Homeopathy, Physics and the $1,000,000 Challenge

Just as Prof. Edzard Ernst is homeopathy’s greatest modern opponent, Dana Ullman, in my opinion, is homeopathy’s greatest modern proponent. In fact, I would nominate him for a million dollar Hahnemann award (if such a thing existed) as this blog of Ernst’s testifies [https://edzardernst.com/2019/02/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-dana-ullman/]. . at least to the latter approbation, despite the attempt by Ernst to smudge the article as “satire”, I propose taking the helm of the dialectic with

Premiere American homeopath Dana Ullman.

an observation that rolls over a snag in the issue these great men are embroiled in, that being the central argument of verum and placebo, whether or not the homeopathic remedy is chemically capable of initiating a biometric, cellular response . . by dint of its instrumentally measurable physical properties. Yes, yes, I know, that sounds a little confusing, to people with limited vocabularies who won’t look anything up, but sooner or later we have to get down to pins and needles.
Just let me say this: As men of science, the team of Ullman and Ernst should be repelling up and down the cliffs of this question of homeopathic chemistry and nuclear physics and meeting at its quantum summit.

Excuse me, did I say nuclear physics? Maybe I should say” unclear physics” . . or what about “new clear physics?” Certainly more cheeky and promising.

Mystery of the lost molecule

Years ago I called super-skeptic Michael Shermer to inform him he had misspelled “Hannemann” in his Encyclopedia of Pseudoskepticism, and in the ensuing conversation about homeopathy he suddenly blurted “what is it?” and I quickly responded

Edzard Ernst, M.D. is an “academic physician” and researcher specializing in the study of complementary and alternative medici

nuclear magnetic resonance”, a sanitized version of radioactive, and that was the end of it.
You’d think he’d want more, but he ran like a bunny. Well, come to think of it, pretty much everyone has and does . . run like a bunny, or a scalded hamster when confronted by such uh, unclear physics. But never fear, Iam here to make them . . if you have the courage to keep reading . ..
Demystifying homeopathy doesn’t seem to be a popular topic among skeptics and homeopaths alike. Naming it and claiming it loses its popularity among those trading in its mysteries. But there is a problem with sustaining a mystery already plumbed.


Excuse me, did I just imply that the homeopathic remedy’s mechanism, as the British Medical Journal put it in their ’92 Kleijnan meta review, has been revealed? And what’s this you say, it’s not just all placebo?
Why is it that heresy seems to find a home with me? Am I being used as an example of the futility of swords?

B.S. in Revenant Science

U.S. Senator Royal S. Copeland, M.D., Homeopath and Chief Architect of the FDCA.

One-hundred and ten years ago an article appeared in The Chironian entitled The Scientific Reasonableness of Homeopathy by Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D.*

It is a remarkable piece of writing, for among other things, it resolves in finer detail what I told Shermer, and

how it got there, to which, by the way, I have pursued in even finer granularity in today’s references. More on that later if I’m not assassinated . . or  euthanized. Here is what Copeland writes on the futility of swords no matter how fine the edge:

Dissociation of Molecules.

COPELAND: “In the theory of dissociation of molecules, the laboratory of physical chemistry has scientifically proven the value of the infinitesimal. While this doctrine is now well known to every scientist. and especially to the reader of the homeopathic publications of the past five years, it may not be out of place to review it briefly. As interpreted by this theory, 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.”
Allow me to reiterate: The more dilute the solution the greater is the dissociation and consequently the atoms are less in number and the ions increased.

With that one sentence Copeland should be setting off a spark in the dry tinder of inquiring minds. Dissociation of molecules? What is that? Ionization? What are these terms with which Copeland is promising to demystify the missing molecule in the homeopathic remedy? And what is this about homeopathy and electrolytes?
If you want to read more of what Copeland has to say, be my guest, I presume you have access to the Internet. It’s a lengthy article covering some other interesting stuff in the same vein. Here’s the link: https://www.homeowatch.org/history/copeland.html.
If you’re wondering who he is, Google Royal S. Copeland. He was a U.S. Senator and chief sponsor of the FDCA. In the meantime, let me share with you what I found in my research regarding molecular dissociation and ionization, but first let me reassure you not to feel alone in ignorance. Nobody I know so far gets it or has gotten it. It’s the common brain stem that seems to shut down when it first encounters this. Mine did. The mouth and fingers quit working, there’s a reduction in neural activity, it went over my head the first few times I read it and remained so until I smoked some pot and got the grandstand idea to look up some definitions . . and found myself descending into the rabbit hole of quantum chemistry and . . the infinitessimal.
When particles are diluted in water, they are split apart in a process known as dissociation, and to be more specific, hydrolytic dissociation, when the smaller particles are split into even smaller particles in subsequent dilutions and the molecule is ionized into electrons. In other words the solute changes phase, losing mass as it gains energy, changing from particle to wave and retaining the properties of the original solute.
It’s a nuclear event.

