proclaimed that water can indeed store and transmit information through its hydrogen bonded network.

Case closed.

Now I can go blind and spend the rest of my days in bed, listening to talk radio.

Au revoir.

NEXT: The Homeopathic Repertorization of Jared Lee Loughner


 Like a domestic spat,
or like any argument at all,
where one side is being held to account
for some nasty business,
and violently changes the subject . .
so it is
when homeopathy holds allopathy
to account for genocide.

Man oh man

I’ve never seen such traffic in all my days. I was about to write that yesterdays numbers were the highest ever, ten times that of my most highly viewed blog, one of the most viewed blogs on WordPress — but today’s has already broken that record.

Wow! Wowee!

I’m a star, just like mama used to say.

Fire PZ Myers, in one and a half days garnered over 17,000 views. But judging from the commentary, only a few really bothered to read it. They wrote mostly obscenities for commentary.  If someone did ask a question, it was a leading one, or a question  that was already answered in the article. Or it was complaining about their obscenities in previous commentaries not being published, and then complaints that their complaints weren‘t being published, etc. etc.

But every now and then a gem appeared, like something from Kaviraj, what for him is a scrap, what for the rest of us is a meal.

It just proves my point, that that the only intelligent commentary is coming from the homeopaths, and all the idiocy from the allopaths.

Let me give you a profound demonstration of what I say.

The allopaths say there’s nothing to homeopathy, that it’s a placebo. Of course they don’t define what they mean by placebo, they don’t show any tests that prove placebo either. The next thing we hear from these whiz kids is how powerful the Placebo Effect is. SO does that mean that homeopath , compared to placebo, is powerful medicine? LOL!

The next tact from these acolytes of scientism is to fire off another broadside from the other side of their sinking ship, like “there‘s no science to back it up.”

Okay, so when we show them some clinical trials they say, “they weren’t properly double blinded.”
Okay, so when we show them clinical tests that were double blinded, they say “it wasn’t published in a peer reviewed magazine.”
Okay, so when we show them double blind clinical tests published in peer reviewed non-homeopathy journals, they say “there are no reputable tests published in prestigious, non-homeopathy peer reviewed journals that show the effects of high dilutes to be no greater than placebo.”

Well, here’s one that was published in an AMA journal.

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885.
Homeopathic vs Conventional
Treatment of Vertigo
A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study
Michael Weiser, MB; Wolfgang Strösser, MD, MB; Peter Klein, MS

To this the answer has been “it was discredited.”

In other words, somebody didn’t like it because it compared homeopathic treatment against an allopathic drug without a third set of victims given . . placebo.

But wait a minute . . I thought they said homeopathy was the placebo! Oh, bwahahahahahaha!

[Note the interjection of the  word “victim.”  How would you like to be somebody’s science project.  If PS Myers had have a real problem, do you really think that he would take a chance and be part of the placebo group. This is the main problem with clinical testing, which, if you read on, I shall correct]

Here’s an exhaustive collection of references to homeopathic research in a google knol by Dr. Nancy Malik. . Google it.

Scientific Research in Homeopathy
by Dr. Nancy Malik
Triple Blind studies, Double-Blind Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trial, Systematic Reviews & Meta Analysis, Evidence-based Medicines for specific disease conditions, Ultra-molecular dilutions, Animal Studies, Plant Studies
130+ studies in support of homoeopathy medicine published in 52 peer reviewed international journals out of which 46+ are FULL TEXT which can be downloaded

So we’re answering allopathy’s wild shots with pinpoint accuracy, and they’re going down with the ship, sinking under an epidemic of heart failure, diabetes, cancer . . diseases sufferers could be helped with through  homeopathy.

Look, at this point we’re not trying to make assertions about how well homeopathy works, we‘re just trying to show that it does. The problem is that the public is getting that mixed up in their minds. The anti-homeopathy crowd is substituting evidence for how well it works for evidence that it does work. We are avoiding simple decisive tests.

We have extensive records comparing homeopathic with allopathic treatment, both modern (Bracho) and old (Bradford) . . but comparison is a point that should be examined after we see that the substances used in homeopathy have objective indices not found in clinical trials.

Just as no one symptom should be taken alone as the only indicator for which homeopathic remedy should be used, neither should any one test for homeopathy be used to determine its efficacy, and pre-clinical testing should come first in examining homeopathy as a potential clinical modality.

If you’re out in the woods and you’re scrounging around for food and find something that looks palatable but you’re not sure of, you feed it to the dog first. If he doesn’t get sick, then you eat it. That would be a pre-clinical test.

But oh no, the pseudoscientists dive into this subject answers first . . and the questions that support the answer second, without first finding out if these substances have physical, biochemical and biological action.

What the wise will do is first consult the literature on the subject.

This is what James "the Amazing" Randi looks like without his glasses and phony beard, taking my phone call. He accepted my application for his phony "Million Dollar Challenge" 11 years ago and is still running from me to this day!

That brings us to the first real question in this investigation. What do we know of pre-clinical tests for high dilutes?

In 2003 Becker-Witt C, Weibhuhn TER, Ludtke R, Willich SN sought answers to that question in a study entitled, “Quality assessment of physical research in homeopathy” . J Alternative Complementary Med. 2003;9:113–32.
Becker-Witt reports:

“Objectives: To assess the evidence of published experiments on homeopathic preparations potencies) that target physical properties (i.e., assumed structural changes in solvents).
“Method: A suitable instrument (the Score for Assessment of Physical Experiments on Homeopathy SAPEH]) was developed through consensus procedure: a scale with 8 items covering 0 criteria, based on the 3 constructs, methodology, presentation, and experiment standardization.
“Reviewed publications: Written reports providing at least minimal details on physical experiments with methods to identify structural changes in solvents were collected. These reports were scored when they concerned agitated preparations in a dilution less than 10^23, with no other restrictions. We found 44 publications that included 36 experiments (the identity of 2 was unclear). They were classified into 6 types (dielectric strength, 6; galvanic effects, 5; light absorption, 4; nuclear magnetic resonance [NMR], 18; Raman spectroscopy, 7; black boxes of undisclosed design, 4).
“Results: Most publications were of low quality (SAPEH , 6), only 6 were of high quality
(SAPEH . 7, including 2 points for adequate controls). These report 3 experiments (1 NMR, 2 black boxes), of which 2 claim specific features for homeopathic remedies, as does the only medium-quality experiment with sufficient controls.
“Conclusions: Most physical experiments of homeopathic preparations were performed with inadequate controls or had other serious flaws that prevented any meaningful conclusion. Except\ for those of high quality, all experiments should be repeated using stricter methodology and standardization before they are accepted as indications of special features of homeopathic potencies.”

To summarize, Becker-Witt found six different physical tests for homeopathy. Eight criteria were rated, generating a potential total score of zero to 10. Reports for tests that had scores of six or less were considered to be of low quality, which they said constituted most of them.

Seven trials were found positive results were of high quality. Two out of seven high quality studies claimed distinctive features for homeopathic remedies.

What is important about Witt is she reveals more than one method for finding distinctive features which “science,” inplied by the Myers mindset, says does not exist.

