Why I Got the Yves Lasne Prize for Homeopathy

Why I Got the Yves Lasne Prix for Homeopathy



Particle Finite vs. the Physic of the Infinitesimal


ON THE DAY OF THE DEAD, November 2nd, 1999, 17 years ago to the day, I was in Tucson to discuss previously unknown tests for the solute in homeopathic diluents with Prof. Gary Schwartz at the Human Energy Systems Laboratory for the examination of unexplained human oriented phenomena, what is commonly regarded as the paranormal.
Prior to the meeting I wandered around a quiet neighborhood in the university district, to kill time, when a big black pickup pulled up next to me. The window rolls down and the driver leans out, butch looking guy in a white T shirt. He hooks a muscular left arm out the window and points from the hip upward to the sky and says, “Look at the Sun . . ”
It looked like it had split into three parts, two four pointed stars shone as smaller suns on either side of the usual sol. The array appeared to be connected by an encircling ring, giving it the appearance of a huge eye microscoping us
“You ever see anything like that?” he said.
“No. Have you?” I said.
“What is it?”
“I don’t know. Maybe it’s the eye if God,” he said and drove away.


In a world growing in artificial intelligence, augmented consciousness, robots and drones, organic needs will multiply. The desire for organic interaction between real human beings intensifies, the ability to recognize the human soul sharpens, and a tried and true, quantum human chemistry emerges.

For over 200 years, as best defined by Pauling and applied by Hahnemann, as enigmatic and cryptic as it may seem to be, quantum chemistry has cured epidemic and pandemic, smallpox and diphtheria horse hoof and gout; heavy metal poisoning, soldier’s heart to PTSD; milk leg and

Quantum chemist Linus Pauling, only man to win two Nobel prizes 100% . .

Quantum chemist Linus Pauling, only man to win two Nobel prizes 100% . .

housemaid’s knee to phlegmasia alba dolens and bursitis; blood poisoning, cancer, diabetes, Ebola . . every ailment conceivable by every shape of man, beast and plant the broad breaths of the world can furnish and has suggested a cure in every one.

In medicine the application of quantum chemistry is called homeopathy.

The quantum chemical definition of the homeopathic dilution is hydrolyte (Benneth > thefreedictionary. A hydrolyte is a product of hydrolysis, the reaction of water with another chemical compound to form two or more products, involving ionization by protonation from the water molecule. In homeopathic serial dilutions hydrolysis infinitely splits the guest solute into hydrolytes. In these dilutions the intended molecular content is completely ionized by the seventh decimal dilution (7X), negating Avogadro < when applied as a molar reduction limit rather than as a predictor of the electron pressure constant. The phase shift electronically structures the hydrogen bonded crystalline solvent as found

Plasma discharge from supramolecular homeopathic solution

Plasma discharge from supramolecular homeopathic solution.


in clathrates by grabbing solvent H gas under exogeneous pressure, such as from the mild perturbations of the background radiation (Schumann Resonances) or nanoscale fission induced by succussion, converting it to H plasma, structured as the solute.
Dissociation of sub atomic particles causes increases coherence of the solute signal due to quantum entanglement.


I’ve lost count how many times trolls have demanded, if I had truly found a test to identify homeopathic dilutes from pure water and can explain how, then why is it I haven’t won a Nobel prize for it?

Dissociation Constant

Dissociation Constant

I think I understand now what Bob Dylan is going thru. I got an even greater prize, in capitalized science, potentially worth more than the Nobel, nor as onerous, or blinded by politics of corporate interests.

