HOMEOPATHY EVIDENCE CHECK 2010

Here we go again. Journal arguer MADGAV writes about “Evidence Check,” the Parliament hearing held last year in the UK, condemning homeopathy:

“As the Science and Technology Committee concluded:

‘In our view, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebos.’

“In response to the various submissions from homeopathic organisations they added:

‘We regret that advocates of homeopathy, including in their submissions to our inquiry, choose to rely on, and promulgate, selective approaches to the treatment of the evidence base as this risks confusing or misleading the public, the media and policymakers.’

Okay, that’s definitely a gotcha for the opponents of homeopathy, if it has any creidb ility to it. So let’s take a closer look at it.
Here is the review of the House of Commons report by Earl Baldwin of Bewdsley, of the Upper House , entitled, “Observations on the report Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee,” dated February 2010.

Lord Bewdley writes,

“2.3. The exaggeration by the Committee of Shang’s conclusions is worrying. It is difficult to see how a weakly supported positive effect, for which one explanation (possibly well-founded) is a placebo effect, can be translated into a conclusive demonstration of this effect, with a “devastatingly” negative finding. No such firm claims can be found in Shang, who writes of finding “no strong” evidence, or “little” evidence, and who ends his paper with cautions about methodology and about the difficulty of detecting bias in studies, as well as the role of possible “context effects” in homeopathy.

“2.4. The Committee’s overstatement is not helped by claiming Government support for its interpretation in paragraph 70, based on the Minister’s concession of no “credible” evidence that homeopathy works beyond placebo. If he meant persuasive evidence – and his guarded support for further research [75] supports this – that shows a confusion by the Committee between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. If however he was saying that all evidence was negative, this as Prof. Harper correctly stated [71] runs counter to the
message from most reviews up to and including Shang, which is one of primary studies of insufficient quantity, rigour, size, homogeneity and power to give clear-cut answers.”

In addition, a review of the literature in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education concurs with the Bewdley review. This review says Shang “has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels. Of particular concern, the researchers eliminated 102 of 110 homeopathic trials and based their conclusions on only the 8 largest high-quality trials without clearly identifying the criteria by which these trials were selected or the identity of these trials. Odds ratios calculated before the exclusions (on all 110 trials) do not support their ultimate conclusion that homeopathic interventions are no better than placebo.
Google,
Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07
Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?
Teela Johnson, HonBSc and Heather Boon, BScPhm, PhD
University of Toronto, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy

Bewdley, supported by Johnson, raises a serious question about the bias in the House of Commons assessment that can be easily seen in unbiased reviews by truly critical reviewers of homeopathy, such as the pharmacists and Bewdley of the Upper House. Why did the Committee rely on a meta analysis known to be spurious? That’s a huge admission. Is that why Evan Harris, who led the the hatchet job, lost his seat in Parliament?
What I, John Benneth, am presenting here is leading to a criminal indictment of Harris, Goldacre, Ernst and a host of others, to be presented in my next blog.
Read on. It gets worse for the homeopathy haters. Bewdley goes on to say,

“5.2. It is not easy to see why a journalist doctor (Ben Goldacre) was invited to appear in preference to some other non-representative contributors to the inquiry. The written submission by Dr. Goldacre [Ev. 8] was notably short on supporting evidence, but contained unqualified statements on the ineffectiveness of homeopathy, forcefully expressed (“extreme quackery” was mentioned). By contrast, the submission by the Complementary Medicine Research Group from the Department of Health Sciences at the University of York presented a wellargued summary with 68 references [Ev. 143]. In this appears the statement

“To date there are eight systematic reviews that provide evidence that the effects of homeopathy are beyond placebo when used as a treatment for [five childhood conditions]”. This claim from a mainstream academic centre, rated joint first nationally for health services research in the latest Research Assessment Exercise, stands in stark contradiction to Prof. Ernst’s referenced claims, noted above, and to Dr. Goldacre’s unreferenced statements. It would have been illuminating if the Committee had probed the Group about this, face to face as a witness, and attempted some resolution before agreeing in unequivocal terms with the two witnesses who were invited to appear and were quoted favourably.
“ The Committee criticised the supporters of homeopathy for their ‘selective approaches’ to evidence [73]. They could fairly be accused of the same.
Unfortunately they did not (presumably) have the scope to solicit the views of Dr. Linde from Germany, which would have differed from those of Prof. Ernst with regard to the evidence.”

