We have lost homeopathy’s greatest physicist

Rolland Conte, and the nuclear physics of homeopathy

The great French physicist and researcher of homeopathic dilutions, Rolland R. Conte, passed away July 6th, 2014. He was a noted statistician who made a major contribution to the understanding of the qualities of the materials used in homeopathic medicine.
He was the lead author of the controversial Theory of High Dilutions and Experimental Aspects  (THD). Published by Polytechnica, Paris, 1996, Paris) with co-authors Yves Lasne, Henri Berliocchi and Gabriel Vernot, THD is the most incredible book about the physics of homeopathy I have ever read. Conte was considered by some reviwers to be either an egotistical statistician or an unusual genius of physics. In Theory the authors postulated the existence of a hyperproton or “white hole,” wherein there is the absence of mass, the opposite of a black hole.
In support of Conte’s white hole theory, Professor Michael Kirkman, Director of Academic Affairs at the UKGB International Society of Homeotoxicology, writes, “It is of prime importance to evaluate scientifically what is contained in homoeopathic remedies. Due to the dilution-succussion process, the molecules are often diluted beyond existence. A residual wave develops that gives birth to ‘white holes’, ie, absence of matter, which in turn give birth to ‘hyperprotons’. The presence of hyperprotons is indicative of a reorganisation of the constituents of the diluent. They can be detected in the aqueous and biological media by measuring the negative radiation induced by the association of two hyperprotons.”
This part is pure Contonian physics.
The white hole and hyperproton theory does not necessarily conflict with current thinking that the mechanics of homeopathic solutions need cavitation of a material phase of the remedy material in its form as a gas, plasma, aether, isotope . . or perhaps . . a hyperproton of the remedy’s label, whatever your Physik may allow.
But Conte’s Theory was and is more than novel “theory.” There were also some novel results from experimentation. Led by Conte, the authors rolled up their sleeves and got their hands dirty putting the homeopathic remedy through test and trial, immersing themselves in the instrumental study of the physical properties of these mysterious materials. The fruit of their labors revealed unique dimensions of the remedy, most notably radiant qualities in the beta particle range, detected by using beta scintillation.
To my knowledge, the Lasne beta test by Conte et al has never been repeated.
There have been other types of physical tests measuring changes in the physical properties of dilutions used in homeopathy, such as dielectric strength, galvanic effects, light adsorption, Raman spectroscopy, black boxes and T1 and T2 spectra nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), but the Theory team is the only one to have used scintillators to detect beta radiation. Dr. Conte sent me pictures of where they had burned the image of an H and a P (for Hyper Proton) into x-ray film using homeopathic pellets, implying that they were, in essence, radioactive, a stunning challenge to the antagonist’s homeopathy null hypothesis, the skeptics theory that the materials used in homeopathy are inert.

But what other explanation for the super-Avogadro solvents used in homeopathic medicine other than a nuclear reaction could there be outside of a chemical reaction

In a chemical reaction  there is a change in the electron shell surrounding the atom; in a nuclear reaction it goes much deeper, the change is in the nucleus.

Take T2O, ditritium peroxide, also known as tritiated or super-heavy water, annotated long hand as 3H2O. The T in T2O stands for Tritium. Forgive me for what may seem like gratuitive emphasis, but what you are about to read is huge, irreparable crack in the caviling dike of opposition to homeopathy:  T2O is water that is organically, in the natural environment, been made radioactive by exposure to natural radiation.

T2O then is the perfect analog for the “homeopathic remedy.” The basic elements of superheavy water are the same as normal water. The difference is that within the nucleus of each of the two hydrogen atoms in T2O are two neutrons in addition to the single proton of protium (normal hydrogen). In other words, the addition to the protic nucleus of two neutrons could be construed as a single hyperproton.

If water can be made radioactive in the natural environment, why can’t it be made so artificially in succussion? In an artificial nuclear chain reaction T2O is compressed to act as a nuclear trigger to vause a plutonium core to explode. According to Roy (Structure of Liquid Water, 2007) pressures in the range of 10 kilobar are brought to bear in the creation of the diluted pharmaceuticals used in homeopathy by the process of succussion. And just like in a nuclear explosion, which vitrifies materials surrounding it into glass, so will liquid water, which has a molecular structure similar to glass,  structure molecules around  what appears to be cavitation during succussion in a process analogous to clathrates.

According to Conte, this is not a mere nano bubble of atmosphere as researchers beginning with Barnard in 1965 (Microdose Paradox) have suggested, but rather the hyperproton.

Puzzled in a review of Theory, John Lee wrote, “The Conte team have followed on from work by Moser (1987) and Demangeat (1992). The chaotic results of the T2 relaxation times using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance when subject to Conte’s mathematics reveal a phase displacement i.e. a potency maximum. Coming up with their method of measuring potency maxima was in my opinion genius. The implications of this are of great interest to homoeopaths as it suggests the possibility of remedies being standardised with a known potency maximum for each remedy.”

