The Homeopathic Intuitive #1- Boils, Vertigo, Nephritic Syndrome

Regard with caution: What follows is a prologue to a remedy suggestion for a nephritic syndrome case. I don’t know quite how to address this without sounding weird, but I’ll give it a try anyway. This is not to be taken as medical advice. If you have a medical problem, consult the medical profession. Be skeptical.

Please excuse its length, but I think you’ll find it interesting.

I had a difficult case once out of Pakistan where the patient had been to several homeopaths and tried a dozen different remedies for boils in his armpits and groin, to no success except suppuration, the flesh hanging down in shreds. It was a horrible mess and he had been suffering for a long time. I can’t imagine what the pain must have been like.

After having tried several remedies to no avail I simply sat down and prayed for an answer that came to me in a flash: Arnica. I looked it up and there it was: Arnica . . for crops of boils!

I instructed the patient to obtain an Arnica 10M, crush the pill between two spoons, stir into water, take a teaspoon into his mouth and spit it out.

Two days later he contacted me from Karachi on Skype, in a panic, having turned bright red. I told him to be calm, it was a sign the remedy was working.

I didn’t hear back from him for another week. When I did, he was ecstatic, he was overjoyed, he was cured. It had worked. The suppurated boils had shriveled up.

“You have done what others could not. You have healed me,” he said. I talked to him again couple months later. What he said made me slap my head: “I am taking up homeopathy as a profession.” The nature or will set you will will and will and are in a will and will not

I tried this method on other unfathomable cases and it has worked as well. In my mind I simply ask for the remedy and the answer comes immediately. Given my skeptical notions and absolute reliance on the literature I am highly suspicious of the phenomenon. I’m afraid to say I don’t trust it without researching the answer. It could be coming out of my subconscious, having prior read about the remedy and consciously forgotten it, or it could be a coincidence given the extensive indications that the remedies have within the materia medica, but I am more favorable to another explanation, the answer coming to me in the putative form of a little-known remedy.

For example, the last time I used this procedure was for a case involving vertigo. The answer came back “mustard”. I looked up the Latin for mustard, Synapis nigra, and found it as such in Clarke covering vertigo. Whether it worked or not is yet to be seen. Patient took it on the F scale, accidentally downed a whole bottle of water containing the final chord and aggravated.

I used this intuitive savant technique (IST) for the nephritic syndrome case and immediately the answer came back “marshmallow”, i.e. Althea off.

So here is the epilogue to this essay using IST on the nephritic syndrome case.

I haven’t been able to find much on Althea officianalis per se except it is indicated for bladder problems, but a little additional digging raises eyebrows. The Herb Wisdom site says

“Marshmallow works as a mucilage, producing a thick sticky substance that coats membranes. Marshmallow extract contains flavanoids, which contain anti-inflammatory properties. The flavanoids are able to reduce inflammation while the mucilage holds them in immediately place and prevents further damage. The extracts also induce phagocytosis, which is the process in which certain cells engulf bacteria, dead cell tissues or other solid particles. This helps speed up the healing process. The mucilage remains unaltered until it reaches the colon, which is why marshmallow works well on most inflammatory digestive disorders.”

What I found out next was my big wow:

Marshmallow contains Asparagine, first identified in asparagus juice. Asparagine, according to a 2011 study done at the University of Dundee, is required for normal kidney physiology and homeostasis.


“Although protein recapture and catabolism is known as a key function of kidney proximal tubular cells (PTCs), to date, no single protease has been shown to be required. Asparagine endopeptidase (AEP) is an unusually specific endosomal and lysosomal cysteine protease, expressed at high levels in the PTCs of the mammalian kidney. We report that mice lacking AEP accumulate a discrete set of proteins in their PTC endosomes and lysosomes, which indicates a defect in the normal catabolism of proteins captured from the filtrate. Moreover, the mice develop progressive kidney pathology, including hyperplasia of PTCs, interstitial fibrosis, development of glomerular cysts, and renal pelvis dilation. By 6 mo of age, the glomerular filtration rate in AEP-null mice dropped by almost a factor of 2, and the mice developed proteinuria. We also show that EGF receptor levels are significantly higher in AEP-null PTCs, which likely explains the hyperplasia, and we show that chemical inhibition of AEP activity suppresses down-regulation of the EGF receptor in vitro. Thus, AEP is required for normal protein catabolism by PTCs, and its loss induces proliferative and other abnormalities in the murine kidney, at least in part through defective regulation of the EGF receptor.”




by John R. Benneth

“Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax.” — Lord Kelvin, renowned British scientist, 1899.