Out of NMR 18 studies, only two were unable to get positive results.

The highest NMR SAPEH scores, went to three studies conducted by one name, Demangeat et al.
Since the 2003 Becker Witt review, Demangeat  continued with his NMR investigation
Here is a 2008 report by Demangeat that can be read online.

2008 July 26 Journal of Molecular Liquids, Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81–90
 NMR water proton relaxation in unheated and heated ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine: Evidence for an air-dependent supramolecular organization of water
Jean-Louis Demangeat, Nuclear Medicine Department, General Hospital, Haguenau, France

“We measured 20-MHz R1 and R2 water proton NMR relaxation rates in ultrahigh dilutions (range 5.43·10-8 M–5.43·10-48 M) of histamine in water (Hist-W) and in saline (Hist-Sal), prepared by iterative centesimal dilutions under vigorous agitation in controlled atmospheric conditions. Water and saline were similarly and simultaneously treated, as controls. The samples were immediately sealed in the NMR tubes after preparation, and then code-labelled. Six independent series of preparations were performed, representing about 7000 blind
measurements. R2 exhibited a very broad scatter of values in both native histamine dilutions and solvents. No variation in R1 and R2 was observed in the solvents submitted to the iterative dilution/agitation process. By contrast, histamine dilutions exhibited slightly higher R1 values than solvents at low dilution, followed by a slow progressive return to the values of the solvents at high dilution. Unexpectedly, histamine dilutions remained distinguishable from solvents up to ultra high levels of dilution (beyond 10-20 in Hist-Sal). A signi!cant increase in R2 with increased R2/R1was observed in Hist-W. R1 and R2 were linearly correlated in solvents, but uncorrelated in histamine dilutions. After a 10-min heating/cooling cycle of the samples in their sealed NMR tubes (preventing any modi!cation of the chemical composition and gas content), all of the relaxation variations observed as a function of dilution vanished, the R2/R1 ratio and the scatter of the R2 values dropped in all solutions and solvents, and the correlation between R1 and R2 reappeared in the Hist-W samples. All these results pointed to a more organized state of water in the unheated samples, more pronounced in histamine solutions than in solvents, dependent on the level of dilution. It was suggested that stable supramolecular structures, involving nanobubbles of atmospheric gases and highly ordered water around them, were generated during the vigorous mechanical agitation step of the preparation, and destroyed after heating. Histamine molecules might act as nucleation centres, amplifying the phenomenon which was thus detected at high dilution levels.

“These unexpected findings prompted further investigation, notably in other conditions, in order to rule out artefacts, such as possible interactions of silica with the glass material used for the preparation, or possible misinterpretation of the NMRD data due, for instance, to an unknown dependence of the frequency dispersion on the dilution level. So, the present study was carried out at a fixed frequency of 20 MHz and with histamine as solute, beyond the 4th centesimal dilution, i.e. beyond the known threshold of NMR sensitivity to detect histamine protons or any paramagnetic contaminants of the solute. It will be shown that the variations in R1 observed as a function of ultrahigh dilution in the NMRD study [16] are reproducible with histamine at a fixed frequency, and that these variations totally vanish after heating of the samples.

Here is the most recent and what I think is the best physical test of all:

2009 Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences
Luc MONTAGNIER1,2*, Jamal A¨ISSA1, St´ephane FERRIS1,
1(Nanectis Biotechnologies, S.A. 98 rue Albert Calmette, F78350 Jouy en Josas, France)
2(Vironix LLC, L. Montagnier 40 Central Park South, New York, NY 10019, USA)

Abstract: A novel property of DNA is described: the capacity of some bacterial DNA sequences to induce
electromagnetic waves at high aqueous dilutions. It appears to be a resonance phenomenon triggered by the ambient electromagnetic background of very low frequency waves. The genomic DNA of most pathogenic bacteria contains sequences which are able to generate such signals. This opens the way to the development of highly sensitive detection system for chronic bacterial infections in human and animal diseases. Key words: DNA, electromagnetic signals, bacteria.

Montagnier, being a Nobel laureate, strikes a hard blow for homeopathy, so a lot of pseudonymous posters want to say that Montagnier wasn’t testing the kind of dilutions used in homeopathy.

These criticisms come from pseudoscientists who haven’t read the study carefully enough. The equipment Montagnier used was designed by Benveniste for detecting EM signals in high dilutes.
The Montagnier study is one of the most remarkable scientific studies ever published, for it confirms the Benveniste assertion that homeopathy is a new medical paradigm.
The operative mechanism for homeopathic can be found in clathrate hydrates, nano-crystalline gas inclusion molecules, what Montagnier refers to as aqueous nanostructures. These liquid aqueous structures produce an amplified analog signal of the guest molecule.
Montagnier was able to actually filter them out, and in doing so was able to give them actual physical dimensions.
Once filtered out, the signal stopped.
Read the study, it’s fascinating for these and other anomalies it reveals.

In an article referencing homeopathy (online) entitled “The Memory of Water,” the world’s top authority on water physics, Professor Martin Chaplin, states “water does store and transmit information through its hydrogen bonded network,” once again implying hydrogen bonding as being critical to the homeopathic mechanism.

Exactly what I’ve been saying for years.

John Benneth, self portrait

So here we have two studies that support my hypothesis that the action of homeopathic remedies is electromagnetic and produced by measurable structuring in the solvent, nucleated around clathrates.
Material scientists Roy et al, in their seminal work, . The structure of liquid water; novel insights from materials research; potential relevance to homeopathy. (Roy R, Tiller WA, Bell IR, Hoover MR Materials Research Innovations, 2005; 9-4: 577–608.) confirm polymorphic structuring in water at liquid temperatures as the key to the homeopqthic mechanism.

“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 . .

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter




“The principal conclusions of this paper concern only the plausibility of the biological action of ultradiluted water remedies, they are based on some very old (e.g. homeopathy) and some very new (e.g. metallic and nanobubble colloids) observations which have been rejected on invalid grounds or due to ignorance of the materials research literature and its theoretical basis. This constitutes an excellent example of the common error in rejecting new scientific discoveries by using the absence of evidence as evidence for absence.”

It is not such a difficult matter to explore this phenomenon, if you’re not PZ Myers, or one the similar horde. If that’s the case, then putting homeopathy to the test becomes impossible.

If you have comet his far in reading this it shows that you have the spirit of inquiry and not take the easy route by fashionably dismissing the evidence. Now that we have looked at the physical tests, let’s take a look at the biological.

Be assured that I’m moving in for the killshot. As tedious as it may seem, it is exploding myths propagated by phony challenges made by people like James “the Amazing” Randi, of whom I’ve included a picture of, sans phony disguise of Darwin like beard and glasses, as I did with my revelation of Myers in a previous blog. This is working up to a challenge to PZ Myers. More specifically, within Myer’s claimed realm of biology, there are more biochemical tests beyond those referred to prior.

After the 2003 review of physical tests, Witt and her team turned their attention to biochemical testing. Here, Myers ought to wake up from his napping.

For the biochemical assessments they used a modified version of the SAPEH test.