COPELAND: “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.” !!!

The chemical in a homeopathic dilution is present only in a state of ionization?

Here it can be seen that for a couple of hundred years the critics of homeopathy have been theoretically counting molecules, when according to Copeland and his references, they should have been looking for ions, and according to Copeland, at least since 1909, the presence of ions in solution can detected using physical tests:

COPELAND: . the laboratory has proven that the properties of 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.

LET”S SEE YOU GET OUT OF THIS ONE: James Randi, skeptic, debunker, stage magician and escape artist, in 1999 offered John Benneth $1,000,000 for proof of homeopathy, Benneth responded with a test . .

Sounds like things in the homeopathic remedy are warming up.
This certainly is news to the arbiters of homeopathy. You’d think they’d want to know, especially those who are proponents of homeopathy. I mean its quite understandable that opponents of homeopathy would want the theory and tests to go away, especially the tests that prove the molecular content to have ionized. In 1999, billionaire Richard L. Adams, Jr., founder of UUNET, treasurer of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), speaking through James Randi, offered to me personally, delivered as a challenge, in writing, $1,000,000, provided by Adams, to PROVE that the originating solute, the intended chemical in a homeopathic solution, is present in a homeopathic remedy solution diluted one part in ten 24 or more times in the method of Hahnemann, that point at which not one molecule can remain.

$1,000,000 for proof of homeopathy

In the ending days of 1999 I applied for the Adams/Randi million dollar challenge to prove homeopathy, and my application was accepted by Mr. Randi. I had specifically asked Mr. Randi, if I provided a method by which to identify homeopathically potentized solutions in liquid or pill vehicles among non potentized solutions of the same vehicle in a double blind trial, would that win the million dollars?
Mr. Randi replied by email “yes, just do it and take the money.”

After months of Mr. Randi failing to accept a proposed test of a method, a dielectric assay discussed between

Billionaire founder of Internet backbone UUNET Richard L. Adams, Jr. provided the $1,000,000 to JREF for proof of homeopathy. Adams is the treasurer of JREF.

me and JREF representative Prof. Eric Carlson of Wake Forest University, I sent an “open letter” email to James Randi at randi@randi.org, dated Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:19:35 -0700, and cc’d it a host of others caught in the diaspora, numerous witnesses, including luminaries of the dialectic as Nobel prize laureate Brian Josephson; INSERM director Jacques Benveniste; homeopathy experimentalist and book author Prof. Gary E. Schwartz; physicist Robert Park; Skeptics-Forum@egroups.com, U.S. National Institute of Health director and homeopathy experimentalist Wayne Jonas, M.D., Boiron representative Andy Bormeth, homeopathy researcher David Reilly, M.D., Oxford public health director Tim Lancaster, M.D.; JREF’s banker at Goldman Sachs Naomi Shapiro, Aquarian editor Syd Baumel; witness Wesley Thuro, psicounsel.com archivist Dan Kettler; Infinite-Energy.com editor Eugene Mallove; U. of Arizona homeopathy researcher Professor Iris R Bell, M.D. Andrew Harter of JREF; advocate for scrutiny of unproven medical practices Wallace Sampson, M.D.; Boiron and finally, of course, who else but the legendary homeopath, Dana Ullman.
In this letter I presented (among other numerous tests using different methods) James Stephenson’s published replication of a test by two French investigators (Gay and Boiron) that identified the presence of ions in homeopathic solutions, as described by Copeland, by measuring the puncture voltage of the solution, well enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, the potentized remedy from its H2O base.
In other words, Adams and Randi wagered a million dollars on published tests that reported having already done years ago what these two men were avowedly betting a million dollars was impossible.