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” — Albert Einstein, world’s greatest genius 1932.

“If anyone shows the concepts of homeopathy to be correct, he or she becomes a serious contender for one or two Nobel prizes. Homeopaths often say that we simply have not yet discovered how homeopathy works. The truth is that we know there is no conceivable scientific explanation that could possibly explain it.” Edzard Ernst, top homeopathy antagonist, from “Why I Changed My Mind About Homeopathy.”

But there is a scientific explanation to explain it. We’re led to it by the evidence of action . .

In case you didn’t know, the man who made the last quote, ex-Professor Edzard Ernst of Exeter University, has been the world’s major antagonist of the curative medical doctrine of homeopathy, emphasis on has been. Ernst was professor of complementary medicine at Exeter University, he was the world’s first chair of it. For a while he was riding high, scoring better than James “the Amazing” Randi, a failed magician who became the world’s greatest skeptic and homeopathy basher, accusing anyone who practiced it of fraud..

But Exeter canned Ernst and his star began to sputter.  And Randi has grown silent after being exposed in complicitly of identity theft and fraud and in using homeopathy during bouts with stomach cancer and heart disease.

The half recant was published in The Guardian, which protects the interests of the pharmaceutical companies by characterizing homeopathy as bunk.

Apparently Ernst’s phone stopped ringing: Now he says he’s changed his mind about homeopathy.


Well, like most of the things he writes, on closer inspection you find it’s not true.  He hasn’t changed his mind about anything. Read the article and you’ll find he ‘s still spouting the same . . well, I hate to use the word lies, so let’s just say misinformation.

ERNST: “Yet as a clinician almost 30 years ago I was impressed with the results achieved by homeopathy. Many of my patients seemed to improve dramatically after receiving homeopathic treatment. How was this possible?”

With dramatic improvement? 

The man is full of contradictions. He says that if the axioms of homeopathy were true, then much of what we learned in physics and chemistry would be wrong.


Let us try to get this straight. The anti-homoepathy crowd’s premier reference for the case against homeopathy is now saying that he’s seen it work with dramatic improvement in a clinical setting,  when in his “Systemaic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy,” which he penned after his work as a clinician, he says  “the clinical evidence and the basic research underpinning homeopathy remain unconvincing.”

So which is it? And where’s all the scientific literature to support whatever reason Ernst thinks there is to explain how it is that his patients improved so dramatically, just as where’s all the evidence that proves it’s a placebo? Was it his Svengali bedside manner? Was it Mesmerism? Alcohol?

What was it?

He then makes a statement that is provably wrong.

Referring to 200 clinical studies he says, “Over a dozen systematic reviews of homeopathy have been published. Almost uniformly, they come to the conclusion that homeopathic remedies are not different from placebo.”

I’m afraid this may send him looking for a brace of pistols in his sock drawer, or an epee’ hanging next to the garden rake in the garage, but I have to say it, it’s always so embarrassing when an . . as oxymoronic as it may sound . . an academic of Ernst’s stature is caught in a verifiable lie.

No comprehensive, honest review of the literature has concluded  what Ernst is claiming. 

Did the editors of The Guardian know about this? Did any of their fact checkers check it out?

There have essentially been three major accepted reviews of the literature pubslihed in  (1.) British Medical Journal (BMJ) by Kleijnen et al; (2.) University of York for the U.K. National Health Service (NHS) by Cucherat et al; and (3.) Lancet by Linde et al.

1.) NHS Cucherat 2000: HOMEOPATHY NOT PLACEBO: Found evidence that homeopathy was more effective than placebo. University of York/ NHS

2.) LANCET Linde 1997: HOMEOPATHY NOT PLACEBO: results not compatible with placebo hypothesis

3.)  BMJ Kleijnen 1991HOMEOPATHY NOT PLACEBO:The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used.

In addition to these high quality meta analyses, published in high impact medical journals, there are the following:

FISHER: High quality repeated experiments yield positive results tinyurl com/7666q5g

JOHNSON 2007: metas find homeopathy significantly better than placebo tinyurl com/7htoejq

SHANG 2005/ Ludtke Rutten: find significant homeopathic effect beyond placebo tinyurl com/ludtkerutten

[Remember to put a dot between tinryurl and com after pasting into your browser]

Now note this in your hornbook: NO CONCLUSIVE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE FINDS THAT HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES ARE “PLACEBOS”!!! And yet in the face of this we are repeatedly told by opponents of homeopathy that homeopathic remedies are placebos, implying that the pharmacy is inert,  and because the medicine is inert, homeopathy is a hoax. 