Their investigation found six different types of biochemical tests reported for homeopathy: non cellular systems, cultured cells, erythrocytes, neutrophile and basophil granulocytes, and lymphocytes.

(NB: If you think this is tough reading, consider what it’s like to type. But it’s important for this discussion. I haven’t seen this posted anywhere before.)

Witt produced the best and most exhaustive review of the literature for pre-clinical testing of homeopathics.

The WItt review shows that the basophil degranulation test has been done more than any other kind of biochemical test, but nevertheless is still only one type of biochemical testing among six.

Some of the most remarkable biochemical testing was done by William E. Boyd, MD, whose team spent years examining the action of dilute mercuric chloride on starch at Glasgow.

The Boyd experiments were designed by two Barbour scholars and overseen by Professor Sir Gowland Hopkins. The reporting panned 15 years, was extensive and elegant, designed for replication, representing a project that would be cost prohibitive by today’s standards.

Now we’re squarely in the bailiwick of Myers, reportedly an academic biologist who has taken what appears to be a knowledgeable stance on this problem. Neither opponent or proponent would be likely to say that it isn’t a problem.

If you’re looking at this problem objectively, you can see that there is a wide spread in the reported quality of testing  results. However, most reporters, like Ennis, conclude there should be more testing.

Where is the prudence in the face of this evidence, of not putting it to the test?

Since 2007, the basophil degranulation test has been done specifically for replication by two of its finest conductors, Sainte Laudy and Belon.

Homeopathy. 2009 Oct;98(4):186-97.
Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: a sensitive and reproducible model for the study of the biological activity of high dilutions.
Sainte-Laudy J, Belon P.

Why is it that someone who comments on this subject as an expert witness, as Myers does, not provided us with a greater examination of the available evidence? If Pee Zee Herman here is the expert he makes himself out to be then why . . with his X-ray vision and the mysterious, supernatural ability to make such definitive conclusions about the awesome psychogenic powers of these homeopathic placebos, WHY does he not enlighten us as with the Holy Protocol  for Placebo?

Come on, Jesus of Science, if it truly exists, then give us the Placebo Commandment! Where are the Holy Writs, the double blind studies published in the sacred texts of prestigious peer reviewed journals?

Teach Me!

Why is P MYers not conducting his own biological tests, and proving to us, without a grain of prejudice, that homeopathy, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is NOT what the evidence has led many of his misguided colleagues have concluded it to be . . biologically active.

If this is a scientific inquiry and not a political argument, then why is it that so many people are trying to answer a pre-clinical question with clinical evidence?

The Myers mindset isn’t posing a question, it is merely answering an implied one with evidence that will lead the unwitting away from non prejudicial answers.

Let me answer it first philosophically. The anti-homeopathy argument, the infrastructure of which is atheistic, is based on the concept of non-Being. It is a decided feature of solipsistic thinking that has crept its way past the scientific method into science, to change it from science into scientism, from global skepticism into local skepticism, i.e. pseudoscience, that which masquerades as science, but in reality is serving the masters of capital and fashion.

For in order to believe in non-Being, one has to put Parmenidean logic aside. There is no such thing as non-Being. Placebo or not, homeopathy is a reality.

If this isn’t so in this case, then let us see PZ Myers put homeopathy to a simple yet proper biological test:

There is the literature, here are the methods, now let’s see some results!

And if Pee Wee Myers cannot reasonably find biological indices, then let us see him provide us with psychological indices drawn from trials that test for psychogenic effects, trials that show beyond the shadow of a doubt that homeopathy is nothing more than The Placebo Effect, and all the pre-clinical evidence the result of error and lies.

Let me put it more explicitly:

Professor Myers, do these substances, as used in homeopathy, as defined in the literature, have biological action on subjects not influenced by the placebo effect?

Simple question , simple answer that can be determined thorough simple tests. If Myers isn’t purposely avoiding the question and the literature that addresses it, then why isn’t he accepting that literature as evidence of non psychogenic action or why isn’t he submitting these substances to his own superior testing?

PZ Myers will have so much explaining to do, he’ll have to schedule extra classes in Pseudoscience and Advanced Prevarication!

For instance, we have reports from numerous sources, myself included, that have witnessed the phytopathological action of homeopathics on plant growth and diseases. That’s a simple, biological test any school kid can do. So why is it so far beyond the reach of Myers, reportedly a professional biologist?

The problem here that now confronts Myers, in order to meet my challenge, is that he’ll have to fish the evidence out of the looney bin, and if does find an effect, by his own previous criteria, he’s screwed.

Do you understand? Myers has effectively recused himself from obtaining negative results by having shown his bias.  

The only way for him to back out of this trap now is to collaborate with others who are experienced in biological testing, such as M. Brizzia; L. Lazzarato; D. Nani; F. Borghini; M. Peruzzi; L. Betti at the Department of Agro-Environmental Science and Technology at Bologna University in Italy, workers who have conducted extensive testing on heat, replicating the exhaustive work of Lilli Kolisko.

Professor Myers, I challenge you to commission a design for a simple biological test, done by people who know what they‘re doing, without having a stage magician with a million dollars to lose handling the key to the double blind, as he did with Benveniste.

Put it to the test. That‘s fair enough. Isn‘t it?

And now for our movie!

Prof. Rustum Roy vs. Steven Novella, the Homeopathy Hater

If you watch carefully you will see that the man standing in the shot as Professor Roy is being introduced is homeopathy basher Steven Novella, a professor of neurology at Yale and the President of the solipsistic New England Skeptical Society. Apparently Novella thought he was going to be introduced next. Watch and listen as Professor Roy takes him down a notch or two . .

 Man oh man,


In light of evidence, University of Minnesota biology professor PZ Myer’s hate campaign against homeopathy just might backfire . 

 “High dilutions of histamine did indeed have biological effects.”
Professor Madeleine Ennis after replicating controversial experiment for homeopathy.
 One of the last  John Benneth Journal entries for 2010 , IN ONE YEAR,  has broken all previous viewership records and sparked more commentary and outrage amongst the pharmaceutical company stooges than any previous Journal entry, enlisting the usual fury and nasty responses.

Most notably is PZ Myers, an American biology professor and pharma stooge whose specialty is trashing homeopathic medicine at the University of Minnesota Morris (UMM).

His blog is Pharyngula. In 2006, it was the top-ranked blog written by a pseudo scientist.Myers has called IN ONE YEAR “nonsense.” Other commentary has been”mental straightjacket”and remarks too obscene to be reprinted here. 

It follows a posting by Myers of clips of my controversial video, “The Mechanism,” juxtaposed with scenes from Star Trek to characterize my supramolecular description of the homeopathic remedy as techno babble.
My name is John Benneth. I’m a homeopath.And this is story about biologists, three in particular, who have studied . . it.

It is fashionable with atheists and pseudo scientists like Myers to trash it and its research. It is a compulsion. They can’t help themselves. They have to do it, for it puts everything they hold dear at risk.