Like any drowning man, I’m reaching out. Can I get a hand here?
Are we having a conversation about this, or is it just me?

What do you think the response was?

*Senator Copeland was the Dean of New York Homeopathic Medical College and Flower Hospital, formerly a Professor at the University of Michigan, the late President of the American Institute of Homeopathy, reprinted from The Chironian, May 1909; in the 1930’s he was the U.S. Senator from New York 1923 to 1938 and Chief Sponsor of the Federal Drug and Cosmetics Act.

End stage homeopathic delusion grips Earth

Either way you look at it, it is a strange phenomenon. Millions are either seriously deluded, or a great number of authority figures are fooling somebody, if not themselves.

No one can deny that it is counterintuitive. Its physics are almost totally unknown, or if they are known, then it is as if there is a taboo on talking about them.

What was up until just recently regarded as nothing much more than a cure for the sniffles, its self assembling trajectory is aimed at overthrowing what is regarded as mainstream internal medicine.

The majority of us plod down this road unknown, passerby in the night of the world, our footprints wiped clean by the wind . . a few steps behind soon enough; and all of us, famous, infamous and unknown to his generation alike, even Christ, are, or will be, eventually, completely . . forgotten; forgotten in some landscape like wasteland.

But not apparently in the mind of defrocked Professor Edzard Ernst.

“No! No!” the ego cries out, “I  . . or someone from my race . . Adam! He will always be remembered, always . .”

No, no, I don’t think so. But from his carving out of space of a reality all his own, certainly the world’s first professor of Complementary Medicine, whose caboose once parked in the world’s most important and most coveted chair of the healing arts, Edzard Ernst thinks he will be remembered long after the Sun has blown itself out and Earth, as a cold derelict, is stupidly wandering in space. Uberdoktor Ernst apparently thinks he will be immortalized for what he wrote on December 03, 2013 in his blog   “My two favourite examples of end-stage homeopathic delusionists are John Benneth and Dana Ullman.”

How many have already denied Christ, Mohammed, Moses or Zarathustra? Where is the true remembrance of Abraham? Is one man a myth, another a legend for the choosing? How or why I have to share this honor with Ullman I can only hope be surmised by wild speculation, for I see no sense in it, but I suppose I should be magnamous and share, though now I know what it’s like to receive only half of a Nobel Prize.

The honor was prefaced by Ernst’s report in his December 03, 2013 blog of an interview done with him by Der Spiegel.  Ernst states that although he discussed numerous alternative therapies there were well over 500 responses to it by readers, “focussed [sic] almost entirely on homeopathy.” Most of those responders spoke as if gripped by some strange force, claiming that what was scorned for centuries works.

What is remarkable about the interview is the lack of challenge by Der Spiegel to what Ernst sees as a completely non-scientific “quasi-religious faith many people have in homeopathy.”

I say this because there are countless testimonies saying it works, from scientists and users alike . . and while possessing an uncanny insight into human character, its physicians, adding to the mystery, tend to keep their heads down and their mouths shut about what it is they do, and how they do it . . how for a patient they select an individualized remedy out of thousands.

Anyone can put it to the test and anyone can read the literature online that shows the scientific basis in both evidence and theory. But Der Spiegel failed to confront Ernst with his denial of the facts

Der Spiegel did, however, catch Ernst in another one of his oddball contradictions. Der Spiegel asked the world’s leading antagonist of the doctrine if he thought alternative medicine can treat cancer . .

SPIEGEL: What about using herbal therapies?

Ernst: There is to my knowledge no plant extract that can tackle cancer itself.

SPIEGEL: What about what Rudolph Steiner said long ago about mistletoe as a cancer treatment, that because like cures like, and mistltoe hangs on the tree like a tumor, it could fight tumors. Now today we know that mistletoe actually has effective anti cancer ingredients. What about that?

Ernst: Mistletoe lectins can kill cells, they are highly toxic.  How could Steiner know?  He just had a bit of luck: Many plants have such toxic ingredients. But whether the mistletoe really helps in cancer, due to the study location, is rather questionable.