The medical  community has had the evidence for the clinical action of the materials before them for years, including the stark evidence that the pharmacy is not inert in the published reports of its action on plants, animals and biochemicals.

So why  are we being so desperately and obviously lied to?

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 . .

The Epiphanies of Edzard Ernst

Edzard Ernst is at it again . . but this time something is different, dramatically different. Instead of the usual pile on by hordes of skeptics usually heard in response to an article on homeopathy, joining in a keening wail, cavilling about its fraud, this time, in Germany, just the opposite is happening.

According to the Austrian doctor now residing in England, after an interview by Der Spiegel, an interview adverse to homeopathy, 100’s of delusional Germans are responding in the comment section by rhapsodizing about its virtues.


According to a blog recently written by the First Chair of Complementary Med’s, this is a mass psychological aberration, and, he says, another well known homoeopath and I are at the head of it!

Some men are known for their perfidy, some for their boon; others for their acts and others still yet for their chance encounter with destiny. Some men, giants such as Alzheimer, Parkinson, Hodgkins, Lou Gehrig, Asperger, Krohn, lose their names to eponyms for newly discovered or idiopathic diseases, their remembrance only . . a malady.

Most of these eponymous diseases are named after the doctor’s who discovered them, others by the patients who sported them and one is named after two towns, Lyme and Old Lyme, in Connecticut.

Or was it New York?

I don’t know, I’m too busy fighting with that other homoeopath over who’s first chair of “homoeopathic delusionism” to get trivia straight. But I must say, how unfortunate for the denizens of Lyme, wherever they may be.

Well, NO MATTER! Tell us more about “homoeopathic delusonism.” How do I get this disease?.

My name might be the label for this troubling condition, but in lieu of a second opinion I think the honor of the odd hominem should go to the doctor who’s chasing me with it (or the place where he first started spreading it) ex-professor of “complementary medicine” Edzard Ernst, who at the University of Exeter  morphed into the Joseph Mengele of homoeopathy.


Why is Edzard Ernst so important? The reason is because he has been the chief ideologue of the placebo theory for the action of homoeopathics and Head Basher. Ernst wants you to use the murder meds big pharma pumps out and join the genocide. Homoeopathy is screwing up their plans to bankrupt America and drain the British Empire.  When you read in the Wikipedia article on Homeopathy the assertion that homeopathic medicines are dangerously inert traces back to Ernst, twisting the meta analyses, and hiding his wound . .


Yes, his horrible, shocking weakness . . I’ll get to that later. But first you must know that in his December 3rd, 2013 blog, Ernst says at least 500 people, who in the German language newspaper Der Spiegel, have now identified themselves as “end-stage homeopathic delusionists” (sic) of which, he says, homoeopathy author, practitioner and proselyte Dana Ullman and I (John Benneth) are his favorite examples amongst the afflicted, both of us patriotic Americans!


Ernst says that after being interviewed about alternative medicine by the newspaper, which included his views on homeopathy (sic), only in part, hordes of people responded with anecdote and testimony, supporting homoeopathy [correct spelling] a system of medical similitude developed by 19th century Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann.


ERNST SAYS testimonies included statements like “what I discovered shifted my world for ever.”

Such superlatives and rhapsodizing, Ernst says, are because homeopathic medicine induces an “epiphany.”

“The starting point of this journey towards homeopathy-worship,” he says, “is usually an impressive personal experience which is often akin to an epiphany (defined as a moment of sudden and great revelation or realization). I have met hundreds of advocates of homeopathy, and those who talk about this sort of thing invariably offer impressive stories about how they metamorphosed from being a ‘sceptic’ (yes, it is truly phenomenal how many believers insist that they started out as sceptics) into someone who was completely bowled over by homeopathy, and how that ‘moment of great revelation’ changed the rest of their lives. Very often, this ’Saulus-Paulus conversion’ relates to that person’s own (or a close friend’s) illness which allegedly was cured by homeopathy.”


NEXT: Should I comfort him, or take him to task for his perfidy?

You decide!