Wow! This guy Bewdley paints the anti-homeopathy clowns out to be a pack of sleazy scheming liars.
Of the evidence the Committee reviewed, Bewdsley says in 7.1,

“The Committee however has been less than rigorous in its approach to this evidence. Its choice of witnesses favoured a medical media opponent of homeopathy over a research centre of excellence. It was unwise to rely heavily on the interpretations of one professor of CAM (Edzard Ernst), some of whose statements are unsound or in conflict with other statements of his, and who is not without his critics in the worlds of research and academia whose views were given less prominence. The 2005 review by Shang et al has been inaccurately represented as ruling out specific effects of homeopathy, in a summary statement by the Committee that goes beyond present evidence.

“The Committee’s own statements show confusion between unconvincing evidence of a specific effect and disproof of it. The true risk profile of homeopathy, compared with conventional treatment, was not considered.

“7.2. These limitations make the Committee’s report an unreliable source of evidence about homeopathy. The jury must still be regarded as out on its efficacy and risk/ benefit ratio. Whether more research should be done, and of what kind, is another question. But there can be no ethical objection to it since the principal questions.”
You guys are getting fined billions for the poison you’re peddling,, and you’re busy trying to make some other form of legal medicine look bad? What’s wrong with you? Are they paying you to post the crap you’re writing or are you just naturally stupid?
Madgav, why are you doing this? This is a serious matter. If you really believe in what you’re digging up and writing about, then why aren’t you using your real name in presenting it?
Is “Madgav” what he appears to be, a shill for allopathy?
The oppostion to homeopathy is not about belief. It’s about getting paid.
If “Madgav” is not as stupid as he’s making him or herself out to be, then how does he reconcile these two groups, one a recognized legal doctrine supported by tradition and law, and the other representing opposing interests that rely solely on known fabrications? Real medicine vs. the Evil Empire of racketeers, merchants of death.
Answer in the next blog . .
Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

CAN SCIENCE PROVE HOMEOPATHY? Similia

A Journal commentator who goes by the name Madgav writes:

It does sound as though you’re suggesting that, because science does not explain everything, we should act as though it explains nothing.

“Like produces like. Dogs come from dogs, humans from humans, etc.
Like attracts like. We don’t see that humans are attracted to monkeys, apart from a few exceptions and that in a very limited way.
Like imitates like. We don’t see the donkey playing lion.
Like cures like, as homoeopathy always proves.
Like neutralises like. The antidote will always neutralise the effect of the previous remedy.”

This was a particularly interesting series of assertions:

To clarify then, your ‘like comes from like’ comment would seem at odds with evolution (dolphins coming from terrestrial mammals etc). ‘Like attracts like’ you already debunked… ‘like imitates like’ denies mimicry and ‘like neutralises like’ seems to ignore the basic principles of chemistry (for example, acid neutralising base).

Obviously ‘like cures like’ is a central tenet of homeopathy. But I have yet to see anyone with vomiting respond better with ipecac than they do with metoclopramide.

Could you perhaps expand on your thoughts here? Your post did read like a ‘stream of consciousness’ and a little clarification would perhaps aid comprehension.

John Benneth responds

Dear Madgav,

Actually, what I’ev been saying to both the ske[ptic andhomeoapth alike is that homeopathy can be explained in terms of classical science. Not quantum, but nuts and bolts material science, and that if you look for it, you can find examples that simply haven’t been hooked up to homeopathy yet. 

It is the prevailing assumption of those who oppose homeopathy, and most homeopaths have unfortuantely believed them.

