DO SKEPTICS DENY SCIENCE?

Thanks to Journal commentator Guy Chapman, we have evidence for answering that question.
Guy posted a link to an article about water bridges in response to my blog about the same. I showed the eerie demo of a water bridge and the amazing structuring capabilities of water.
Those who are opposed to homeopathy for political reasons have been forced to fight the idea that water structures, as it shows a kind of memory, which leads to a theory for homeopathy.
Like the proverbial camel. Sticking his nose in the tent.
Guy says physorg “explains some of it,” How a water bridge works, that is.
The phsyorg article states, “Much research has been done to uncover the structure of water beyond the H2O scale, which is thought to be responsible for many of water’s unique properties. However, the nature of this structure, governed by hydrogen bonds, is currently unknown.”
This is an interesting statement. It admits a structure to water it says is what give it its unique properties, but in view of a contiguous order such as the water bridge, “the nature this structure unknown.” which is not entirely true.
As you must know, much of the criticism of homeopathy centers on the belief that water can’t structure due to the weak and femto-second range of the hydrogen bond, the only intermolecular force recognized by the pseudoscientists when other forces describe a dynamic aqueous field.
The impossibility of liquid aqueous structuring is contradicted by what anyone can see in the form of surface tension and bubbles, clathrates, water clusters, gas hydrates, inclusion molecules and now the water bridge. The geniuses at physorg are even starting to admit it . . sort of. They must sense, if they do not explicitly know it, that there is a large taboo around water studies. It leads diretly to biological implications that can challenge public policies and control of water. Anyone who has studied this subject knows that it is tightly controlled by what poses as “skepticism.” Anyone who steps out of line in this subject will be attacked. The admission of liquid aqueo0us structuring without qualification is taboo. You are not to do it, you will be punished by ridicule and discreditation if you do. If you are a studdent, you will flunk. if you are an academic, you will lose tenure, funding, academic standing,  or you will be ostaracied. No one willpublish your rap.  With few exceptions, which this blog seeks to reveal, nomatter who you are, if you step out of line you will suffer.

Furthmore, the charge is made here is that denial of structuring can be traced directly to the pharmaceutical interests threatened by homeopathy. Allow me to remind everyone that the argument for homeoapthy is the pro side, the argument against it the con.
Chapman next insists, without citation, that experimentation by Nobel prize winning homeopath Luc Montagnier, author of the highly controversial “Electromagnetic Signals (EMS) Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences,” shows that “in Montagnier’s experiment the effect is extremely short-lived.”

This is the typical vague statement of  the pseudoscience which drives denialism. 
What Montagnier actually says in his EMS DNA study is “It is known from the very early X-ray diffraction studies of DNA, that water molecules are tightly associated with the double helix, and any beginner in molecular biology knows that DNA in water solution forms gels associating a larger number of water molecules.

“Moreover, a number of physical studies have reported that water molecules can form long polymers of dipoles associated by hydrogen bonds (Ruan et al., 2004; Wernet et al., 2004).
However these associations appear to be very shortlived (Cowan et al., 2005). Could they live longer, being self-maintained by the electromagnetic radiations they are emitting as previously postulated by Del Guidice, Preparata and Vitielo (1988)?
“We have studied the decay with time of the capacity of dilutions for emitting EMS, after they have been removed (in mumetal boxes) from exposure to the excitation by the background. This capacity lasts at least several hours, some time up to 48 hours, indicating the relative stability of the nanostructures.”

This is very difficult for the anti-homeopathy crowd to respond to, for Montagnier, in using Benveniste’s patented system of EMS detection, measurement and filtration of liquid aqueous structuring, is clearly identying the electromagnetic and structural indices for the homeopathic remedy. Yet here we are, taking commentary from those who would try to explain it away . .

 

Advertisement

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

Click to access 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

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.

I Challenge Edzard Ernst and the Evil Empire Part IV

Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, also denounced homeopathy, but it was on the same grounds as she dismissed allopathy. Professor Edzard Ernst, first chair of Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the University of Exeter in England does not apply such a global perspective to the subject in his argument against homeopathy. His own assertions seep through his dismissals, sweeping aside the evidence with the same dinghy reasoning.

Just as homeopathy competed with her faith healing, it competes with his, the faith healing of the of the hard drug racket of Pfizer, GlaxoSnithKilne and Aventis.

Ernst is their front man. 
Professor Ernst says the evidence for homeopathic verum is insufficient, and so it must be placebo. Very well then, where is his evidence for homeopathic placebo?