I first interviewed Conte in 1999, when he was in Australia organizing Medicine Quantale (MQL), a venture for the manufacture of homoeopathic remedies. Like anyone who makes a serious study of homoeopathy, Conte recognized Hahnemann as a genius of the stature of Einstein, except Hahnemann’s proto-nuclear discoveries were more than mere thought experiments, they were more than revelations such as relativity, they were collectively a medical epiphany, the prognosis of which have yet to be conventionally recognized.
At that time in 1999, when I first spoke to Conte in Australia, I asked him why he was investigating the physics of dynamic pharmaceuticals, and his response was that homeopathy had saved his life, and besides being curious, he was paying something back to it. Dr. Conte suffered from Parkinson’s. Well aware of the emissive qualities of homoeopathic remedies, for his diathesis he simply wore a bag of homoeopathic pilules of a particular remedy tied around his neck.
It doesn’t take even a tinge  of genius to recognize a real one. It just takes humility and a little math: Never before or since has any man or woman done anything on the magnitude of what Hahnemann did. Recognizing it, Conte was determined to divine its Nature in his own terms. Conte insisted that the medicines of MQL be grafted from the sugar in Hahnemann’s original kit, to be distributed in lead shielded containers to protect them from degradation in moving them through the graitational field.
One of his more notable achievements was the instigation of signal testing of urine for determining the remedy. Only Conte’s genius for statistical wave analysis could determine such a thing in the verum light of homoeopathy.
Using nuclear magnetic resonance imaging instrumentation (NMR) the Theory authors reported several influences on the potency of the homoeopathic remedy, such as heat, electromagnetism and UV, making a case for lead shielding; and gravity: According to Conte et al, from NMR analysis, moving a homoeopathic remedy through the planet’s gravitational field affected its quality, making a case for the use of materials of local manufacture.
It took years for me to comprehend that I was not alone in the structure of my disbelief. At first I found myself rejecting what I had been led to believe didn’t exist by homeopaths and skeptics alike. The technospeak of the instrumental test and biochemical invitro literature is neither easy to read nor understand. It’s like trying to walk in quicksand when you’re used to running on blacktop. Even with a dictionary I sometimes found myself stumped. So in 1999 when I began my study of the physical properties of homeopathic medicine and their effects on non human subjects, I had a hard time believing what I was reading, and subsequently  Rolland Conte became my only real friend in this world of the possible-impossible, he was my sole source of inspiration that spoke to me in a human voice. When most homeopaths were insisting such indices and effects were impossible, didn’t exist or didn’t matter if they did exist, Rolland Conte was rolling contrary.
One homeopath told me he’d prefer it if homeopathics were placebos, and I came to believe that most homeopaths felt the same way, and that they accepted the accusation of “placeboist” gratefully, for it added to their mystique and made for a cheap malpractice insurance policy. To break this deadlock in my own mind, Dr. Conte told me to test homoeopathy’s dynamic solutions on plants.
Given his encouragement I designed two simple kitchen tests, one using balloons placed over the openings of beer bottles that had been filled with aqueous solutions of yeast and sugar, and either a drop of liquid Staphysagria potency solution, made from a lactose sugar pill,  or the inert vehicle with the same amount of unpotentized sugar.
The potency solution showed a remarkable ability over the control to sustain a gas output, long after the yeast culture treated with the inert control solution had reabsorded the gas.
I then did a second botanical test, inspired by Dr. Conte. It was done on oat seeds also using Staphysagria. The treated seeds grew remarkably longer and greener than the untreated before they died.
Tests of this kind in 1999 were unheard of by most of the homeopathic community. If it wasn’t for Rolland Conte I would have never attempted such a thing. I wouldn’t have even thought of it. He taught me the impossible was possible.
Much of Conte’s work was done without double blinding. When I asked Dr. Conte about this he said, “You need both eyes open to study homoeoepathy.”

British homeopath and chemist Lionel Milgrom replicated Conte’s NMR experiments and found the dilutions to be affected by silica ions from the glass containers. This was taken by many to mean that the NMR was reading the signal of the glass alone, and was not proof of a relevant phenomenon. The fact is that silica amplifies the isotope’s signal .
One night at about three AM French time I received a call from Conte on Skype. I asked him what he was doing. He said he was eating cheese and drinking wine. I saw this as an opportunity to ask him about the silica. He said in that wonderful French non chalance, “you ought to tell the glass manufacturers about that.”

Rolland Conte follows his wife Madeleine and leaves behind him a research foundation in his name.

John Benneth, Homoeopath

  Call for free consultation 503 819 7777

 

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

THE DEATH KNELL OF CHEMO “MEDICINE”

Views of a Fiery Blog May Reach 75,000,000

It finally ended. Since late April an interesting BATTLE ROYALE has been evolving and chopping virtual body parts off of homeopaths and their parastic trolls. All this can be gawked at on a medical journalist’s WordPress blog. A few days ago the author expleted that views had toppled the 7,500 mark . . or did he say 75,000,000?

Well, today he ended it . . the closed commentary, and with head down and feet dragging we all shuffled our ways home.

Boo hoo hoo. And just when things were getting good. The way things are going, given enough time, surely the numbers would have got higher, and may still after people read the headline on this blog. What is patently no lie is that at this early date there are now over 1000 comments, 632 Facebook links and 165 Tweets, women mudwrestling with men in a bloody free for all.

What I’m speaking of is Jerome Burne’s natty blog, BODY OF EVIDENCE, and this is the way it should be. The latest entry, the one in reference here, is entitled Homeopathy and the Threat of Endarkenment.

This is something I did not see when I first began posting on the subject many years ago. Most homeopaths were totally ignorant of the ancillary technical literature supporting homeopathy, or if they were cognizant of it, they were quiet about it, probably afraid to go home the way of Benveniste, tarred and feathered with a toothbrush . . and a nail driven through the wrist. It was intense. Seven years ago I’d put up a video on the pre-clinicals and I would have got less blood on me walking into a PETA rally in front of an animal skin shop wearing a full length mink coat. Up until a couple a few years ago, online, it was a hundred to one against homeopathy.

THINGS HAVE CHANGED

But this has swung the other way. The tables have turned. Homeopaths have learned to defend themselves with the literature and more science, and the anti-homeopathy moonbats are shooting rubber bullets. It still hurts, but it’s not stopping the charge by a greater number of proponents armed with real lead.

HOMEOPATHIC JEOPARDY

Answer: Like cures like

Question: What is vaccination?

Answer: Placebos

Question: What are chemical pharamaceuticals?

Answer: It’s just pure water.

Question: What is radioactive Tritium oxide?

Now Burne says he is an avowed agnostic on the subject of homeopathy . . which is honest enough, something all should try, myself excluded, having already sprayed the room with that Luddite swill. Like placebo being the thinker’s choice as to meaning, in a word, endarkenment is something one side is always clouting the other with. Although it should not come as a surprise to intuition, it seems an anomaly to conscious thought:

ALL HOMEOPATHY ANTAGONISTA,  trolls, pharma shills, professional skeptics like Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Joe Schwarz, David Colquhoun, Robert Parks, Ben Golddacre, Edzard Ernst, Phil Plaitt, Carl Sagan, Penn Jillette, Simon Singh, Neil Degrasse Tyson, most academic “scientists” like PZ Myers and pharmaceutical executives like Ian Reed of Pfizer and the half humans who slave for him ARE PATHOLOGICAL ATHEISTS. You can’t have a rational discussion with them. Try it. You won’t like it. But it will bring out the truth of what I say, and it will reveal to you the infrastructure of belief that supports the current mainstream medical paradigm or a chaotic, disconnected world made up of some yet undisceovered God particle, the Democritus bit, a homeogenous yet discreet and finite little pellet that is the stuffing for everything. That is the Universal view of atheism, the indivisibility of the infinitessimal, and if you want to see how it reads in all its delusional glory, read the commentary on Burne’s blog.

