Hillary Clinton: Homeopathic Treatment of Pneumonia


Most people are generally unaware of a second, cryptic pharmacy approved of by the FDA, the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the U.S. (HPUS). It is virtually unknown for its amazing success in treating serious diseases like sepsis, cancer, diabetes, inflammation, hemorrhagic fevers like Ebola and Dengue and just about any other symptomatic condition. It is not well known in the West for several reasons: difficult to understand prescribing without a simple pro forma prescription scheme, some drugs treating thousands of symptom, and a track record deadly to the Evil Empire . .threatening predatory medicine’s claim to be the only internal medicine available . .

Yesterday it was announced that 2016 U.S. Presidential candidate took a fall; Hillary Clinton has pneumonia.

Sep. 11, 2016 NEW YORK (AP) — The Associated Press reports Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton abruptly leaves a 9/11 anniversary Sunday. feeling ‘overheated,’ according to campaign officials. Hours later her doctor discloses she has pneumonia.

Predatory medicine is not the only one that needs to be propped up . .

“A video showed Clinton slumping and being held up by three people as she was helped into a van after the event” the AP says.

Less than two months from Election Day . .

Is there a homeopathic cure for pneumonia? According to the U.S. Federal Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) regulating homeopathic drugs, there is.

It directs the reader to a comprehensive  reference base by John H. Clarke, M.D. which includes a “prescriber.”

Clarke: Pneumonia.

At the commencement, after a chill as from sudden lowering of temperature at sundown on high altitudes ; before physical signs are pronounced, pain, fever, anxiety, Acon. 3, 1h.
If the fever does not yield in 24 – 48h., Sul. 1 – 30, 2h.
With much congestion, Ver. v. 1 – 3, 1h.
When exudation has already occurred rusty sputa, (1) Phos. 3, 1h. ; (2) Tuberc. koch. 6 – 30, 4h.
Typhoid pneumonia, great nervous depression ; pneumonia coming on during the course of fever, Phos. 3, 1h.
Great prostration, thirst, anxiety, restlessness, Ars. 3, 1h.
Dry cough with concussion of whole chest ; oppression ; aching pain at night when waking ; dull stitches and burning pains left half of chest, Seneg. 1x – 30, 2h.
Pneumonia of one or both bases, gasping for breath, unable to lie down ; mind confused, typhoid condition, Carbon. ac. 1x – 30, 1 – 2h.
Pneumonia of delirium tremens ; catarrhal pneumonia ; broncho-pneumonia in children and old persons, Ant. tart. 3, 2h.
Pleuro-pneumonia, sharp pains caused by the least motion, > by lying on affected side, Bry. 3, 1h.
Pneumonia with liver involvement, jaundiced hue, bile-stained sputa, Chel. 1, 1h.
Right-side pneumonia, troublesome cough, difficult expectoration, short breath, Sang. 1, 1h.
Rusty expectoration, weakness, trembling, numbness of extremities, Phos. 3, 1h.
When the cough is especially troublesome at night, disturbing sleep, a few doses of Hyoscy. 3 may be given at half-hour intervals.
When a cough lingers after physical signs have disappeared, Sulph. 3, 4h.

Intercurrent doses of Bacil. 30 – 200 will help the other remedies.
When the lung does not clear after the acute stage is passed.
Ars. iod. 3x, gr. ii. immediately after food three times a day.
If the sputa are rusty, Phos. 3, 4h.
If there are sharp pains in chest on breathing or motion, Bry. 3, 4h.
If the expectoration becomes purulent, Hepar 6, 3h.
Yellowish-green expectoration, depression, unpleasant taste in the mouth, sluggish circulation, coldness, Lyc. 6, 2h.
Pneumonia in persons who suffer from bleeding hæmorrhoids, Hyper. 1x, 2h.
See also Consumption

For abbreviation definitions go to http://homeoint.org/books1/clarkeprescriber/index.htm


Critique attempts refutation of homosexual mortality study

Submitted by 4tis on 2011/10/30 at 8:53 am

A reader writes:

You ask for a refutation of your statistics. Let’s take the claim about life expectancy, which I assume is based on the Cameron obituary study. There are a number of critiques available that show that this study is extremely flawed, for example http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_obit.html
Why did you choose to accept what is a quite astonishing claim?