What? One moment Ernst is saying that “no plant extract can tackle cancer,” (exactly what we would expect to hear from a proselyte of allopathic patent medicine) and the next moment, after the Spiegel interviewer has astutely caught him with the mistletoe example, he admits he knew all along that a plant extract is indeed capable of apoptosis, and Steiner, the Austrian who founded anthroposophy, a religion that promotes a form of homoeopathy, just got lucky?

Steiner made this observation almost 100 years ago. According to the BMJ, by 2006 there had been about 1,000 in vitro studies showing that mistletoe, or its main constituents of alkaloids, lectins, and viscotoxins, do indeed have anti-cancer activity!

This is just one example of the blatant self-contradictions and errors of commission, that besides a breach of trust, got Ernst’s rump booted out of his Exeter throne as the first chair devolved from complementary medicine to a hot seat of uncomplimentary lies that peddle mainstream “orthodox medicine” by bad mouthing curative therapies and the ionized pharmacy.

But who would expect anything more from Exeter? How does a leopard change its spots or the Devil throw out the Devil? For a “medical” institution like Exeter to establish a chair of “complementary medicine” investigating homoeopathy is like asking investigating Islam and not mentioning the Mosaic genocide reported in Numbers 31.

Aren’t these things obvious? “Mainstream medicine” is now the third leading cause of death in the US, where it reigns supreme. It does this solely on a bubble, inflated by hubris, that a competing form of medicine, homoeopathy, built on a radically different iatric and posology, doesn’t exist, for the moment homoeopathy takes over a person’s mind, allopathy loses that person as prey. Up until then, that the victim thought there was only one kind of medicine, and although it may be the third leading cause of death, thought it’s all there was.

When will it be enough? How much longer will we tolerate putting profit over cure?

It doesn’t matter to the allopath that people rhapsodize over homoeopathy’s startling cures, it doesn’t matter homoeopathy is demonstrably superior to modern mainstream “medicine” in the treatment and prevention of deadly and epidemic diseases, it doesn’t matter that homoeopathy is secretly what completely eradicated smallpox, the world’s greatest scourge, homoeopathy will not and cannot exist as a form of medicine in the mind of the allopath. This is because the strategy of allopathy is that Medicine is to rule, not serve.

But the responses in the Der Spiegel interview  shows that with the advent of homeopathy iatrocide may be quelling, as does Ernst’s confused wabbling in his blog , followed by sputtering commentary from his posse . . confused attempts to explain this growing mass delusion called “homoeopathy.”

Into this confused commentary of Ernst’s blog I have waded, and I have issued a challenge they cannot meet . .



He says there’s no cure for gay, I say he knows there is.

Dana Ullman, MPH is America’s leading homeopath. He has written eight books on homeopathy,  most notably “The Homeopathic Revolution.” He is a publisher and supplier of homeopathic supplies, remedies, books and CD’s.

He is currently the writer of a popular blog on homeopathy on the Huffington Post.

He has taught homeopathy at the University of California at San Francisco and has served as a member of the Advisory Council of the Alternative Medicine Center at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons.

In previous years he has been the chairperson for the National Center for Homeopathy’s Annual Conference, and has been consulted by Harvard Medical School’s Center to Assess Alternative Therapy for Chronic Illness. According to Wikipedia he is a regular speaker at universities, medical schools, pharmacy schools, and hospitals.

John Stossel of ABC News says Ullman is “homeopathy’s foremost spokesman.” (Wikipedia)

Ullman isn’t just a homeopath. He’s a force. He is a researcher and edifier of the world’s greatest medical epic.  He knows his subject well.

He is probably the most admired and well known homeopath in the world.

I love Dana Ullman. And I have been his friend, his best friend . .

. . his only friend.

Lately, however, he took issue with a report, linked to from this blog, that said he had cured 10 people  of homosexuality after homeopathic treatment.

This may sound like nothing more than what Ullman claims it to be, a silly spoof. But I was led to believe it, because Ullman would not have been the first to report homosexuals reverting to, or becoming heterosexual.

Other homeopaths have reported seeing the same thing happen.

Not long after the blog appeared, Dana Ullman contacted me, insisted that it wasn’t true, demanded that I sever the link to the offending site, change the statement and apologize.

Here is commentary from him posted on Sunday’s blog.

Submitted on 2011/10/30 at 6:46 pm by Dana Ullman

“John Benneth has been told by me that the quotes supposedly attributed to me about homeopathy as a treatment for homosexuality are a TOTAL fabrication, and yet, he has chosen to simply claim that I “contend” them to be un-true. There is no debate on this issue…they ARE un-true. To say or imply anything else is ethically questionable.

“Further, Benneth’s quote from me about Lachesis shows his tendency to take things out of context…and seemingly, he seems to not understand homeopathy well. When a homeopath says that a medicine is good for “gentle, mild, and yielding people,” a homeopathic medicine will not “cure” this personality traits. Likewise, just because a homeopathic medicine may fit certain homosexual tendencies in people, a homeopathic medicine will not change a person’s sexual orientation. I never said or even implied that homeopathic medicine can “treat” homosexuality…and his reference to me is irresponsible and academically sloppy.
“Ultimately, Benneth proves that homeopaths are not without serious flaws…we homeopaths, like any other group of people, are a mixed group, with some people with high ethical and academic standards and some NOT so. Ironically, some denialists of homeopathy assert that homeopaths are experts at producing a placebo effect. In actual fact, homeopaths are no more expert at this than anyone else…and in fact, many homeopaths, including Benneth, do not elicit positive healing vibes…Luckily, it is NOT our personalities that heal…it is our medicines that provide the primary benefit.


Stop playing me for a chump, Dana. After first blowing up on me in private correspondence, I worded the question to you very carefully to leave no room for ambiguity, to ask if it is right to say that you have never known of a homosexual becoming a heterosexual after homeopathic treatment and you responded to say,

“That is right,” proceeding then to change the subject by launching into a furious flow of abuse, which is continuing here, this time over nuance of “said” and “contends.”

Yet here in this blog, in both commentary by a reader and testimonials from several experienced homeopaths, there have been reported instances where homosexuals have reverted to the normal state after homeopathic treatment.

And you have confirmed your knowledge of it in your own references to Kent!

You write “Benneth’s quote from me about Lachesis shows his tendency to take things out of context…and seemingly, he seems to not understand homeopathy well.”

If I had taken it out of context I would have been doing you a favor, you’re the one who put the symptoms of “aversion of men to women’ into the context of homosexuality, not me.

Again, repeating from an earlier blog , you write, on your own website, “The bushmaster (Lachesis) is also known for its high sexual energy. An eastern zoo has recorded two bushmasters copulating for twenty- two continuous hours. Surprisingly enough, homosexuality among bushmasters has been documented. It is therefore no surprise that Lachesis is one of the few homeopathic remedies known for its homosexuality. Kent lists it as “aversion of men to women” and “falls in love with member of her own sex.”

In trying to validate this, I find no reference in Kent to homosexuality!

None at all!

Kent simply refers to “aversion to women” as a mental symptom indicating eight remedies, of which Lachesis is one. He makes no reference “of men” in this symptom in my materia medica! The “aversion to women” symptom listed in Kent could be by women a well as men. Slipping in “of men” was done by your conjecture!

Show me where he does, or admit that “homosexual” is something you put there.

Or do you have a different edition of Kent?

Maybe Kent erased it in mine. If not, then according to you, by Kent’s account, there are 11 remedies for homosexuality!

And he doesn’t write “falls in love with her own sex.” Not exactly. But isn’t using just the exact word what you’ve been screaming about? Kent writes “love sick with one of her own sex.” Not falls in love.

And you complain I used the word “contend” instead of “said?” How sloppy! Were you even dressed when you wrote that sentence? Had you been drinking?

Come on, Dana. If you can’t show me the exact quote by Kent, then by your own standards you’re not quoting Kent, you’re quoting yourself!

So stop playing stupid and quit lying to me. You have a masters degree in public health. You should know an epidemic when you see one. And as a homeoapth, you should know how to handle one.

You know that homosexuality is mentally ill. You know homosexuality is satyriasis and that it’s hand in glove with pederasty.

You know that one in nine homosexuals has AIDS. You know that they have twice the rate of suicide. You know that they live a quarter of a century less.

These are the symptoms of a syndrome called homosexuality

You know that the symptoms are not because of condemnations.

Two dozen studies now support the conclusions that the degree of all these problems is the same in countries where homosexuality is condemned and in countries where it’s been normalized.

And you know that it’s a reversible condition.