The Standard Atheist Argument goes like this:

A: Homeopathy is placebo/bunk/pseudoscience/fraud/useless (or expletive)

Q: Why do you say that?

A: There’s no science to back it up.

Q: Did you know that out of 22 reviews of the literature , only two concluded placebo, and they were shown to eiher misquote the literature or dismiss positive outcomes, just as you’re doing now?

A: You’re cherry picking.

Q: Did you know that even biochemical experiments with a high methodological standards could demonstrate an effect of high potencies?”

A: Benveniste was debunked.

Q: Did you know that Benveniste’s biochemical experiment that was supossedly debunked has been replicated over 24 times?

A: It’s just plain water.

Q: Did you know that tritium oxide, the radioactive trigger for a hydrogen bomb, by the same regard, is also just plain water, and homeopathic remedies have been discovered to be wide spectrum emitters, inclduing beta radiation?

A: Homeopathy is placebo/bunk/pseudoscience/fraud/useless (or expletive).

You may not want to read all thousand comments,  but hidden in the angry dribble of the trolls are some real gems, mostly by Laurie Willberg, Elaine Lewis, Sandra Courtney, Dana Ullman, Janice and Paul. It’s an education in the mentality of what not just homeopaths, but what humanity is up against.

Burne’s point is a Lazurus rising out of a blog he posted last July, wherein he spotted the cyberbullies of the homeoskeptic movement for what homeopaths have known them for years to be, “arrogant and batty.” This is novel for a “medical journalist,” as most of them get good traction beating up homeopaths rather than dabbing their tears. Even so, while bashing homeopaths . . and proving Burne’s point . . the antagonistas tip toe around him. 

I’m sure most have noticed it who have encountered it, the presumption of shooting blanks becomes predatory license for cowards. to attack the shooter and look grand. But it goes with the flow of late when the proselytes of similitude have been hitting back with some squirmy facts (mostly found in my blog) about what homeopathy is, or isn’t, and the sock puppets of skepticism have been leaving with bloody noses, and looking exactly like the other point Burne’s makes: Why are these loons after homeopaths pushing infinitessimals, with their presumed death by passive placebo and underdose, when the tide is rising from real iatrogenesis and death by overdose . . from active placebos.

Even if one should conclude by evidence or reason, that the little sugar pill is charged with nothing but belief, the genocide of modern pharma should be endorsement enough for consumers to overrun homeopathy, and therein is suspected the real math for the attack on homeopaths:Homeopaths are robbing mainsream medicine of their victims . . I mean, they’re stealing their customers!

This is not to say that homoeophobia is all economic. There is a noted pathology to homeopathy hating. I look forward to discussing it in a future blog . . but to get back to the point at hand, in the context of all this vicious vituperation of the adverse trustees that loyally attend us, a mysterious yet predictable little effect has been noticed by some workers, therein reported on Burne’s commentary . . but prodigiously dismissed by their masters, something one observer from the world of drug biochemistry explained early in the commentary: Due to encounters with water in the human body, the mechanism which propels the intended effects of homeopathic medicine is suspected now of causing unintended effects in the wallow of mainstream drugs. This could be the death knell of chemo medicine . . ah yes, and there’s the bell . . to be discussed in my next blog . . Accidental Homeopathy.

What we’re experiencing today in health care I believe is the delusional Standard Model of Physics playing itself out in medicine. All pejoratives against any particular person or group of people aside, this is as much due to the consumers phase of mind as it is to the suppliers’s state of mind. The supplier is just being opportunistic. He can’t survive in a market that is unwilling to buy his wares. He only convinces us of the value of his product . . not just because we’re convinceable, it’s what we demand. We don’t just believe it, we unconciously promote it.

Tell your friends, tell your enemies, be intelligent, be reminded, it’s fast, it’s furious , it’s fun, and you should read about it, in more detail, in your next issue of The John Benneth Journal . . subscribe NOW!

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

How Bad Homeopathy Saved 3,000,000 Australian Children

How Bad Homeopathy Saved 3,000,000 Australian Children by John Benneth

But some want to pull the plug . .

The “homeopathy” debate is rife with misnomers. The opponents take the proven practice of homoeopathy [homoeotherapy, curing a disease by creating a temporary artificial disease by giving a substance that causes the same symptoms as those of the disease to be cured] and conflating it with an ignorance of posology, the issue of dosage, how much of a particular medicine is given, and in what material phase.

Posology is the only reasonable or scientific concern that should be before us now.

But alas, other issues, like an artificial disease, prevail. So it is the job of this journal to separate  and analyze them. You should find the widespread ignorance of the conflation to be alarming, if not startling . .

“When the ratio of diluent to medicine is as low as 100:1 and if very many succussions were forced into it by a powerful machine, we would obtain medicines that, especially in the higher degrees of dynamization, would act almost instantaneously but with intense, even dangerous violence, particularly on a delicate patient, without bringing about the permanent, gentle counteraction of the vital principle.” Hahnemann, Samuel. The Organon of Medicine, Para. 270p. 114, 6th edition J. P. TARCHER, INC. Los Angeles, distributed by Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston PDF ONLINE at http://hpathy.com/wp-content/uploads/group-documents/41/1330840219-organonofmedicine.pdf

The current example of this chronic dilemma of homoeopathy can be seen in reports from the Southern Hemisphere hinting at a draft paper by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) that says “homeopathic remedies” are no more effective than a placebo “when used to treat 68 health conditions.”

STRICTER REGULATIONS

Worries are being expressed that the NHMRC’s implied review of the literature may lead to stricter regulations for the use of “homeopathic” products and homeopathic therapy.

The NHMRC is painting putative beliefs with the color of science. The NHMRC is promoting pseudoscience.

