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.

HOW IT BEGAN

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.”

REFERENCES:
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.

Advertisements

CAN SCIENCE PROVE HOMEOPATHY? Similia

A Journal commentator who goes by the name Madgav writes:

It does sound as though you’re suggesting that, because science does not explain everything, we should act as though it explains nothing.

“Like produces like. Dogs come from dogs, humans from humans, etc.
Like attracts like. We don’t see that humans are attracted to monkeys, apart from a few exceptions and that in a very limited way.
Like imitates like. We don’t see the donkey playing lion.
Like cures like, as homoeopathy always proves.
Like neutralises like. The antidote will always neutralise the effect of the previous remedy.”

This was a particularly interesting series of assertions:

To clarify then, your ‘like comes from like’ comment would seem at odds with evolution (dolphins coming from terrestrial mammals etc). ‘Like attracts like’ you already debunked… ‘like imitates like’ denies mimicry and ‘like neutralises like’ seems to ignore the basic principles of chemistry (for example, acid neutralising base).

Obviously ‘like cures like’ is a central tenet of homeopathy. But I have yet to see anyone with vomiting respond better with ipecac than they do with metoclopramide.

Could you perhaps expand on your thoughts here? Your post did read like a ‘stream of consciousness’ and a little clarification would perhaps aid comprehension.

John Benneth responds

Dear Madgav,

Actually, what I’ev been saying to both the ske[ptic andhomeoapth alike is that homeopathy can be explained in terms of classical science. Not quantum, but nuts and bolts material science, and that if you look for it, you can find examples that simply haven’t been hooked up to homeopathy yet. 

It is the prevailing assumption of those who oppose homeopathy, and most homeopaths have unfortuantely believed them.

I have rule: Don’t believe the opposition. Not a word. They’re either stupid or flat out lying, the second includes the first. That it is idiopathic, that its principles cannot be found outside of it in classical science, is a lie that has been racing around now for decades.

Reception follows not without knock: Whether or not homeopathy can be explained by the material sciences is one of the world’s most important questions, for if such elegance, surviving the relentless attack of allopathy, can at last be described in the language of classical science, then the stage is set for a massive shift in the practice of  internal medicine. The only way to know is to ask. Is there a classic analog to similia similibus curentur? The door opens. There is.  The action of llike cures like can be seen chemically and energetically, as well as biologically.
Madgav here, for example has already stuck his neck out about it. He assumes there isn’t anything in the normal view of it that could  explain the Hahnemannian hypothesis that like cures like, even though he’s unoubtedly heard that y0u can fight fire with fire, and he’s probably been told numerous times to pick on somebody his own size, because if he would, he’d get his clock cleaned, as I’m about to do.

Water is the universal solvent, technically a polar protic solvent. In chemistry, observing the aciton of solvents we see that like dissolves like. In that more people who want to argue the paradox of homeopathic medicine aren’t aware of these principles or simply haven’t applied what they know from observing and experiencing it, shows a basic error in allopathic thinking, that errors must always be corrected by the mass action of opposing forces.

Protic means that it is capable of donating a hydrogen ion. Polar means that it is has magnetically opposing poles, the hydrogen end of the water molecule having two positives, the opposite end two negative ones. We also know that the simillimum principle in homeopathy of like cures like also has an analog in the magnetic law that says opposites attract, while like repels like.

Vaccines are a prime examples of the use of non-dynamized type of homeopathy, although it would tehcnically be called isopathy, treating disease with an indetical agent.  which in the dynamic form is sometime used by homeoapths to open a case. isopahty works, but poorly compared to homeopathy. (Hahnemann, Hering)
The action of similia, in biology, is seen as a phenomenon called hormesis, also expressed as the Arndt Schultz law. Poisons that kill in large amounts have been found to stimulate in small amounts, which is exactly what Hahnemann discovered after cutting down material dosages of the substances used as medicines during his day
It was due to the abuses of the allopathic approach, which tries to correct problems by overwhelming them with substances that produce opposite symptoms, that led Hahnemann, an accomplished allopathic physician and chemist, to start cutting back dosages to his patients. This was after had  left the practice of medicine entirely,  in disgust, after seeing what the allopathic approach did to his patients.  But love of his children, and demand for his services is what led him back to medicine to begin experimenting with lighter dosages.
What he discovered was that even when by drastic dilution he had cut the dosage back to practically nothing, people were still reacting to it. Even when adminstering remedies that were well above the molecular limit, Hahnemann was disturbed to see people still aggravated by them. Only in the last years of his career in the developement of the fifty millesimal scale did he find a posology that appeared to be consistent with his oath to do no harm.