What? Yes of course. You don’t think acccusations of guilt don’t need to be proven, do you? Then why is the placebo charge that bears with it the appellation of sham sotolerated?

The accuser must prove it, or suffer the same penalty. And Ernst can’t prove it!
Look, do the math. Homeopathy (H) not equaling verum (V) is not proof for H equaling placebo (P). P must be proven for H by the same terms demanded for H proving V.
But it gets even worse. Ernst doesn’t define what he means by placebo!
Edzard Ernst makes no reference to scientific tests for placebo. Edzard Ernst gives us no theory for psychosomatic, psychogenic effects. Edzard Ernst does not even define what he means by placebo, because placebo is not a scientific term. It is a word from another kingdom.
There are multiple definitions for placebo. In Latin placebo means “to please.” Placebo is primarily a religious term, the opening words for the evening prayers of Vespers. A placebo used to refer to someone who would come to a funeral for the free food and drink. They could be spotted as phonies because it would be the first words out of their mouths when they entered.
And so it is with Ernst, coming to the funeral he’s set for something he’s trying to kill.
“Homeopathy’s dead,” announces Ernst as he enters the hall of science “Placebo” is his word for admission, and the pseudoscientists he lords it over bow and pray to their golden pseudoscience calf!.
But homeopathy is not dead.

In the first installment of this series, I challenged Edzard Ernst to a duel. I challenged him to match me, study for study, placebo for verum, head to head, arm and leg, mano a mano. He shows us a scientific study that shows homeopathy is “placebo,” I show one for verum, the opposite of placebo.
In medical jargon, medical means a sham, verum means the truth.
And that is what I’m here to do. My colleagues and I are here to reveal the lie, show the truth, heal the sick, cleanse the leper, dissolve the cancer, stop malaria, end diabetes, cast out demons. And as an added bonus, not only will we do that, I will reveal the classical science behind the homeopathic remedy, its modus operandi, how it works and its physical structure, right down to the atom.
In ten years of study I have met every shape of skeptic and argument that the broad breadths of the world can furnish, and never to date have I lowered my arm. Every argument against homeopathy is based on fallacy and lie, as spread by the likes of Edzard Ernst.
Excuse me. I, John Benneth, have lectured in the world’s most prestigious halls before the most learned audiences, such as Hahnemann College in London, and the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge. I have stood before the most discerning audiences. But, as one of the world’s greatest physicists was likened to say, no one has yet proven me wrong. And they won’t. They can’t. I am about to reveal to the world one of its greatest mysteries. the supramolecular mechanics of the world greatest medicine, hitherto unknown.
My testaments are supported . . not by entertainers, magicians, pseudoscientists or journalist doctors nor convicted racketeers, as Ernst’s are, but by real scientists, Nobel laureates and professors of the material sciences.
I don’t draw upon the inhabitants of fantasy land like Edzard Ernst, James Randi, John Beddington or David Colquhoun do. I don’t need to posture and pose as if Avogadro finished this sentence, as Michael Shermer and Simon Singh will do. I don’t need to scribble a column for a white washing newspaper like Ben Goldacre does. No! I look to the hard sciences for my answers.
So I can say, without doubt or wish for more, that the case for the world’s greatest medicine is now complete. And with the help of Edzard Ernst, I will spread the truth about homeopathy.
I speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Listen, there were times when I thought that money and reputation spoke louder than the truth. The problem was I was not listening, there was quite enough to go around for all to enjoy. Someone is always standing about who doesn’t care about the money, and that’s the guy who blows the whistle.

Listen! and you will learn one of the greatest truths ever known to Man.
John Benneth, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)

COMING SOON: John Benneth’s Structure of Belief

Death by Embarassment, from Homeopathy

by Dr. John Benneth

Embarassment is an emotion of having to remember what you don’t want to know.
Remember Memento? It’s a movie made in 2000, directed by Christopher Nolan, starring Guy Pearce, who plays a man who’s lost his short term memory and trying to find his wife‘s murderer.
The film noir story runs black and white scenes in chronological order and color scenes in reverse . . just like the argument against homeopathy.
The last scene is played first. Sort of. I think. Oh, I don’t remember. It’s a confusing movie until you realize what’s happening. So by the end of it the plot converges and hopefully you won‘t have to buy another ticket to figure out what you saw the first time. What would be helpful is if they warned you at the box office . . “Now look, here’s what you need toknow if you’re going to udnerstand this thing.”