Trashing it is like a cheap magic trick, hawked as self working and E-Z-2-DO. It gives the trasher the feeling he’s accomplished something for himself under the guise of protecting society from what they characterize as ineffective medicine. But like the cheap magic trick, when it finally arrives in the mail, you realize it was misrepresented.

Pretty good trick . . on you.

PZ Myers, Pseudoscientist

Really what it is, it’s hate speech, using the same kind of tactics used against minorities by hate groups. It really shouldn’t have any place in academia, but pseudoscience has become the infrastructure of higher education.

What can they tell you that you can’t find out for yourself now through the Internet? It’s not really education, it’s fashion.

What Myers says has very little to do with science and more to do with the politics of self aggrandizement.

Look at the case against it: It’s full of general, vague, contextual accusations and insinuations. But try to find within this haystack of lies a needle of truth. It contains more errors of commission and omission than the invasion of Iraq. It doesn’t state its criteria or identify or it sources for verification. It always ends up being exactly what it complains of, and PZ Myers provides us with a wonderful sample of it.

He wastes our time with anecdotal evidence and fails to adequately explain the etiology of the phenomena. If its effects are psychogenic, where are his proofs for psychogenic? If it’s bunk, what mechanism has made it so popular, where is the proof for the reported action? It’s usually nothing more than a sloppy pudding of self contradicting anecdotes.

“EZ Pee Zee,” a pudding of lies.

Science will always turn against the pseudoscientist.

Read on and watch it slowly turn against Myers.

We have heard repeatedly, over and over again, from people like E-Z Pee Zee Puddin’ Myers, that homeopathy doesn‘t work, but when asked “how do you know?” the best they can come up with is that it doesn’t work because it shouldn’t work.

That’s it. That’s all there is to it. Nothing more! 

No evidence of biological action is ever admitted without first seeking fault by the homeoapthy hater. Any corroborating tests are conveniently ignored.

I seriously doubt EZ PZ Puddin’ Myers could sustain much of a real explanation of its effects, because somewhere along the way he would have to confront things he didn’t know and doesn’t want to know, because they begin to work against his foregone conclusions.

Criticism by pseudo scientists like Myers is never global. It is always localized against something, like homeopathy. The evidence con is always given greater play over the evidence pro. And it avoids addressing the evidence pro in specificity within the context of explicit criteria.

For instance, the most well known in vitro test for homeopathy is a test on white blood cells, the basophil degranulation test. It was done by renowned immunologist Jacques Benveniste after his criticism of it was challenged. An assistant had found that water exposed to an allergen via serial aqueous dilution, could provoke an in vitro response, as if the allergen were present.
This is called basophil degranulation.
Benveniste, like other investigators, was puzzled by the results. What appeared to be pure water was causing a biochemical reaction.

Benveniste reportedly did the test over 1,000 times.

After he published the results of his testing in Nature, a prestigious science magazine, (to the resounding explosion of the usual outrage) Nature sent a team to investigate Benveniste’s work. The team consisted of Sir John Maddox, the editor of Nature, James “the Amazing” Randi, a notorious illusionist with a large sum of money to lose if proven wrong, and a debunker by the name of Walter Stewart.

According to Dana Ullman, the experiment was first replicated three times for the Nature team without any blinding of the experimenters. These first three experiments performed for the team showed positive results.
The fourth experiment blinded the person doing the counting of the basophils, and the results of this experiment were also successful. But the Nature team deemed this test invalid, claiming that the blinded experimenter knew in advance which test group she was counting.

The Nature team then began to behave disruptively. The next three experiments blinded the person doing the counting and the person doing the pipetting. Randi performed magic tricks during a crucial part of the experiment, making it difficult for the experimenters to perform their work, while Stewart was acting so hysterically that he had to be asked several times to stop shouting by Maddox and Benveniste.

All three of these experiments did not show any difference between the active verum samples and the inert control group. The Nature team immediately deemed that there was no evidence that the microdoses have biological action and reported that the tests failed to show convincing results.

Benveniste had violated the laws of Nature!

What they didn’t report was that the results were just what one would expect if someone switched the active samples with the inert controls.

Some of the samples, coded inert, produced a reaction, whereas some of the samples coded as active were reported inert. A switch had been made.

Randi had sabotaged the test by mixing up the results!

When you’re finished reading here, watch the accompanying video at the end of this article and hear Benveniste describe what happened. And particularly note Maddox, the editor of Nature, confessing that he went to Benveniste’s lab for the sole purpose of discrediting his work as fraudulent.

Skeptics herald this as conclusive proof that homeopathy doesn’t work.

There are some more facts that EZ Pee Zee doesn’t tell you, because without additional information we may be easily led to an incorrect conclusion about in vitro testing for homeopathy . .

What Pee Zee doesn’t tell you is that the basophil degranulation test for homeopathy wasn’t invented by Jacques Benveniste. JB’s test was the fourth replication of it. There have been many replications of it since, most notably a multi centered one that included homeopathy skeptic Professor Madeleine Ennis of the Respiratory Medicine Research Group at The Queen’s University of Belfast.

Here is a mashup of Ennis reporting on the activation of human basophils by ultra-high dilutions of anti-IgE, dilutions of the type used in homeopathy.

ENNIS: “This could be an exceedingly short paper, since in my opinion, from a conventional scientific background, when there are no molecules of the active agent left in a solution there can not be any biological effects. However, a search in PubMed combining homeopathy with basophil revealed 15 items. Interestingly this did not include the now infamous article in Nature or the papers that attempted to repeat the work. Changing the search to homeopath and basophil increased the total to 21. Including phrases such as ‘high dilutions’ or ‘extremely low doses’ only resulted in 33 publications.

“Witt and co-workers used several different databases in their review and found a total of 75 publications and further evaluated 67 of them. One of their sources was the HomBRex database which specialises in basic research in homeopathy and as of February 2009 contained 1301 experiments in 997 original articles including 1172 biological studies. Using the CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) Database and putting in basophil resulted in 95 hits. The question of publication bias is also worth considering – is it easier to publish a paper with negative results or with positive results? Normally, trials or studies with negative results are difficult to publish. However, it is possible that the opposite is true for studies using ultrahigh dilutions.

“In 1988, Poitevin and colleagues published a paper in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology in 1988 which was a follow-up to an earlier paper which had reported that incubation of basophils with high dilutions of the homeopathic drug Apis mellifica was able to inhibit allergen-induced basophil degranulation. In this paper, they reported that very low concentrations of anti-IgE (ca. 10–100 molecules per well) activated basophils and that this was inhibited by very high dilutions of the preparations

“Overall, using the histamine degranulation assays, as standardized by Sainte-Laudy, it was found that histamine at both conventional pharmacological concentrations and at high dilutions inhibited allergen and anti-IgE induced basophil activation. Examining a range of dilutions from 5c to 59c, the response was periodic in form, with maxima at ca. 7c, 17c, 28c, 40c and 52c.”

“This work was pioneered by Sainte-Laudy and colleagues beginning in the 80s and continuing to the present day… I first heard about this work at the 1984 meeting of the European Histamine Research Society where Sainte-Laudy bravely presented his data to a crowd of extremely skeptical and rather hostile scientists and clinicians.