I have rule: Don’t believe the opposition. Not a word. They’re either stupid or flat out lying, the second includes the first. That it is idiopathic, that its principles cannot be found outside of it in classical science, is a lie that has been racing around now for decades.

Reception follows not without knock: Whether or not homeopathy can be explained by the material sciences is one of the world’s most important questions, for if such elegance, surviving the relentless attack of allopathy, can at last be described in the language of classical science, then the stage is set for a massive shift in the practice of  internal medicine. The only way to know is to ask. Is there a classic analog to similia similibus curentur? The door opens. There is.  The action of llike cures like can be seen chemically and energetically, as well as biologically.
Madgav here, for example has already stuck his neck out about it. He assumes there isn’t anything in the normal view of it that could  explain the Hahnemannian hypothesis that like cures like, even though he’s unoubtedly heard that y0u can fight fire with fire, and he’s probably been told numerous times to pick on somebody his own size, because if he would, he’d get his clock cleaned, as I’m about to do.

Water is the universal solvent, technically a polar protic solvent. In chemistry, observing the aciton of solvents we see that like dissolves like. In that more people who want to argue the paradox of homeopathic medicine aren’t aware of these principles or simply haven’t applied what they know from observing and experiencing it, shows a basic error in allopathic thinking, that errors must always be corrected by the mass action of opposing forces.

Protic means that it is capable of donating a hydrogen ion. Polar means that it is has magnetically opposing poles, the hydrogen end of the water molecule having two positives, the opposite end two negative ones. We also know that the simillimum principle in homeopathy of like cures like also has an analog in the magnetic law that says opposites attract, while like repels like.

Vaccines are a prime examples of the use of non-dynamized type of homeopathy, although it would tehcnically be called isopathy, treating disease with an indetical agent.  which in the dynamic form is sometime used by homeoapths to open a case. isopahty works, but poorly compared to homeopathy. (Hahnemann, Hering)
The action of similia, in biology, is seen as a phenomenon called hormesis, also expressed as the Arndt Schultz law. Poisons that kill in large amounts have been found to stimulate in small amounts, which is exactly what Hahnemann discovered after cutting down material dosages of the substances used as medicines during his day
It was due to the abuses of the allopathic approach, which tries to correct problems by overwhelming them with substances that produce opposite symptoms, that led Hahnemann, an accomplished allopathic physician and chemist, to start cutting back dosages to his patients. This was after had  left the practice of medicine entirely,  in disgust, after seeing what the allopathic approach did to his patients.  But love of his children, and demand for his services is what led him back to medicine to begin experimenting with lighter dosages.
What he discovered was that even when by drastic dilution he had cut the dosage back to practically nothing, people were still reacting to it. Even when adminstering remedies that were well above the molecular limit, Hahnemann was disturbed to see people still aggravated by them. Only in the last years of his career in the developement of the fifty millesimal scale did he find a posology that appeared to be consistent with his oath to do no harm.

Early on Hahnemann  discovered that dilution of substances, which in their whole material form we’re medically inert, when made into crytallized extractions  by succussion and dilution became effective drugs with properties unsupected in their gross material form.
Lycopodium, made from the spores of the club moss, is a good example of dynamic caenogenesis, the creation of new symptomology from an inert substance by potentization. When dynamized, Lycopodium causes symptoms unknown in its gross form.  Dynamized Lycopodium, by the way, is what I see as the cyberskeptic’s remedy. The issues for cyberskeptics are bullying, cowardice and impotence, symptomology Lycopodium addresses, and is one of the Western world’s most common remedy patterns. Politicans, scientists, managers, American males have a great  number of Lycopodium types among them. According to Philip Bailey, MD, author of “Homeopathic Psychology,” you can walk into a science classroom and every one of them will be a Lycopodium. I have seen something similar, as has Kaviraj. I suspect, however, that genius level scientists are not Lycopodium, and I think BDJ is a prime example. 