P.S. Get every exciting episode . . SIGN UP FOR MORE . . push button on the right . . life saving information delivered to your screen!


Since my last posting August 7th, 2012, a lot has happened in the world of homeopathy, some things quite personal to me, but during all that time I’ve kept my lip buttoned. I vowed not to say a word until I was prepared to speak more on the most important thing I know, the physics of homeopathy, what makes the homeopathic remedy tick.

SUBCRIBE: You don’t want to miss the next installment

In September 2012 I was drawn into an argument on the Homeopathic World Community website with my old friend, the world’s most beloved homeopath, Vaikunthanath das Kaviraj. The argument  with Kaviraji was over the physics of homeopathy and then, after it was over, I suffered a deeply frozen shoulder of an arctic polar grade, which I finally shrugged off with a dose of Lycopodium, a dose that worked almost instantaneously.

While Australian health authorities were trying to stifle information about homeopathic prophylaxis (dynamic immunization) Canada was licensing it. Homeopathy antagonists Edzard Ernst and David Colquhoun fell from grace for the flaming indiscretions brought on by the usual hypocrisy of localized skepticism; then in March Kaviraji passed away.  And then efforts to fluoridate Portland Oregon ’s pristine alpine reservoir failed . . again.

But through all of it, with all I had to say, I didn’t write a word and kept the blog moribund, with the exception of an occasional response to a comment, like last Saturday’s on a blog I wrote two years ago about curing homosexuality . . always good for a comment or two.

For the demise of our antagonists I felt no satisfaction, it was inevitable, as is the continued use of homeopathics in stopping epidemics, curing cancer and homosexuality, because homeopathy is the basis for all immunizations and cures of illness, physical and otherwise, always has been and always will be until some new principle of immunity and cure is found.

The only problems is seeing it . . and learning how to cut the dose.

And I felt no real grief when Kaviraj passed away. I miss his commiseration, but after the argument a kind of emotional numbness set in. It was inevitable. He shouldn’t have died.  I can’t even say I felt I was disappointed, when in fact I’d be mad at him if it wasn’t for my pet ego . But I didn’t post a word about it since my argument with him because I did not want to say anything more on this blog until I was able, as I am now, to present to the world the crystalliferous physics of homeopathy, the only thing missing from the case for what is the world’s only real medicine.

I know this all sounds carelessly oversold and dangerous to say, I’ve heard it repeated that its bunk again and again over the years, but the truth is behind it. I’ve learned to choose my words carefully before I put them together carelessly. I don’t like to say anything I can’t back up with a credible reference.  MD Anderson, the top cancer clinic in the U.S., collaborating with the Banerjis, the top cancer clinic in India, discovered that OTC homeopathics can cure cancer, and dozens of homosexuals have shed their curse using the practice of similitude to keep their heads from rolling in Arab streets.

All the vituperative and putative perceptions of homeopathy have been, are and always will be delusions, with the exception of one, that there has been no known physico-chemical explanation for it . .  perhaps. 

That homeopathy is fraud is a delusion; that it doesn’t work is a delusion; that it isn’t accepted by the medical profession is a delusion; that there are no double blind tests for it is a delusion; that there are no known corollaries for “like cures like” is a delusion; that water doesn’t have a memory is a delusion;  that it isn’t peer reviewed is a delusion; that it isn’t the soul of immunology is a delusion;  that it isn’t the only cure for epidemics is a delusion; that the vaccine is not homeopathic is a delusion; that mainstream so-called medicine, i.e. allopathy, is medicine is a delusion.

And with the word “perhaps” I equivocate that there is no known physico chemical explanation for homeopathy, not because there is doubt in my mind about the explanation, but because there is doubt in my mind whether or not I am the only one who knows it.

It’s time the world understands what homeopathy really is.

Yes, I know what they will say, that once Benneth takes Ruta for his eyestrain he’ll find his remedy is Platina.


SUBSCRIBE and learn the secret physics of homeopathy!

The Case Against the Case Against Homeopathy

Have you read the previous blog? I hope so, it might give you a better context into which to put . .

The Case Against the Case Against Homeopathy

SHOUT OUT to homeopaths in the home of Hahnemann, Germany; and homeopaths all over the world, in Ireland; Austria; Pakistan; Chile; Poland, Canada; Australia; India; the Netherlands; Croatia; Argentina; Iceland; Togo; the home of Clarke, the United Kingdom; and the home of Kent, the US of A, all who have been reading this column. Thanks for your support . . theoretically

You can stop reading now: THERE IS NO CASE AGAINST HOMEOPATHY.

