The Royal Homeopath vs. the Medical Journalist

The Royal Homeopath vs. the Medical Journalist

It must beggar the imagination for the opponents of homeopathy to learn of the high and mighty’s endorsement of such, or it must fuel within their minds a kind of begrudging cynicism, that insists fools must by chance alone attain greatness. Mark Twain, John D. Rockefeller, Mahatma Ghandi, Mary Baker Eddy; Paul McCartney; Mariel Hemmingway; David Beckham; Sir William Osler; Twiggy; Tina Turner; Caprice; Susan Hampshire; C. Everett Koop, M.D. ; Louise Jameson; Catherine Zeta Jones; Gaby Roslin; Catherine Zeta-Jones; Jude Law; Sadie Frost, Nadia Sawalha; Jennifer Aniston; Jade Jagger; Roger Daltry, Annabel Croft; Meera Syal; Charles Dickens; W.B. Yeats; William Thackeray; Benjamin Disraeli; William James; Pope Pius X; Louisa May Alcott, Susan B. Anthony, William Lloyd Garrison, Daniel Webster, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, William Seward, Feodor Dostoevsky; Jackson Pollock; W.C. Fields; Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, MD; Dr. Chas. Frederick Menninger, MD; Charles Darwin; Nobelists Emil Von Behring, Brian Josephson and Luc Montagnier; former American Presidents James Garfield, William McKinley, Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton, about 500 American MDs and 300 British MDs, and reportedly about 5000 non MD practitioners in the US . . to name a few, have all been at least favorable, supportive or admiring of homeopathy if not regular users or openly enthusiastic about it.

Such a conundrum must plague their minds in the case of the English Royal family, under homeopathic care since 1830.  There has always been a Royal Homeopathic Doctor. Currently he is Dr. Peter Fisher, MD.

Whereas homeopathy antagonists, usually atheists, can dismiss the credible use of homeopathics by the creative, it must give them pause that such savvies, like atheistic Darwin, street smart Twain and the world’s richest man, the self made Rockefeller, could brook if not quietly use what scoffers have to insist is nonsense, “plain water” . .  or witchcraft.

But for the serious student of homeopathy the puzzle is why homeopaths haven’t been more influential, why they haven’t said more when the case for homeopathy is so strong and it’s paralegal opposition so weak, nothing much more than carping.

Recently in an online homeopathy discussion list, what should be the strongest voice for homeopathy, Royal Homeopath Dr. Peter Fisher, MD, has come under some criticism for what some consider a weak performance in a debate with medical journalist and homeopathy antagonist Ben Goldacre. a well known complainer noted for his constant lopsided criticism of any study, test, experiment, trial or review of the literature that favorably concludes for homeopathy. In fact, such doesn’t even need to be favorable to attract Goldacre’s ire.  All any study of homeopathy need to do for Goldacre to launch an attack on it is fail to condemn it.

In this rather tame duel, Fisher and Goldacre present their respective points and then field some soft balls pitched from the audience, when there are some of us in the homeopathic community who would like to see Fisher tear Goldacre limb from metaphorical limb . . and not necessarily because Goldacre deserves it, but because Fisher can.

My response to this is to ask that we give Fisher a break.  Isn’t he the one who took the spurious Shang metanalysis to the Discreditor’s Ball, held the antagonist’s major piece of bullshit to account by calling for the raw data? We should be down on our knees thanking the guy for the incredible work he’s done for homeopathy. He’s a real MD as opposed to this “medical journalist” clown Goldacre, who just pretends to be an MD. Of course this is just my opinion, but I think that if Goldacre ever actually treated somebody for a disease he’d be at risk of getting thrown in jail for murder.

When I was in England I invited Goldacre to my lecture on the supramolecular chemistry of homeopathy at Cambridge and away he ran, and when I took him to task for it all he could do was whine. He’s quite full of words when he’s sitting in front of a computer montior, but he’s been as loud as Grant’s tomb on a Monday morning when he’s sitting in front of someone he knows will take him to task.