Dear 4tis:

Thank you very much for commenting on a difficult, critical subject . . and what has become a highly contentious and depressing one, too.

The kind of refutation I’m looking for I’m not finding in the Cameron critique . This is the sole denialist argument we see in attacks on homeopathy, attacks that build a case for placebo by finding methodological criticisms of tests for verum, i.e. claiming proof that homeopathic remedies are placebo because due to local (idiosyncratic) criteria tests for verum have failed .

The proper refutation is to answer the question, independently, using global criteria, avoiding the pitfalls named in the localized dismissal.

The question here is, what are the health differences and mortality rates between heterosexuals and homosexuals?

The refutation of the conclusion that homosexuals have twice the number of suicides and live  24 years less than average is based on nothing more than armchair analysis. Too easy. It’s massaging the data, twisting the facts.

This is 100% of the skeptic argument.

A proper refutation of the numbers is to go get your own. Answer the question using facts found by an independent, non biased survey.

What a new study might find is that gays live longer, happier lives. If those facts were available, then why aren’t they being used?

The answer is that no such conclusion exists. every study comes to the same conclusion. The gay lifestyle is a debacle!

Are the studies wrong? Then instead of poisoning your own well by discrediting existing studies,  find or do research that proves otherwise, and present that instead. Don’t equivoate, illustrate. If you don’t, it suggests you can’t without confirming what is already known.

I’ve seen it happen in every argument against homeopathy. They’re all built on nothing more than accusations, theory and complaint. It’s always a negative argument, it never presents positive information to support its case. It always turns out to be nothing more than those three monkeys.

Answer the relevant question. Don’t give me a negative opinion, give me a positive fact.

What is the average life span of a homosexual?

What is the suicide, misery index, income, drug an alcohol abuse? We’ve shown you 24 studies to support our conclusions, let’s see yours.

And if it isn’t important to know what it is, then why are you picking it apart the answer to the question if it was?

You ask the question, “Why did you choose to accept what is a quite astonishing claim?”

To say that it is an “astonishing claim’ is presumptive. What may be astonishing to some who are merely opining on it, whereas it may be prosaic to others who are actually dealing with it day to day.

Perhaps the reason you frame it as “astonishing” is a putative appeal, as if everyone should know it’s false, because that’s what you want everyone to believe, that this is an extraordinary, baseless claim, giving you an excuse to raise the bar on the evidence, supported by concordance, published in a serious psychiatric journal, supported by two dozen studies: The data is the same for countries where homosexuality is the norm and others where it isn’t.

An analysis in 2008 of 25 earlier studies on sexual orientation and mental health in the UK revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population. It also found that the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle.

The data is more global than the Cameron critique, which characterizes it as idiosyncratic, novel and biased. The conclusions for the high gay death and mental rates  are drawn from more than one study. The same conclusions are also suggested in a California study by Susan Cochran at the University of California, Los Angeles, also published in the open access journal BMC Psychiatry. Cochran reports that homosexuals seek treatment for mental health issues or substance abuse at a rate over two times higher than heterosexuals.

To be fair, the catch words in the Cochran study are “seek treatment” as opposed to ‘needing it but not doing something about it,” which seems typical of the usual macho approach by heterosexual men.

Cochran concludes that, “The pervasive and historically rooted societal pathologizing of homosexuality may contribute to this propensity for treatment by construing homosexuality and issues associated with it as mental health problems.”

However, there is a point entirely missed by the narrow refutation of Cameron. Critics of the accepted secular interpretation that mental illness in homosexuals is due to discrimination say that the numbers of homosexuals seeking help for mental and physical problems in countries where homosexuality has been “normalized,” are global, virtually the same as they are where homosexuality is openly condemned.