“Apart from the natural scientific objections to solutions containing essentially water having a biological effect, a number of other issues were raised:
(1) the biological validity of the test;
(2) the reproducibility of the phenomenon,’
(3) the subjectivity of cell counts and
(4) that the data nearly all came from the same laboratory. In answer to these points, at that time, this form of examining basophil activation was a recognized procedure. Sainte-Laudy had performed repeated experiments, indeed in a series of 6 experiments he repeated each measurement 16 times and got the same answer.

“In order to answer points (3) and (4), it was decided to perform a multi-centre European Trial and it is at that point that I ‘dipped my toes into the waters’ of homeopathic research. As an ardent sceptic, I was invited to take part in the trial, which involved one coordinating laboratory and laboratories performing the research. This study has been published.

“In brief, all the laboratories were trained in the basophil counting method, with the counts verified by Sainte-Laudy’s laboratory. The dilutions were made in 3 different laboratories and coded by the coordinator (histamine and water solutions made up identically from 15c–19c). All study materials were from the same source and shipped to the performing laboratories. The data were returned to the coordinator and then analysed by an independent biostatistician. When the results for the histamine solutions were compared to those for the water solutions, there was a small but statistically significant inhibition of basophil degranulation caused by the lowest concentration of anti-IgE used in 3 of the 4 laboratories. When all the data were combined together, there was a statistically significant inhibition for the histamine containing solutions. Thus this multi-centre
study indicated that high dilutions of histamine did indeed have biological effects.

“In the multi-centre trial described above, 3 of the laboratories independently examined the effects of high dilutions of histamine and to a varying degree all demonstrated inhibition of basophil activation with these dilutions. Flow cytometric is employed in most immunological laboratories and there have now been a series of independent laboratories investigating the phenomenon. These will be discussed in detail.”
Basophil models of homeopathy: a sceptical view, Madeleine Ennis, Respiratory Medicine Research Group, Centre for Infection and Immunity, Microbiology Building, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

The Witt review of in vitro tests for homeopathy carefully analyzed and scored all known biochemical testing, up until 2007. You don’t see the criteria employed by Witt being employed by those who conclude that homeopathy is merely the use of inert substances.

Like Pee Zee, they have to make up their own, unknown, unseen,  OCCULT criteria!

PZ Myers claims to be a biologist. But look at the way Myers approaches the problem before him. Instead of giving you the full story, Myers gives only what he wants you to hear, which is mostly ridicule. Myers doesn’t mention his colleagues who have actually conducted the basophil degranulation test. He hasn’t done it. So how is it that we are supposed to believe Myers over Ennis, Sainte Laudy, Belon, Benveniste and all the others and their staff assistants, and the hundreds, possibly thousands of repetitons of these tests, unless Myers is presenting an answer we want to hear?

I’m trying to think of careers and activities that would be more suited for telling people what they want to hear, other than science. How about politics? LOL! No wonder his blog is so popular! Most people aren’t interested in science for anything more than the status it gives them in the eyes of others.

Being a skeptic gives you that “cachet.”

But when it comes to the real complexities of science . . please! Don’t confuse me with the facts! Let’s just pretend we’re scientists, okay?” 

Ennis on the other hand, rolls up her sleeves and gets her hands dirty. She then, as a real scientist, is compelled to truthfully report what her colleagues are loath to hear . .  the truth about homeopathy. What was it again? Oh yes . . “high dilutions of histamine did indeed have biological effects.”

I hear Myers screaming when he reads this, holding his head, “Noooo! I hate homeopathy!”

Ennis comes up with the same statement that Benveniste, Poitevin and dozens of others have come up with. In the glass the truth about homeopathy has been found.

Benvneiste proposed a whole new biological paradigm. Does Myers have the courage to do the test? Or is he more likely to try to sabotage it with word and censure?

If Pee Zee Myers cannot be a real scientist and meet the challenge of homeopathy head on, as Professor Ennis and others have done, then I say fire him and let him go on writing his stupid blog as the prime example of pseudoscience. Why would anyone but the opposition want a joker like Myers poisoning the minds of our youth? He doesn’t teach biological science, he teaches political science. Look at his useless, mindless deblogatory activities

How embarrassing for such a fine institution like the University of Minnesota! To have such an unscientific voice as Myers blathering away while his hands are doing nothing useful, when there are real scientists, like young versions of Rustum Roy at Penn State, who could be teaching biology at the University of Minnesota.
Education should not be about destroying people, as PZ has made it out to be. It should be about building people up, not tearing them down, and learning how things work in world.

2010 Turning Point for Homeopathy

A lot’s happened in the last year, and it’s been a particularly wild ride for me and homeopathy. 2010 was actually a big year for me and homeopathy. And well it should’ve been, for 2010 was the 200th anniversary of the publication

Kirlian photograph of homeopathic remedy by Chris Wodtke

 of Organon der rationellen Heilkunde, The Organon of the Healing Art, Samuel Hahnemann’s first treatise on homeopathy, a science that he alone begat.

It is a book that continues to rock the medical world.

I think it should be noted here, that as an orthodox physician, Hahnemann had been cutting his doses for 14 years prior to publication of the Organon. He was compelled to do so because of the harm that “heroic medicine,” then as now, was doing to the withering public.

Bloodletting by barbers and toxic chemicals administered by the totally unschooled to treat disease in 1810 graduated to more sophisticated methods of bloodletting by unnecessary surgery —  and more toxic, patented petro chemical  synthesis and “chemotherapy,” to treat disease.

“Heroic medicine” was not called that because of what the physician did, it was called that because of what the patient endured. But with homeopathy came hope, and that hope is alive today.

Hahnemann didn’t just spring out of the gate with this thing, as an idea untested all on its own, it had to first stand trial to his own incredulity and testing. The 14 year trial was that of a well-trained, travelled and read government medical doctor who, for his time, was also a first rate published chemist.

Anyone who can be fair and objective about it, who still harbors any doubts about homeopathy, should keep that in mind when banking on Avogadro’s Constant, the famous hypothesis concerning the molecular limit of gasses in combination with one another, for with all theory aside, Hahnemann, as countless others have done in following him, had to accept, without supporting theory or logic,  the evidence for the biological action of high dilutes, for seeing is believing, and practitioners for 200 years have seen that homeopathy oddly works . . as if by magic.

But homeopathy is not magic, as a growing number of material scientists have come to realize. There are now 10 different physical tests for homeopathic high dilutes, and six different types of in vitro tests, in which some published tests which have perfect ratings.

Coincidentally, 2011 marks the 200th year anniversary of publication of that theory by Avogadro, “Essay on Determining the Relative Masses of the Elementary Molecules of Bodies and the Proportions by Which They Enter

Conte Lorenzo Romano Amedeo Carlo Bernadette Avogadro di Quaregna e Cerreto, Count of Quaregna and Cerreto b. 9 August 1776, Turin, Piedmont, d. 9 July 1856)

These Combinations.” As if we didn’t know. Since the beginning theory by the numbers have dogged homeopathy as impossible,when in fact a heterogeneous molecule was never suspect. Like the skeptics’ Elvis, Avogadro has left the building.