Simply labeling “homeopathy” as “placebo” is a tip off that the NHMRC is practicing pseudoscience. No comprehensive review of the literature of clinical trials of homeopathy concludes that the effects of homeopathy are solely due to the placebo effect. [I say solely because the placebo effect is indiscriminate, it logically makes no distinction between allopathy and homoeopathy, inert or potent medicine. In fact, a rather clever argument could be made postulating that the palliations and arch dramas of allopathy’s heroic “medicine” enhance the placebo effect!]

The point is, there is no scientific support for the illiterate allegation that “homeopathy is a placebo.” [If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me on this in the comment section of this blog and give us links to the double blind RCT’s published in peer reviewed journals that test the placebo effect for homeopathy] What is  so ridiculous about the NHMRC complaint  is that what both homeopaths and allopaths, (allopath being the name used by homeopaths for a conventional medical doctor, his government handler or anyone who subscribes to allopathic medicine) are ignoring is that beginning in the late 18th century, and traversing through the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries . . to this day. . homeopathy has been used to quench epidemics, disguised as allopathy! Allopaths alone, in the use of the vaccine, have nakedly made homeopathy-in-the-crude, or more simply put, bad homoeopathy, the world’s most widespread medical application . . and as such, has saved millions of lives.

It may be bad homoeopathy, but it is still homoeopathy! In Australia, it has saved an estimated 3,000,000 children alone!

Allow me to elucidate . .

I’ve written about this repeatedly in previous blogs. And I think the cure may be starting to take. Literal and intended definitions of homoeopathy, or it’s transmogrification into homeopathy, mean the use of an artificial disease to cure a natural one.

This is a simple fact. Homoeopathy refers to a strategy of stimulating the natural endogenous process organisms electromagnetically apply to maintain homeostasis as a way to defeat disease, whatever it may be. Just as like solvents will dissolve one another, and like poles will repel one another, like diseases will cure one another.

This is no mere fancy or fiction. It is a salient fact. Such is the dictionary definition of homeotherapy, the treatment of a disease by giving a substance similar to the agent that caused the disease.

Now . . one of the last things I want to do is argue with my old friend, my best literary friend, my only concomitant friend  Daniel Webster, but it bears repeating from the header, that Hahnemannian medicine would amend this definition to say that homeopatherapy, or more correctly spelled “homoeopathy” is  the treatment of a disease by giving a substance that causes the same symptoms similar to those of the one to be cured . .

The misnomers do not alter my point: There is no mention of the use of diluted substances to restore homeostasis in the translated defintion of homeo- or homoeotherapy, homeo- or homoeopathy. This is a medical jinx.  It is what confounds the NHMRC and their like. Homeopathy does not require dilution of pharmaceutical agents in order to achieve prophylaxis or cure. The proofs for this statement should cause a sudden abatement of breath, followed by an order to cease and desist the assault on homeopathy, homoeopathy, homoeotherapy or their respective cognates.

The operative principle of homoeopathy, call it homeostasis, like cures like, or medical similitude, is the effective principle for all epidemiology. This is a palladium that has  obviously not been fully recognized by the medical recession, and has yet to come into its own, as can be currently seen in the edicts dribbling out of the Commonwealth countries, like the one we’re being urninated on now by the NHMRC. To outlaw homeopathy they would, by definition, have to outlaw conventional vaccinations.  Conventional disease prophylaxis under NHMRC condemnation would have to cease, because conventional vaccination is homeopathy! !

To outlaw homeopathy as such bans a natural phenomenon, as without human intervention, one disease will push out one that is similar to it, the examples for which follow.

The prime example of natural homeopathic prophylaxis is the small pox vaccine. Smallpox by the 1970’s was entirely eradicated by injections of serum from bovine variola, putatively known as cow pox, a disease in cattle similar to human variola. When cowpox is forced on humans by knife cut or needle injection, it sports the same reaction as their own endemic disease, but milder, creating an immunity, or cure, of scourging small pox. That after 200 years of successful application the principle of homeoprophylaxis is still not recognized is shocking.

The upgrade from variolation to vaccine was winked at in the observation that milk maids, noted for their beautiful complexions, were made routinely immune to smallpox, because of their exposure to its analogue. As a result they rarely if ever contracted small pox.

It could be legally said then, that homoeopathy, as a strategy of immunization, cured the world of small pox, the first pandemic disease to be totally eradicated by persistent, organized human effort.

By the same process of homoeopathy, known from Hahnemann and others, we can also see examples of how the disease of small pox and others, such as the whooping cough, [which first brought “homeopathy” to the stern attention of the NHMRC, have homoeopathically had their own curative effects:

WHEN DISEASE MEETS DISEASE

Hahnemann The Organon,Para. 46

We could cite very many examples of homoeopathic cures brought about by natural diseases with similar symptoms. But since we require precise and indubitable data we shall confine ourselves to the small number, always true to type, arising from unvarying miasms, which give them a distinct name.

CURE BY SMALL POX

Smallpox, prominent among them and so notorious for its many violent symptoms, has removed and cured a host of ills that have similar symptoms.

How common are the ophthalmias of smallpox and how violent, even to blindness!

Through inoculation, smallpox completely and permanently cured chronic eye inflammation in a case cited by Dezoteux a and in another cited by Leroy. b

BLINDNESS

A person who was blind for two years after the suppression of a scalp eruption completely recovered his sight after smallpox, according to Klein. c

DEAFNESS AND SHORTNESS OF BREATH (dyspnea)

How often has smallpox not brought about deafness and dyspnea! And it removed both these chronic complaints when it reached its acme, as J. F. Closs observes. d

SWOLLEN TESTICLES

Swelling of the testicles, even very severe, is a frequent symptom of smallpox; and that is why it could, by similarity, cure a large, hard swelling of the left testicle caused by a trauma (Klein). e Another observer also notes that it cured a similar testicular swelling. f

DYSENTARY

Among the unpleasant complaints that occur in smallpox there is a particular dysentery like stool; and so by similarity, smallpox has cured dysentery (F. Wendt). g

COWPOX VS. SMALLPOX

It is well known that when smallpox is contracted during cowpox immediately wipes out the cowpox homoeopathically and aborts it, both because of its greater strength and because of its close similarity. On the other hand, if the cowpox is already near maturity, because

of its great similarity to the supervening smallpox, the latter is at least greatly attenuated homoeopathically, h and milder, as Mühry i and many others have stated.

ACNE

In the lymph of the cowpox inoculation there is, in addition to the element that protects against smallpox, a quite different substance that causes an overall skin eruption usually of small, dry (sometimes rather large, suppurating) pimples surrounded by a red areola and often intermixed with round red spots, often itching most violently.

In many children this eruption comes out several days before appearance of the red cowpox areola, but more often it comes out several days afterward and then disappears in a couple of days, leaving behind small, hard, red spots. It is through their similarity to this secondary infectious agent that skin eruptions of children, often very old and troublesome ones, are homoeopathically cured, completely and permanently, by the cowpox vaccination as soon as it takes, something many observers have noticed. f

SEMI-PARALYSIS

Cowpox, which has a characteristic swelling of the arm among its symptoms, k cured a swollen, half-paralyzed arm after breaking out. l

FEVER

The fever that comes in cowpox with the appearance of the red areola has cured (homoeopathically) two cases of intermittent fever, as Hardege the Younger reports. m

This confirms J. Hunter’s remark that two fevers (similar diseases) cannot exist in the same body at the same time. n

MEASLES CURES WHOOPING COUGH

There is much similarity between the fevers and coughs of measles and those of whooping cough. In an epidemic where these two diseases raged simultaneously, Bosquillon noticed that many children who had just had measles remained free from whooping cough. o They would all have remained permanently free of whooping cough and would have been rendered immune by the measles if whooping cough were not just partly similar to measles, i.e., if it also had a similar skin eruption. That is why measles protected only a number of children from the whooping cough, and only during that epidemic.

But when measles meets a disease that is similar to it in its main symptom – the eruption it will undeniably destroy and cure it homoeopathically.

Thus a chronic herpetic eruption was cured p ( homoeopathically) promptly, completely, and permanently by and eruption of measles, as Kortum observes. q

Hahnemann, Samuel. The Organon of Medicine 6th edition, p. 26-27, Para 46,  J. P. TARCHER, INC. Los Angeles, distributed by Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston

THE ORGANON PDF ONLINE

In his footnotes to cowpox attenuating smallpox in the above (h) Hahnemann states,

“This seems to be the reason for the remarkable salutary result of the widespread use of Jenner’s cowpox vaccination. The smallpox has not since then appeared among us with such widespread virulence. Forty or fifty years ago, when a city was stricken, it lost at least half, often three-quarters of its children.” ibid

INCREDIBLE . .

So within 40 years the homoeopathic application of a zoonotic disease had significantly reduced the virulence of a similar but more serious human one in the general human population, and within 175 years completely eradicated it.

Imagine for a moment a modern city today losing three quarters of its children to small pox. Imagine Australia, with a population of 20 million, of which four million are children under 15, losing three quarters of its children, three million (3,000,000) to small pox because of the failure to make homoeopathic use of cowpox, which is exactly what the smallpox vaccine does.

Vaccinations for small pox are no longer given because small pox no longer exists! It was wiped out by homoeopathy!

Imagine the survivors, some blinded, some deafened, partially paralyzed, horribly disfigured . . yet this is what the principle of homoeopathy has prevented.

When will the governing health bodies of the First World countries and their tag-alongs recognize this?

S        U        B        S        C        R        I        B        E

A NEW BIOLOGICAL PARADIGM

A NEW BIOLOGICAL PARADIGM

by John R. Benneth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOP ANTAGONIST SAYS HE FLIPS ON HOMEOPATHY

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

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

With dramatic improvement? 

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

UNCONVINCED

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

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

What was it?

He then makes a statement that is provably wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HAPPY HALLOWEEN

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

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

The Royal Homeopath vs. the Medical Journalist

The Royal Homeopath vs. the Medical Journalist

It must beggar the imagination for the opponents of homeopathy to learn of the high and mighty’s endorsement of such, or it must fuel within their minds a kind of begrudging cynicism, that insists fools must by chance alone attain greatness. Mark Twain, John D. Rockefeller, Mahatma Ghandi, Mary Baker Eddy; Paul McCartney; Mariel Hemmingway; David Beckham; Sir William Osler; Twiggy; Tina Turner; Caprice; Susan Hampshire; C. Everett Koop, M.D. ; Louise Jameson; Catherine Zeta Jones; Gaby Roslin; Catherine Zeta-Jones; Jude Law; Sadie Frost, Nadia Sawalha; Jennifer Aniston; Jade Jagger; Roger Daltry, Annabel Croft; Meera Syal; Charles Dickens; W.B. Yeats; William Thackeray; Benjamin Disraeli; William James; Pope Pius X; Louisa May Alcott, Susan B. Anthony, William Lloyd Garrison, Daniel Webster, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, William Seward, Feodor Dostoevsky; Jackson Pollock; W.C. Fields; Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, MD; Dr. Chas. Frederick Menninger, MD; Charles Darwin; Nobelists Emil Von Behring, Brian Josephson and Luc Montagnier; former American Presidents James Garfield, William McKinley, Abraham Lincoln and Bill Clinton, about 500 American MDs and 300 British MDs, and reportedly about 5000 non MD practitioners in the US . . to name a few, have all been at least favorable, supportive or admiring of homeopathy if not regular users or openly enthusiastic about it.

Such a conundrum must plague their minds in the case of the English Royal family, under homeopathic care since 1830.  There has always been a Royal Homeopathic Doctor. Currently he is Dr. Peter Fisher, MD.

Whereas homeopathy antagonists, usually atheists, can dismiss the credible use of homeopathics by the creative, it must give them pause that such savvies, like atheistic Darwin, street smart Twain and the world’s richest man, the self made Rockefeller, could brook if not quietly use what scoffers have to insist is nonsense, “plain water” . .  or witchcraft.

But for the serious student of homeopathy the puzzle is why homeopaths haven’t been more influential, why they haven’t said more when the case for homeopathy is so strong and it’s paralegal opposition so weak, nothing much more than carping.

Recently in an online homeopathy discussion list, what should be the strongest voice for homeopathy, Royal Homeopath Dr. Peter Fisher, MD, has come under some criticism for what some consider a weak performance in a debate with medical journalist and homeopathy antagonist Ben Goldacre. a well known complainer noted for his constant lopsided criticism of any study, test, experiment, trial or review of the literature that favorably concludes for homeopathy. In fact, such doesn’t even need to be favorable to attract Goldacre’s ire.  All any study of homeopathy need to do for Goldacre to launch an attack on it is fail to condemn it.