Homosexuality bigotry blames the reporter as the cause of problem, which is what I’m encountering here. Reporting information here and suggestions that homeopathic treatment may help reverse the condition is being construed by some as being the cause of it. This is typical allopathic thinking, to see symptoms as cause instead of what they really are: Direct observation reportage.

The global data refutes Cochran’s putative matching conclusion that the pathology of homosexuality comes from it’s condemnation by heterosexual society. What it suggests instead is that the pathologizing of homosexuality comes not from homophobes, but from covert victimization by its attendants, who have spread the belief that it needs no correction, the subtext being that homosexuals are stuck that way, when in fact there is evidence to the contrary.

Homosexuality is a cash cow for the allopathic psychiatry industry. The local fluoxetine pusher can always depend on gays to keep him in business. Curing homosexuality with homeopathy is as much a threat to the medical establishment as is curing any other disease.

The predators don’t want you well, they want you sick. They want you coming back for more of their junk so they can bleed you of everything you got.

Not every gay grows up gay. Some are made that way. Some women become Lesbians after their marriages to me go bad. Some men raise families, then turn . .

The occnditions assoicate with homosexulaty are curable with the individualied homeopathic remedy! Curative medicine works at the cellular level. The genesis of disease is unimportant. Symptoms are guides to the remedy.

Please see “Study: Homosexuals Twice as Likely to Seek Mental Health, Substance Abuse Treatment.”

John Benneth, Homeopath
Find your remedy. For consultation call:

503 819 7777

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter


Channeling Hahnemann . .

Free homeopathy for first responders, supported by the rest of us:  9/11 30C

“It was so dense as it subsided that I could hear the particles raining to the ground with a dry, hissing, crackling.

“It had enough pressure to get into just about anything,” said Lioy, who has studied extensively the 9/11 dust and its health effects.

International Asbestos Testing Labs of Mount Laurel, N.J., has tested thousands of other samples for the EPA .

IATL ran the samples through a number of tests including polarized light microscopy, analytical transmission electron microscopy and atomic absorption spectrophotometry.

Lab director Frank Ehrenfeld explained that they found what they expected: “a mixture of many components all very fine.”

The pH was characteristically high — 9.6 and 10.2 — which Newman said had probably decreased over the 10 years because of moisture.

“The dust cloud is a complex mix of hundreds — and possibly thousands — of chemical substances, a small portion of which we have a relatively good understanding of what was present, and the majority of which we don’t have any idea what it was,” said Dave Newman, an industrial hygienist with the New York Committee on Occupational Safety and Health.

About half the material was “non-fibrous” including polystyrene foam, vermiculite mineral, combustion product (carbon soot), mineral dust of gypsum, calcite, dolomite and quartz. The other half was fibrous material including “cellulose (wood and paper fragments), fibrous glass such as glass wool with yellow resin coating, Fiberglass, colorless mineral wool, refractory ceramic fibers, limestone, calcites, carbon fibers, synthetics (including fragments of cloth) and chrysotile asbestos associated with the lime and carbonate insulation debris.”

Find someone to take dust from the 9/11 disaster today (09/11/11) and at ground zero triturate with a pestle one part

9/11 dust in nine parts milk sugar for nine hours.

Then take one part of this mixture and triturate again for nine hours for a 2X, and repeat for a 3X.

I know this is late notice but I’m simply acting on the inspiration of the moment. Those who understand homeopathy and its pharmacy will understand the importance of this idea.

Make a mother tincture of of the 3X in distilled water, and serially dilute 1 to 100 thirty times to create a 30C, 200c an LM1. Fix with pear brandy in small eyedropper bottles.

Offer this mixture to First Responders who are suffering after effects for free and to everyone else for $30, including shipping and handling.

We need a non profit distribution plan to make this available to anyone who wants it.
Please contact me through this blog if you see the value in this . . immediately. Simply respond in the comment section and your registration email will be sent to me. I will then in turn send you contact information.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE ON THE DUST AT: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/09/september-11-dust-pocket-of-terror-911-anniversary_n_954582.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%7C94397

John Benneth, Homeopath

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


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 . . .


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.

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.

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