2010 was also anniversary for something else quite notable in this affair, really the key item that distinguishes a homeopathic solution from its solvent vehicle. 200 years ago two famous English chemists, Sir Humphrey Davy, and Michael Farraday, in their study of chlorine, made note of liquid aqueous structuring, what they called hydrates, curious clatcheses of water molecules that twinkled like ice, which later came to be known as clathrates. Hold on to that last word, it is the final key to unlocking the mystery of homeopathy. 2010 was the year of the clathrate when it was indicted for causing the BP Gulf of Mexico oil well disaster and became the subject of wild speculation at the Cavendish Laboratory when it was announced it was the operative mechanism of the homeopathic remedy, the same place where a decade ago a notorious French immunologist proclaimed a new biological paradigm.  

It is the year when I began my lecture before the crowned heads of Europe by showing a power point picture of the suspect, saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, the clathrate hydrate. This concludes my lecture, other than where is

clathrate model

Josephson’s Scotch, are there any questions?” and was mobbed by silence, forced to

Scotch Josephson denied me at the Cavendish. He said my videos were socially unacceptable.

go on for an hour to explain it all, and getting nothing for it but some weak orange juice, stingily poured by Josephson.

Thanks to Dr. Shashi Sharma, president of Hahnemann College of Homeopathy in London, my efforts came to fruition in 2010 with an invitation to be the key note speaker at his conference there, where I was treated like a king, and at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge where, by invitation of Nobel laureate, Professor Brian Josephson, I was given an opportunity to present my theory for the molecular pecularities of the homeopathic remedy.

Now you know. Until my London lectures in September and October of 2010, the polar protic water molecule eluded a popular explanation as to how it forms liquid aqueous structuring (LAS), and how LAS is relevant to a classical science explanation of the homeopathic remedy’s inner workings.

2010 marked the 100th year anniversary of Johannes Diedrik van der Waals’s award of the Nobel prize for his contributions to understanding the intermolecular forces which now bear his name, critical to understanding liquid aqueous structuring, confirming what the genius of Hahnemann presented 100 years prior,

Johannes Diderik van der Waals

that the biological effects of the homeopathic remedy are magnetic.

2010 marks the year we declared that the homeopathic remedy could be explained in the terms of supramolecular chemistry.

And I did it without the Scotch.


It really began in earnest for me 10 years ago when James Randi offered me his million dollar prize to prove that the action of homeopathic remedies was something more than a psychogenic effect.

I took his challenge naively  believing the offer was genuine.

My friend and colleague, James "the Amazing" Randi

Much to the disbelief and fury of the big pharma stooges, the literature, much of it through PUBMED, provided numerous ways to show the action of homeopathic remedies outside of the human domain. I found that they not only had physical distinctions, they had action on plants and animals, too, that could be shown by a wide variety of methods. But their most prounounced action was in the most infinitesimal doses, remotely applied, on our greatest opponents, precipitating violent contractions of the jaw and vocal mechanism, and highly agitated contractions of the fingers on keyboards.  One detractor called me a murderer. Another said I was an idiot. Another said I was homeopathetic. 

But it was not enough to dissuade me from clinging to my chains. Randi ran like a rabbit.

I sent my samples to Kirlian phtographer Chris Wodtke, who made some amazing pictures of them, showing the crackling feathers coming out of the gas discharge from the thousands of electrocuting volts coursing through the drop. When it began looking like I actually had methods by which to win the million, such as by Kirlian photography, or by plants, Randi said I was a nobody and had bigger fish to fry.

The renowned immunologist, Dr. Jacques Benveniste, 1935-2004

He claimed that French immunologist Jacques Benveniste and Professor Brian

The brilliant Professor Brian Josephson of the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambrdige

The brilliant Professor Brian Josephson of the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge

Josephson of Cambridge had agreed to accept his challenge, and that he would test them first. What? I coldn’t belive it. If elt like a jilted lover. But always the hero, Josephson wrote to say that they were not interested in being “tested” by Amazing Randi, understandable after what Randi had done to Benveniste years earlier. It was a circus with clowns with rats riding on the backs of dogs, jumping through hoops of fire.  The Challenge, Jacques and Josephson said, was mine, and they sent Randi careening back to me.

Randi kept stalling. He refused to set a test date. He found some university stooge to fence with me for a while until the stooge ran off and hid under his pillow. It was doubly, triply (I’d say quadruply if it wasn’t so corny) evident that Randi wasn’t going to make good on his offer to conduct a test, so I took my case to Naomi Shapiro, Randi’s account manager at Goldman Sachs, where the loot was supposed to be hid. She wouldn’t verify anything. All Randi had as proof of the prize — reportedly put up by Richard Adams of UUNET — was an old fax with Shapiro’s name on it. It was evident that at one time the account may have held a million dollars in what may have been nothing more than junk bonds, but what was in there now could have been nothing more than stack of Rnadi'[s old Blue Boy magazines.

$1,000,000.00 CASH

When I sprung the news that Goldman Sachs was refusing to verify the account, Randi sprung into action. He accused me of “damaging the James Randi Educational Foundation,” had a heart attack and like a street corner bum started selling pens dipped in “homeopathic gold,” to pay for it.

What Randi didn’t want anyone to know was that “aurum,” homeopathic gold, is the

Chest pains . . too much GM corn syrup

Chest pains . . too much GM corn syrup

first remedy indicated by heart troubles and depression. Obviously he was taking it because he couldn’t afford the doubt.

Exposed in his ruse, Randi then claimed he wouldn’t test me because I was insane.

The only way, he said, he would continue negotiations with me for a test of homeopathy, would be for me to get a signed affidavit attesting to my mental condition from a clinical psychologist.

November 2nd, 2000 I found myself wandering the eerily quiet streets of a suburb of Tucson, close to the

Prof. Gary Schwartz, author of "The Living Universe"

University. Down to my last few bucks, I had hitched a ride from Portland, Oregon to meet with Dr. Gary Schwartz, a professor of clinical psychology and psychiatry, who had expressed an interest in my research and was looking for a physical distinction in the homeopathic remedy.

I said I could provide it.

Schwartz’ lab was called the Human Energy Systems Laboratory (HESL). It was located in a little bungalow in the university neighborhood. The garage had been converted into a workshop. Schwartz was using electronic equipment to test subtle energy effects and especially how they applied to what is thought of as the paranormal.

When I arrived on foot I saw a young man in the garage through the open door. I heard zapping sounds coming from within. I think he was electrocuting mice. The ones without intuition. Having arrived early, rather than bother the man’s animal genocide, I decided I would kill time by taking a stroll.

I was walking down the street minding my own business when suddenly a black high-rise pickup pulled up. A man with a beard and sunglasses rolled down the driver side window and, pointing up into the sky behind me, said in a nasally voice, “Look at the Sun.”

I turned around, and saw one of the oddest and most spectacular sights of my life. In a cloudless sky the Sun appeared to have split into three parts. I had never seen anything like it. It created what looked like a huge eye

El Ojo del Diablo, the Eye of the Devil

 peering down at me.

