Homeopathy or Homoeopathy?

The Difference Between

Homeopathy and


For your edification

by John Benneth

Homeopathy literally means “similar suffering.” Homoeopathy means “same suffering.” The difference may seem perplexing in that Hahnnemann condemned the use of homeopathy and endorsed homoeopathy

If you’ve been following my blog you may have noticed that my writing since October has been making use of another spelling of homeopathy . . homoeopathy. This may appear to be no more a deference to archaic typography or style, but it actually reveals yet another critical misunderstanding of the doctrine made by many, and so before I sink any deeper into the subject, a notation herein is made that leads to a deeper insight into curative medicine.

It is one of the great ironies that the two words refer to similar, yet subtly different concepts. And so I must say, that as much as this may be upsetting to the homeocognoscenti, the difference is critically important in understanding the proper use of the materia medica.

October 23, 2013 the legendary physicist and statistician Dr. Rolland Conte [1] sent me the following quote of Samuel Hahnemann:

“I will only speak of those who have written homeopathy and homeopathic instead of homoeopathy and homoeopathic. With this they demonstrate that they do not know the substantial difference between homoios and homoousios, and they believe both words are synonyms. Would they have never heard speaking of that what the whole world knows, the separation into two irreconcilable branches generated in the past in the Christian church, by the infinite difference between homoios and homoousios ? Would they sufficiently have ignored the ancient Greek language for not to know that homoios means similar and homoousios analogue ? Never ever has homoeopathy claimed to heal the illnesses through the same power as the one that generates them ; she wishes to achieve it through a power which is not at all identical, but only analogue, through a medicine that can only produce a morbid state analogue to the illness.” [2]

Leave it to Dr. Conte to reveal to me something others seem to have missed . . at least so far on the WWW: I ran a search on the Hahnemann quote to see who else might be clued in on this and have some commentary, but did not find it, it was nowhere posted that I could see. LOL, Conte is the maestro, always a thorn in the side of the real pseudoscientists here and “homeopathy” alike.

While everyone is looking the other way Conte has been the one who starts blazing a trail into unknown territory, as he did with NMR and beta scintillation studies of “homeopathic remedies” . . if we can keep calling them that, the subject of yet another blog on ionized pharmaceuticals . .

So, in the second month of 2014, let it be known “homeopathy,” according to Hahnemann, is merely putative and wrong, except more likely to be picked up by the search engines, whereas homoeopathy is correct and less likely to be used . .

Unwilling to let this seeming anomaly go by without attacking from all sides, I went to the dictionary to see if I could unravel this confusion. According to Webster, homoio = homeo, and means similar . . whereas homoousios= homoeo, and means the same!

Similia similibus curentur, i.e. “like cures like” has always been the rule for the selection of remedies in “homeopathy,” and now here Hahnemann is suggesting eadem idem sanat . . ? “same cures same?”

This appears to be a contradiction. Hahnemann’s reference to homoeo as analogous led me to check its definition, and here I found the key to the puzzle. The second definition of analogous is the biological one, and this makes an important if not final distinction, clearing up the difference between homeopathy and homoeopathy.

Biologically speaking, analogous, or homoeo-, means “similar in function, but different in origin . . or structure.
I take this to mean then that a horse, a car and a blimp are all analogous in that whereas they have different origins and structures, they are all used for transportation and therefore similar in function.
The Indians in the Pacific Northwest, for example, saw the wolf and the killer whale as the same spirit, or essence, in that as pack predators they behaved in the same way, and had similar voices.

It should be reiterated here that both homeopathy and homoeopathy are applicative strategies and do not specifically refer to highly diluted, solid, liquid, gaseous or ionized medical materials per se, but rather how they are used in the treatment of disease.

What is going on here is that the suffering, i.e. the symptoms, are being confused with the curative agent . .
Now granted, at least in my case, it can be confusing regarding the difference between same, analogue and similar, which one might ascribe to being due to the translation from French to English and the nuance between “similar” and “analogue.”
But I think we can dismiss that as being irrelevant.
I used to assume that the difference between homeo- and homoeo was merely typographical, that both words were different spellings of the same meaning. Until Conte sent me the quote from Hahnemann, I did not know that they are two separate words, and actually two different religions.
The Christian homiosians (homeogogues) believed God and Christ to be of similar substance , . . whereas the homoousians (homoeogogues) believed God to be one and the same substance, or essence.