There never has been and there never will be.

The rest of this blog is entertaiment of the type you’d find on a Roman holiday.

THE PROBLEM WITH theoretical reasoning, it always falls and fails under the grinding wheel of everyday use, and should it ever be hauled into the assizes, there’s always a jury: Half who knows somebody who has tried homeopathy  . .  and swears by it . . and half who knows somebody who hasn’t . . and swears at it.

Homeopathy isn’t easy to explain to people who aren’t familiar with it, and even harder to explain to people who are . . or think they are. Bu then again nobody has really been able to explain gravity very well, either. Those who have tried it swear it’s for real, but like homeopathy, try to explain it to someone who isn’t familiar with it’s effects and you may get a puzzled look, and hear them say they’d rather stick with levity.

And just because we can’t explain how something works doesn’t stop us from using it if we know it does. Thank God we don’t have 13th century scientists following us around in pushcarts telling us we can’t listen to our radios or watch our TVs, use our toasters or launch our pets and heroes into outer space, because they “don’t know how it works, it’s too implausible . . its the work of the devil!


And presumably, to them, neither do we know how all these rather obtuse things work, because our explanation for how they do won’t suffice for the zeusophobe who has already decided it’s psychogenic, i.e. the operator is responsible, possessed by the Devil, or in 21st century terms, in the mad thrall of a placebo.

Though they’ll never admit it, the sad fact is there are a number of things that don’t make sense, even to the most gifted atheist or prize winning scientist, things such as ontology, the study of Being, or why it is that hasn’t crushed by its own weight yet?

The rest of us lamebrains are compelled to ask, why must Atheists and Intelligent Design authors fight? Why must Creationists and Evolutionists quarrel like dogs over what is Holy to them? What is there in Bible ink that doesn’t jibe with chalk dust?

In the sage words of Rodney King after his Hyundai was pulled over for breaking a hundred MPH downtown (and he was truncheoned into a flapjack) “why can’t we all just get along?”

Exactly . . although maybe not going as fast as Romney, but who’s to criticize another man’s direction? I don’t hear our Australian jurists trying to kick that one out of bed.

This digresses down to demands for minute details as examples, like the contradicting figures “scientists” give us for the size and age of the observable Universe, a 48 billion or so light year radius mistake that made it to that size in only 13.7 billion light years. Talk about speeding, even Rodney King couldn’t explain that one.

Oh, they will surely cough up some hairball explanation for it, to be sure, mumble something about an “expanding Universe,” but common sense impounds us not to make it worse with a dumb excuse like that one, just take Rodney’s advice and STFU the next time you break the light speed barrier, talk to my hand, call my attorney, get a job.

Confused? Well let me put it this way. Why is it that the objects most distant from the eye, those galaxies, quasars and nebulae, look about the same age as those much closer . . ? Shouldn’t they all be proto galaxies, quasars and nebulae?

These calculating minds, such as the one that prepares bulls against homeopathy in Australia, and the one that touts it in the UK Guardian, should be able to explain to us why it is that telescopes can view perfectly modern galacti well beyond what should be the limits of astronomical observations, the radius of 13.7 billion light years . . i.e. 6.85, an eight of what all these logically attuned, homeopathy-hating astromoners claim it to be.

I SUGGEST TO YOU THIS is why junior James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) astronomer and homeopathy-hater Neil deGrasse Tyson is in a state of perpetual hyperventilation; why JREF astronomer and homeopathy-hater Phil Plaitt runs away from cameras held by believers; and why JREF eponym James Randi has to play three card Monte with the code to the double blind for every homeopathy biochemical lab test he witnesses.

 Well, pshaw you say, what about shooting all the homeopaths? What do the sunspots on Arcturus have to do with that, that’s why we’re here isn’t it?

Well, I say, I may seem to be rambling because I can’t see my prepared notes due to the blindfold, and I haven’t finished my cigarette yet, and I thought that besides supper the condemned gets a few last words in edgewise, you see, and I find it fascinating, if not celestially funny, that the spoken size of the Universe, in total, matches Avogadro’s number, 10 to the 23rd, the point in serial dilution, when it so happens, by some wild coincidence, the homeopathic remedy ascends from the material to etheric, where the van der waal forces take over in structure from what was formerly the domain of heterogeneous molecular composition, and not one, not one in a Godzillion of the intended molecule is left in solution, when it goes from dumb science into the spiritual dimension.