Fisher, on the other hand, is a gentleman, and given his office must maintain the dignity of his position, and as such has to maintain a bedside manner, treat everyone as a patient and therefore sympathize with the sick bastard. As editor of Homeopathy Magazine, with a Royal Warrant sticking out of his back pocket, due to his titles alone Fisher is indeed probably the strongest single voice there is for homeopathy. The limb tearing should be left to the tattooed class.

The very fact that Fisher exists is alone a huge testimonial for homeopathy. But more than that he’s done most excellent work in rebutting the UK Parliament’s cherry picked ‘Evidence Check’ for the efficacy of homeopathy, specifically in his Memorandum to the UK Parliament on Evidence from Basic Research [ http://tinyurl.com/7666q5g ] and it is from this a telling point, a killshot, arises.

It’s in the Memo’s first line: “Its ‘implausibility’ from a scientific standpoint is often cited as a reason for scepticism about homeopathy, even in the face of positive clinical evidence. For instance a systematic review of clinical trials, published in the BMJ stated ‘we would accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if its mechanism of action were more plausible’.”

What?  “Its mechanism of action were more plausible”??

Now if the opposition was on its toes, a statement like this would set them back on their heels, if not flatten them. I say, and submit to you, that the reason it hasn’t flattened anyone is because they’re already there, prostrate, just as much as the corpse that made the statement.

Here, let me explain: What the British Medical Journal (BMJ, impact factor 17.215) is saying is the argument homeopathy has not been the putative, that there is no evidence of effective action . . no! What they are allowing, if not outright saying, is that they would accept the effectiveness of homeopathy if somebody would explain it to them! LOL! This is tantamount to a man falling off a ledge, and on the way down, proclaiming that he would accept the force of gravity if somebody could tell him how it works!

Up until this point, the rejection of homeopathy was supposed to be a cavalcade of absent evidence . . “Oh, homeopathy is not evidence based medicine” when in fact homeopathy, as anomalous as it may be, has never had the luxury of conventional hypotheses and theory . . evidence has been all it’s had, the evidence of action has been the sole cherry red river that’s driven its mill.

When the Internet began to transmit the actual record of pre-clinical and clinical trials, the attack on homeopathy had to shift from absent evidence to bad evidence and the suddenly discovered science had frantically picked apart by scientists-in-name-only (SINO) like Goldacre, with vituperative criteria reserved only for homeopathy.

Here’s a video of a debate, the Royal Homoeopath vs. the Medical Journalist.

HOW THE HOMEOPATH BECAME KING: British Medical Journal tumbles to homeopathy

It must beggar the imagination for the opponents of homeopathy to learn of the high and mighty’s endorsement of such, or it must fuel within their minds a kind of begrudging cynicism, that insists fools must by chance alone attain greatness. Abraham Lincoln; Jennifer Aniston; Mark Twain; Mariel Hemmingway; Nadia Sawalha; John D. Rockefeller; Mahatma Ghandi; Mary Baker Eddy; Paul McCartney; the Queen of England; David Beckham; Sir William Osler; Twiggy; Tina Turner; Caprice; Susan Hampshire; C. Everett Koop, M.D. ; Louise Jameson; Gaby Roslin; Catherine Zeta-Jones; Jude Law; Sadie Frost;  Jade Jagger; Roger Daltry, Annabel Croft; Meera Syal; Charles Dickens; W.B. Yeats; William Thackeray; Benjamin Disraeli; William James; Pope Pius X; Louisa May Alcott, Susan B. Anthony, William Lloyd Garrison, Daniel Webster, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, William Seward, Feodor Dostoevsky; Jackson Pollock; W.C. Fields; Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, MD; Dr. Chas. Frederick Menninger, MD; Charles Darwin; Nobelists Emil Von Behring, Brian Josephson and Luc Montagnier; former American Presidents James Garfield, William McKinley and Bill Clinton, about 500 American MDs and 300 British MDs, and reportedly about 5000 non-MD health practitioners in the US . . to name a few, have all been at least favorable, supportive or admiring of homeopathy if not regular users or openly enthusiastic about it.