Perhaps whoever is doing the chemtrail operation could be induced to add in a little . . oh,  never mind.  I myself have been characterized as a Lycopodium, although I have found Sulphur to have more dramatic relief. In review of my videos, one homeopath, noting drastic character changes in  presentation, said my simillimum appears to be molybdenum . . I have found that to be very insightful. Some of these homeopaths, like Kaviraj or Dr. Shashi Sharma of Hahnemann College in London, are so experienced they can see a person’s simillimum within moments of meeting them.
So now you have three natural orthodox corollaries of the central medical theme of homeopathy, one that is chemical and the other electromagnetic, and seen some examples of it.
Similia can be applied with having to use homeopathic remedies. Cooks know that when burned, if they hold the burn back over the heat briefly, it will help it to stop hurting quicker. If you have a cough, try a smoking a little tobacco. If you’re cold, try taking a cold shower . . or if hot, a hot one.
Similia suggests a whole new way of dealing with the world. Pushing the paradigm a little further is a good way to get it to correct itself.

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

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

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

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

I CHALLENGE EDZARD ERNST: Part Two

In my last blog, I issued a challenge to a key figure in the case against homeopathy. For every scientific study that shows the biological action of the high dilutes used in homeopathic practice, let him show one that proves it’s a placebo.

Edzard Ernst writes a column in the popular press. His scientific papers are mostly reviews of other people‘s work, such as his “Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy.” He doesn’t get his hands dirty like Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queens College in Belfast did when she replicated the basophil degranulation test. He not only avoids doing biochemical and biological tests that disprove placebo, he avoids reviewing them. Edzard Ernst just sticks to bad mouthing clinical trials of homeopathy. That way the placebo charge sounds more reasonable. Saying that non cellular systems or lymphocytes can respond to a bedside manner or homeopathic interview doesn’t make much sense, so Ernst pretends there are no pre-clinicals worthy of conisderation. He mostly references either his own previous reviews or those of others who conclude homeopathic placebo and bypasses the intrinsic contradictions.

He claims there is no evidence for homeopathic verum (intrinsically potent, opposite placebo) on the basis that it is not perfect, without stating what the standards are. He does this without addressing studies that show physical distinctions and biological action between solvent verum and the inert vehicle. When confronted with these pre-clinicals, Ernst pushes them aside for lack of credibility on account of some flaw so egregious that reason must transcend any attempt to replicate them. He characterizes specific biological effects in a solvent lacking an expected heterogeneous guest to match them so preposterous that the procedural flaws of pre-clinical tests only highlight the inevitable missing molecule.

Therefore, says Ernst, any result of a physical, biochemical or biological test that shows the action of the substances in question must be the result of the witness’s misperception, bias or deception.
But there is something wrong with this.
Positive assertions are made by both sides of the argument. I say homeopathy is supported by science, both empirically and rationally and the case for homeopathy is complete. He will say it is not. Fine. That’s his opinion. He will say there can not be any real evidence of intrinsic action because there is no scientific explanation for it. Okay, but its not as though we’re empty handed on that score either. We can show that the recorded electromagnetic emissions of the crystalliferous homeopathic solvent is distinguishable from its vehicle, the inert non-crytalliferous solvent. He will say this is nonsense.  Alright, that’s his opinion again, also unsupported by any reference but his own, but we can also show the electromagnetic effects of homeopathics on six different types of biochemical testing, and in tests on cancerous cells. He will repeat his assertion that there is no scientific theory. No, that’s wrong. We can explain liquid aqueous structuring and how it relates to electromagnetic action using supramolecular chemistry and electronics. He’ll say this is all hogwash. Whatever. But . . .
Next: HOW DOES HE KNOW?

COMING SOON: From John Benneth . . The World’s FIRST COMPLETE (& understandable) EXPLANATION for the PHYSICO-CHEMICAL MAKE UP of the HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY and HOW IT WORKS!