But wait!

This can also be put into the atheist’s dimension of astronomical and homeopathic wonders by saying that what we see, (although it may look like a lot) is hardly worth mentioning. In fact, like they say of the high dilute, it‘s nothing at all. The theoretical size of the unseen Universe, that which is beyond myopia, is estimated (without any intended regard to homeopathy) to be 10-23rd power times larger than the observable Universe.

By material standards, in our observable Universe, we are real enough, but in our theoretical one we are nothing at all.

Same as the case against homeopathy.

NEXT: Implausible as it may seem . .

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

Homeopathy Beyond Myopia

Homeopathy, the legal view.

The case against it picks up steam

Here we go again . .

After 200 years of phenomenal growth, clinical use for over 70,000 symptoms and superior results in epidemics and popularity among loyal users, there is still great opposition, it would seem, to homeopathy.

Here’s the latest. Apparently some jurist pedant in Australia has just discovered homeopathy, and a well known critic of homeopathy is trying to take it to the bank . . again.

They just don’t get it . . it would seem.

There’s obviously some money in naysaying and pretending to be stupid. The fact of the matter is homeopathy is an obvious threat to the pharmaceutical industry. Not as a competitor . . as a destroyer. The homeopathic pharmacopoeia, which now includes over 3,000 remedies, can’t be patented, is easily manufactured, sold and used for an Avogadran fraction of what patent medicine can get capitalizing on the fear that nothing else but their patented crap can possibly stop your cancer or dire disease. So it’s quite understandable that what maddens the opponents of it is that homeopathy actually cures people of their ailments, something that their “medicine” can’t claim.

Now before we get down and dirty in hand to hand combat in this war of lancets, allow me to wax a while profane . .

Certainly not homeopathy . . they say. But I say there wouldn’t be a mass health crisis of such magnitude if people, practitioner and patient, turned to homeopathy for the cure of ills. No, if homeopathy wa the common medicine of choice the disaster would be a financial one for the pharmaceutical drug manufacturers, a debacle the magnitude of which has not been seen since the Great Asteroid strike they say killed all the dinosaurs .  .

(Actually I think it was something else, but the putative myth provides an understandable allegory most everyone can enjoy)

You get my meaning . . don’t you?

The major complaint fed and fostered and carefully cultivated about homeopathy is that it is implausible. This of course is a myth, for what may be implausible in theory becomes a reality in practice. Most of this impotent ejaculating seems to come from people who can’t ignore the implausibility factor and are too scared (for fear of being proved wrong) to put it to the test. So what they say is that because it shouldn’t work, it doesn’t work, and this is what drives them into using the Luddite’s tongue of shouldn’t be.

Read here what some unidentified Australian barrister and professor of law recently wrote:

“Until such time as homoeopathy can scientifically justify its fundamental
tenets, which seems inconceivable by measures such as objective peer review,
double blind testing and proper replication of processes and outcomes, it
cannot be said that its claims for therapeutic efficacy can be justifiable.
This leaves the profession not just exposed to criticisms, such as were
enunciated in the cases referred to above, but potentially open to consumer
protection actions directed toward whether its representations are false,
misleading and deceptive, to civil litigation when its promises have not
been fulfilled, and especially when persons have died, and to criminal
actions in respect of the financial advantage that is obtained by its
practitioners from their representations.”

Okay, that’s enough. I’d regurgitate the rest of it for you here, but there’s no way for me to wake you up when you’re done reading it. Insomniacs can click on the link above.

Suffice it to say this kangaroo jurist goes on saying much the same thing, you can read it for yourself if you have an alarm clock, that’s what I used. But for the rest of you I must say, for a continent populated by descendants of a criminal class . . British bread stealers, pickpockets and debt slaves . . you’d think they’d be able to come up with better anti-homeopathy lawyers than this . . but then again he’s only a professor, those who can’t do teach  and doesn’t have to make his living actually putting his theory to the test.

Ring a bell?

NEXT: The case against the case against homeopathy.

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

PS: I put the names  of Ben Goldacre,  PZ Myers, Neil degrasse Tyson here because I think they should read this too. And I include the names of James Randi and  Edzard Ernst because I think they shouldn’t.

It would inflame them.