Such a conundrum must plague their minds in the case of the English Royal family, under homeopathic care since 1830.  There has always been a Royal Homeopathic Doctor. Currently he is Dr. Peter Fisher, MD.

Whereas homeopathy antagonists, usually atheists, can dismiss the credible use of homeopathics by the creative, it must give them pause that such savvies, like atheistic Darwin, street smart Twain and the world’s richest man, the self made Rockefeller, could brook if not quietly use what scoffers have to insist is nonsense, “plain water” . .  or witchcraft.

But for the serious student of homeopathy the puzzle is why homeopaths haven’t been more influential, why they haven’t said more when the case for homeopathy is so strong and its paralegal opposition so weak, nothing much more than carping.

Recently what should be the strongest voice for homeopathy, Royal Homeopath Dr. Peter Fisher, MD, has come under some criticism in an online homeopathy discussion group, for what some consider a weak performance in a debate with medical journalist and homeopathy antagonist Ben Goldacre, a well known complainer noted for his constant lopsided criticism of any study, test, experiment, trial or review of the literature that favorably concludes for homeopathy. In fact, such doesn’t even need to be favorable to attract Goldacre’s damnation.  All any study of homeopathy need to do for Goldacre to launch an attack on it is fail to condemn it.

Goldacre is a SINO (Scientist In Name Only). SINOs are like playground bullies who think they’ve found an easy target in homeopathy. They think they can call it anything they want and humiliate practitioners, but as time progresses, with the help of the WWW,  they’re starting to walk away from online debates with black eyes and bloody noses.

In this rather tame duel, Fisher and Goldacre present their respective points and then field some soft balls pitched from the audience, when there are some of us in the homeopathic community who would like to see Fisher tear Goldacre limb from metaphorical limb . . and not necessarily because Goldacre deserves it, but because Fisher could . . if he suffered the character for it.

So my response to this is to ask that we give Fisher a break.  Isn’t he the one who took the spurious Shang metanalysis to the Discreditor’s Ball, held the antagonist’s major piece of bullshit to account by calling for the raw data? We should be down on our knees thanking the guy for the incredible work he’s done for homeopathy. He’s a real MD as opposed to this “medical journalist” clown Goldacre, who just pretends to be an MD. Of course this is just my opinion, but I think that if Goldacre ever actually treated somebody for a disease he’d be at risk of getting thrown in jail for murder.

When I was in England I invited Goldacre to my lecture on the supramolecular chemistry of homeopathy at Cambridge and away he ran, and when I took him to task for it all he could do was whine. He’s quite full of words when he’s sitting in front of a computer monitor, but he’s been as loud as Grant’s tomb on Monday morning when he’s sitting in front of someone he knows will take him to task.

Fisher, on the other hand, is a gentleman, and given his office must maintain the dignity of his position, and as such has to maintain a cheery bedside manner, treat everyone as a patient and sympathize with the sick bastard. As editor of Homeopathy Magazine, with a Royal Warrant sticking out of his back pocket, due to his titles alone Fisher is indeed probably the strongest single voice there is for homeopathy. The limb tearing should be left to the tattooed class, or me. Let me have him.

The very fact that Fisher exists is alone a huge testimonial for homeopathy. But more than that he’s done most excellent work in rebutting the UK Parliament’s cherry picked ‘Evidence Check’ for the efficacy of homeopathy, specifically in his Memorandum to the UK Parliament in Evidence from Basic Research and it is from this a telling point, a killshot, arises.

It’s in the Memo’s first line: “Its ‘implausibility’ from a scientific standpoint is often cited as a reason for scepticism about homeopathy, even in the face of positive clinical evidence. For instance a systematic review of clinical trials, published in the BMJ stated ‘we would accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if its mechanism of action were more plausible’.”

What?  “Its mechanism of action were more plausible”??