I CHALLENGE EDZARD ERNST and the Evil Empire at Exeter

It was suggested recently that the Evil Empire’s professor of not so complementary medicine at the University of Exeter Edzard Ernst must have hated his father.
If I was Edzard Ernst, I’d certainly hate my father too for having raised such a despicable son. What Edzard Ernst is doing is unconscionable, unprofessional and unethical. He has become nothing more than a stooge for the criminal interests of allopathy, he has furthered the interest of racketeers, and this series sets out to prove it.
If you think this is unwarranted, libelous and  sensational, read on for the proof, because its true. It’s coming, and Ernst and Exeter both are going to get creamed for it.
It is clear Ernst is a mercenary who has sought to sabotage complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Name one good thing the man has had to say about CAM?

I haven’t heard it.

Edzard Ernst says that complementary medicine in Germany and Austria is mostly practiced by qualified physicians. He claims he began his medical career at a homeopathic hospital in Munich and has practiced homeopathy, but has never completed a course in it.

What?
The man is a fraud. Keep reading here and I’ll show you why.
He argues that “Complementary and Alternative Medicine” (“CAM”) is an almost nonsensical umbrella term, and yet he enjoys the distinction of being its first chair, the first in the world you say at the Peninsular Medical School at the University of Exeter. He does not perform clinical trials there to prove his “placebo hypothesis” for homeopathy. No! He complains of lack of funding, yet he is perfectly comfortable making the claim that homeopathy is a placebo, that that is what it is, while ignoring the pre-clincials that prove it wrong.

In April 2010 the German National Association of Homeopathic Physicians published an interview with Professor Edzard Ernst in its newsletter where he claimed he “acquired the prerequisites” to be able to add ‘homeopathy’ to his medical title “but never applied for the title.”

Oh really?

In Germany, where homeopathy is regulated, it is a prerequisite to have passed an exam by a governing medical council, which Ernst did not do.

GNAHP: “So is it correct that you did not acquire the additional medical title ‘Homeopathy’ but took further medical education courses in homeopathy? If yes, which ones?”
ERNST: “I never completed any courses.”

Began his career at a homeopathic HOSPITAL but never completed any courses in homeopathy in a country that regulates its use?

Practicing without a license the very medicine he now so conveniently despises?
And now he’s in England terrorizing the British?
The University of Exeter knew or should have known better. They are responsible for the inflammatory, anti-scientific and dangerous statements being issued by this man. What kind of “doctors” are they pumping out there? If they could  fathom the critical thinking of homeopathy this would have never happened.

That school would be better off licensing butchers than turning out doctors. Or assassins.

I challenge anyone from the University of Exeter to exonerate  their complicity with that degree mill in this obstructionism and their assault on human health. I challenge Professor Ernst, or any of his supporters, at the price of the Chair and compensation to me for having to bother with it, to back up Ernst’s prevarications against reputable medicine. This cesspool of “learning” is endangering the entire  human race with their iatrogenesis.  Exeter and its “Peninsular Medical School” must be taken to dire task for their complicity in this malfeasance. Either pony up the reputable science that confirms what Ernst is saying to be true, or be forfeit in reputation and pay for the consequences of the lies being told by Edzard Ernst.
I will meet Ernst, Exeter and the Evil Empire they esquire, science for science, study for study, that at the price of their placebo hypothesis proves homeopathy beyond the shadow of a doubt, and they will be unseated and they will pay. They will be unnerved and blasted, and the public will be shocked when they find out what the truth of the matter is.
Read here in subsequent blogs the gritty details of this challenge.
It’s time to take a blowtorch to this mess and end it once and for all.

UPDATE: Ernst is fired from Exeter after the Prince of Wales accuses Ernst of academic malfeasance . .

John BENNETH, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)

NEXT: I CHALLENGE EDZARD ERNST Part Two
https://johnbenneth.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/i-challenge-edzard-ernst-part-two/

COMING SOON: From John Benneth . . The World’s FIRST COMPLETE (& understandable) EXPLANATION for the PHYSICO-CHEMICAL MAKE UP of the HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY and HOW IT WORKS