I turnedback around. The pickup was gone.

I then embarked on my own mission of evangelism. I asked passerby at the University what it was. Not one person had noticed it until I pointed it out, as had been done for me, and all but one stared increduously. Most everyone, likeme, had walking around without looking up, and no one knew. Finally a young woman said it was the Ojo del Diablo, the Eye of the Devil.

The Eye of the Devil?

I thought that sounded a bit harse. I called for damage control. And then I htought. If it could be the eye of the devil, it could also be el ojo de Dios, the Eye of God.
In any case we were being stared at from above by what looked like a huge shining eye. I went back to the HESL. I called to the young man in the garage and asked him to come outside. He did, and asked what the matter was.

I pointed up. “Have you ever seen that before?” I asked.

“No, I haven’t he said,” shading his eyes. “What is it?”

“El Ojo de Dios.” I nodded my head knowingly, as if I knew. “God is watching us.”

As it turned out, it was what is called parhelia, commonlhy known as sun dogs. The effect is caused by ice crystals in the upper atmosphere. The actual science bore out the myth. Ice crytals, as it turned out 10 years later,  were indeed the key.

After our meeting, Schwartz visited Randi in his Ft. Lauderdale office. According to Schwartz, Randi was still insisting I was crazy, slapping the desk with his hand — and John Edward, the past life medium Schwartz had been testing, a liar.

He said all of this with his pants ablaze.

Three years later, in collaboration with Professor Iris Bell, MD, Schwartz followed my suggestion to use Kirlian

Professor Iris Bell, MD, in collaboration with Prof. Gary Schwartz, created a unique test for homeopathy

photography to produce the Gas Discharge Visualization test for homeopathy, and reported, as I had found, that homeopathic remedies can indeed be distinguished from their liquid vehicles by this method.

They published their results: “The procedure generated measurable images at the two highest voltage levels. At 17 kV, the remedies exhibited overall lower image parameter values compared with solvents (significant for Pulsatilla and Lachesis), as well as differences from solvents in fluctuations over repeated images (exposures to the same voltage). At 24 kV, other patterns emerged, with individual remedies showing higher or lower image parameters compared with other remedies and the solvent controls.” (Bell)

Like every other test I had found for homeopathy, Randi had to brush this one off too. Losing his million would not only be a loss of property and face, it would threaten the entire pharmaceutical paradigm that was supporting him.

Ten years ago there was practically no references at all to homeopathy on the Web, nothing regarding pre-clinical or clinical evidence when I posted my collection of pre–clinical tests for “Proof for Homeopathy.”

The world wide web was a novelty then and very few people noticed “Proof for homeopathy,” but after I reposted that same collection as the first post of this blog, it was reposted and went viral. It became notorious and still stands

Your friend, your best friend, your only friend: John Benneth, PG Hom. - London (Hons.)

 as the most viewed entry in the John Benneth Journal.

It seems like homeopathy took off like rocket after that. Prior to assembling Proof for Homeopathy the homeopaths I was in contact with had very little knowledge of the clinical tests for homeopathy, and none for the pre-clinical.

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

The homeopaths I corresponded with didn’t seem to even have asked the question as to whether or not high dilutes could affect non human subjects, such as plants and animals. The only in vitro test popularly known for homeopathy was the one done by the brilliant immunologist Jacques Benveniste, the basophil degranulation test, but it was generally thought of as being idiopathic and the man contagious with quackery.

The fact of the matter is that the basophil degranulation test was not of Benveniste’s origin. It was first attempted in 1985 by Murrieta et al and first accomplished by Poitevin in the same year. I have now found more than two dozen replications of the basophil degranulation test for homeopathy, most notably the work by Sainte Laudy and Belon (Sainte-Laudy)

I don’t think homeopaths’ ignorance of the pre-clinical and clinical tests for homeopathy is excusable, but I think its understandable. Despite what may be said of it, the homeopathic materia medica, the reference work built on case notes that homeopath’s rely on for finding the right remedy, provides the most relevant information/evidence for the use/action of high dilutes. Compare the terms, one set for the practitioner, one for the doubter. The pre-clinical and clinical trials of homeopathy serve mostly to respond to the yet unproven accusations that homeopathy is merely a placebo. The average practitioner finds the pre-clinicals and clinical tests to be merely vituperative of homeopathy and useless in the clinical practice of homeopathy. Either way they are merely pebbles thrown against a tank. No information/evidence will ever suffice to convince the unconvincible, nor will it ever.

The most remarkable finding was something I just came across, and inevitably I think that in concordance with theory and evidence, will help to break the back of the pharma stooge‘s opposition.. That more was not made of it, to me illustrates the point of resistance, but it is profound that it appeared in this red letter year. What makes it so important I think is not what is said  (it is 40 years old and prosaic) but who is saying it.

It is a statement made by Emeritus Professor Martin Chaplin, one of the world’s leading authorities on the physics of water. It really deserves an entry all of its own here on the Journal, for it marks a turning point in the recognition

“Water does store and transmit information, concerning solutes, by means of its hydrogen-bonded network.”– Emeritus Professor Martin Chaplin, London South Bank University, world’s leading authority on water.

of homeopathy as being based on real scientific principles. Yes, I know, reading it you will see that Chaplin covers his bet, so no one can say he drank the dilute Kool Aid. But even though it is true, for a man of lesser credentials it would mean professional suicide to make such a statement.
In an article entitled The Memory of Water, posted on the London South Bank University website, (probably the best website for information about the physics and chemistry of water) Professor Chaplin says, “Water does store and transmit information, concerning solutes, by means of its hydrogen-bonded network.” (Chaplin)

The word “does” invokes the controversy that should have ended in the mid 20th century when clathrates became an issue for the oil companies, clogging up oil pipelines, and in the fifties when double Nobel laureate Linus Pauling nominated them as being the cause of inebriation, or in the sixties when Barnard frist linked  them to the homeopathic solution, or in the nineties, when Anagnostatos described their formation in the host/guest process, and then finally in 2010, when a study between US and Russian universities, clathrates were revelaed to affect the taste of vodka (Schaffer)

Note that all of these examples of clathrates are in solution with hydrocarbons such as ethanol or methane, which are capable of hydrogen bonding, a point always missed by the disbeliever. 

What have we been saying for years now? Next thing you know Chaplin will cave and admit that the biological effects are due to the crystalline piezo electric effect.

The article is prefaced with an epitaph to the late Benveniste: “Maybe I should have thrown the data away” followed by a comment by Chaplin, “but being a scientist and believing in his data he could not.”

I for one am glad that he didn’t, and I am sorry for the all the misery Maddox, Stewart and Randi put him through.

I would add something to the memorial that Benveniste wrote to me, if I could:

“Homeopathy is the devil’s piss pot.”