Now if the opposition was on its toes, a statement like this would set them back on their heels, if not flatten them. I say and submit to you that the reason it hasn’t flattened anyone is because they’re already there, prostrate, just as much as the corpse that made the statement.

Here, let me explain: What the British Medical Journal (BMJ, impact factor 17.215) is saying is that their problem with homeopathy is not the putative, that there is no evidence of effective action . . no! What they are allowing, if not outright saying, is that they would accept the effectiveness of homeopathy if somebody would explain it to them! LOL! This is tantamount to a man falling off a ledge, and on the way down, proclaiming that he would accept the force of gravity if somebody could tell him how it works!

What the hell, I’d be happy to explain the plasma physics of homeopathy to them. It’s the piezo electric effect transducing the background radiation and other perturbations in hydrogen bonded aqueous nanostructures, like clathrates. Ultra diluted solutions in materials used in homeopathic medicine are electromagnetic emitters akin to conventional radio pharmaceuticals and medical isotopes. Perhaps for a bottle of whiskey, pack of smokes and an English “girlfriend” the editors of BMJ would like to see a power point presentation of it at the Cavendish again.

So why the change in heart? The clinical evidence for homeopathy has remained consistent for 200 years, but this has always been rejected. Up until now, the rejection of homeopathy was supposed to be a cavalcade of absent evidence . . “Oh, homeopathy is not evidence based medicine” when in fact homeopathy, as anomalous as it may be, has never had the luxury of conventional hypotheses and theory . . evidence has been all it’s had, the evidence of action has been the sole cherry red river driving its mill.

When the Internet began to transmit the actual record of pre-clinical and clinical trials, the attack on homeopathy had to shift from absent evidence to bad evidence and the suddenly discovered science had to be frantically picked apart by the SINOs like Goldacre, with vituperative criteria reserved only for homeopathy.

NEXT: The Vindication of Jacques Benveniste:

“Up until 1988 pre-clinical testing of high dilutions as used in homoeopathy was simply ignored as being ridiculous. But that blew up in the SINO’s faces in 1988 with . .”

To be alerted to the next mind blowing installment, SUBSCRIBE

The Math of Murder: The Homeopathic Repertorization of Jared Lee Loughner

The Math of Murder

by John Benneth, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)  

This is a part of a series of blogs on titled “The Homeopathic Repertorization of Jared Lee Loughner.” The eponym is suspected of murdering six people and wounding 18 others with a handgun in a suburban Tucson shopping mall in January 2011.

In a previous blog I suggested homeopathic remedies for the victims. In the last blog I began analyzing remedies that fit some of the reported symptoms, and continue to do so in this blog, with much greater difficulty, remedies for the suspected assailant that may have helped to avert the attack.

Of course I’m making assumptions about motive. We’re always making assumptions about motive, we can’t stop making assumptions about motive, even though it is not the primary business of the homeopathic protocol to make assumptions about motive.

The primary business of the protocol is the observation of unusual symptoms for the purpose of matching them with similar symptoms, symptoms that act as indicators to remedies. In this case the suspect presents some very unusual symptoms that demonstrate the process.

BTW, I’ve noticed that my readership has dropped off. It zoomed when I was pillaring PZ Myers. People really aren’t interested in anything more than the spectacle, the blood on the floor, are they?

Part of the mystery, I guess.

In the last blog I began repertorizing the case. In homeopathic parlance repertorization means aggregating symptoms from the materia medica, the references which list the symptoms assoicateded to various remedies. These symptoms are discovered in what are called provings, in which a specific remedy is administered to a group of healthy volunteers who record their mental and physical reactions to it.

What I’ve done then is to scour these reports looking for symptoms that are covered in the approximately 70,000 symptoms listed in various homeopathic references called materia medicas, cross indexed in what are called repertories.

I’ve taken reports of the suspect’s behavior from those who have known him to create the symptom list.

In a traditional homeopathic diagnosis this would be done in an interview with the subject, where his “remedy type” could be better assessed and the subject could state for himself his condition, and where the homeopath could make some direct observations.