You know, it’s embarrassing when you’re the only one who doesn’t get it. It’s kind of like the threat of being the last smoker.    
Just like with homeopathy. I’ve seen it a hundred times, if not a thousand and they always bear the same old stamp of disapproval.

I got a classic example of this mentally-ill kind of thinking sent to me as a comment on my last blog, signed by “Guy Chapman.”

He says:
“All your proposed evidence is weak and observational, most of it fatally undermined by selection bias and other confounders. In the days before the Enlightenment it was enough to produce an empirical result and from that propose a possible rule; Newton did away with that . . ”

“You – homeopaths – can silence your critics by demonstrating in a large randomised a double blind trial that human subjects show a difference in response between (a) the “correct” remedy, (b) a “remedy” designed to produce an opposite or substantially different effect and (c) placebo. Do that and science will ahve to take note and work with you to understand the underlying mechanism. ”

Like the movie Memento, what Chapman doesn’t tell you right away is that he’s playing the logic backwards. He leaves it until the last to tell you why he thinks we need all this stuff that would never occur to him in any other context,

“Because there is no way on earth we’re likely to believe that water with nothing in it has an effect based on a physically and chemically undetectable memory of an arbitrarily chosen substance.”

How  many times have we heard that one? It’s like having a name everyone makes a the same joke about.  Chapman waits until the very last sentence to say what he should of said to begin with, which is why he thinks the evidence is weak, which is why he won’t state criteria for testing, and which is why he can’t say what he thinks “science” is. He leaves it until last because he doesn’t want to believe that there is any, but he has to say it,  what is most important to the argument, the hump he can‘t get over and doesn‘t want anyone else to either. Whatever we show him, he won’t believe it.  
So here, in this last sentence he has given us the key to his mind. The strength of the evidence is its “rationale,” how it fits into the corpus mundi of science.
Chapman is no different in his thinking in this regard than Professor Sir John Beddington (UK Chief Scientist), Prof. David Colquhoun, Michael Shermer, Prof. Steven Novella, Prof. Edzard Ernst, Ben Goldacre, Andy Lewis, James “the Amazing” Randi and a million others.

Will knowing the  secret will result in a massive book burning and loss of funding for academia by drug company profits? And loud mouths like Chapman that chant their litanies, in a slow, excruciating death by embarrassment . . from homeopathy.

John Benneth, PG Hom. (Hon.)
Hahnemann College, London

Romancing the Dilute

Quantum Homeopathy?  Oh, come on! It’s tough just being homeopathy.

Review of the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, Vol 110, 252–256 (2010) © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
“The Biophysical Basis of Benveniste Experiments: Entropy, Structure, and Information in Water”

ALLAN WIDOM,1 YOGENDRA SRIVASTAVA,2 VINCENZO VALENZI3
1Physics Department, Northeastern University, Boston, MA
2Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN, Universita Degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy
3Centro di Biofisica Clinica-Scuola di Medicina del Mare Universita` di Roma “La Sapienza,” Rome, Italy
Received 22 October 2008; accepted 16 January 2009
Published online 19 May 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI 10.1002/qua.22140 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qua.22140/pdf

by Dr. John Benneth

This article promises a discussion of the physical nature of biological information storage and retrieval in “ordered quantum electromagnetic domains of water.”
The first problem is that the authors aren’t explaining, in classical terms, what they mean by “ordered quantum electromagnetic domains of water.” and by what means are they identified?.
Widom states, “It is possible to float a small ferromagnetic needle over and above the surface of pure water. The magnetic needle floatation trick is most often demonstrated with perfect diamagnetic low temperature type one superconductors. The analogous floating of a magnetic needle above the water surface is due to the partial diamagnetic expulsion of Faraday magnetic field lines from pure water ordered domains. In the
fringing magnetic field of a bitter magnet one may” float a “bag of water” of the size of a frog and in fact one can float a frog.
One can float a frog? On what? This statement is  followed by an equation, presumably for floating a frog:
“For a single water domain of radius R and volume V
4R3/3 containing N coherent electrons, the diamagnetic polarizability may be estimated in terms of the electronic mean
square radius as . .”
What Widom doesn’t state is that we can also float a paper clip, razor blade or unmagnitised needle on the surface of water. No! He first has to float a frog! Classical science says that paper clips, razor blades, and needles don’t float because of water tension, they float because water surface tension, which is explained by the lateral extension or bending of hydrogen bonds, the attractions between water molecules.
But wait a minute! What am I saying? I’m a homeopath! I’m not supposed to know anything about science!
Is that why Widom makes no mention of current observations and insights of homeopathic physics from the material sciences, the current known physical aspects of homeopathic remedies which can be detected by instrumentation?
Alright stop. Perhaps there’s something about this subject that makes me smarmy. Or perhaps it attracts smarmy people. I don’t know. Before we can understand anything here we need to put it into what I am tempted to say is a reasonable context. But erase that. I don’t like it. There is no reasonable context regarding Benveniste. It is emotionally disturbed. In a word, painful.
The editors of the experiment to which Widom obliquely refers to are not so circumscript or oblique about Davenas, or the experiment Dr. Benveniste gets blamed for. WHat use dto be the world’s most prestigious science magazine, Nature, had this to say of Davenas:

“the principle of restraint which applies is simply that, when an unexpected observation requires that a substantial part of our intellectual heritage should be thrown away, it is prudent to ask more carefully than usual whether the observation may be incorrect.”
Pardon me while I gag. Intellectual heritage. God, what a bunch of overpaid dummies. In other words, they are saying that in the highest levels of the scientific stratosphere, they don’t get it. One moment I’m being told that it’s a placebo, the next moment they’re threatening to burn all the high school psychology books with Randi’s picture in them. What they are saying is that they believe there is no KNOWN (to them) classical theory for the biological action of homeopathic remedies.
(Now I think that’s a fair statement, don’t you? I doubt any of my most vocal, most obstreperous critics would disagree with that.)
If only politics could be so simple.
However, lest you need awakening after missing something important, hear me when I say I am contentious over that part of the statement made by Nature (and they can’t rightly be blamed for it) for when the authors of a piece like Davenas and one like Widom that follows it do not make an attempt to present their work as anything but idiopathic, they are grabbing at the brass ring, such as Nobel prize, or the James Randi Excellence in Pederasty Award, at the risk of falling off the carousel.
Do they award the Nobel Prize for Stupidity? If they do then I nominate Professor Sir John Beddington, Chief Blowhard of the Realm, for that.
Look, Nature magazine has assumed, without correction by the authors, that there is no classical definition or identification of the chemical makeup of the homeopathic remedy, when in fact there is.
When in fact there is . .

WHEN IN FACT THERE IS
No, see, when in a disagreement with a man who is in need of education, it is best to take him gently by the hand, lead him to a private spot under a tree, and then kill him. BuT this is beyond my mien, my scope, my reputation precedes it, there are millions of them, and I have no new clear weapons.
So let me explain this to you in English, in simple terms, as if it were your secondary language: No books have to be rewritten, no books have to be burned. Men of letters may keep them. Well, some of them. Not any difficult letters, like Z. You can keep Z, for Zztupid. And science does not have to be tipped on its head, for science has already explained it.  All science has to do is stand up. The explanation for homeopathy lies in the annals of classical science.
That’s right. We need no quantum explanations. We need no Lagrangians. We don’t need any secret handshakes or meetings on the square, by the plum or on the level. What I am saying is this: Before we can have a coherent quantum discussion of the mechanics of the homeopathic remedy, we have to set down what we know classically of the unique physical features of water, which are sometimes obfuscated when brought up in the context of homeopathy.
Yes, and this is where it gets painful. As soon as pseudoscientists such as Michael Shermer, James Randi, Simon Singh, Ben Goldacre, David Colquhoun, John Beddington, Steven Novella, Edzard Ernst, etc. hear the words “quanta” or “quantum effects,” they immediately dive into pejorative hyperbole and pessimism, start revving up their engines, blowing headgaskets, just as they do when they hear the word “homeopathy.” To them it is synonymous with quackery, as is anything quantum. So an article like Widom has a double whammy on it.
Iamhere to remove that curse . . well, as you may have noted, I’m not here to defend it. In fact, I’m rather suspicious of it myself.
Perhaps I need to brush up on my quantum mechanics. Problem, is my Wu Li Masters dance card’s kind a full. After I get through validating homeopathy I’m scheduled to destroy Einstein.
So let me try to cut his short. It might not seem I’ve cut it short, but I have. It’s huge subject, even without the all the endless whining by Ben Goldacre about his boring day job. Anyone with a mind for inquiry can find whatever it is they’re saying at Randi’s circle jerk quickly dispelled upon a quick inspection ofthe literature, and here is where the fun begins.
When classical terms are presented, these critics who have been so loud-mouthed on their favorite subject of derision tend to go silent, because they suddenly are facing classical terms that refer to observable phenomena that are fairly well to really well known, things you can see for yourself, or at least researchable online, such as hydrogen bonding, intermolecular forces, solvation cages, kosmotropes, hormesis, water surface tension, bubbles, water bridges, clathrate hydrates, supramolecular chemistry, etc.
So then, why aren’t we first asking, vis a vis, what are the observable effects and physical distinctions of the homeopathic remedy, if any at all? Why am I first reading a quantum explanation for homeopathy when I could be reading a classical one?
Perhaps Widom is a straw man, a plant, a shill working for the black propagandists. But there I go again.
The Chief Science Advisor to the government of the United Kingdom this week denounced homeopathy as declared in the Guardian newspaper that “there is no scientific basis for homeopathy beyond the placebo effect and that there are serious concerns about its efficacy.”
Oh dang, here I’ve been curing people for cancer all these years only to find out it just been coincidence.

Maybe we should play along. Maybe we should conspire not to hurt the poor man’s feelings. And really, why should we sell it to people who don’t want it? What’s Darwinian about that? That’s not very scientific of us, either. No wonder we’re homeopaths. If we were scientists we wouldn’t be trying to save the people who are doing us the most harm. The people who think it’s a placebo are always first ones that need to be culled out of the herd by natural selction. So maybe we should simply go along with the notion that these substances have no specificity.
Who has asked that question? Did Widom ask it? I didn’t read it there. Saw nothing about he specificity of the sub at omic field, or clathrates either, for that matter. Did Benveniste ask it? What did Benveiste have to say about the physics of the substance he was testing? Nothing . .notheeen!

What Widom promises, Widom does not deliver. Another skeptomaniac hoax. There is no discussion of the classical physics because Benveiste presented his data idiopathically as well, and this is how Widom views it.
Look. To make headway through a calm sea you have to make waves. And just because you’re making waves, does not mean you’re making headway.
You got that? Making headway isn’t enough either. The boat has to be pointed in the right direction!
Terms used by Roy in “Structure of Liquid Water, Novel Insights from the Material Sciences and their Relevance to Homeopathy” are not novel. No. These terms can be dated within two centuries of analysis, beginning with Davy referring to liquid aqueous structures (LAS) as hydrates, to Mendeleev seeing them in his vodka . .what are now, among other things, called clathrates.
Anomalous liquid aqueous structuring has been observed for centuries and intermolecular forces that create the hydrogen bond between H2O molecules have been known since Johannes Diderik van der Waals won the Nobel prize for his observations of the contiguous phase transition of matter in 1910 and the eponymous interactions between molecules he described. This shows the idiopathy of Widom’s discussion. The context is not stated. Widom lists only 15 references when dozens could apply, and only one is for Benveniste. What? There is no mention either of Luc Montagnier’s work, which serves to build on Benveniste’s physical work in not only identifying the size of LAS, but also their electromagnetic indices.
Note that the title of Davenas, “Human basophile degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE,” is absent in Widom’s bibliography. Whoops! They simply list the author’s names. This may have simply been an oversight, but it is a key one. Davenas is a biochemical experiment, not a physical one. It does not represent the real discovery of Benveniste’s work, which are the electromagnetic features of the homeopathic nosode used in the basophil experiments. They’re not talking about that, are they? In context of work prior and subsequent, Davenas is prosaic. It was the fourth replication, which there are now at least 25 since the test was first introduced by Murietta in 1984.
Widom promises a discussion of physical properties. Yet it makes no mention of the NMR studies, such as those by Demangeat, and Widom is apparently oblivious to other physical indices noted in homeopathic solvents.
Or is he?
There is no mention of theory for the composition of homeopathic remedies, the major one (which this author of this blog supports) being that they are crystal analogs usually of internal influences, but sometimes also of external radiation; from either specific material kosmotropes triturated from material sources, or from imponderabilia, such as X-Rays. These influences may be the nucleators for solvation cages, or clathrates, and it is proposed that from these polymer structures extend contiguous fields throughout the solvent.
The domain of the contiguous field expanding from the clathrate increases 100 times with each 1:100 dilution,. The succussion phase of processing introduces atmosphere into the solvent and creates new nuclei, what are commonly referred to in other contexts as gas hydrates.
Presumably there are quantum effects that can be ascribed to liquid aqueous structuring (LAS). Montagnier in his work, “Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences” reports on only two of 10 indices I have found for homeopathic remedies.
Widom, in producing what claims to be a quantum physics report on the work of Benveniste, presents little if any of Benvensite’s relevant work and no report on the known physics of the solvent. We can only presume then, and we are sorry to say it, that Widom is romancing the dilute.