Hahnemann is an authority who is not easily contradicted. He was a professional translator of scientific and medical texts, spoke a dozen languages, and as a young man worked in one of the oldest medical libraries in Europe and Transasia, which still stands in Sibiu, Romania, so we might expect this kind of neologistic hair splitting from him, but . .

Talk to you later if not sooner,


1. Rolland R. CONTE, Henri BERLIOCCHI, Yves LASNE, Gabriel VERNOT Theory of high dilutions and experimental aspects, Polytechnica 1996, Paris, ISBN 2-84054-046-02.
2. Samuel HAHNEMANN, Etudes de Médecine Homoeopatiques, page 281, Editions Baillière, Paris, France 1855



Now I know it doesn’t sound quite right. To some it may even sound pretty stupid. To others . . crazy. And yet still to others a fraudulent pitch, and to new, enlightened old souls the dangerous, cold truth.

There are certainly more sophisticated ways of saying it, but you must concede, none quite so tantalizing and none quite so succinct . . or true.

And when you really put y0ur nose into it, study it, think about it . . it makes perfect sense.

Diseases are radio transmissions.

There are different ways of saying it. I once got Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer on the phone to ask him where he was getting the ridiculous crap he was publishing about homeopathy in the Skeptics Dictionary, and would he be interested in seeing what the material sciences were saying, and he agreed. But when I touched on the physico-chemical composition of the remedy, he fired back, “What is it?”

I knew what he was asking me, but to paraphase his question to be more explicit, he wanted to know what was the identifiable mechanism of the homeopathic remedy.

It’s a fair question, and supra to me I don’t know the homeopath who could answer it.

But what I fired back at him is “it’s radioactive.”

I think he spit his teeth out.

Now I know calling homeopathic remedies “radioactive” isn’t the best thing politically to say, but I’ll hang by it, committedly as well as Messianically.  The pro-homeopaths don’t want “radioactive” to be the answer, and the anti-homeopaths don’t want any answer at all, at least not one that makes sense.

But its not so tough to concede that matter is basically nothing more than  intermolecular forces, energy pretending to be intransigent. We know by our Geiger counters and beta scintillators that matter gives off a signal. What we don’t seem to know, or want to know, is that the material signal, its radioactivity, can be replicated with hydrogen bonded oxygen atoms to form liquid aqueous structures that replicate the matter from which they came, and which in turn projects a a unique eletromagnetic signal (radiation) representative of the matter from which the polymorphic aqueous structure.

This is a new biological model for medicine. It is a model that has been in the works now for 200 hundred years, and I’m so happy to be able to humbly unveil it for you here today.


The discussion of homeopathy has shown little recognition of the literature ’til now. But once encountered, only the self deluded can conclude that the effects of supramolecular medicine, as used in homeopathy, are purely psychogenic. (1)


This is a real word, not a misspelling of ‘supermolecular.’ It is not often seen . . yet. Supramolecular means “beyond the molecule,” any organized system of two or more molecules held together by intermolecular forces. Even homeopathy’s most strident critics must concede that the word supramolecular is definitive for the homeopathic remedy, as they are always talking about Avogadro’s Constant, where the intended solute has dropped out because the solution has gone beyond the molecular limit of dilution.

Supramolecular chemistry is the study of chemical systems made up of a discrete number of assembled molecular subunits or components. Hahnemann, as revealed in the quote towards the end of this article, knew that the mechanism of the remedy was essentially intramagnetic. He simply lacked more precise definitions at the time to describe it.  Putative science had to catch up.

So technically then, that’s what it is, that’s the description of the homeopathic remedy.  The next question pertaining to that then is, how do we know that a solution is supramolecular?

Can dilutions beyond Avogadro be physically identified?


A review of the material science literature relevant to homeopathy and the memory of water was co-authored in 2007 by four top American material scientists. They were led by one of the most decorated and respected scientists of our time, Prof. Rustum Roy of Penn State University (2)

Roy’s landmark paper asserts that the claim there is no difference in composition between a homeopathic remedy and the pure water used in it is “wholly incorrect.” (2)

Just as in law, in science the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. Roy says “The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent (2).


Of course, critics can’t prove there is no difference because Roy proved there was (3).

In 2007 Witt released a landmark review of a more than half century of biochemical tests of homeopathy (4).

Critics have tried to dismiss this review through Witt’s statement that “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.”

Critics always leave out the preceding statement, hoping no one will notice: “Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies.”


Consider for a moment, if the STABLE standard of effectiveness critics howl for homeopathy were demanded of allopathic drugs, there wouldn’t be any!

Where are these strident critics of homeopathy when daily we hear of untested allopathic drugs causing death and harm?

This is why homeopathics are U.S. FDA approved and accepted by the U.K.’s NHS.


But wait, there’s more! In 2009 the pseudo scientists were set back on their heels with a stunning blow from one of the world’s highest medical authorities when an odd study was released by a Nobel laureate virologist (5)

Luc Montagnier’s extraordinary work claimed that substances of the type use in homeopathy, bassed on what seemed to be nothing more than pure water were actually physically identifiable and emitted a seemingly impossible electromagnetic (EM) signal starting at 1 kH. Even more startling, this strange water was able to form similar liquid aqueous structures mimicking bacterial DNA that were inadvertently transmitted, like radio, without physical contact, to SEPARATE CONTAINERS of water!

If you throw this on top of the materia media, it makes a pretty big heap of evidence for the biological action of the remedy.

This will take some time for the world to assimilate. It confirms what immunologist and homeopathy investigator Jacques Benveniste announced in his notorious lecture at the Cavendish where he announced the EM paradigm for disease (6).

Benveniste/Montagnier conclusion: DISEASES ARE RADIO TRANSMISSIONS

The 21st century handwriting is written on the monitor. There is now no turning back for science from the new evidence for homeopathy.


Roy, for example, defers to Prof. Martin Chaplin of London Southbank University as “the guru of water.” In his June 2010 article on the memory of water, Prof. Chaplin writes, “Water does store and transmit information, concerning solutes, by means of its hydrogen-bonded network.” (6)

This is the most important statement of our age, relevant to medicine.


Polymorphic structural and electromagnetic evidence for the action of high dilutes in the 21st century bears witness to similar concordant speculations by the founder of homoeopathy in the 19th:

“The steel needle itself becomes magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetizes other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowed previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small pox or measles, that is, infects at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. Purely specific, conceptual influences from one child to another small pox or measles works in the same way the magnet communicates to a nearby needle its magnetic properties. (8)


If homeopathy is a delusion, then it is a grand one tricking governments and countless medical doctors and their patients alike. If it is not, and most assuredly it is not, then the delusion belongs to its critics!

(If you can’t accept this you have a serious problem with cognitive dissonance.)


The evidence all leads down the same old dusty corridor to the assizes: If a case could be made for homeopathy being fraud, it would have been made in courts of law long ago.

Now, with new support from the material sciences, the case for ending the practice of homeopathy is dead.

Now, with search engines and PUBMED, the evidence is perspicuous.


The card house of traditional overdosing with synthetic chemicals by allopathic “medical” dinosaurs is collapsing under the increasing gravity of supramolecular EM medicine.

Say goodbye to the old chemo-medical paradigm. Say hello to the new curative medicine: Homeopathy.

The John Benneth Journal, October 14th, 2011.

Tough problem? Seen it all, physical, mental.
Call for free homeopathic consultation 503 819 7777

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

1. DEMANGEAT: Evidence for an air-dependent supramolecular organization of water Jean-Louis Demangeat – 16/11/2009 http://www.guna.it/news.php?id=311
2. ROY Materials Research Innovations 9-4: The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy

3.) ROY AUDIO/PP How Homeopathy Works http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU5ukds8G8o&feature=channel_video_title
4.) WITT: Complementary Therapies in Medicine (2007) 15, 128–138 The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies – A systematic review of the literature
5.) MONTAGNIER: Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81-90 Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences https://commerce.metapress.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.pdf&sid=byqfa245i3bq5t554jwzsd45&sh=www.springerlink.com

6.) BENVENISTE: March 10, 1999, video of Jacques Benveniste Cavendish lecture Electromagnetically Activated Water and the Puzzle of the Biological Signal. http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/871684
7.) CHAPLIN: Memory of Water, http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory.html
8.) HAHNEMANN; The Organon of Medicine, 6th edition, Aphorism 11. http://medicinegarden.com/homeopathy/Aphorism_11.htm