John Benneth, Homeopath

Uncontrollable urges? Overweight?

503 819 7777

PS: If condemnations could kill, I would have been dead long ago.


Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

MALICE: Hate campaign against homeopathy

Homeopath, author, supplier of books and remedies Dana Ullman, (The Homeopathic Revolution) one of our best advocates of homeopathy, has written another great column for the Huffington Post, Disinfomation on Homeopathy: Two Leading Sources.

This time, amongst other things, Ullman hits on a topic I have been personally involved in with two people I have had some intense dealings with over homeopathy: Stage magician and professional homeopathy antagonist James “the Amazing” Randi, and Nobel laureate and physics Professor Brian Josephson of the Cavendish Laboratory.
I first became acquainted with both men back in 1999 when I applied for the magician’s, to date, phony Million Dollar Challenge (MDC) offer to prove homeopathy.

After a notarized application and months of “negotiations,” which were really nothing more than stalls, Randi stated he was dropping my application for another he said was made jointly by Prof. Josephson and Jacques Benveniste. [Click here to watch Jacques Benveniste’s lecture at the Cavendish, “Electromagnetically Activated Water and the Puzzle of the Biological Signal.”]

A query to Prof. Josephson revealed that they had not applied for the MDC, as Randi had claimed. Neither Benveniste or Josephson wanted anything to do with it. It was merely wishful thinking on Randi’s part, or a dodge. I had the proof and it was going to cost him a million bucks for me to show it to him on a level playing field.
As it turns out, no matter how many times Randi has reworded his “Challenge,” it always ends up being the same:

You have to prove it to him, you have to prove it to Randi. Who is dumb enough to think that Randi is going to pay $1,000,000 to someone to prove him wrong after years of calling it criminal fraud? You couldn’t prove to him that the sky is ever blue or that shit doesn’t taste good, not when he’s got  a million dollars riding on it!

Isn’t Randi  the one who’s always crying ab0ut “critical thinking,” “random-controlled double-blind trials,” “publication bias,” “scams,” “how scientists can be fooled,” and then, when faced with his own platinum jewel- studded standard, he does his vanishing act. Where’s Randi? He’s offered a million dollars for Walgreen’s to prove homeopathy to him, and what am I, chopped liver? WHat do I need to do to get him to return a phone call, change my name to Justin Bieber and speak in falsetto?

It’s an old fashioned greased pole contest! “A million bucks to anyone who can shimmy up this here wooden pole.”

Looks e-z2du!

What you don’t know is that the pole is greased, and if you come back with professional pole climbing gear he accuses you of trying to cheat and yanks the offer. This is Randiland, Fantasy World of Science Magic.  Randi’s the judge, jury and executioner of the award. If this isn’t so, then the Challenge to Randi is to put my 12 year old claim to the test once and for all.

Proof that my claim on Randi’s greenstamps was widely recognized is that the BBC emailed me, begging for permission to jump my claim before they could conspire to  produce  their flop. 

In case you haven’t got it,  the point to this is, Randi’s Challenge isn’t science: It’s a stunt.

This is proof that Randi and his posse of pseudo scientists are simply gaming everyone’s ignorance to solicit malice for an effective and legal medical practice. It gives them an excuse to call it “fraud”, “a scam” and “criminal.”

Read Dana Ullman’s excellent Huff Post article to see how Randi produced phony “replications” of biochemical tests of homeopathy that failed for TV cameras after the Benveniste experiment was reproduced by European scientists in a multi-centered trial.

The BBC crocumentary was built around an Irish chemistry professor who participated in the multi-centered test and found that the supramoleculars used in homeopathic remedies had biochemical effects. Watch it and ask yourself the question, why aren’t these people watching her repeat the test? How can they expect a reasonable outcome with inexperienced person trying to replicate it it?

Randi had to discredit this test, and so they “idiopathicized” it as much as they could, what they must do with all succesful homeopathy experiments . . make it seem like it’s the only one ever done and that it has no ties whatsoever to science, to logic or to medicine,  or to any other evidence at all, when in fact it always does. Not only are these biochemical tests replicable, they are also explainable chemically as supramolecular substances, meaning their action is  found in the specific, unique signal particular to each remedy. The action,or mechanism of homeopathic remedies is electromagnetic, and these indies can be now be detected.