Bell IR, Lewis DA 2nd, Brooks AJ, Lewis SE, Schwartz GE. “Gas discharge visualization evaluation of ultramolecular doses of homeopathic medicines under blinded, controlled conditions.”
Chaplin M “Memory of Water”  lsbu(dot)ac(dot)uk/water/memory(dot)html
Murrieta M, Leynadier F, Dry J. “Degranulation of human basophils and so-called homeopathic substances” Bull Acad Natl Med. 1985 May;169(5):619-22.
Poitevin, B., Aubin, M., Benveniste, J. (1985) Effect d’Apis Mellifica sur la degranulation des basophiles humains in vitro. Homeopathie Francaise 73: 193.
Sainte-Laudy J, Belon P. Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: a sensitive and reproducible model for the study of the biological activity of high dilutions. Homeopathy. 2009 Oct;98(4):186-97.

The Water Bridge

Sometimes I get fooled into thinking people are listening, when in reality, they aren’t, they aren’t at all. They’re just pretending to listen. They not even interested after seeing something that dramatically proves the point. What they’re doing is just waiting for me to stop talking, or in the case of a blog, to stop writing, so they can climb up onstage.
The stupidest people don’t want to listen, they just wan’t to talk. They can hog the whole conversation with a drawn out monolgue, and then when they finally do ask my opinion, and I pick myself up off the floor and manage to get a byte’s worth of words out, like “may I have a glass of water, please?” they start in all over again.
“Water? Let me tell you about water. There’s tap, distilled, ice, soda, mineral ,hot, boiling, cold, salt, dirty, with a twist of lemon and a straw, or . . ”
I get hit with another entire monologue before i can even put my head back down.
Same way with a blog. This one’s essentially meant to be a scientific discussion about the mysterious and seemingly anomalous action of water as used in homeopathy, so you would expect
the commennts to be scientically oriented, and say things like “Water? H2O, hydroxl, H-O-H, is one of the few elements that can be easily seen in all three phases of matter, solid, liquid and gas, and a fourth one, supercritical. It’s a polar protic universal solvent with a small tetrahedrally shaped molecule solvent and . .”
But look at most of the miserable comments. Aside from the Great Kaviraj and a few by an occasional homeoapth, most of the comments are from people who are stubbornly opposed to homeopathy and don’t have anything to do with the topic at all. Most of the comments are about me, regarding deficiencies in my character. Well, certainly I admit there could be a few, but to read some of these people you’d think I was wormwood.
Many of the commentators, you may notice, appear to have not even read the essay. Having no audience of there own I guess they want to borrow mine.
Well, the monuments we make to others are really no better than the monuments we make to ourselves.

There is one particular person, (well actually there are several) who does this “not listening” thing incessantly and egregiously. I’ll make my point, fall back in exhaustion, and then in great dismay hear a statement made tha tmake it obvious he wasn’t listening.
Once I went into great detail how we could get more views on our websites, and then when I was finished he said, “Do you have any ideas as to how we might get more views on our websites?”
I have found the same is true for my explanation of homeopathy. Skeptics don’t want to read my column, certainly hnot when it contains a reasonable scientific eplanation in it. They just want an excuse tot write something that makes them feel superior.
What a gift. My writing brings out the best in my readers by bringing out the worst in me. When I write a particularly good essay, the view counts drop off dramatially.

Ontology aside, I am convinced that there are no true anomalies. Idiopathy is an ideal, not a reality, and it is homeopathy, as the greater part of it, that has brought me to that conclusion, for homeopathy is regarded as one of the world’s greatest physical anomalies, one I’ve seen my way around due to the evidence. I have come to believe that what are seen as physical anomalies are simply errors in perception, just as the skeptics say. The only difference is that the errors in perception are there’s, not mine.

I can understand this on a personal level. There is probably no greater achievement than to work all your life to be remembered when you’re dead. I saved the small town of Turner, Oregon from a threat of destruction by negotiating with a man who said he was going to blow it up, removing him from its center, talking him down over a cup of coffee and walking the dear fellow into jail. He was upset, I think, because of an impending foreclosure, and because essentially no one would listen to him.
He subsequently claimed to be sitting on a ton of farm fertilizer in his feed store, he said, which he was going to detonate it with some nitro glycerin (he said). Even people in Portland would hear that, and that would be novel, they don’t listen to anyone either.
So I took the time to listen to him, very carefully. He brought up consitutional points, and as someone who had studied the state constitution with great interest, we had a topic of mutual interest.
“Did you know that for crimes the Oregon constitution demands rehabilitation over punishment?” I said.
He responded he was going to blow up Turner. I took him seriously, just as I would wish to be taken seriously if I was going to blow up a town, no matter how big it was. I’m sure everyone does.
That feat alone, bringing him through the surrounding police and television cameras undetected, meeting with him in a truck stop, should have been enough to have had some marble cut down to my size and shaped like me, but no, all it got me was a place on the front page of the Salem Statesman-Courier newspaper, jealous contempt from all the cops and a question from my wife, “when are you going to get a real job?”
The marble statue would have been been earned if my pieces had been blasted over four counties. That would have earned me the respect and approbation I craved. And if something similar were to happen now, I’m sure the comments tomorrow would be more conciliatory, too.

There is a kind of rushed feeling about it. Argentum would be the remedy I think.

Well, enough of that. The world views these things as idiopathic. Yes, I know, that’s a word that isn’t used much, so to save you having to open up another page, please forgive me for presuming that it needs a definition: Idiopathy is the belief that the material world and the life follows it, are in a disconnected state.
Idiopathically, we see a thing as a thing by itself, with no dynamic connections to us or the outside world at all. That’s the skeptical position we;’re all most ocmfortable with. Its only the palpable connections to the world around it that make it seem connecte for a moment to anything. Scientists are just now beginningto suspect that water molcules have different mangetic connections with one another thaat appeaars to transcend the hydrogen bond. As Benveniste noted 10 years ago at the Cavendish, this dynamic field view of water molecules will lead to a significant pardigm shift in medicine.
So a stone upon the shore is seen as nothing more than rock amongst others, with no connections to its fellows amongst who it sits, except for the connections we make for it in our minds, until that too is broken and it is picked up and thrown out of view, into the lake.
Infinitesimally the lake is seen as the rocks on the shore, a haphazard collection of singular parts, with no other connection than physical proximity, H2O molecules jostling one other like stones in a bucket.
But this is not the way the world is constructed. All things are dynamically conneccted, and people are no exception.
Molecules of water are not free entities as the rocks on the shore appear to be. Like humans, converse to popular belief, they do not exist alone. I challenge anyone to separate one from its kin and show it to me. I think it is not possible. I think there is no such thing as an idiopathic water molecule.
Neither can their true character be known by modeling them alone, and yet this is exactly what we do in the study of them. We model them alone as if they separate and apart, and so that is how we think of them.
And that, sadly, is how we think of ourselves too often I fear. Alone, when in fact every water molecule within us is dynamically, magnetically, connected directly to as many as four other water molecules around it, an beyond, a fifth connection. Water can be seento behave as if within a dynamic field.
There are indirect intermolecular forces that connect water molecules with one another, which demonstrates the magnetic interconnectiveness of of all living things, for water is the most common element in our sphere, around and within us.
If water molecules cannot have a sustained magnetic connection, then how do they support a water bridge?

Density gradientsobject width=”480″ height=”385″>