They said Dylan was arrogant, as if he is now under some obligation to the Merchant of Death’s legacy to return a phone call.
There are some painful problems with it. Homeopaths have always had a disdain for the Nobel prize ever since the first recipient of it for Medicine was told to shut up about homeopathy. Emil von Behring (1805) had to be warned not to say anything about his diptheria antitoxin being inspired by homeopathy, or he would not receive the Nobel prize for it . . https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/nobel-prize-winners-on-homeopathy/ that it was based on the precipice of homeopathy’s main gate, similitude, you cure a disease by giving the semblance of one similar to it.
The original vaccine, the cowpox toxin, is a perfect example, in fact, after seeing it eradicate smallpox in village after village, Hahnemann knew he was on the right track with similitude. It is no mere coincidence that he stopped a bullet in a 1796 edition of Hufeland’s Journal by using the word homeopatie for the first time, the same year that Edward Jenner rolled out the Vaccine. But now both sides of the argument refuse to recognize this quantum chemical fact, that the vaccine works because it is homeopathic. Yet it appears to be a mass delusion that homeopathy is not behind Man’s greatest medical achievement.
If you want to stop a fight between a homeopath and a scientist, just say the smallpox vaccine is homeopathic . . and, in the name of common hubris, they will suddenly stop fighting, join forces and turn on you.
So the Nobel prize is like a death sentence . . death by hubris. Loss of hope.
If I was Bob Dylan I wouldn’t accept it either.
Like Pauling, Hahnemann was a Master Chemist, but unlike Pauling, Hahnemann worked without a net. Anyone can see the evidence for homeopathy in the recipe, but some have to think they know how it works.
I live down the street from where Linus Pauling is buried. He is the only man to win the Nobel prize twice, 100%, the first time he won it was for quantum chemistry (1954) and he did it before he finished high school, Washington High School in Portland, Oregon. He said that it was due to the electro dynamic effect of water’s hydrogen bond structuring that alcohol had it’s narcotic effect, proof that the effects of the solute are solely due to the hydrolytic potential of water, yet he never uttered a word of this being proof for the action of hydrolytes homeopathically, obviously terrified they’d never give him another Nobel if he did. If Linus shot his mouth off about the quantum chemistry of homeopathy, not only would he not be in line for another Nobel prize, they’d ask for the first one back . . and he’d flunk high school, too.
That’s how contentious the topic of homeopathy is. Except to condemn, defame or ridicule it, if you talk about homeopathy, no Nobel prize for you.
No other chemist has contributed more to quantum chemistry than Linus Pauling, yet even he was not exempt from the pharma injunction against associating it with homeopathy . . yet wasn’t it he that said that the electronic structure of molecules and crystals deternines their chemical properties, and that it is the liquid crystalline structure of water around a solute that imparts its biological effects? And isn’t it true that by hydrolytic dissociation the solute particle will split indefinitely and by self assembly of water molecules, populate virgin diluent 100%?
Simple tests of dielectric stress, permitivity and molar conductance prove it, but most investigators want nothing to do with them . . amongst others such as NMR, TEM, optical density, beta scintillation and plasma discharge.
Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier complained of “intellectual terrorism” and as liberal and pionering as it had been, was run out of France after he replicated provings of homeopathy by Jacques Benveniste, the director of the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, whose career was destroyed after he replicated Poitevin, a seminal biochemical assay of a homeopathically diluted histamine . . and when he heretically got the results published in Nature, the world’s leading science journal, those who made their piece by pretending to debunk it, were enraged by it, setting “science” on fire.
So here you can see that the greatest prize for genius is not available for a chemical explanation of this mysterious subject. The fallout from all this excruciatingly painful obloquy and punishment for validating an unexplained fact is that anyone who seeks to validate homeopathy is subjected to lynching by the science community with the admonition to y’all . . stay away . .
That is, until now.
Homeopathy now has its own Nobel prize.
The prize I got 17 years after the eye of God looked down on me was the Yves Lasne for fundamental research in homeopathy. I’d like to think it is for finally explaining the quantum chemistry of homeopathy in conventional ionic theory, how homeopathy works in conventional terms.
So it is no happenstance coincidence in my superstitious mind that the same chemistry that drives homeopathy also describes sun dogs, what Manly Hall calls a rare Day of Three Suns, “parhelia” . . the huge clathrate eye over Schwartz’s paranormal testing lab, staring down at me 17 years ago, marking out my mission: Raise $5 million dollars to explain the “mechanism”, describe in known chemical processes the physico-chemistry of homeopathy, say how and why it works in conventional terms referenced and hyperlinked online in an e-book about it entitled Physic of the Infinitesimal, with Applications in Medicine, Agriculture and Industry.

I WAS flown to Paris, First Class, put up in a six star hotel on the Champs Elysees, fed French food morning noon and night by one of the great chefs of Europe, watched PPTs by Saurav Arola and Gabriel Vernot, gave a little talk, ceremoniously made first recipient of the prize, given a tour of Paris, a dose of culture shock and sent back home the same way I came, but with new mission, hope and enthusiasm.