Now get this: Ennis’ work has not only been replicated, the in vitro tests she and others did showing biochemical action of high dilutes were themselves replications of numerous tests done previously, such as those by Jacques Benveniste, and even his tests were replications of previous tests by other scientists, such as Poitevin!

Between 1984 and 2007, the basophil degranulation test, was replicated 24 times and published in Nature TWICE, by Benveniste and by Hirst!

Now get this: Hirst shows, as unbelievable as it may seem, that there was a significant biochemical effect demonstrated by homeopathic high dilutes, even though Hirst et al still could not believe their own results!

Read Italo Vecchi’s report of Hirst’s testing at weirdtech.com, and Prof. Martin Chaplin’s view of it in his Homeopathy article at the LSBU.edu Water Structure website.

Benveniste’s original results, although dismissed by “skeptics,”  Chaplin writes  “were, however, confirmed in a blinded study by the statistician Alfred Spira  and also in a rather bizarre Nature paper purporting to prove the opposite.” !!!

Don’t take my word for it. Do a little digging. INVESTIGATE! Don’t just take it from a guy living off the interest of $1M, see for yourself what the experts say. Homeopathic remedies are real medicine that have helped a steadily growing number of people who have been afflicted with serious, life threatening diseases.

For more comprehensive information about the biochemical testing of high dilutes, Google Witt, “The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—–A systematic review of the literature.”

The Witt PDF is available here online.

You will see that not only have there been numerous replications of the trial Benveniste was crucified for, but that there have been other biochemical tests of high dilutes/supramoleculars as used in homeopathy. Benveniste was crucified by the medico-industrial complex as a warning to all other scientists: Do not attempt to do what this man has done . . or we will put you out of business or have you fired from your job,  and you will never work again!

Their threats did not stop the man who won the Nobel prize for discovering AIDS, virologist Luc Montagnier from investigating what Benveniste had discovered . . and he in turn produced one of the most remarkable tests of  homeopathy ever produced, a huge medical discovery: Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences.

What is so remarkable about the Montagnier study is that it goes beyond simply validating homeopathy. It shows five different things about the supramolecular sustances used in homeopathic remedies.

It shows evidence for polymorphic structuring of these susbtances; it shows they emit a detectable signal beginning at 1 Hz; it shows the signal causes aqueous replication in non contiguous water, i.e. in another test tube; it shows the signal is generated  by the Schumann resonance (the Earth’s backgr0und radiation) and it shows that water can replicate solutes that pass through it.

If that isn’t enough to put the scientific world into a state of shock, here’s a bonus item, a trial that was done after Witt, by Sainte Laudy: Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: a sensitive and reproducible model for the study of the biological activity of high dilutions. Click here to see that report.

As all pre-clincial tests such as Montagnier’s and Sainte Laudy can do, the Witt review clearly shows that these substances, without one molecule left of the originally intended substance in them, do indeed have biochemical . . and thereby biological effects! This doesn’t include tests on plants and animals, experiments anyone can easily do to see the impossible action of high dilute supramoleculars!

Matched with popular use and legal support of these substances by the courts and government, the scientific reports mentioned here and many others not, this is what makes up what is undeniable proof for the amazing effectiveness of homeopathy. Once you’ve seen this proof, the reason for the extreme malice for it begins to sharpen.

This  is why they hate it: Homeopathy is a huge threat to the medico-industrial complex. Homeopathy is curative medicine. It is the only comprehensive, systematic curative medicine of its kind  on the planet.

It doesn’t make addicts and debt slaves of its customers. It doesn’t make them dependent on it. Most people who are smart enough to use homeopathy are smart enough not to get sick. So, as you may surmise, it is not a big money making business.

Unlike the usual medicine,  it doesn’t keep you coming back.

This is why I offer a free consultation to anyone with any problem. I want you to know that there’s an alternative to the crappy drama being portrayed as medicine you’re getting now. Homeopathy is superior medicine, superior to what you’re getting now at a fraction of the cost!

Don’t let the health scare system destroy you. Put homeopathy to the test. Experience it for yourelf. See if it works. And then when you’ve been cured, make a video telling the world “Homeopathy Works for Me!

Do not deny yourself of this opportunity. Try homeopathy. It works.

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter: Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter