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!

OR PLACEBOS . .

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

MONOPOLY OF FEAR

Risks make unnecessary vaccination statutory crime

A professor known for his relentless bashing of homeopathic and complementary medicine has recently made another useless jab in apparent favor of allopathic (non homeopathic) immunization against diseases that other authorities say are not only unnecessary, but criminal. 

Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary Medcine at the Unviesity of Exeter in Great Britain says, “A US team has just published the largest ever study of CAM providers’ attitudes towards vaccination [1]. They found that children receiving care from naturopathic physicians or chiropractors, during their first two years of life, were significantly less likely than their counterparts to receive the recommended immunizations against measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox or Haemophilus influenzae type b. Later in life, such children were more likely to suffer from a vaccine-preventable disease.”

The soemhwat lukewarm statement appeared after Ernst was challenged here to provide one study that proves homeopathy is a placebo.

So far no study, test or trial has materialized.

Of course, when they support allopathy, the old criminal’s references are supposed to be free of any of the criticism he levels on the studies that support homeopathy, but as usual, the study Ernst refers to is unavailable at this time online.
However, Kaviraj dug something up on the Child Health Safety blog here on WordPress that throws a wet blanket on Ernst’s sneering report: Ernst’s vaccinations are unnecessary, ineffective, and criminal!

“The measles mortality graphs . . contradict the claims of Government health officials that vaccines have saved millions of lives. It is an unscientific claim which the data show is untrue. Here you will also learn why vaccinations like mumps and rubella for children are medically unethical and can expose medical professionals to liability for criminal proceedings and civil damages for administering them.
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

Criminal proceedings? Against allopathic doctors? For mumps andmeasle needle jabs?
Yes!
The problem faced by modern medicine is a serious double-bind. Homeopathy does not have the financial incentives behind it that allopathy does, but allopathy, because of this very same thing, has become criminalized. I am not using that term vaguely, either. They’ve been convicted in the US under the RICO organized crime act. The pharmacetuical industry is a criminal enterprises that has been convicted of mass murder in a catch and release program by the U.S. government.
In the UK, providing treatment to a patient that is not clinically needed, and misleading patients as to the clinical need for a treatment so as to vitiate their consent, can mean the administration of the treatment is a criminal offence: Appleton v Garrett (1995) 34 BMLR 23.
According to The British Medical Association (‘BMA’) and The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) mumps vaccination is clinically inappropriate:-

“Since mumps and its complications are very rarely serious there is little indication for the routine use of mumps vaccine”: British National Formulary (‘BNF’) 1985 and 1986 Freedom of Information documents show the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and Ministry of Defence agreed as early as 1974 that:-
“there was no need to introduce routine vaccination against mumps” because complications from the disease were rare” JCVI minutes 11 Dec 1974.Doctors and nurses who fail to tell parents mumps vaccine in MMR is clinically unnecessary, of the exact risks of adverse reactions and then give the vaccine, appear to be behaving unethically, potentially in contravention of the criminal law and liable to civil proceedings for damages. They are also unable to explain the exact risks because data on adverse reactions are not being collected properly or at all, and there is evidence showing adverse reaction data are suppressed.
“A consequence is that giving MMR vaccine to children cannot be justified on clinical or ethical grounds. And as there is insufficient clinical benefit to children to introduce mass mumps vaccination, it cannot be justified as a general public health measure.”

The same reason that makes allopathy a criminal enterprise is the same reasons it is allowed to survive, which is because it is such a huge money making business, and that is because it is a monopoly of fear.
Homeopathy threatens that monopoly of fear with a truly doctored centered regime that makes use of a relatively simple, effective and safe medicine that can treat anyone with any disease.

The moment they admit the pre-clinicals for homeopathy, the tests that show the action of homeopathic remedies on non human subjects like plants and animals, allopathy not only loses it grip on the public throat, it doesn’t just fall to the place where it belongs, as a third rate medical treatment, its practitioners are in danger of being criminalized for using it. In the light of superior homeoapthic medicine it becomes clear that oppositional medicine is a dangerous treatment. It continues as a legal treatment because without an apparent alternative, allopathy appears necessary and vital to human health.

Ask for homeopathic treatment to prevent cancer and diabetes.

Try homeopathy, it works.