KILLSHOT for homeopathy opponents

Since I no longer have input to the imbroglio on Ernst’s PULSE blog,
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/comment-blogs/-/blogs/stop-the-teaching-of-pseudoscience
(well there seems to be some horrible technical problem) I wonder if whoever is commenting there, or who has access to the great man, could ask a simple question for me, as I don’t seem to be getting a satisfactory answer to it from the geniuses who have been posting commentary on my Youtube videos and blog.

The question is this:

If everything that is said against homeopathy is true, “it doesn’t work, “it’s a scam,” then why is it that its highly diluted remedies are being used in the U.S. at MD Anderson in Houston, the nation’s number one rated cancer clinic,  to cure BRAIN GLIOMAS?

Here’s a link to the MD Anderson Cancer Clinic webpage about homeoapthy:

HOMEOPATHY http://www.mdanderson.org/education-and-research/resources-for-professionals/clinical-tools-and-resources/cimer/therapies/alternative-medical-systems/homeopathy.html

I see nothing there that says homeopaths are criminals, as has been claimed by James “the Amazing” Randi!

Here’s a study in which they report successful treatment:

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 23: 975-982, 2003

Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but  proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes: A novel treatment for human  brain cancer (http://www.virtualtrials.com/pdf/ruta6.pdf)

If Ernst et al can’t answer the question, perhaps Professor Sir Dr. John Beddington, Professor Dr. David Colquhoun, Dr. Simon Singh, Amazing Randi, Dr. Ben Goldacre, MD. Professor Dr. Steven Novella, MD, or Professor Dr. PZ Myers,  a real genius like one of those, could answer the question for me.

I want to know! How can this be?

How is it that we have a considerable group of talent here who have for years been saying that homeoapthy is a crime because it is a cruel fabrication, a monstrous hoax, that the substances it uses for “remedies” have no remedial action at all!

Professor Colquhoun! Amazing Randi! Simon Singh!

Good doctors!

Homeopathy detractors Paul Morgan, Simon Baker, David Briggs, Les Rose, Andrew Lewis, Paul Holloway, David Briggs, you have lain awake in your beds, with the covers to your chins, and you may have thought, and if not, tonight you will, “what should I do if I get brain cancer?”

You muse, “Well, there is a cancer clinic in TEXAS, that was rated by Newsweek magazine as the best the U.S. has to offer. Number one! If I have enough money I could go that clinic and be treated by all the doctors there, who are the “WORLD’s BEST”, with HOMEOPATHY!”

AMEN!?

PLEASE! ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Répétez s’il vous plaît:  “If everything I’ve said about homeopathy is true, that it doesn’t work, that it’s a scam, things like that, then OH MY GOD! . . why is it that its being used in the U.S . .  at the nation’s number one rated hospital,  to CURE BRAIN CANCER?”

What are we supposed to do?

WTF! I could make a Youtube video of my answer, post it on Facebook and TWEET ALL MY FRIENDS!

THAT’S IT!

Hallejewya!

I’ll put the answer in my blog!

(Since we commoners don’t have direct access to these great peer minds, perhaps someone who does could pass the question along to them.)

Oh, here’s a bonus question for extra points, if you answer the first:

What do you think would happen if MD ANDERSON were to USE REAL HOMEOPATHY,  the whole homeopathic materia medica . . use it classically. .  for which it was designed\ . . i.e. symptomologically,  by the totality of mental and physical symptoms, for anything that walks in the door?

As a simple country practitioner I do.

Why can’t they?

Why can’t you?

TEACH ME!
Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter: Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

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 the 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 painted on the mug 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 have 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 of 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;it 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 and probably is engaged in the detection of scent; it also explains why homeopathics 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

FIRE PZ MYERS!

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.

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″>

Please, somebody, TEACH ME ABOUT HOMEOPATHY!

Continued from “How Embarrassing!”
Great detectives think only about the truth, and so they constantly attack the deficiencies in their own thinking first. They don’t wait for somebody else to do it for them. They care less about making themselves look good than they do in solving the problem.
And that’s what I’ve done for Jeff Garrington and everyone else. I’ve solved the problem. But do I get any thanks for this? No, of course not. They’re all too cheap to recognize that! How cheap are they? They’re so cheap they count their fingers after they shake hands; they take out a one month subscriptions to Reader’s Digest; they go to the drugstore and buy one Kleenex; they keep moths as pets because they think they only eat holes; they stop watches to save time; they wash paper plates, they won’t even tip their hats and they quit golf . . because they lost the ball.
I might also call out, that in all my correspondence with him, even physicist Brian David Josephson (BDJ), the youngest non-academic to win the Nobel prize in modern times, has not pointed out what the particular deficiencies in my presentation were, in fact no one has, with except one, und nichts du, certainly not Jeff Garrington.