Please note, however, that there is an aspect of the interview that is missing from mining the reprots as I have done in this case, and that is that outside observers can see things about the subject that the subject either doesn’t see himself or will not admit. I am also not there to skew the interview with my own observations, that is I cannot lead the interview towards some unintended goal that feeds my bias.  As a note to the practitioners, this is an interesting weakness of the homeopathic interview . . the prejudices of the inquisitor. If he thinks the subject is a real bastard, he may just try to dig a bastard remedy out of the patient. It is a challenge to the practitioner’s skill of inquisition to draw out the testimony of his client, like coaxing a shy animal from its hiding place.

The symptoms list, when combined with the indicated remedies, is done to create a matrix of 35 theoretical symptoms and 336 potential remedies . . in this case a long list of remedies from AIDS to Zingiber officinale. Remedies are graded on two qualities, the number of criteria the remedy addresses and the total value for the remedy after they are added up.

As an example, the first remedy listed alphabetically is AIDS. This remedy addresses six criteria out of the 35, 1.) repetition of thoughts, 2.) anxiety of conscience 3.) Insane delusions 4.) sleeplessness, 5.) desire to kill, and 6.) mind to kill.

What this does is to create a reversed repertory for the subject.

Every snake is a killer, and Lachesis mutata is the most prescribed snake remedy. Chappell refers to them as fascinating speakers. (It’s more likely to be radio talk show host Thom Hartmann’s remedy than Loughner’s.) It even probably fits me better than Laughner. Hypnotizers. Loquacious. All mouth. Their words can be poisonous. Words that kill. Lachesis types are usually wise as they are jealous. There is also an introverted Lachesis. They can be timid just a they can be aggressive predators.

The Bushmaster snake, from which Constantine Hering took the venom for the Lachesis remedy, was so fearsome that when the natives brought it to him, they fled before he could open the crate. It puts out more venom than any other known snake.

Hering opened the crate, and before it could strike, clonked it over the head. He then expressed the venom onto milk sugar to capture it for trituration and potentiation. In doing so he placed his thumb on the poison sack to express the venom, and woke up three days later.

Knowing what had happened, he asked his wife what his symptoms had been. “What did I say?” As they would be key observations as to the action of the remedy. From this episode Hering sustained a lifelong injury that crippled the use of his arm.  He eventually died suddenly of a heart attack, but not before he ha proved Lachesis and become the guiding light for American homeopathy.

Lachesis is a powerful remedy and we have much thanks to this student of Hahnemann for its discovery and use.

But is Lachesis Loughner’s key remedy? To see my repertorization of Lachesis for Loughner, see the previous blog. He could very well have enough of the qualities of Lachesis to indicate it’s use. For example he appears to have a primary interest in words and language, which is a trait of the remedy.

But before we jump to conclusions, let’s look at some other remedies.

Here is a remedy that is made from the Crack Willow, which coincidentally grows in Arizona in misshapen forms. In it we find seven matching symptoms.

LOUGHNER, Salix fragilis,strong>7,7

Dreams, lucid 1
Mind, anxiety of conscience, 1
Mind, delusions, flying, 1
Mind, delusions, insane, 1
Look fixed at one point staring
Mind, sadness when alone, 1
Sleeplessness, 1

Like Kali-br. close, but no desire to kill. Numbers are low, profile flat.

LOUGHNER, Arsenicum,strong> 9, 36
Made from Arsenic, the metal. Poison.

Poisoning from alcohol, 6
Mind, alone, 6
Mind, desire to kill, 2
Mind, sadness when alone, 6
Sleep, sleeplessness, 6
Violent, 1
He has to murder someone, 1
Desire to kill, 4
Kill, 4

Arsenicum has the highest values from nine criteria. Its major feature stems from physical insecurity. Arsenicum could be a good choice, although there are elements of the Ars. personality that doesn’t seem to fit Loughner, such as fastidiousness, taut sinewy body and bony facial features. Arsenicum is a common remedy and doesn’t seem to fit the act of a mass murderer. It lacks the sociopathy we’re looking for.