In this rather tame duel, Fisher and Goldacre present their respective points and then field some soft balls pitched from the audience, when there are some of us in the homeopathic community who would like to see Fisher tear Goldacre limb from metaphorical limb . . and not necessarily because Goldacre deserves it, but because Fisher can.

My response to this is to ask that we give Fisher a break.  Isn’t he the one who took the spurious Shang metanalysis to the Discreditor’s Ball, held the antagonist’s major piece of bullshit to account by calling for the raw data? We should be down on our knees thanking the guy for the incredible work he’s done for homeopathy. He’s a real MD as opposed to this “medical journalist” clown Goldacre, who just pretends to be an MD. Of course this is just my opinion, but I think that if Goldacre ever actually treated somebody for a disease he’d be at risk of getting thrown in jail for murder.

When I was in England I invited Goldacre to my lecture on the supramolecular chemistry of homeopathy at Cambridge and away he ran, and when I took him to task for it all he could do was whine. He’s quite full of words when he’s sitting in front of a computer montior, but he’s been as loud as Grant’s tomb on a Monday morning when he’s sitting in front of someone he knows will take him to task.

Fisher, on the other hand, is a gentleman, and given his office must maintain the dignity of his position, and as such has to maintain a bedside manner, treat everyone as a patient and therefore sympathize with the sick bastard. As editor of Homeopathy Magazine, with a Royal Warrant sticking out of his back pocket, due to his titles alone Fisher is indeed probably the strongest single voice there is for homeopathy. The limb tearing should be left to the tattooed class.

The very fact that Fisher exists is alone a huge testimonial for homeopathy. But more than that he’s done most excellent work in rebutting the UK Parliament’s cherry picked ‘Evidence Check’ for the efficacy of homeopathy, specifically in his Memorandum to the UK Parliament on Evidence from Basic Research [ http://tinyurl.com/7666q5g ] and it is from this a telling point, a killshot, arises.

It’s in the Memo’s first line: “Its ‘implausibility’ from a scientific standpoint is often cited as a reason for scepticism about homeopathy, even in the face of positive clinical evidence. For instance a systematic review of clinical trials, published in the BMJ stated ‘we would accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if its mechanism of action were more plausible’.”

What?  “Its mechanism of action were more plausible”??

Now if the opposition was on its toes, a statement like this would set them back on their heels, if not flatten them. I say, and submit to you, that the reason it hasn’t flattened anyone is because they’re already there, prostrate, just as much as the corpse that made the statement.

Here, let me explain: What the British Medical Journal (BMJ, impact factor 17.215) is saying is the argument homeopathy has not been the putative, that there is no evidence of effective action . . no! What they are allowing, if not outright saying, is that they would accept the effectiveness of homeopathy if somebody would explain it to them! LOL! This is tantamount to a man falling off a ledge, and on the way down, proclaiming that he would accept the force of gravity if somebody could tell him how it works!

Up until this point, the rejection of homeopathy was supposed to be a cavalcade of absent evidence . . “Oh, homeopathy is not evidence based medicine” when in fact homeopathy, as anomalous as it may be, has never had the luxury of conventional hypotheses and theory . . evidence has been all it’s had, the evidence of action has been the sole cherry red river that’s driven its mill.

When the Internet began to transmit the actual record of pre-clinical and clinical trials, the attack on homeopathy had to shift from absent evidence to bad evidence and the suddenly discovered science had frantically picked apart by scientists-in-name-only (SINO) like Goldacre, with vituperative criteria reserved only for homeopathy.

Here’s a video of a debate, the Royal Homoeopath vs. the Medical Journalist.

The Jesus Crime: Thou Shalt Not Cure

I keep thinking that one blog ought to be a set up for another and that’s not how I like to think, but its come to the point where I have to forego the luxury of random access thinking, the thought pattern of what hey have labelled as attention deficiency disorder and deliver some sequential material. Critical mass has developed and now its time for a chain reaction.

In my last blog I threw out some rhetorical questions regarding The Economist magazine’s use of a debunked debunking of homeopathy, having already figured what the answer is.

One tragedy follows another. The Economist’s attack on homeopathy for its unidentifiable ingredient is nothing new. Hahnemann was chased out of Konigslutter over two hundred years ago because he too could not chemically identify what the active ingredient of the medicine was that he used in the Scarlatina epidemic there, other than to say that it was water tinged with Belladonna, and subsequently he was in such a hurry to leave town that his overloaded wagon overturned on a bridge, killing one of his children.

I know I’m a little hard on people sometimes, and before I wake up I counsel myself into thinking right rules over kindness, which is bunk, of course, but I have seen it take its course, and The Economist is neither right nor kind in their attack on homeopathy, it’s a solicitation of malice and an interference with trade, but I suppose after seeing James Randi and his ilk get away with it at TED lectures and the sort, they think its okay to characterize we homeopaths as fools and charlatans.

One thing I’ve found that homeopathy has done for me is having made me a little more circumspect about people, even those who are after my hide. There is a tremendous motivation behind the attacks on homeopathy, and the absence of traditional science, like chemistry and physics, is really nothing more than a letter of marque for the opposition to carry, 007 license to kill the doctrine..

WHAT IS IT?

Well, doctors are a jealous bunch. Like most poor fessionals, academics and vampires, they are envious of one another, especially the square footage of one another’s private gaols, the number of victims he has on leashes, his literary acclaim, and the money he makes from dope dealing.

Doctor means teacher, and as soon as he teaches he depletes his store of an easily replicable commodity; if he cures somebody they go away and never return; if he lets the cat out of the bag it threatens a chain reaction, which is exactly what the nuclear physics of the homeopathic remedy is, a chain reaction. And so it is understandable that he and Them, his pharmaceutical handlers are intent on preventing critical mass from accumulating, and the patent medical industry serves him well in preventing it, by sending out Pharisees to work the crowd into a snarling mob, through the media and various institutions, sometimes nakedly so.