Early on Hahnemann  discovered that dilution of substances, which in their whole material form we’re medically inert, when made into crytallized extractions  by succussion and dilution became effective drugs with properties unsupected in their gross material form.
Lycopodium, made from the spores of the club moss, is a good example of dynamic caenogenesis, the creation of new symptomology from an inert substance by potentization. When dynamized, Lycopodium causes symptoms unknown in its gross form.  Dynamized Lycopodium, by the way, is what I see as the cyberskeptic’s remedy. The issues for cyberskeptics are bullying, cowardice and impotence, symptomology Lycopodium addresses, and is one of the Western world’s most common remedy patterns. Politicans, scientists, managers, American males have a great  number of Lycopodium types among them. According to Philip Bailey, MD, author of “Homeopathic Psychology,” you can walk into a science classroom and every one of them will be a Lycopodium. I have seen something similar, as has Kaviraj. I suspect, however, that genius level scientists are not Lycopodium, and I think BDJ is a prime example. 

Perhaps whoever is doing the chemtrail operation could be induced to add in a little . . oh,  never mind.  I myself have been characterized as a Lycopodium, although I have found Sulphur to have more dramatic relief. In review of my videos, one homeopath, noting drastic character changes in  presentation, said my simillimum appears to be molybdenum . . I have found that to be very insightful. Some of these homeopaths, like Kaviraj or Dr. Shashi Sharma of Hahnemann College in London, are so experienced they can see a person’s simillimum within moments of meeting them.
So now you have three natural orthodox corollaries of the central medical theme of homeopathy, one that is chemical and the other electromagnetic, and seen some examples of it.
Similia can be applied with having to use homeopathic remedies. Cooks know that when burned, if they hold the burn back over the heat briefly, it will help it to stop hurting quicker. If you have a cough, try a smoking a little tobacco. If you’re cold, try taking a cold shower . . or if hot, a hot one.
Similia suggests a whole new way of dealing with the world. Pushing the paradigm a little further is a good way to get it to correct itself.

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

The Water Bridge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please, somebody, TEACH ME ABOUT HOMEOPATHY!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To listen to the Garringtons of the world it sounds like their view of the rest of the material world: intermolecularly totally disconnected, as if these molecules were like grains of sand, except smaller. What a bunch of nitwits. This guy Garrnington has been confused by academics like Prof. David Colquhoun. You may not have known this, but before Coquhoun got a job as a professor at London City University, he applied for a job as a teller in a blood bank, then a social director on a freight train, and finally a lifeguard in a motor pool. But since there weren’t any openings, he got a job completely confusing people about the workings of the material and dynamic world.
All they can do is characterize my presentation as embarrassing. Isn’t it ironic that Simon Singh, the particle physicist, also spoke at the Cavendish after I did, but not on any physical principles, as I did, but about how “scientismists” should be given special rights to defame others, just as Garrington does? He doesn’t have a capacity to discuss the “science” he claims is nailed to his rants, and neither does Singh with his “science degree.” What a clod.
What fun to see him shot down by the very thing he pretends to worship.
We all know what’s at stake for the Garringtons. Anyone who studies this can see what the real ramifications of it are. Findley loses his $12 million per annum and Garrington doesn’t get his 50 mao per diem from the Evil Empire paymaster. The supramolecular theory for homeopathic remedies threatens to torpedo his old leaking paradigm, blub blub blub, down goes the tub.
For as long as homeopathy has been practiced Garrington and everyone else who’s afraid to acknowledge the evidence, insist that there is specificity to the biological effects of hydroxl medicine simply because it just doesn’t make sense, and so when a non academic drunk like me has to be led by the hand, stumbling into their den of stupidity, and shows them how it does make sense, using what is supposed to be their terms of classical science, they get red faced pissed, and they seek to say anything they can to explain it away.
Prove that I’m wrong. Teach me. Show me that intermolecular forces can’t sustain liquid aqueous structuring. Show me that the hydrogen bond does not create clathrates, water clusters, bubbles and water surface tensio. Show me what does. Show that water is not a colloid, as material scientists and pure logic say it to be. If not due to the intermolecular attraction between water molecules, then show wwha tthe connection is in water that facilitates sound travelling longer distances in water than it does in air; show why electroreceptors in cartilaginous fishes can detect electromagnetic fields in water.
Teach me!
If internal structuring cannot occur in water, then explain to me what American material scientists are talking about in “Structure of Liquid Water,” by Roy et al.
If they weren’t aqueous nanostructures as he claimed, then tell me what it was that Nobel laureate scientist Luc Montagnier and others were measuring and actually filtering out of solutions? If these things are not the result of sustained hydrogen bonding, then what are they are the result of?
Just what is it that creates the “supramolecular organization of water” Demangeat is talking about?
Teach me!
2008 July 26 Journal of Molecular Liquids NMR water proton relaxation in unheated and heated ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine: Evidence for an air-dependent supramolecular organization of water
Jean-Louis Demangeat !
Nuclear Medicine Department, General Hospital, Haguenau, France
http://www.homeopathyeurope.org/downloads/Demangeat_JML_2009.pdf

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

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

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

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

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

HOW EMBARRASSING!

Jeff Garrington begins another sample of his excellent writing by quoting me, and then cruel jab:

“I am probably one of only a handful of people who understands the mechanical, molecular basis for the action of the homeopathic remedy. I possess knowledge of a chemistry that is far more advanced than Kindler’s. ” and yet -Brian Josephson had this to say about you, you remember don’t you, your talk at the Cavendish.
“This talk was an experiment, somewhat of a gamble perhaps. John Benneth is an ‘enthusiast’ for homeopathy, not a scientist, and what he said in the seminar might well have made him (and myself) look foolish.
Josephson went on to say that Benneth showed a “failure to understand particular scientific issues”, and that there were “clear deficiencies in the presentation”.
Oh well as you recently said, information on the internet can always be found.

John Benneth responds:
Reminds me of a time in Reno when a guy a little bigger than me snuck up behind and hit me over the head. When I turned around, he had his hand in the pocket of a brown checkered shirt jack, pointing it at me.
He said he had a gun.
Knowing a bluff when I see one, the question to Garrington regarding that quote of Nobel laureate physicist Brian Josephson (BDJ) is the same I had for the man in the brown checkered shirt:
“And where might that be?”
You see, the big difference between them and me is that I’m right and they’re wrong. Okay, you hurt my feelings, congratulations, but it just makes you look wronger than what you’ll be in the end. In both cases, the authorities, both black letter and man, are there to back me up after the scuffling is over.
It’s the same way in every post I receive against homeopathy, claims that aren’t backed up by anything at all. Except for some rubber tipped darts, he wouldn’t have any bullets even if he did have a gun to fire them with. If their collective minds were metaphorically the size of a room I’d be washing the windows every time I blinked.
Oh, they’re happy to attack my references, as if attacking references is something they do professionally, but when you turn the tables on them and demand their references for the placebo effect, or anything else for that matter, they have nothing, a point this column, which is rated the world’s best on homeopathy, repeatedly makes.
DEMAND TO JEFF GARRINGTON: Where did BDJ say that? Source please. Give us a link.
I’m not saying he didn’t say it, he probably did and I can add a few more things he said, such as telling me that he wouldn’t take me to lunch in the dining hall at Trinity College, unless I changed the title on one of my videos, which he said, was “socially unacceptable.”
Like the one where I do an imitation of Randi confessing homosexuality.
I had the liver and ham at Trinity, btw. It was excellent, something I wouldn’t have expected from an English kitchen, where sometimes they don’t always pluck evetrything they boil it.
And when someone tried to take a picture of us together, BDJ almost broke his neck trying to dive out of it.
But what does that have to do with the molecular mechanics of water?
Jeff Garrington won’t provide a valid link to his ad hominems because he doesn’t have one, just as he doesn‘t have anything to say about the molecular mechanics of water, nothing more than the fabrications of Andy Lewis.
Garrington is so bad at providing references the only job I can see him getting is with the Catholic Church. They don’t check references either, you know. Hell, they’d make him Pope.
His mind has been poisoned by capitalized academics which are there to support capitalized epidemics.
Like most academics it’s just something he made up that has nothing to do with anything relevant at all. He, as well as hordes of other eggheads don’t, just doesn’t want people to listen to me because I’m telling the truth. It shows how stupid and grubbing he and most academics are. In fact, what I have to reveal is enough to nuke all institutions of higher capitalization.
Example: The Cavendish Laboratory, which is a part of Cambridge University, is teaching young people in silico that the polar protic water molecule is a free entity that bounces off other random molecules in large undefined open spaces, like drunken cowboys at a barn dance after the band has gone home. So when I ask these students what it is these water molecules are swimming around in, they just look at me dumbly.
“But that’s what our computer models show us,” they say. And who wrote that program? Colquhoun did! Who does Colquhoun work for? The drug companies!
They’re teaching these kids at Cambridge that bonds between water molecules always break after a few femto-seconds and the water molecule then flies off to bang another one, like Colquhoun with his female stuents at LCU. (And a few of the good looking males from Pakistan.)
Think for a moment how fantastically ridiculous that is. It ranks right up there with the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. It’s an academic fairy tale. What in the hell do they think water is full of, anyway? Vacuums? Do they really think that at a thousand feet below the surface of the ocean this is what water molecules are doing? No, that’s what academics are doing in they’re retarded social lives. It’s all a part of their pathological solipsism.
After the lecture I took a look at some of the science projects kids at the Cavendish were working on, things like: toasters with knives on each side to scrape the toast as it pops up; a sundial that works on Daylight Savings Time; a portable electric blanket for people who walk in their sleep; a rocking chair with seat belts; a silent piano for people who don’t like music; a shoehorn for horseshoes; pajamas with ripcords for people who want to bail out of bed in the morning; hair cream that covers up bald spots by shrinking your head.
And these are just to name a few of the better ones.
So to Mr. Garrington I say, it’s really about your jealousy, isn’t it Jeff? You’re certainly not acknowledging the holes in your thinking on the subject, which is what my talk illustrates, nor are you talking about what you see as those in my lecture. Why is that?
Because there aren‘t any!
Here is the lecture that started it all
BEYOND THE MOLECULE: The Supramolecular Chemistry of the Homeopathic Remedy
http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1074586
To be continued . . wait ’til you hear what I did to that guy in Reno.