Now here’s an interesting remedy . .

Cladonia rangiferina, (Reindeer moss) 5,5
Themes: Survival, jealousy, money, suicidal feelings, heaviness in chest

Dreams, guns 1
Mind, anxiety of conscience 1
Look fixed on one point staring, 1
Sleep, sleeplessness, 1
Mind desire to kill, 1

Cladonia is the only remedy amongst hundreds that notes dreaming of guns. But I’m only guessing about guns. Maybe Loughner dreamt about the tooth fairy. I don’t know. It is only an assumption on my part. However, the fixed stare, sleeplessness, the issue of conscience and the desire to kill are compelling features of this remedy.

Like Stramonium, another classic violence remedy is Anarcardium

Anarcardium 7, 18
Themes: Good versus evil, alienated, hard and cruel
Speaks nonsense, 4
Shamelessness, lewd, 3
Mind, desire to kill 1
Mind, somnambulism, 2
Sleeplessness, 1
Violent, 4
Mind desire to kill, 1
Kill, 1

Although Anarcardium types have a murderous aggressiveness, they often lack the confidence to attack. According to Chappell the Anac. temperament comes from being beaten by the father at home. I had a girlfriend once who I pegged as an Anacardium. Interesting girl. There’s usually an element of hard work involved, and then if the child fails, it’s possible they then turn to picking on others and become gang leaders. Anacardium looks like a possibility for Mr. Loughner.

The next remedy has even more compelling possibilities.

Hyoscamus niger, 14, 66

Themes: Erotic psychosis
Disappointed love, 6
Alone, 6
Sadness when alone, 0
Sleeplessness, 6
Frightful fancies, 0
Shameless lewd nudity, 6
Shameless exposes the person, 6
Confused speech, 4
Speaks nonsense, 6
Look fixed on one point staring, 1
Desire to kill, 6
Somnambulism, 1
Tries to kill people, 6
Kill, 6

Hyoscyamus Niger (A. Gladstone Clarke.)

1. Acute mania ; patient, talkative, quarrelsome, gen. lascivious, exposes the person, etc. ; in the between state, suspicious depression ; fears solitude, poison, plots. Ailments from jealousy, unfortunate love, mental emotions.
2. Delirium during course of acute diseases ; temperature not markedly high ; restless, picks bedclothes, etc. ; beclouded senses ; staring eyes ; dry tongue, etc. ; involuntary urine and faeces ; stands midway between Belladonna and Stramonium, lacking cerebral congestion of former and fierce, raging mania of latter. Delirium tremens.
3. Spasmodic affections without consciousness ; every muscle twitches from eye to toes ; opisthotonos ; convulsions, of children from fright, worms ; of pregnant or parturient women.
4. Nervous coughs ; teasing, dry, spasmodic, sitting up (Drosera) ; night, using voice, eating, drinking.
5. Insomnia in irritable, excitable subjects ; from business difficulties or other nervous excitement ; drowsy yet restless ; in children, with twitchings and startings from fright.

HYOS: “Entire loss of consciousness; sees persons who are not, and have not been present; loss of sight and hearing.” (Nash)

Hyoscamus is the remedy for exhibitionists, and Loughner did something that was noted for an exhibitionist. He took a picture of himself, they say, holding a gun and wearing red underwear.

But even Hyoscamus seems to pale before the next remedy, the remedy of the terrorist.

READ MY NEXT BLOG to find out what that remedy is: A Homeopathic Remedy for Terrorists.

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

Hot words, hard healing and hate radio

Previous blog:  The Homeopathic Repertorization of Jared Lee Loughner- Intro

by John Benneth, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)

Don’t tell me you have ways of treating this within the allopathic model. You don’t. All you have in that allopathy jury rigging is no better than bubblegum, glue and duct tape.

10:10 AM on January 8, 2011 U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat representing Arizona’s 8th congressional district and 18 others were hit by gunfire in a sudden attack by a lone gunman in a Tucson area mall.