Except for this one person, no one has been able to take even a good swipe at them. The only critic I know of so far who has pointed out the holes in my argument and forced me to patch them up before opening my mouth is . . ahem me.

The only person who has been able to discuss it is the Great Kaviraj.

Now, as an example of how lame even Garrington’s ad hominems are, if you do a search on that particular quote by BDJ regarding me , which Garrington and others love to stretch their necks on, it only appears on Andy Lewis’ bullshit quackometer website.

Lewis is so nervous from being repeatedly kicked off web hosting services for le canard noir, the black lie, he can thread a sewing machine while it’s still running. And when you follow his link to the BDJ quotes, they’re not there! (See link to site my lecture and BDJ’s actual comments, below) Gasp! Now why would that be? The argument so far against me is so weak even we homeopaths can’t find a dilution level for it.
Please, somebody, teach me! I’ll assign my million dollar claim on James Randi’s million dollars if anybody can if somebody can only help me!
Is Andy lying, like he so often does, or did BDJ remove it? If so, why would he do that? And so what if he did say those things? He’s also said that so far, no one’s proven me wrong.
“A colleague to whom I forwarded a link remarked that he ‘found most blogs depressing because they tend to be dominated by people who are very opinionated and often rude, yet uninformed and uncritical’, and I’m sure he would think the same of this — all these attempts to prove John Benneth wrong that don’t amount to anything, and the inability to follow any remotely subtle points. But this (almost too) prolonged discussion will provide very interesting material for sociologists of science to mull over.”
Posted by: Brian Josephson Aug 13, 2010
http://blogs.nature.com/im_brooks/2010/07/30/can-we-agree-to-disagree

Will they prove me wrong? Or will they . . teach me?

I don’t pretend to think that BDJ has been enthusiastic or even agreeable to my dissertation. Yes, it was a spectacle, there was a sign carrying mob at the door, I had to step on Evan Harris’s face to get to the door and use Singh’s hair to get to the stairs. I even saw a couple old ladies, waving tickets and trying to get Stephen Hawkins into the freight elevator.

BDJ simply has had very little to say about it, although recently he pointed out in commentary in another article on the web about molecular self-assembly that it sounded reminiscent to what I was talking about in my “controversial” talk at the Cavendish.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44479
He was extremely nervous about my presentation and I don’t blame him, I know who I am and how I come off, what’s at stake for him isn’t what’s at stake for me, I know what an embarrassment I am to these anti-homeopathy blockheads, at any moment I might whip out affidavits testifying to sexual assaults on minors by James Randi, or I might start cursing out that cockbite Goldacre, drop my bombs and walk away. But I didn’t do that, I did worse than that, I showed them all how really stupid they’ve been about their own business. I showed them real science. I showed them how confused about very simple, basic things, like hydrogen bonding and intermolecular forces.
What could be more embarrassing than that?

Yes, my little talk met with great opposition, but to date NO ONE has been able to correct the glaring contradiction between the direct observation of sustained liquid aqueous structuring created by intermolecular forces in water, what any child can see the effects of and science supports, and the “theory” that it is impossible because of “breakage ” of the “hydrogen bond” and the fairy tale of H2O molecules as independent entities. Scrape it together, get your story straight. Water is a colloid (Tiller, On Chemical Medicine, Thermodynamics and
Homeopathy, http://www.tillerfoundation.com/On%20Chemical%20Medicine%20Homeopathy.pdf)
Roy, Water Water Everywhere
http://www.slideshare.net/NaturesPhysician/water-water-everywhere-live-h2-o-eventjuly-rerecorded

“Proposed mechanisms such as structural effects on the water can be seen as a bridge to the homeopathic regime. Ricci, in the standard text on the Phase Rule puts it thus: Another non uniformity possible in a homogeneous phase of an isolated equilibrium system free of the forces of gravitational and other such fields seems to be that of surface energy, if the phase is a subdivided one. The subdivided phase in a 2-phase colloidal system, for example, may not have the same surface development in all its pieces. But if there is such a thing as a reproducibly stable colloidal system, with an equilibrium state which is a function of T, P, and composition alone, independent of time and of the relative amounts of the phases, then this non-uniformity must be a regular one, following some statistical distribution fixed solely by these variables. If the colloidal system, then, is stable and in reversible equilibrium, the distribution of its surface energy must be assumed to be either uniform or a reproducible function of the stated variables [16]. Roy, Structure of Liquid Water http://hpathy.com/research/Roy_Structure-of-Water.pdf

