The Quantum Chemistry of Homeopathy . . a tour de force

THE CANDLE BURNS LOW, the memento mori high upon the shelf grins down at me, I must now write hurriedly before my dimming faculties quit or time on trodden soil expires, for now I have the key to unlocking the most mysterious mechanism of science, its most baffling assembly: The Power of the Infinitesimal.

THE QUESTION HAS BEEN POSED: How is it that the mere taint of what should be pure water, presumably voided of an added solute by serial dilution, still retains the biochemical properties of the original solute, as is demonstrated in the medical doctrine of homeopathy?

NOW IF the FDA, FDCA and the clinical reports they reference are to be believed, answering this question would unleash a severity of charm the conventionally accepted history on this planet has not yet foreseen; as the law of homeopathy is the fundamental basis of the vaccine . . immunology, proven in epidemics from smallpox to Ebola and pandemic flu, but not accepted as possible. the testimonials of cure, dismissed by notional science (and the patents it serves) as coincidence . . or lies.

I EXPOSE HOMEOPATHY AS QUANTUM CHEMISTRY

In a previous entry I introduced quantum chemistry as the latest mount for homeopathy, as all paths in science lead there, for the enlightened > the newest Pauling’s identification of contiguous electronic structuring from infinitesimal to atom to crystal. The triumph for homeopathy is confirming the specificity of the sub-atomic field, meaning that clathrates, liquid aqueous structuring (LAS) transcends H-bond breakage by movement of solute ions throughout the structure; the genesis of the architecture of clathrate, snowflake and crystal by electrons is of unfathomable depth. This is why the disassociated solute doesn’t lose its properties in thousands of homeopathic dilutions.

In the Nov. 2nd entry you may notice along the way I am harried by cynics nipping at my pedagogues. Here is a troll who has harassed me on Twitter. Here, writing in my Journal, he is more respectful.

“Gold” (?) writes “If you really have finally explained the quantum chemistry of homeopathy in conventional ionic theory then the research must have been replicated by others. Can you provide links to the studies that validate this?”
A reasonable question for the uninformed . .

MY REPLY to “Gold.”

The seminal work linking homeopathy with ionic theory is found in Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D.’s “The Scientific Reasonableness of Homeopathy” http://www.homeowatch.org/history/copeland.html
See “molecular dissociation”

“Gold” in reply to johnbenneth.
“I’d already found that. I’m actually interested in the replications. The strength in any scientific hypothesis is in the testing and failure to disprove it.”

This gets so tiring, dragging out the boilerplate, setting up the type, firing up the kiln, lashing the horses to the mill, when will this Promethean task ever end? Copeland lists replicable tests at the end of the article. At the end I give these links to what they, the endless skeptic, take to be a journey to the unknown, a report in which they challenge every word, dot and comma to be fiction. I would simply ignore this half wit in favor of more productive activity, like smoking a cigarette, taking a nap, getting drunk, watching Trump blow up the World . . but others are might notice.

In reply to Gold.

Tests of specific molar conductance are relatively common and simple . . and have been performed on homeopathic dilutions. Here’s an example: http://scienceofhomeopathy.com/brucato.html
Dielectric strength testing by Brucato and Stephenson was a replication of Gay and Boiron’s conductance test of high dilutions, followed by four other similar published tests. I have counted a dozen other types of physical tests for homeopathic dilutions, such as NMR (18 replications), transmission electron microscopy, [plasma discharge] and beta scintillation of neutronic radiation. The work of the Yves Lasne Prize sponsors was primarily NMR and revealed new indices, such as effects of gravitation, UV and EM fields on homeopathic solutions. Read Theory of High Dilutions and experimental aspects by Rolland Conte, Yves Lasne, Henri Berliocchi and Gabriel Vernot.
Here’s another review of tests supporting ionic theory for homeopathy:
‘The “Ultra High Dilution 1994” project was an endeavour to take stock of the findings and theories on homeopathic extreme dilutions that were under research at the time in areas of biology, biophysics, physics and medicine. The project finally materialized into an anthology assembling contributions of leading scientists in the field. Over the following two decades, it became widely quoted within the homeopathic community and also known in other research communities. The aim of the present project was to re-visit and review the 1994 studies from the perspective of 2015.’ http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/article/S1475-4916(15)00060-0/abstract?cc=y=

Here’s another review of physical testing of homeopathic dilutions (of varying quality) showing evidence of the solute in post Avogadro solutions, what notional academia erroneously believes has to be pure solvents. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12676040

So if you still have doubts about an ionic asymptote in homeopathic dilutions, conduct your own tests, publish your findings and post YOUR links.
In a previous entry I also asked for $5 million, a quarter of what I want to open a clinic based on the work of Conte et al.

 

The Homeopathic Intuitive #1- Boils, Vertigo, Nephritic Syndrome

Regard with caution: What follows is a prologue to a remedy suggestion for a nephritic syndrome case. I don’t know quite how to address this without sounding weird, but I’ll give it a try anyway. This is not to be taken as medical advice. If you have a medical problem, consult the medical profession. Be skeptical.

Please excuse its length, but I think you’ll find it interesting.

I had a difficult case once out of Pakistan where the patient had been to several homeopaths and tried a dozen different remedies for boils in his armpits and groin, to no success except suppuration, the flesh hanging down in shreds. It was a horrible mess and he had been suffering for a long time. I can’t imagine what the pain must have been like.

After having tried several remedies to no avail I simply sat down and prayed for an answer that came to me in a flash: Arnica. I looked it up and there it was: Arnica . . for crops of boils!

I instructed the patient to obtain an Arnica 10M, crush the pill between two spoons, stir into water, take a teaspoon into his mouth and spit it out.

Two days later he contacted me from Karachi on Skype, in a panic, having turned bright red. I told him to be calm, it was a sign the remedy was working.

I didn’t hear back from him for another week. When I did, he was ecstatic, he was overjoyed, he was cured. It had worked. The suppurated boils had shriveled up.

“You have done what others could not. You have healed me,” he said. I talked to him again couple months later. What he said made me slap my head: “I am taking up homeopathy as a profession.” The nature or will set you will will and will and are in a will and will not

I tried this method on other unfathomable cases and it has worked as well. In my mind I simply ask for the remedy and the answer comes immediately. Given my skeptical notions and absolute reliance on the literature I am highly suspicious of the phenomenon. I’m afraid to say I don’t trust it without researching the answer. It could be coming out of my subconscious, having prior read about the remedy and consciously forgotten it, or it could be a coincidence given the extensive indications that the remedies have within the materia medica, but I am more favorable to another explanation, the answer coming to me in the putative form of a little-known remedy.

For example, the last time I used this procedure was for a case involving vertigo. The answer came back “mustard”. I looked up the Latin for mustard, Synapis nigra, and found it as such in Clarke covering vertigo. Whether it worked or not is yet to be seen. Patient took it on the F scale, accidentally downed a whole bottle of water containing the final chord and aggravated.

I used this intuitive savant technique (IST) for the nephritic syndrome case and immediately the answer came back “marshmallow”, i.e. Althea off.

So here is the epilogue to this essay using IST on the nephritic syndrome case.

I haven’t been able to find much on Althea officianalis per se except it is indicated for bladder problems, but a little additional digging raises eyebrows. The Herb Wisdom site says

“Marshmallow works as a mucilage, producing a thick sticky substance that coats membranes. Marshmallow extract contains flavanoids, which contain anti-inflammatory properties. The flavanoids are able to reduce inflammation while the mucilage holds them in immediately place and prevents further damage. The extracts also induce phagocytosis, which is the process in which certain cells engulf bacteria, dead cell tissues or other solid particles. This helps speed up the healing process. The mucilage remains unaltered until it reaches the colon, which is why marshmallow works well on most inflammatory digestive disorders.”

What I found out next was my big wow:

Marshmallow contains Asparagine, first identified in asparagus juice. Asparagine, according to a 2011 study done at the University of Dundee, is required for normal kidney physiology and homeostasis.

Abstract

“Although protein recapture and catabolism is known as a key function of kidney proximal tubular cells (PTCs), to date, no single protease has been shown to be required. Asparagine endopeptidase (AEP) is an unusually specific endosomal and lysosomal cysteine protease, expressed at high levels in the PTCs of the mammalian kidney. We report that mice lacking AEP accumulate a discrete set of proteins in their PTC endosomes and lysosomes, which indicates a defect in the normal catabolism of proteins captured from the filtrate. Moreover, the mice develop progressive kidney pathology, including hyperplasia of PTCs, interstitial fibrosis, development of glomerular cysts, and renal pelvis dilation. By 6 mo of age, the glomerular filtration rate in AEP-null mice dropped by almost a factor of 2, and the mice developed proteinuria. We also show that EGF receptor levels are significantly higher in AEP-null PTCs, which likely explains the hyperplasia, and we show that chemical inhibition of AEP activity suppresses down-regulation of the EGF receptor in vitro. Thus, AEP is required for normal protein catabolism by PTCs, and its loss induces proliferative and other abnormalities in the murine kidney, at least in part through defective regulation of the EGF receptor.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21292981

 

The Royal Homeopath vs. the Medical Journalist

The Royal Homeopath vs. the Medical Journalist

It must beggar the imagination for the opponents of homeopathy to learn of the high and mighty’s endorsement of such, or it must fuel within their minds a kind of begrudging cynicism, that insists fools must by chance alone attain greatness. Mark Twain, John D. Rockefeller, Mahatma Ghandi, Mary Baker Eddy; Paul McCartney; Mariel Hemmingway; David Beckham; Sir William Osler; Twiggy; Tina Turner; Caprice; Susan Hampshire; C. Everett Koop, M.D. ; Louise Jameson; Catherine Zeta Jones; Gaby Roslin; Catherine Zeta-Jones; Jude Law; Sadie Frost, Nadia Sawalha; Jennifer Aniston; Jade Jagger; Roger Daltry, Annabel Croft; Meera Syal; Charles Dickens; W.B. Yeats; William Thackeray; Benjamin Disraeli; William James; Pope Pius X; Louisa May Alcott, Susan B. Anthony, William Lloyd Garrison, Daniel Webster, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, William Seward, Feodor Dostoevsky; Jackson Pollock; W.C. Fields; Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, MD; Dr. Chas. Frederick Menninger, MD; Charles Darwin; Nobelists Emil Von Behring, Brian Josephson and Luc Montagnier; former American Presidents James Garfield, William McKinley, Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton, about 500 American MDs and 300 British MDs, and reportedly about 5000 non MD practitioners in the US . . to name a few, have all been at least favorable, supportive or admiring of homeopathy if not regular users or openly enthusiastic about it.

Such a conundrum must plague their minds in the case of the English Royal family, under homeopathic care since 1830.  There has always been a Royal Homeopathic Doctor. Currently he is Dr. Peter Fisher, MD.

Whereas homeopathy antagonists, usually atheists, can dismiss the credible use of homeopathics by the creative, it must give them pause that such savvies, like atheistic Darwin, street smart Twain and the world’s richest man, the self made Rockefeller, could brook if not quietly use what scoffers have to insist is nonsense, “plain water” . .  or witchcraft.

But for the serious student of homeopathy the puzzle is why homeopaths haven’t been more influential, why they haven’t said more when the case for homeopathy is so strong and it’s paralegal opposition so weak, nothing much more than carping.

Recently in an online homeopathy discussion list, what should be the strongest voice for homeopathy, Royal Homeopath Dr. Peter Fisher, MD, has come under some criticism for what some consider a weak performance in a debate with medical journalist and homeopathy antagonist Ben Goldacre. a well known complainer noted for his constant lopsided criticism of any study, test, experiment, trial or review of the literature that favorably concludes for homeopathy. In fact, such doesn’t even need to be favorable to attract Goldacre’s ire.  All any study of homeopathy need to do for Goldacre to launch an attack on it is fail to condemn it.

In this rather tame duel, Fisher and Goldacre present their respective points and then field some soft balls pitched from the audience, when there are some of us in the homeopathic community who would like to see Fisher tear Goldacre limb from metaphorical limb . . and not necessarily because Goldacre deserves it, but because Fisher can.

My response to this is to ask that we give Fisher a break.  Isn’t he the one who took the spurious Shang metanalysis to the Discreditor’s Ball, held the antagonist’s major piece of bullshit to account by calling for the raw data? We should be down on our knees thanking the guy for the incredible work he’s done for homeopathy. He’s a real MD as opposed to this “medical journalist” clown Goldacre, who just pretends to be an MD. Of course this is just my opinion, but I think that if Goldacre ever actually treated somebody for a disease he’d be at risk of getting thrown in jail for murder.

When I was in England I invited Goldacre to my lecture on the supramolecular chemistry of homeopathy at Cambridge and away he ran, and when I took him to task for it all he could do was whine. He’s quite full of words when he’s sitting in front of a computer montior, but he’s been as loud as Grant’s tomb on a Monday morning when he’s sitting in front of someone he knows will take him to task.

Fisher, on the other hand, is a gentleman, and given his office must maintain the dignity of his position, and as such has to maintain a bedside manner, treat everyone as a patient and therefore sympathize with the sick bastard. As editor of Homeopathy Magazine, with a Royal Warrant sticking out of his back pocket, due to his titles alone Fisher is indeed probably the strongest single voice there is for homeopathy. The limb tearing should be left to the tattooed class.

The very fact that Fisher exists is alone a huge testimonial for homeopathy. But more than that he’s done most excellent work in rebutting the UK Parliament’s cherry picked ‘Evidence Check’ for the efficacy of homeopathy, specifically in his Memorandum to the UK Parliament on Evidence from Basic Research [ http://tinyurl.com/7666q5g ] and it is from this a telling point, a killshot, arises.

It’s in the Memo’s first line: “Its ‘implausibility’ from a scientific standpoint is often cited as a reason for scepticism about homeopathy, even in the face of positive clinical evidence. For instance a systematic review of clinical trials, published in the BMJ stated ‘we would accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if its mechanism of action were more plausible’.”

What?  “Its mechanism of action were more plausible”??

Now if the opposition was on its toes, a statement like this would set them back on their heels, if not flatten them. I say, and submit to you, that the reason it hasn’t flattened anyone is because they’re already there, prostrate, just as much as the corpse that made the statement.

Here, let me explain: What the British Medical Journal (BMJ, impact factor 17.215) is saying is the argument homeopathy has not been the putative, that there is no evidence of effective action . . no! What they are allowing, if not outright saying, is that they would accept the effectiveness of homeopathy if somebody would explain it to them! LOL! This is tantamount to a man falling off a ledge, and on the way down, proclaiming that he would accept the force of gravity if somebody could tell him how it works!

Up until this point, the rejection of homeopathy was supposed to be a cavalcade of absent evidence . . “Oh, homeopathy is not evidence based medicine” when in fact homeopathy, as anomalous as it may be, has never had the luxury of conventional hypotheses and theory . . evidence has been all it’s had, the evidence of action has been the sole cherry red river that’s driven its mill.

When the Internet began to transmit the actual record of pre-clinical and clinical trials, the attack on homeopathy had to shift from absent evidence to bad evidence and the suddenly discovered science had frantically picked apart by scientists-in-name-only (SINO) like Goldacre, with vituperative criteria reserved only for homeopathy.

Here’s a video of a debate, the Royal Homoeopath vs. the Medical Journalist.

HOW THE HOMEOPATH BECAME KING: British Medical Journal tumbles to homeopathy

It must beggar the imagination for the opponents of homeopathy to learn of the high and mighty’s endorsement of such, or it must fuel within their minds a kind of begrudging cynicism, that insists fools must by chance alone attain greatness. Abraham Lincoln; Jennifer Aniston; Mark Twain; Mariel Hemmingway; Nadia Sawalha; John D. Rockefeller; Mahatma Ghandi; Mary Baker Eddy; Paul McCartney; the Queen of England; David Beckham; Sir William Osler; Twiggy; Tina Turner; Caprice; Susan Hampshire; C. Everett Koop, M.D. ; Louise Jameson; Gaby Roslin; Catherine Zeta-Jones; Jude Law; Sadie Frost;  Jade Jagger; Roger Daltry, Annabel Croft; Meera Syal; Charles Dickens; W.B. Yeats; William Thackeray; Benjamin Disraeli; William James; Pope Pius X; Louisa May Alcott, Susan B. Anthony, William Lloyd Garrison, Daniel Webster, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, William Seward, Feodor Dostoevsky; Jackson Pollock; W.C. Fields; Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, MD; Dr. Chas. Frederick Menninger, MD; Charles Darwin; Nobelists Emil Von Behring, Brian Josephson and Luc Montagnier; former American Presidents James Garfield, William McKinley and Bill Clinton, about 500 American MDs and 300 British MDs, and reportedly about 5000 non-MD health practitioners in the US . . to name a few, have all been at least favorable, supportive or admiring of homeopathy if not regular users or openly enthusiastic about it.

Such a conundrum must plague their minds in the case of the English Royal family, under homeopathic care since 1830.  There has always been a Royal Homeopathic Doctor. Currently he is Dr. Peter Fisher, MD.

Whereas homeopathy antagonists, usually atheists, can dismiss the credible use of homeopathics by the creative, it must give them pause that such savvies, like atheistic Darwin, street smart Twain and the world’s richest man, the self made Rockefeller, could brook if not quietly use what scoffers have to insist is nonsense, “plain water” . .  or witchcraft.

But for the serious student of homeopathy the puzzle is why homeopaths haven’t been more influential, why they haven’t said more when the case for homeopathy is so strong and its paralegal opposition so weak, nothing much more than carping.

Recently what should be the strongest voice for homeopathy, Royal Homeopath Dr. Peter Fisher, MD, has come under some criticism in an online homeopathy discussion group, for what some consider a weak performance in a debate with medical journalist and homeopathy antagonist Ben Goldacre, a well known complainer noted for his constant lopsided criticism of any study, test, experiment, trial or review of the literature that favorably concludes for homeopathy. In fact, such doesn’t even need to be favorable to attract Goldacre’s damnation.  All any study of homeopathy need to do for Goldacre to launch an attack on it is fail to condemn it.

Goldacre is a SINO (Scientist In Name Only). SINOs are like playground bullies who think they’ve found an easy target in homeopathy. They think they can call it anything they want and humiliate practitioners, but as time progresses, with the help of the WWW,  they’re starting to walk away from online debates with black eyes and bloody noses.

In this rather tame duel, Fisher and Goldacre present their respective points and then field some soft balls pitched from the audience, when there are some of us in the homeopathic community who would like to see Fisher tear Goldacre limb from metaphorical limb . . and not necessarily because Goldacre deserves it, but because Fisher could . . if he suffered the character for it.

So my response to this is to ask that we give Fisher a break.  Isn’t he the one who took the spurious Shang metanalysis to the Discreditor’s Ball, held the antagonist’s major piece of bullshit to account by calling for the raw data? We should be down on our knees thanking the guy for the incredible work he’s done for homeopathy. He’s a real MD as opposed to this “medical journalist” clown Goldacre, who just pretends to be an MD. Of course this is just my opinion, but I think that if Goldacre ever actually treated somebody for a disease he’d be at risk of getting thrown in jail for murder.

When I was in England I invited Goldacre to my lecture on the supramolecular chemistry of homeopathy at Cambridge and away he ran, and when I took him to task for it all he could do was whine. He’s quite full of words when he’s sitting in front of a computer monitor, but he’s been as loud as Grant’s tomb on Monday morning when he’s sitting in front of someone he knows will take him to task.

Fisher, on the other hand, is a gentleman, and given his office must maintain the dignity of his position, and as such has to maintain a cheery bedside manner, treat everyone as a patient and sympathize with the sick bastard. As editor of Homeopathy Magazine, with a Royal Warrant sticking out of his back pocket, due to his titles alone Fisher is indeed probably the strongest single voice there is for homeopathy. The limb tearing should be left to the tattooed class, or me. Let me have him.

The very fact that Fisher exists is alone a huge testimonial for homeopathy. But more than that he’s done most excellent work in rebutting the UK Parliament’s cherry picked ‘Evidence Check’ for the efficacy of homeopathy, specifically in his Memorandum to the UK Parliament in Evidence from Basic Research and it is from this a telling point, a killshot, arises.

It’s in the Memo’s first line: “Its ‘implausibility’ from a scientific standpoint is often cited as a reason for scepticism about homeopathy, even in the face of positive clinical evidence. For instance a systematic review of clinical trials, published in the BMJ stated ‘we would accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if its mechanism of action were more plausible’.”

What?  “Its mechanism of action were more plausible”??

Now if the opposition was on its toes, a statement like this would set them back on their heels, if not flatten them. I say and submit to you that the reason it hasn’t flattened anyone is because they’re already there, prostrate, just as much as the corpse that made the statement.

Here, let me explain: What the British Medical Journal (BMJ, impact factor 17.215) is saying is that their problem with homeopathy is not the putative, that there is no evidence of effective action . . no! What they are allowing, if not outright saying, is that they would accept the effectiveness of homeopathy if somebody would explain it to them! LOL! This is tantamount to a man falling off a ledge, and on the way down, proclaiming that he would accept the force of gravity if somebody could tell him how it works!

What the hell, I’d be happy to explain the plasma physics of homeopathy to them. It’s the piezo electric effect transducing the background radiation and other perturbations in hydrogen bonded aqueous nanostructures, like clathrates. Ultra diluted solutions in materials used in homeopathic medicine are electromagnetic emitters akin to conventional radio pharmaceuticals and medical isotopes. Perhaps for a bottle of whiskey, pack of smokes and an English “girlfriend” the editors of BMJ would like to see a power point presentation of it at the Cavendish again.

So why the change in heart? The clinical evidence for homeopathy has remained consistent for 200 years, but this has always been rejected. Up until now, the rejection of homeopathy was supposed to be a cavalcade of absent evidence . . “Oh, homeopathy is not evidence based medicine” when in fact homeopathy, as anomalous as it may be, has never had the luxury of conventional hypotheses and theory . . evidence has been all it’s had, the evidence of action has been the sole cherry red river driving its mill.

When the Internet began to transmit the actual record of pre-clinical and clinical trials, the attack on homeopathy had to shift from absent evidence to bad evidence and the suddenly discovered science had to be frantically picked apart by the SINOs like Goldacre, with vituperative criteria reserved only for homeopathy.

NEXT: The Vindication of Jacques Benveniste:

“Up until 1988 pre-clinical testing of high dilutions as used in homoeopathy was simply ignored as being ridiculous. But that blew up in the SINO’s faces in 1988 with . .”

To be alerted to the next mind blowing installment, SUBSCRIBE

The Case Against the Case Against Homeopathy

Have you read the previous blog? I hope so, it might give you a better context into which to put . .

The Case Against the Case Against Homeopathy

SHOUT OUT to homeopaths in the home of Hahnemann, Germany; and homeopaths all over the world, in Ireland; Austria; Pakistan; Chile; Poland, Canada; Australia; India; the Netherlands; Croatia; Argentina; Iceland; Togo; the home of Clarke, the United Kingdom; and the home of Kent, the US of A, all who have been reading this column. Thanks for your support . . theoretically

You can stop reading now: THERE IS NO CASE AGAINST HOMEOPATHY.

There never has been and there never will be.

The rest of this blog is entertaiment of the type you’d find on a Roman holiday.

THE PROBLEM WITH theoretical reasoning, it always falls and fails under the grinding wheel of everyday use, and should it ever be hauled into the assizes, there’s always a jury: Half who knows somebody who has tried homeopathy  . .  and swears by it . . and half who knows somebody who hasn’t . . and swears at it.

Homeopathy isn’t easy to explain to people who aren’t familiar with it, and even harder to explain to people who are . . or think they are. Bu then again nobody has really been able to explain gravity very well, either. Those who have tried it swear it’s for real, but like homeopathy, try to explain it to someone who isn’t familiar with it’s effects and you may get a puzzled look, and hear them say they’d rather stick with levity.

And just because we can’t explain how something works doesn’t stop us from using it if we know it does. Thank God we don’t have 13th century scientists following us around in pushcarts telling us we can’t listen to our radios or watch our TVs, use our toasters or launch our pets and heroes into outer space, because they “don’t know how it works, it’s too implausible . . its the work of the devil!

OR PLACEBOS . .

And presumably, to them, neither do we know how all these rather obtuse things work, because our explanation for how they do won’t suffice for the zeusophobe who has already decided it’s psychogenic, i.e. the operator is responsible, possessed by the Devil, or in 21st century terms, in the mad thrall of a placebo.

Though they’ll never admit it, the sad fact is there are a number of things that don’t make sense, even to the most gifted atheist or prize winning scientist, things such as ontology, the study of Being, or why it is that hasn’t crushed by its own weight yet?

The rest of us lamebrains are compelled to ask, why must Atheists and Intelligent Design authors fight? Why must Creationists and Evolutionists quarrel like dogs over what is Holy to them? What is there in Bible ink that doesn’t jibe with chalk dust?

In the sage words of Rodney King after his Hyundai was pulled over for breaking a hundred MPH downtown (and he was truncheoned into a flapjack) “why can’t we all just get along?”

Exactly . . although maybe not going as fast as Romney, but who’s to criticize another man’s direction? I don’t hear our Australian jurists trying to kick that one out of bed.

This digresses down to demands for minute details as examples, like the contradicting figures “scientists” give us for the size and age of the observable Universe, a 48 billion or so light year radius mistake that made it to that size in only 13.7 billion light years. Talk about speeding, even Rodney King couldn’t explain that one.

Oh, they will surely cough up some hairball explanation for it, to be sure, mumble something about an “expanding Universe,” but common sense impounds us not to make it worse with a dumb excuse like that one, just take Rodney’s advice and STFU the next time you break the light speed barrier, talk to my hand, call my attorney, get a job.

Confused? Well let me put it this way. Why is it that the objects most distant from the eye, those galaxies, quasars and nebulae, look about the same age as those much closer . . ? Shouldn’t they all be proto galaxies, quasars and nebulae?

These calculating minds, such as the one that prepares bulls against homeopathy in Australia, and the one that touts it in the UK Guardian, should be able to explain to us why it is that telescopes can view perfectly modern galacti well beyond what should be the limits of astronomical observations, the radius of 13.7 billion light years . . i.e. 6.85, an eight of what all these logically attuned, homeopathy-hating astromoners claim it to be.

I SUGGEST TO YOU THIS is why junior James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) astronomer and homeopathy-hater Neil deGrasse Tyson is in a state of perpetual hyperventilation; why JREF astronomer and homeopathy-hater Phil Plaitt runs away from cameras held by believers; and why JREF eponym James Randi has to play three card Monte with the code to the double blind for every homeopathy biochemical lab test he witnesses.

 Well, pshaw you say, what about shooting all the homeopaths? What do the sunspots on Arcturus have to do with that, that’s why we’re here isn’t it?

Well, I say, I may seem to be rambling because I can’t see my prepared notes due to the blindfold, and I haven’t finished my cigarette yet, and I thought that besides supper the condemned gets a few last words in edgewise, you see, and I find it fascinating, if not celestially funny, that the spoken size of the Universe, in total, matches Avogadro’s number, 10 to the 23rd, the point in serial dilution, when it so happens, by some wild coincidence, the homeopathic remedy ascends from the material to etheric, where the van der waal forces take over in structure from what was formerly the domain of heterogeneous molecular composition, and not one, not one in a Godzillion of the intended molecule is left in solution, when it goes from dumb science into the spiritual dimension.

But wait!

This can also be put into the atheist’s dimension of astronomical and homeopathic wonders by saying that what we see, (although it may look like a lot) is hardly worth mentioning. In fact, like they say of the high dilute, it‘s nothing at all. The theoretical size of the unseen Universe, that which is beyond myopia, is estimated (without any intended regard to homeopathy) to be 10-23rd power times larger than the observable Universe.

By material standards, in our observable Universe, we are real enough, but in our theoretical one we are nothing at all.

Same as the case against homeopathy.

NEXT: Implausible as it may seem . .

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

The clinical and pre-clinical proofs for homeopathy 2012

PROOFS FOR HOMEOPATHY

I wonder sometimes what would happen, and what the world would be like, if homeopathy was the medicine of first choice. It certainly wouldn’t flourish under the current requirements that it monetarily support a huge health care industry. Some of these billionaires would have to go out and get jobs!

The focus of homeopathy is cure, not cash.

As you may already know, ad nauseam, homeopathy works on the minimum dose, and presumably, following that doctrine, if this information here alone was viewed by only 5% of the public, the results would be profound.

The following was inspired by a skeptic’s WordPress blog on homeopathy called “Skepticmind.”  It has the usual misconceptions about homeopathy, and being that it’s been years now since the seminal article for this  blog “Proof for Homeopathy,” I felt compelled to add to it here tonight.

The major objection, or claim, by lamestream medicine, is that homeopathy is simply a “placebo,” that it’s vehicles of water, sugar and alcohol are biologically inert and any clinical effects are imaginary, or due to false or erroneous reporting. Tests that show the action of homeopathics 0n both human and non human subjects are dismissed by these skepti as being poorly conducted and of low quality.

However, a closer look at the literature that reports on the action on the materials in question, tells a different story that can be disappointing, if not disturbing, to see how reactionary, if not vicious, the medical establishment can be when faced with a challenge to it.

A REAL CHALLENGE

It is often said that no test has ever shown homeopathy to work or be effective. But the fact is that there is more truth in an opposite assertion. No major meta-analysis or review of the literature has ever been able to conclude that homeopathy is a placebo.

Cucherat, which the author of “Skeptic Mind” links to here, is no exception. The only meta that came close to being an exception was Shang, which stated that there was “a weak effect,” but that it was still equivalent to a placebo. Subsequent analysis however revealed that Shang had doctored the results . For a while the researchers refused to even reveal what studies they were reviewing. A closer look showed something completely different.  Statistical analysis of Shang’s data by Ludtke and Rutten revealed a significant effect!

And yet Shang remains the cornerstone for the case against homeopathy!

Here are a list of the reviews and meta analyses of studies, tests and trials of homeopathy. And it does not include all of them, there is more, there’s a lot more studies, tests and trials that prove homeopathy works. And once again, from the data these reviews analyze, none of them conclude or are able to prove (Shang) that  homeopathy is a “placebo.”

BORNHOFT: Homeopathy in Healthcare 
FISHER: Homeopathy: the Evidence from Basic Research “hi quality experiments yield positive results”.
JOHNSON: ‘meta-analyses conclude homeopathic treatment significantly better than placebo
SHANG>Ludtke Rutten: ‘find significant effect beyond placebo
LINDE: “results incompatible with placebo hypothesishttp://www.tinyurl.com/84xt56k
CUCHERAT homeopathy more effective than placebo http://www.tinyurl.com/cucherat
KLEIJNEN clinical trial evidence positive http://www.tinyurl.com/kleijnen
WITT The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—–A systematic review of the literature
(in vitro review) http://www.tinyurl.com/7n9sedq

It should be noted about Witt, that it reviews, with explicit criteria and weighted value, 50 years of in vitro research showing the biochemical action of homeopathics.

These metas and reviews represent only a part of the growing research database for homeopathy. The medical materials reference base alone is a rich source of clinical studies that spans observations by medical doctors over 200 years to present, as can be seen in the following materia medica

KENT http://www.tinyurl.com/jtkent
BOERICKE http://www.tinyurl.com/wmboericke

I estimate that there are now over 400 of these “materia medica.”

Homeopathy is now being used in the nation’s top cancer hospital.

HOSPITAL USE of homeopathy at the MD Anderson Cancer Clinic http://www.tinyurl.com/88phujd

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

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

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885.
Homeopathic vs Conventional Treatment of Vertigo
A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study
http://www.tinyurl.com/7r7zajg

Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):343-9.
 Can homeopathic treatment slow prostate cancer growth? Homeopathic remedies for the present study have no direct cellular anticancer effects but appear to significantly slow the progression of cancer and reduce cancer incidence and mortality in Copenhagen rats
http://www.tinyurl.com/7r7zajg

It’s been said there are no physical differences between potentized homeopathic remedies and their vehicles of water, sugar and alcohol. There are, however, a growing number of studies that contradict that notion.

HOMEOPATHY IN PHYSICS

ROY Structure of Liquid Water  http://www.tinyurl.com/7fap5m4
 RAO Epitaxy   http://www.tinyurl.com/6nbl9jv
CHAPLIN Memory http://www.tinyurl.com/78445jp
 ELIA Thermodynamics http://www.tinyurl.com/6w7t4bf
 MONTAGNIER http://www.tinyurl.com/Montagnier
 JOSEPHSON Molecular Memories http://www.tinyurl.com/bdjosephson
TILLER thermodynamics http://www.tinyurl.com/billtiller
 CZERLINSKI http://www.tinyurl.com/Czerlinski

And this is merely a sampling of the online data base.  PubMed now lists over 4500 references to homeopathy.

I wonder how many people know there’s now a medical college devoted to training MD’s to use homeopathy in their pratices?

American Medical College of Homeopathy in Phoenix  http://tinyurl.com/ammedcol

Homeopathy is now a licensed practice in Arizona.

MASS TRIALS, EPIDEMICS

Summary of Cuban Experiences on Leptospirosis Prevention

http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/summary-of-cuban-experiences-on-leptospirosis-prevention-from-the-authors/

BMC Public Health.

WITT: Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, D-10098 Berlin, Germany http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16266440

BMC Public Health. 2008 Dec 17;8:413

How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment?–Results from a long term observational study.http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/413/abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19091085?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_PMC&linkpos=1&log$=citedinpmcarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

Eur J Pediatr. 2007 May;166(5):509.

PEDIATRICS: Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial.

The anti-homeopathy crowd may crow how they win all the battles. They may go around telling all their friends it doesn’t work, and it’s just a placebo, but I think it’s safe to say they’ll’ never win the war. They’ve had two hundred year to do it, and their stupid arguments haven’t changed since then.

Mark Twain wrote about homeopathy in 1867. He said you can choose allopathy and die of an overdose, or you can choose homeopathy and die of an under.

Twain chose homeopathy and made exclusive use of medical doctors trained in the use of homeopathics, just like John D. Rockefeller, Mahatma Gandhi , the Queen, the British Royal family, and countless others have done. No doubt they will continue to do for many years to come. No matter how much ridicule, abuse and cyberbullying can be heaped on it, homeopathy will remain the wise woman’s and intelligent man’s curative medicine of choice.

John Benneth,PG Hom – London (Hons)

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

Please report dysfunctinal inks in the commentary section

The Dangers of Homeopathic Research

Proving the Unprovable

Dielectric Strength Testing of Homeopathic Dilutions of HgCl2 (Mercuric Chloride) by Albert Brucato M.Sc. and James Stephenson, MD

There are mysteries and then there are . . . anomalies.

Here’s Brucato, a rare and fascinating physical study of high dilutes by a couple of Americans. I spent most of the night copying it to my website, so I hope you appreciate it. Don’t feel as if you can’t understand it. What may feel like the inabiity to understand is just that, but let me assure you, it doesn’t come from a lack of an education.  It’s actually fairly well self explanatory, much like the driver who was stopped by the cop for erratic driving.

COP: “Where do you think you’re going?”

DRIVER: “I’m going to a lecture on alcohol abuse.”

COP: “Oh really? Who’s giving the lecture?”

DRIVER: “My wife.”

No, you see, it’s not from an inability to understand it in its technical terms.  What it is is an inability to understand because of a lack of credulity, an we shuck this off in favor of “it’s too technical for me.”

But its not. Hidden within the numbers of Brucato is the supernatural power of human potential.

Now, people who brag about being skeptics don’t really know how skeptical the average person is or can be in not more than an instant. If something doesn’t make sense the average person will just turn off the indoor lights and try not to be impolite, leaving the outdoor lights on so you won'[t hurt yourself after they’ve ushered you to the door.

You see, like all demonstrations of homeopathy, Brucato is truly an anomaly. That doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t explain it in physical terms. I think what makes it an anomaly is that more people haven’t been and aren’t interested in it beause of the frightening potential for destruction it suggests.

Like destroying your career. That’s the real danger of homeoapthic research. Benveniste demonstrated that for us. He was a renowned immunologist but once the science sharks smelled his blood he was through.

The bigger you are the harder you’ll fall. It’s not what you know that’s important, it’s who knows you. Take a look at some of the best, most revealing, most original research ever done on the subject and look what it did to him. That’s good ol’ Western medicine for you. You’re fine as long as you stay in the patent medicine paradigm.  But Benveniste was small change compared to his successor. When Nobel prize winner Luc Montagnier repeated and expanded upon the Benveniste experiments, they kicked hm so hard he ended up in China.

I think, maybe, what it suggests is just how helpless really we all are. The average person, even the above average person I’d say, just doesn’t know how to interepret this sort of thing.

I think it’s like being abducted by aliens. After you’ve been probed and returned safely to your room, what are you supposed to do? Who are you going to tell? Who’s going to want to believe you?

Oh, it’s a million dollar cash prize test, according James the Amazing Randi, the man who’s offering it, he says, to anyone who can prove homeopathy to him. Sure, sure it is. A million dollars in negotiable bonds, and cashable, where?  At the Bank in Guatamala?

Of course you don’t really believe that, now do you? Aren’t we suppose to employ our powers of skepticism here?

Sure sure.

It was explained to me by an attorney long ago, Randi’s million dollar challenge is essentially a greased pole contest.  Anyone who studies it can see that. Skepticism is much easier on the mind than belief.

Belief actually takes work, a committment, an investment. Lying is much easier, more fun and more profitable, too. I think in fact that there is a correlation between lying and how much money you have.

But nevetheless I think this Brucato test is worth looking at for what it says about the physical environement, as well as the social, political and the dangers of homeoapthic research.

Homeopathically Brucato is a rare test. I say Brucato is rare because unlike most physical studies that simply show structural differences of solute diluted water, Brucato shows the electrical potential of it as well, half of normal, what it should be.

With a little tinkering, it may be worth more than a million dollars. Within it there may be a solution to the world’s energy crisis, for eample.

I leaked it to my homeopath and scientist friends first, a select list, because I wanted to have a little response, but to date, nothing.

“Note that the puncture voltage suddenly and significantly drops at the 7x dilution,” I wrote, “a total anomaly to most if not all chemists and electrochemical theory, yes? The drop continues to Avogadro’s limit where it begins to show rhythmic ups and downs, acting like it still has in it a part mercuric chloride per thousand parts H2O!”
“On the average I estimate the drop in puncture voltage between 6x and 30x is 39 volts per dilution. This means it’s increasing electrical current flow in H2O. Theoretically, at that rate, there would be no electrical resistance at all by the 158th dilution! Unfortuntely they stopped testing at the 33rd dilution. I suspect the trend also oscillates.
“A relatively simple test that demands repeating and extending the test into higher dilutions, and suggests trying other solutes and other tests, such a electromagneitc caliometry.”

There’ so much more to say.

Dielectric Strength Testing of Homeopathic Dilutions of HgCl2 Mercuric Chloride

Albert Brucato M.Sc. and James Stephenson, MD

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF HOMEOPATHY
with
THE HOMEOPATHIC RECORDER

Volume 59, Nos. 9- 10 September-October 1966

http://scienceofhomeopathy.com/brucato.html

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

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

HOMEOPATHY EVIDENCE CHECK 2010

Here we go again. Journal arguer MADGAV writes about “Evidence Check,” the Parliament hearing held last year in the UK, condemning homeopathy:

“As the Science and Technology Committee concluded:

‘In our view, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebos.’

“In response to the various submissions from homeopathic organisations they added:

‘We regret that advocates of homeopathy, including in their submissions to our inquiry, choose to rely on, and promulgate, selective approaches to the treatment of the evidence base as this risks confusing or misleading the public, the media and policymakers.’

Okay, that’s definitely a gotcha for the opponents of homeopathy, if it has any creidb ility to it. So let’s take a closer look at it.
Here is the review of the House of Commons report by Earl Baldwin of Bewdsley, of the Upper House , entitled, “Observations on the report Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee,” dated February 2010.

Lord Bewdley writes,

“2.3. The exaggeration by the Committee of Shang’s conclusions is worrying. It is difficult to see how a weakly supported positive effect, for which one explanation (possibly well-founded) is a placebo effect, can be translated into a conclusive demonstration of this effect, with a “devastatingly” negative finding. No such firm claims can be found in Shang, who writes of finding “no strong” evidence, or “little” evidence, and who ends his paper with cautions about methodology and about the difficulty of detecting bias in studies, as well as the role of possible “context effects” in homeopathy.

“2.4. The Committee’s overstatement is not helped by claiming Government support for its interpretation in paragraph 70, based on the Minister’s concession of no “credible” evidence that homeopathy works beyond placebo. If he meant persuasive evidence – and his guarded support for further research [75] supports this – that shows a confusion by the Committee between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. If however he was saying that all evidence was negative, this as Prof. Harper correctly stated [71] runs counter to the
message from most reviews up to and including Shang, which is one of primary studies of insufficient quantity, rigour, size, homogeneity and power to give clear-cut answers.”

In addition, a review of the literature in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education concurs with the Bewdley review. This review says Shang “has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels. Of particular concern, the researchers eliminated 102 of 110 homeopathic trials and based their conclusions on only the 8 largest high-quality trials without clearly identifying the criteria by which these trials were selected or the identity of these trials. Odds ratios calculated before the exclusions (on all 110 trials) do not support their ultimate conclusion that homeopathic interventions are no better than placebo.
Google,
Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07
Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?
Teela Johnson, HonBSc and Heather Boon, BScPhm, PhD
University of Toronto, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy

Bewdley, supported by Johnson, raises a serious question about the bias in the House of Commons assessment that can be easily seen in unbiased reviews by truly critical reviewers of homeopathy, such as the pharmacists and Bewdley of the Upper House. Why did the Committee rely on a meta analysis known to be spurious? That’s a huge admission. Is that why Evan Harris, who led the the hatchet job, lost his seat in Parliament?
What I, John Benneth, am presenting here is leading to a criminal indictment of Harris, Goldacre, Ernst and a host of others, to be presented in my next blog.
Read on. It gets worse for the homeopathy haters. Bewdley goes on to say,

“5.2. It is not easy to see why a journalist doctor (Ben Goldacre) was invited to appear in preference to some other non-representative contributors to the inquiry. The written submission by Dr. Goldacre [Ev. 8] was notably short on supporting evidence, but contained unqualified statements on the ineffectiveness of homeopathy, forcefully expressed (“extreme quackery” was mentioned). By contrast, the submission by the Complementary Medicine Research Group from the Department of Health Sciences at the University of York presented a wellargued summary with 68 references [Ev. 143]. In this appears the statement

“To date there are eight systematic reviews that provide evidence that the effects of homeopathy are beyond placebo when used as a treatment for [five childhood conditions]”. This claim from a mainstream academic centre, rated joint first nationally for health services research in the latest Research Assessment Exercise, stands in stark contradiction to Prof. Ernst’s referenced claims, noted above, and to Dr. Goldacre’s unreferenced statements. It would have been illuminating if the Committee had probed the Group about this, face to face as a witness, and attempted some resolution before agreeing in unequivocal terms with the two witnesses who were invited to appear and were quoted favourably.
“ The Committee criticised the supporters of homeopathy for their ‘selective approaches’ to evidence [73]. They could fairly be accused of the same.
Unfortunately they did not (presumably) have the scope to solicit the views of Dr. Linde from Germany, which would have differed from those of Prof. Ernst with regard to the evidence.”

Wow! This guy Bewdley paints the anti-homeopathy clowns out to be a pack of sleazy scheming liars.
Of the evidence the Committee reviewed, Bewdsley says in 7.1,

“The Committee however has been less than rigorous in its approach to this evidence. Its choice of witnesses favoured a medical media opponent of homeopathy over a research centre of excellence. It was unwise to rely heavily on the interpretations of one professor of CAM (Edzard Ernst), some of whose statements are unsound or in conflict with other statements of his, and who is not without his critics in the worlds of research and academia whose views were given less prominence. The 2005 review by Shang et al has been inaccurately represented as ruling out specific effects of homeopathy, in a summary statement by the Committee that goes beyond present evidence.

“The Committee’s own statements show confusion between unconvincing evidence of a specific effect and disproof of it. The true risk profile of homeopathy, compared with conventional treatment, was not considered.

“7.2. These limitations make the Committee’s report an unreliable source of evidence about homeopathy. The jury must still be regarded as out on its efficacy and risk/ benefit ratio. Whether more research should be done, and of what kind, is another question. But there can be no ethical objection to it since the principal questions.”
You guys are getting fined billions for the poison you’re peddling,, and you’re busy trying to make some other form of legal medicine look bad? What’s wrong with you? Are they paying you to post the crap you’re writing or are you just naturally stupid?
Madgav, why are you doing this? This is a serious matter. If you really believe in what you’re digging up and writing about, then why aren’t you using your real name in presenting it?
Is “Madgav” what he appears to be, a shill for allopathy?
The oppostion to homeopathy is not about belief. It’s about getting paid.
If “Madgav” is not as stupid as he’s making him or herself out to be, then how does he reconcile these two groups, one a recognized legal doctrine supported by tradition and law, and the other representing opposing interests that rely solely on known fabrications? Real medicine vs. the Evil Empire of racketeers, merchants of death.
Answer in the next blog . .
Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

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″>