The attack occurred while she was holding an open meeting called “Congress on Your Corner” with members of her constituency at the Safeway supermarket parking lot in La Toscana Village, a shopping mall in Casa Adobes, Arizona, part of the Tucson metro area.

Giffords had set up a table outside the store which 20 to 30 people gathered around when 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner allegedly drew a 9mm Glock model 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine and shot Giffords in the temple of her head at point-blank range.

Loughner then reportedly turned on the stunned crowd and opened fire, shooting randomly, killing six and wounding eighteen others. Among the dead were John Roll, Arizona’s Chief Judge of the United States District Court, a nine-year old little girl and one of Rep. Gifford’s staff.

The first question of a stunned nation was why.

“Homeopathy is always helpful in schizophrenia; in certain states it is curative.”

Trevor Smith, The Homeopathic Treatment of Emotional Illnesses

Wednesday, January 12th, 2010 President Barack Obama gave a standing ovations speech at the Tucson memorial for the victims, where he announced that Gabrielle Giffords had opened her eyes for the first time since the shooting.

He said, “We must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.”

The morning of the 13th I was lying in bed listening to liberal talk show radio host Thom Hartmann squabble a case for “stochastic terrorism.” Stochastic terrorism is using mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.

Hillary Clinton wasn’t alone in saying heated rhetoric and radical ideology inspired the shooter. Assistant secretary of state for public affairs P.J. Crowley referred to the tragedy in a speech about the important role media plays in democracy, implying that Loughner’s actions came out of  “poor public discourse.”

I picked up the phone and called the show. I told the screener that I wanted to take Hartmann on regarding his claim that right-wing rhetoric motivated suspected Tucson shooter Jared Lee Loughner .

My name is John Benneth. I’m a homeopath.

I’ve been repertorizing Loughner’s case. In homeopathy repertorization is the use of a lexicon of symptoms and their corresponding remedies to select a proper remedy based on detailed observations of the patient’s symptoms and medical history.

I have tracked Loughner’s symptoms as criteria to profile him for a homeopathic remedy. The purpose of this is to give myself some insight into homeopathic remedies for whatever motivated the event. If I can find a remedy for Loughner, it will help me in finding remedies for other would-be mass murderers, and make a case for their trial and use.

I waited as Hartmann played commercials and took back-patting call after smarmy suck-up call . . agreeing with him, telling him what a genius he is, and played ,more commercials. Hartmann responded by ‘shouting down’ callers. He did a couple of interviews, cut short a handicapped woman asking for help, played some more commercials, accused the right wing of Mankind’s destruction, squired off some rants, played goose stepping bumper music, took a cigarette break, played more commercials, attacked Bush, hung up on some more callers, interrupted everyone with personal anecdotes, took a call from a gushing admirer, screamed at somebody to get to the point, played a commercial, read the news, gave an endorsement for Tick and Flea Spray, talked over everyone like a herd of bison, played hokey bumper music, told some more lies, did a commercial for rip off gold and then, finally, after I waiting a full hour ,when I was almost on my feet, Thom Hartmann took my call.

“John in Portland . .” he said.

I turned the radio down and got out of bed.

 “I have been looking for it but I find no evidence whatsoever right wing rhetoric motivated Loughner, ” I said.

“Can you name one liberal who was ever motivated to shoot a conservative politician?” he said, cutting me off. I couldn’t get an answer out in time before he had interrupted me again.

Here is what such a question, if answered, would have revealed.

John Wilkes Booth killed Republican president Lincoln; Charles Guiteau killed Republican president Garfield

Leon Frank Czolgosz killed Republican president McKinley

John Schrank shot Republican President Teddy Roosevelt; Samuel Byck tried to kill Republican president Nixon by crashing a commercial airliner into the White House

Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme tried to shoot Republican President Gerald Ford at point blank range with a Colt .45

Sara Jane Moore fired a revolver at Ford from 40 feet away

John Hinckley, Jr. tried to impress actress Jodie Foster by shooting Republican President Reagan and three others with exploding bullets

Sixteen men, who in the suspected employ of Saddam Hussein, smuggled a car bomb into Kuwait to kill Republican President Geo. H.W. Bush (41)

Robert Pickett fired shots at the White House while Republican President Geo W. Bush (43) was its occupant

On the morning of September 11th, 2001 (9/11) a van reportedly full of Arab looking men arrived at a resort where Bush 43 was staying saying had a “poolside” interview with him.

There have been more assassinations and assassination attempts, both real and suspected, on Republican presidents than Democratic. Out of the four US Presidents assassinated, only one was a Democrat, John F. Kennedy.

Out of 16 assassination attempts on 11 Presidents, 10 were on 6 Republicans. Teddy Roosevelt took a bullet, but insisted finishing his speech, and then refused to go to the hospital, and never did have it removed. Democrat Andrew Jackson beat his would be assassin down with his cane after the attacker’s two flintlock pistols misfired.

Assassinations and assassination attempts on members of Congress are even more rare. The alleged attack on Representative Giffords was only the fifth violent attack on a sitting member of Congress in US history. Giffords is only one of nine US legislators who have been the victim of such violence while representing constituents. Of the two Congressmen who died during violence, only one, Representative Leo Ryan, died as a result of an ambush.

The only other Congressman to die from intended violence was Jonathan Cilley of Maine, who died as a result of gunshot wounds suffered during a duel.

What makes the Giffords attack even more rare is that she is now the only Congress-woman ever attacked while in office.

The attack by Loughner on Giffords then is unique. Not necessarily in motive. Although Loughner’s writing is swashed with political rhetoric, it has the tone of what could be construed as insanity.
Court filings revealed handwritten notes apparently by Loughner saying he planned to assassinate Giffords. As of this writing there is not reported motive for the shooting. Loughner has remained silent.

Loughner previously met Giffords at a “Congress on your Corner” event in a Tucson mall on August 25, 2007, where he asked the congresswoman, “How do you know words mean anything?”

A voice message from Loughner to a friend just before the shooting stated that Loughner had a grudge against Giffords for failing to sufficiently answer a question sufficiently. What that question was is unknown at this time.

The first responses, like Hartmann’s, were that the media had made him do it. Clarence Dupnik of Pima County, Arizona implied a connection between hate speech and violence. He said, “When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.” Dupnik finally said, that he had no evidence that the attack was a result of anything Loughner read or may have heard.

It sounded like Hartmann slapped the desk. “Okay, but can you name one liberal talk show host who engages in hate speech?”

“Mike Malloy! He’s always talking about how much he hates Republicans, heterosexual white men, Christians, Bush. And Randi Rhodes talks about Barbara Bush’s in a way that is pretty . . ”

Hartmann let out a moan and the phone went dead. Mike Malloy, for the record, was the one who coined the phrase “the Bush crime family.”

I turned the radio back up. Hartmann was blathering on about something Loughner had written about not liking the government.

I turned the radio off.

The only good thing I can say about Hartmann is that his show is ten times better than any right-wing radio talk show. At least it is not ALL lies. If Hartmann wasn’t such a megalomaniac I might well rank him the country’s second best political radio talk show host, right behind Randi Rhodes, a spot currently filled by the sardonic wit of Alan Colmes.

So much for hot talk and the facts. As an experienced and resourceful practitioner of homeopathy, I would like to help. I can examine the facts with a rare and peculiar eye that is distinctive of my doctrine. Getting this across through pseudo pharmaceutical mind control isn’t easy, even with liberals. Being that this is the world’s most read homeopathy blog, and I am America’s most prominent homeopath, bearing at this time the world’s only known honorary degree in homeopathy, it is my responsibility to comment on how homeopathy would treat such a situation as the Arizona tragedy.

I put my pants on, went downstairs and fixed myself a cup of the enemy, black espresso coffee made from freshly roasted Arabica coffee beans..

I gritted my teeth and took a sip.

Ahh.

NEXT : Homeopathic Triage
(To be notified of the next installment, please subscribe now to he John Benneth Journal)