SHOUT OUT to Ry Cooder, Uri Geller, Richard L. Adams, Jr., George Noory, Sandra Courtney, Jana Shiloh, Dana Ullman, Georg Andras, Gabruel Vernot, Sandeep Laila, MD., Brian Josephson



Avogadro’s Constant hypothesis predicts electron pressure and the asymptote at infinite dilution.

Avogadro’s limit doesn’t apply to absence of solute in homeopathic remedies because of electron pressure enthalpy, a measure of energy in a thermodynamic system. its native heat, from the Schumann resonances, the background geomagnetic field, discovered first by Tesla, later by Schumann mid-twentieth century. Ionization of the solvent by dissociation of the solute molecule has been confirmed in the ultra-dilute remedy.

The solute in a dilute homeopathic remedy is not molecular because of de-ionization into electrons, . There are measures within analytic chemistry which prove it, such as conductance tests and transmission electron microscopy  (TEM).

All of the extreme controversy over whether or not the homeopathic remedy is placebo or verum, whether or not these materials are medically effective, and all of these phony money offers to “prove homeopathy”, conveniently avoid this simple, demonstrable fact, a fact that separates homeopathy from fiction: the solute in highly diluted solutions used as homeopathic drugs is ionized and can be physically detected by conventional chemical analysis.

Students and professors of electrochemistry should be well aware of this elementary principle of molecular dissociation, that as the solute presumably decreases, thins out and changes phase fron condensed to plasma, its conductivity increases to an asymptote and evidence of the solute persists in the solvent despite an apparent infinite number of dilutions.

Why or how the solute persists in infinite dilution is not clear, but strange as it may seem to the zenophobic, it does so, no matter how dilute it is in serial dilutions.

According to Copeland, the solute is not completely deionized until the sixth decimal dilution, at which point the aqueous solvent has completely dissociated the molecular structure of the solute by means of hydrolysis.

There are tests of molar conductance that demonstrate this.

The Chemistry of Homeopathy under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

On April 20-21, 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a public hearing at its White Oak Campus to obtain information and comments from stakeholders about the current use of human drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic, as well as the Agency’s regulatory framework for such products. These products include prescription drugs and biological products labeled as homeopathic and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs labeled as homeopathic. FDA is still seeking written comments from all interested parties, including, but not limited to, consumers, patients, caregivers, health care professionals, patient groups, and industry. FDA is seeking input on a number of specific questions, but is interested in any other pertinent information participants would like to share. Please refer to the following documents for more information:
Federal Register Notice
Submit Comments to the Public Docket



As dry as this may seem at first, this is really a fascinating topic, and very psimon3 2010_05_01_16_12_21 001wet. A few months ago The Washington Post reported that by analyzing edit changes made by citizen contributors of articles in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, they were able to determine that the two most contentious topics in the Western world are Jesus Christ and homeopathy.


Now you might not be surprised to hear that Jesus is still stirring up trouble, but without further erudition . . unless you’ve been in or close to the pot being stirred . . you might be a bit perplexed when told something as innocuous as “homeopathy” is rivaling Christ for the bad boy of the Western world distinction; but I would venture to say that if you  go further East I reckon homeopathy is also kicking Muhammed and Buddha in the skirts for the same title; and get this, it should be even even more perplexing to hear that both doctrines of Christ and homeopathy share atheists as their primary detractors!

“What’s this you say?”

Yes, it pains me to say it, but it’s true. Both Jesus and homeopathy are healers and both kickoveer money tables. The mere mention of the word “homeopathy” can send a malinformed atheist into a fit of glossolalia and make him dance like St. Vitus. There are innumerable high profile atheists, like Richard Dawkins and James Randi, who, when they’re not ridiculing a belief in the Deity and knocking the noses off of marbled saints, are tearing up the well manicured lawn in front of the great doctrine of Hahnemann House, crying a liturgy of shameless pseudoscience, so much so that homeopathy is something of a pariah in the Western mainstream media so slavishly chained to academic science and big money patent medicine . .  which in the case of homeopathy is now itself mouthing pseudoscience!

Now just to make this volte face clear, I’m not accusing homeopathy of being pseudoscience, no! I’m accusing skepticism of it! I’m here in this article doing something that’s never been done before in modern times, and certainly never done to this extent ever heretofore: I’m making the first installment of a presentation where I introduce the chemical principle of what has been thought to be a scientific impossibility, and that my friends is the chemistry of what most material scientists have insisted was a placebo, hoax and fraud, where every man jack of them is a patholgical atheist!

It’s true! And please don’t get me wrong or take me as poe. At times I have found a grudging respect for atheists. I am even inclined to believe they are amongst God’s favorites; they may not be speaking to him, but at least they’re not speaking for him as so many believers do.  But they don’t show this grace for homeopathy, nor in reality do they show it for science, and yes I know, I know, I’ve just thrown more boiling water on the storm troopers by saying that.

I am noting this to reveal an exposition of a pathology that stands in the way of accepting a known chemical principle. Be it because of pride or lacking a gear for reverse travel, they say and will continue to say, as they have said before, incorrectly, that there is no known chemistry to explain the action of the highly aqueous diluted materials used as medicine in the practice of homeopathy . .


. . and so they will still say,  even though it can now be explained to them with a chemical principal to the contrary, that because there’s not one MOLECULE in it of anything but plain water, the homeopathic solution cannot have any specific medical action of its own; therefore homeopathy is without reason and there can be no acceptable evidence for it; all evidence then for the fraud is dismissed!

That is what they say, the rampaging patent medicine engine cheers them on, and they are wrong. There is a widely known chemical principle that supports homeopathy and there are now widely known properties within classical chemistry that prove the action of these drugs. That neither homeopath nor skeptic is aware of the classical chemistry of homeopathy suggests that, as a gesture of compromise with other more insidious reasons, that, lacking finite limitations, the basic underlying chemical principle is sensed by the human mind and rejected . . and this is a premier example of a scientific cognitive dissonance. Both principle and property have been gathering dust in science, and the link between homeopathy and chemistry, once known, has up until now apparently been forgotten, ignored or expelled from classical science for over 100 years. Like a brazen Frankenstein I stand before the torchlit mob and shout “It lives!”

In other words, there is a classical chemistry to explain the potency of what former scientists have been screaming are inert placebos, incapable of intrinsically delivering the effects of their label. Furthermore, and in terms of the FDA, this next piece of information ought to bring everyone still sitting to their feet and the hearing to a halt: The chemistry of homeopathy was first presented by the progenitor of the modern FDA, the chief sponsor of the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA)!


It should come as a great surprise . . if not shock and disbelief . . to proponent and opponent alike to learn — contrary to common belief and what is taught by putative skeptics, and medical and “homeopathy” schools alike — there is recognition within standard, classical chemistry, that with materials ionized by molecular dissociation in aqueous solutions, the properties of the solute are fixed and remain constantly in “infinite dilution”!

Furthermore, to the even greater distress of homeopath and skeptic alike, at least those who want to continue the obfuscation of supramolecular chemistry [the study of electric properties beyond the molecule] with homeopathy, associating the “homeopathic remedy” with the chemistry of molecular dissociation was done 106 years ago by none other than the medical doctor and professor of academic medicine who became a US Senator and the chief sponsor of FDA denture, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), the man who gave the FDA its teeth, Senator Royal S. Copeland A.M., M.D.


Senator Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D.

In a 1909 article entitled “The Scientific Reasonableness of Homeopathy” by Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D.  he states:

“. . a chemical, technically an electrolyte, when dissolved, is dissociated into parts or particles smaller than the atoms and known as ions. The more dilute the solution the greater is the dissociation and consequently the atoms are less in number and the ions increased. In a solution infinitely dilute, the dissociation is absolute and the chemical is present only in a state of ionization.”

Read the whole article.   http://www.homeowatch.org/history/copeland.html

Although Copeland goes on to persuade using testimony from Kelvin and other authorities (while most homeopaths will remain paralyzed and silent) Copeland’s article will be dismissed in horror by skeptics, who will use its age and the fact that the author was a homeopath, as excuses for further obloquy of “homeopathy.”
There does indeed seem to be some confusion as to what exactly constitutes an ion, a confusion that persists to this day; but despite cries wishing for the contrary, modern classical chemistry still supports Copeland’s thesis, that the properties of ionized solutes remain constant throughout “infinite dilution.”
Running a search on Google for the number of appearances of “infinite dilution” returns an unbelievable 229,000 hits (search made on June 7th, 2015), and among these, numerous articles that support the principle of an asymptote solute in infinite dilution. Asymptote means approaching but never reaching zero, i.e., due to particle splitting of a solute in aqueous suspension, the concentration of solute ions will approach but never reach zero, no matter how many dilutions are made!

How is it then that skeptical opinion by professional organizations, engaging the media against homeopathy, can deny what is an orthodox explanation of FDA labeled “homeopathic” pharmaceuticals by modern classical claassical chemistry? They will volley to the end that a belief in homeopathy is delusional, when in fact the scientific principal of the properties of solutes remaining in infinite dilution is a well established fact, to be found online in the literature.

“It may sound like something out of a science fiction movie, but infinite dilution is a concept found in chemistry that is applied to the study of solvents — liquids — and solutes, the substances that are dissolved in solvents. This principle is used to test the properties of solutions and extrapolate or estimate their chemical reactions in varying environments.”
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/about_5459313_definition-infinite-dilution.html

What is infinite dilution – Answers.com
“Infinite dilution means such a large dilution so that when you add more solvent there is no change in concentration.”
http://www.answers.com › Wiki Answers › Categories › Science › Chemistry

“An infinitely dilute solution is one where there is a sufficiently large excess of water that adding any more does not cause any further heat to be absorbed or evolved. … The hydration enthalpy is the enthalpy change when 1 mole of gaseous ions dissolve in sufficient water to give an infinitely dilute solution. Hydration enthalpies are always negative.”

“The law is based on the fact that only a portion of the electrolyte is dissociated into ions at ordinary dilution and completely at infinite dilution.”  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_dilution

PDF: Theory of infinite dilution chemical potential

University of Illinois at Chicago

Fluid Phase Equilibria, 85 (1993) 141-151. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam. 141. Theory of infinite dilution chemical potential. http://www.uic.edu/labs/trl/HamadInfiniteDilution.pdf 

A search in PUBMED for articles containing “infinite dilution” brought up a dizzying 620 abstracts.



This one mere fact, expressed as two words: INFINITE DILUTION, exposes this whole cat and mouse game of gotcha antagonism against the practice of homeopathy to be nothing more than ignorant pseudoscience. This is a monumental discovery. Anybody can look it up online and see it for themselves in a plethora of articles on the subject.
If infinite dilution is not a chemical fact that refers to the properties of the solute remaining in the solvent after unlimited serial dilutions, then perhaps one of these self-appointed celebrity spokesmen for science, such as Richard Dawkins, Penn Jillette or James “the Amazing” Randi et al; or caviling professors such as PZ Myers, Edzard Ernst, Joe Schwarc, David Colquhoun or Steven Novella et al can explain to us, in their own pseudoscientific terms, just what it really means.


Why have homeopathic physicians and manufacturers of homeopathic medicine not seized upon this acknowledged principle as an answer to critics who insist homeopathic medicines contain “nothing in them but plain water”? Why isn’t the burgeoning homeopathy industry insisting that homeopathic remedies be redesignated ionized pharmaceuticals?

The mystery of why standard chemistry’s concept of infinite dilution is not applied to the dilution dilemma of homeopathic medicine might at first seem as perplexing as infinite dilution itself. But dwell on it here a little longer and deeper truths emerge.


Due to the momentum gained by an incorrect interpretation of “Avogadros limit,” it will continue to be stated by skeptics, posing as rationalists, that by a process of reduction by dilution, the number of molecules of a solute will be reduced past the asymptote to zero by the 23rd decimal dilution, and this is presented as proof that homeopathic remedies contain none of the ingredient stated on a product labeled “homeopathic” and are therefore fraudulent. But there’s a reason why I italicize the word molecule in the context of Avogadro because this is where skeptic theory for homeopathic remedies having nothing of their labeled materials in them literally falls apart.

First, let’s examine what Avogadros constant, limit or number. Avogadro’s hypothesis as proof of an empty bottle . . is easily rebutted. Avogadro’s number is a constant, the ratio of solute particles to the solvent. It must be for particles, such as ions, not just molecules, in a volume of gas, not water. It doesn’t factor the perpetual production of ions by dissociation.

If a constant such as Avogadro’s, Faraday’s or Henry’s were applied to infinite dilution, it might state that due to repeated expansion and contraction of the ion’s domain within the aqueous host (by enthalpy) and contraction due to dissociation, the number of total ions in solution from the time of complete ionization will remain constant within a sinusoidal range throughout all subsequent dilutions.

The FDA then should address this argument and concern by stating that products registered as “homeopathic remedies” are in reality ionized pharmaceuticals, that they are supramolecular (beyond molecular) and their active constitutuion ionic, not molecular.

Now, this assertion of ionized pharmaceutical calls for a question of assay. How are the properties of the ionized solute detected in what are currently called homeopathic drugs, or remedies? Are there tests, trials or experiments that show the presence of an ionized solute in infinite dilution?

Copeland: “. . the laboratory has proven that the properties of a completely dissociated solution are the sum of all the ions present in the solution. This holds for such properties as conductivity, lowering of the freezing point, refraction equivalent, heat of neutralization, and undoubtedly, for any therapeutic effect possessed by the drug.”

Here then Copeland gives us four physical, non-clinical tests, or assays, from 1909, for ionized pharmaceuticals, tests that promise to separate and identify verum from placebo aliquots of the inert aqueous vehicle:

  1. Conductivity
  2. Freezing point
  3. Refraction equivalent
  4. Heat of neutralization

. . and modern chemistry has given us more; transmission electron microscopy (TEM) gives us a fifth assay that detects the actual presence of ions of the starting materials. http://homeoint.ru/pdfs/Extreme%20homeopathic%20dilutions%20retain%20starting%20%20materials-A%20nanoparticulate%20perspective.pdf

If not yet convinced, any real scientist will put aside his drumroll of ignorance or preconceived notions of what the homepathic remedy is when made aware of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) test protocol for infinite dilutions:

“Test 4: Infinite Dilution Test. This is a test for consistency in the limiting behavior of GE/(x1x2/RT) and the activity coefficients γ1 and γ2. The percent deviations in both limits are calculated: http://trc.nist.gov/TDE/Help/TDE103b/VLE-DataSets-ConsistencyTests/InfiniteDilution.htm

In lieu of this newly rediscovered chemistry for the materials used in homeopathy, the FDA should drop the term “homeopathic” and replace it with ionized or ionic as the description for these drugs.

I don’t know how it is that they can fight their way out of this paper bag. They and their secret police now stand accused of pseudoscience, the very thing they accused homeopathy of, and as funny as it is, I don’t know now how it is that they and “skepticism” can be taken seriously anymore.

John Henry Clarke, M.D.

The clinical proof has long been extant. If you really look at the semiological registers, most particularly the FDA recommended literature on the subject, (Dictionary of the Materia Medica by John Henry Clarke, M.D. http://www.homeoint.org/clarke/) you will find alternative answers to problems now being addressed almost solely by over-monetized patent medicine, and we all know, or should know, what a disaster it has been.

Death by Medicine http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf

Although I am quite aware of the denials that will follow, with the chemistry of infinite dilution now well established in numerous explanations online, it is time to bring this existing, second, more humane pharmacopoeia of inexpensive, time tested, well documented, FDA sanctioned, effective medical materials out of the shadows into the real world of real medicine. This begins with the FDA recognizing what these materials called “homeopathic remedies” really are: IONIZED PHARMACEUTICALS.


If you don’t believe that properties of the solute remain in solvents diluted beyond the putative limit . . make the assays for ionic concentration, i.e. do the tests to identify homeopathic remedies from plain water!

PUT IT TO THE TEST! (James Randi, get your wallet out)

Test question: What are the assays for ionized pharmaceuticals?



In a message on the Minutus homeopathy discussion list dated 8/29/2013 2:34:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD writes:

“Dr. Jurgen Schulte is a physicist, quantum physicist and homeopath.

“At the 2012 Brisbane conference, he gave a talk about quantum physics and homeopathy, where he described in detail the experiments he performed to explain the mechanism of action through quantum physics. The conclusion was that he could not, the experiments were inconclusive.”


Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. “The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind”.


[Joe Rozencwajg is the author of [ Third Millenium Homeopathy ]


On Fri Aug 30 2013 John Benneth writes,

Joe, what has quantum physics explained? Not anything that I can think of . . at the moment. It’s raised some very interesting anomalies, like entanglement, but I suspect they may have made it seem inexplicable.

Regarding Scholten, isn’t he known for his periodic table of supramoleculars? Can they really can’t be considered as legitimate homeopathics until they’re properly proven? It is sort of like Colin Griffith and his dream provers in “The New Materia Medica,” taking a detour around the lengthy, hard work of proving. 

Where were Scholten’s physical “experiments” published? What were they? What was he testing for and why, for what purpose? There have been numerous pre-clinical tests of supramoleculars that show their physical distinctions and biochemical action that I believe can be explained in the terms of classical science, although I don’t know anymore where the line is drawn between classical and quantum science. 

You say he’s a physicist AND a “quantum” physicist? Why should there be any difference between the two? Does a physicist stop reading when he runs into the word quantum?

So really, what does it mean when he says he doesn’t know? Why should that come as a surprise?

So far, I’m not too impressed with physicists. They seem to be very good at creating messes and entirely incompetent at cleaning them up. Hanford in Washington State USA  is a prime example, so is Cherynoble, so is Fukishima, and hundreds of other disasters around the planet that will eventually happen unless somebody figures out how to undo what they did, and homeopathy offers the only solution I can think of . . [!]

From what I’ve seen, physics is an unmitigated disaster, like little children lighting matches and playing with fire, indoors, under the drapes. If the human race disappears from the face of the planet, it will be because of physicists who made it and homeopaths who failed to clean it up.

Physicists do the crime, homeopaths do the time.

What surprises me is how little they seem to know about classical science and reality in general, and nuclear physics in particular. From what I’ve seen they can’t ask questions and can’t even say how they got home last night.

Homeopathy doesn’t need quantum physics to explain it. I think homeopathy can be explained by piecing together the physical experiments that have been done with the known classical science of the material and plasma sciences, and sp[ecifically the sciences regarding water . As Professor Rustum Roy, head of Penn State’s material sciences said, its up to the skeptics to disprove homeopathy:

“This paper does not deal in any way with, and has no bearing whatsoever on, the clinical efficacy of any homeopathic remedy. However, it does definitively demolish the objection against homeopathy, when such is based on the wholly incorrect claim that since there is no difference in composition between a remedy and the pure water used, there can be no differences at all between them. We show the untenability of this claim against the central paradigm of materials science that it is structure (not composition) that (largely) controls properties, and structures can easily be changed in inorganic phases without any change of composition. The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent. The principal conclusions of this paper concern only the plausibility of the biological action of ultradiluted water remedies, they are based on some very old (e.g. homeopathy) and some very new (e.g. metallic and nanobubble colloids) observations which have been rejected on invalid grounds or due to ignorance of the materials research literature and its theoretical basis. This constitutes an excellent example of the common error in rejecting new scientific discoveries by using the absence of evidence as evidence for absence.”

The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy. Materials Research Innovations Online 5 77

best wishes,

John Benneth

You have to read what’s next:  Heavy Water! Transduction and Homeopathy

Read it here first: SUBSCRIBE to the John Benneth Journal . . do it now!


2010 Turning Point for Homeopathy

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

Kirlian photograph of homeopathic remedy by Chris Wodtke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

clathrate model

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johannes Diderik van der Waals

that the biological effects of the homeopathic remedy are magnetic.

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

And I did it without the Scotch.


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

I took his challenge naively  believing the offer was genuine.

My friend and colleague, James "the Amazing" Randi

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

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

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

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

He claimed that French immunologist Jacques Benveniste and Professor Brian

The brilliant Professor Brian Josephson of the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambrdige

The brilliant Professor Brian Josephson of the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge

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

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

$1,000,000.00 CASH

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

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

Chest pains . . too much GM corn syrup

Chest pains . . too much GM corn syrup

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

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

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

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

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

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

I said I could provide it.

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

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

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

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

El Ojo del Diablo, the Eye of the Devil

 peering down at me.

I turnedback around. The pickup was gone.

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

The Eye of the Devil?

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said all of this with his pants ablaze.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 as the most viewed entry in the John Benneth Journal.

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

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Homeopathy is the devil’s piss pot.”

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