To listen to the Garringtons of the world it sounds like their view of the rest of the material world: intermolecularly totally disconnected, as if these molecules were like grains of sand, except smaller. What a bunch of nitwits. This guy Garrnington has been confused by academics like Prof. David Colquhoun. You may not have known this, but before Coquhoun got a job as a professor at London City University, he applied for a job as a teller in a blood bank, then a social director on a freight train, and finally a lifeguard in a motor pool. But since there weren’t any openings, he got a job completely confusing people about the workings of the material and dynamic world.
All they can do is characterize my presentation as embarrassing. Isn’t it ironic that Simon Singh, the particle physicist, also spoke at the Cavendish after I did, but not on any physical principles, as I did, but about how “scientismists” should be given special rights to defame others, just as Garrington does? He doesn’t have a capacity to discuss the “science” he claims is nailed to his rants, and neither does Singh with his “science degree.” What a clod.
What fun to see him shot down by the very thing he pretends to worship.
We all know what’s at stake for the Garringtons. Anyone who studies this can see what the real ramifications of it are. Findley loses his $12 million per annum and Garrington doesn’t get his 50 mao per diem from the Evil Empire paymaster. The supramolecular theory for homeopathic remedies threatens to torpedo his old leaking paradigm, blub blub blub, down goes the tub.
For as long as homeopathy has been practiced Garrington and everyone else who’s afraid to acknowledge the evidence, insist that there is specificity to the biological effects of hydroxl medicine simply because it just doesn’t make sense, and so when a non academic drunk like me has to be led by the hand, stumbling into their den of stupidity, and shows them how it does make sense, using what is supposed to be their terms of classical science, they get red faced pissed, and they seek to say anything they can to explain it away.
Prove that I’m wrong. Teach me. Show me that intermolecular forces can’t sustain liquid aqueous structuring. Show me that the hydrogen bond does not create clathrates, water clusters, bubbles and water surface tensio. Show me what does. Show that water is not a colloid, as material scientists and pure logic say it to be. If not due to the intermolecular attraction between water molecules, then show wwha tthe connection is in water that facilitates sound travelling longer distances in water than it does in air; show why electroreceptors in cartilaginous fishes can detect electromagnetic fields in water.
Teach me!
If internal structuring cannot occur in water, then explain to me what American material scientists are talking about in “Structure of Liquid Water,” by Roy et al.
If they weren’t aqueous nanostructures as he claimed, then tell me what it was that Nobel laureate scientist Luc Montagnier and others were measuring and actually filtering out of solutions? If these things are not the result of sustained hydrogen bonding, then what are they are the result of?
Just what is it that creates the “supramolecular organization of water” Demangeat is talking about?
Teach me!
2008 July 26 Journal of Molecular Liquids 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

Click to access Demangeat_JML_2009.pdf

Can everyone see now what Garrington and all the other pseudoscientists here are arguing for? They’re like someone who walks up behind an easy looking target, some old guy and his date, and hits him on the bald spot, sticks his hand in the pocket of a black and brown checkered shirt jack and pretends he’s got a gun.
Just a fantasy.
Garrington and countless others come at Kaviraj and me daily like a flock of stingerless hornets, and we still got them outgunned in online references 10 to one. And yet the entire medical paradigm of allopathy has been built on the same buing of these inssects, not backed by anything at all.

I ended up literally kicking the shit out of that guy in the middle lane of Sierra street. I got him chasing me out into the street, then suddenly stopped and dropped. In slow motion his feet left the ground as he went sailing over my head, auguring in on the other side, face first. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.Just like Colquhoun, gettting his down button pushed on his elevator shoes. 

It’s a trick I learned in kindergarten, one of many ways to defeat bullies. Stay tuned tohis column and you’ll learn more.
He was stuck in the asphalt, presenting his ass end to me,which I stuck the toe of my shoe in with a swift kick. He lifted up slightlyon that end, his face blubbering into the pavement some more. 

How dare he? Trying to rob someone walking away from a casino on Sierra Street in downtown Reno is about as stupid as trying to rob tourists on their way home from Las Vegas.
I’m from Virginia City!
After it was all over and me and my girlfriend were walking away from it I said, “what if he’d attacked an old couple?” to which she replied, “he did.”
Here’s the Power Powerpoint lecture that’s caused all the uproar:
BEYOND THE MOLECULE: The Supramolecular Chemistry of the Homeopathic Remedy by John Benneth
http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1074586

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter