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