Working for Them he can get out of the poverty of the teaching business and move on to the bonanza of taking hostages, made possible by Them. Predators need a constant supply of victims, and this is now what the health scare industry hath wrought, an unending spat line of miserable souls slouching over tests, sliding injto MRI’s, spreading for speculums, taking time, making trouble and lots and lots of money from a never ending supply of victims that now constitutes the single greatest chunk of the modern Pax American economy, hence the concern by The Economist and Wikipedia, magicians and foils, to block, sabotage or crush any attempt to thwart Them.

Comes now this cheeky little doctrine of curative medicine. The very gall, can you imagine it? How dare they violate the Golden Rule of Medicine? It’s the Jesus Crime, Thou Shalt Not Cure.

Like a union shop, some young buck comes on the floor and starts actually doing some real work, making everyone else look bad and lazy . . and doing it for free!

Crucify him!

And the license for it is it is unexplainable, that there is no logic, rhyme or reason . . there is no Technogogue, no Science god to back it up!

It’s voodoo!

Well, it’s not voodoo, and the government is playing along with this not-so-little hoax, like everyone else in the health scare business, when the government, as holder of standards and measures, should be the first to stand up and say what it is, explain the physics of cure.

Are we supposed to really buy into this explanation that there is no explanation for the action we’ve seen of these materials on human and non human subjects for over 200 years? Is that supposed to stop us, because Jommy Wales, James Randi and The Economist don’t know and probably won’t ever know how the magic works?

But it doesn’t, the government doesn’t really investigate: The US Department of Health’s website for the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine under the National Institutes of Health(NIH)  states, “A number of the key concepts of homeopathy are not consistent with fundamental concepts of chemistry and physics. For example, it is not possible to explain in scientific terms how a remedy containing little or no active ingredient can have any effect.”

What is ironic about the NIH is that a former director of he NIH, Wayne Jonas, M.D. demonstrated at Walter Reed in a test for the Department of Defense that a homeopathic dilution of Tularemia could inoculate mice against rabbit fever. And this is not idiopathic, there are thousands of examples of the effects of diluents on human and non-human subjects. When he died, Hahnemann alone reportedly left behind 100,000 case notes. And with hundreds of years experience with it, all the thousands of books about homeopathy, schools dedicated to teaching physicians how to use it, and the M.D.’s who do, we’re supposed to still believe that it’s a hoax?

And it’s just not true that it can’t be explained, it is possible to explain in scientific terms how an aqueous solution containing little or no active ingredient can have an effect on an organism, in scientific terms as well as unscientific terms that anyone can understand, what the physico-chemistry of homeopathy is. And however arrogant this may seem, with a little help from existing science and my friends, I intend to do so . .

The Homeopathic Cure of The Economist

It has long been held that unless you have studied the literature surrounding it and put it to an appropriate test, if you can’t say anything good about homeopathy, don’t say anything at all, because it will probably come off looking vituperative, read like a caviling complaint, stupid and flat out wrong.

 On April 1st, 2014, the same day as my last blog . . The Homeopathic Cure of Wikipedia . . The Economist posted another smug anti-homoeopathic cavil, and it will have about as much impact as another day in a 200 year old infection that’s been bugging Mankind, the disease being somewhere north of stupidity and south of deception.

Stupid or deceived, I have a hard time deciding which affliction any particular homeopathy antagonist is presenting, and I’m sure that’s exactly what they wonder of me. Touche’ a droit, et a gauche.

But my explanation for the physics of the homeopathic remedy I think are better than what I’ve got for why homeopathy isn’t accepted pandemically.

The article dodges around the usual rabidity about no active ingredients, the drooling “its just plain water” complaint. Well, the same thing could be said about Tritium, oxygen and hydrogen, the active ingredient of a chain reaction in a hydrogen bomb . .  and this a good corollary for the homeopathic remedy, just plain water except it has become radioactive. And this is not the only thing to blow up in the face of people who play gotcha with homoeopathy.

Homeopaths don’t like that explanation either. The devil they have in skepticism is an easier one to deal with than the one who resides in the physics of homeopathy, which are supramolecular and akin to the piezo electric effect.

But before my physics lecture gets me sued by Sominex for unfair competition by putting people to sleep without charge, or homeopathy for revealing a trade secret, allow me to return to the lies being spread by that rag with a one word oxymoron for a name:

The Economist says, “The most comprehensive review of homeopathy was published in 2005 in the Lancet, a medical journal. Researchers compared trials of homeopathic and conventional medicines. In the bigger, well-designed trials, there was ‘no convincing evidence’ that homeopathy was more effective than a placebo, they found.”

This is a lie. Now don’t take that as an insult, I admire a good liar. Pulitzer prizes are regularly awarded to people who, in a particularly good novel, have demonstrated an unusual talent for prevarication. Isn’t the word “fiction” just a civil replacement for a pack of lies? Of course it is. Story telling is just another way of getting our minds off the grisly truth.

And that’s what The Economist is doing here, the truth being that homoeopathy is a threat to the economics of the medical establishment.

What the smarmy author of The Economist is doing is quoting Shang, a debunked meta analysis of eight clinical trials cherry picked out of over 100 that appeared in Lancet in 2005 after the medical world was made especially miserable by Linde, a previous meta published in Lancet in 1997, of which the top critic of homeopathy at the time, Professor of Complementary Medicine Edzard Ernst of Exeter University, called “technically superb.”

After Shang hit the streets homeopaths began asking, where did they come up with this idea that homeopathics were no better than placebos?

Peter Fisher, MD, the Royal Physician and a practicing homeopath himself, asked to see the data. Shang refused, at first, then finally had to relent.

In a review of the literature for pharmacists, so they might form a more comprehensive view than the one presented by the The Economist, the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education reported, “In contrast to findings by Kleijnen and Linde, a 2005 meta-analysis by Shang et al that was published in Lancet found that the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was no different than placebo.51 However, this study has been highly criticized for being methodologically flawed on many levels.5261 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.” [1]

So why is The Economist taking sides in such an acrimonious and long standing feud with bogus information sources to support a view less than neutral? Why isn’t it good enough that a growing number of people are asking for homeopathy in their health care? Why is The Economist inserting itself between patients and their physicians? Why is it that The Economist is reporting the conclusions of a highly criticized analysis of homoeopathy and not better ones reporting findings contrary to what The Economist is reporting?

April Fools?

 People will continue going to homeopaths as a last resort, some will report miraculous cures, and others, usually those who haven’t tried it, will cry fraud.

A blog follows The Economist article with commentary by readers.

[1] Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07.

Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy PracticeTeela Johnson, HonBSc and Heather Boon, BScPhm, PhD

The Homeopathic Cure of Wikipedia

Wikipedia falsifies the placebo claim for homeopathy . . again, shilling  for pharma

Wikipedia has been caught for a third time frantically producing false information about homeopathy on  a shifting footnote intended to support a hypothesis that homeopathic medicine is a “placebo.” A placebo is defined by Wikipedia as a sham treatment intended to deceive recipients.

The problem is that reviews of clinical tests of homeopathy, published in the British Medical Journal and the Lancet, among others, have all shown that the collective weight of clinical trials shows that the ionized pharmaceuticals used in homeopathic medicine are not placebos.

Wikipedia has therefore had to misrepresent the literature,  pretending to quote (1) a systematic review by a defrocked  professor of complementary medicine who garnered a reputation as the world’s leading homeopathy antagonist (2) a US government website that says nothing about placebos and (3) currently, at the time of this writing, the leading meta analysis of clinical trials that actually concludes homeopathics are not placebos.

The Wikipedia article says: “Homeopathic remedies are found to be no more effective than a placebo,[2] defining placebo as “a simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient.”

The article is locked down, preventing a rewrite neutral to the facts. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has voiced vituperative opposition to homeopathy, calling it the work of charlatans. The talk session of the article is a jumble of opinions by trolls trying to figure out how to reconcile contradicting conclusions in meta analyses, looking for evidence to support the placebo hypothesis in credible publications, and not finding it.

The  scuttlebutt is that whoever wrote the article was hired to keep it in flux by pharmaceutical industry interests, like the Geneva based International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations, (IFPMA) for which Wikipedia admittedly provides advertising space. The use of ionized pharmaceuticals, as used in homoeopathy, could break the strangle hold current conventional pharmaceuticals have on modern medicine, and so must be suppresed.

Footnote number two in the WIkipedia homeopathy article seems to prove it. Prior to the current footnote, footnote  number two, which traditionally has been the footnote supporting its placebo accusation,  led to an article by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) that says nothing about homeopathics being placebos. The NCCAM article is entitled Homeopathy: An Introduction (click here and read it for yourself if you don’t believe it).

This changed within the last few hours of publication of this article, as if they’re watching my keystrokes. Now it leads to the 1997 Linde meta analysis published in the Lancet, what homeopathy antagonist Edzard Ernst called “technically superb.” Linde is considered to be the best review of he literature, but is now 17 years old. Linde stated their results were incompatible with the placebo hypothesis, the opposite of what Wikipedia says it said. .

If you’re familiar with Wikipedia’s pseudoscience and fake academic “research” by hired shills for the pharmaceutical industry trying to take attention off their culpability in spawning breasts on boys and two headed girls, then you can imagine pornmeister Jimmy Wales standing in front of a table full of geeks saying something like, “just use any old article, nobody reads the footnotes, I mean you could link it to Bomis and the wikisuckers still won’t check it out.”

The U.S.’s  NCCAM article refused to say what Wikipedia wanted them to say, so the Wiki editors probaly had to switch back to Linde, which addresses the placebo hypothesis directly, but contradicts their undying  insistence that homeopathic remedies are no more effective than placebos.

Perhaps one of the editors actually read the NCCAM article and then hurriedly kicked some cat litter over it and nervously went back to something more sustainable, to make the placebo claim. Give the appearance of attribution and people will think it is.

But when Linde’s 1997 results are read they say:

“The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo.”

The reason Wikipedia likes Linde is because in a susequent addendum Linde moderated their results by saying that more rigorous trials revealed less positive results. But Linde never recanted their basic statement that homeopathic remedies are not placebos.

Linde is not the only meta analysis that blows up in the face of those who are desperate to disprove homeopathy.

A 1991 systematic review of clinical trials, published in the British Medical Journal stated:

The amount of positive evidence even among the best studies came as a surprise to us. Based on this evidence we would be ready to accept that homoeopathy can be efficacious, if only the mechanism of action were more plausible . .  “The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homoeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications. There is no reason to believe that the influence of publication bias, data massage, bad methodology, and so on is much less in conventional medicine, and the financial interests for regular pharmaceutical companies are many times greater. Are the results of randomised double blind trials convincing only if there is a plausible mechanism of action? Are review articles of the clinical evidence only convincing if there is a plausible mechanism of action? Or is this a special case because the mechanisms are unknown or implausible?Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homoeopathy, British Medical Journal, 1991; 302: 316–323. tinyurl com/kleijnen

If it’s saying what you  want it to say, or, if you know it isn’t true, and you’re motivated to expose the lie, if you have the conviction of your beliefs, it’ll be your red meat, or fakin’ bacon if you’re vegan.

So now who’s administering placebos?

The word “placebo” does not even appear in the NCCAM article, the article that up to a few hours ago Wikipedia listed as its validaiton for the placebo claim. The NCCAM article does not describe homeopathic treatment to be ineffectual or intended to deceive, as Wikipedia suggested it would.

The word “homeopathy” refers to the phenomenon of like cures like, as is seen in the use of vaccines. In an effort to maintain equilibrium, organisms can react intensively to small doses of toxins, especially when dissociated. Hahnemann’s word homoeopathy (meaning same suffering) or the putative word homeopathy (meaning similar suffering) do not refer to the material phase of a pharmacuetical’s content as solid, liquid, gaseous or plasma (ionized). Any phase of matter can induce a homoeopathic reaction. Homeopathic medicines are noted for their use of the ionized pharmaceuticals, created by molecular dissociation when serially diluted in water, but the homeopathic application is not limited to ionized materials.

In the U.S., homeopathic remedies are regulated by the Federal Drug Administration. The original rules covering the use of homeopathics were a part of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act sponsored by Senator Royal S. Copeland, M.D. (D-NY), a homeopath.

That’s right. Your eyes are not deceiving you, you are not hallucinating.

The Godfather of the FDA was a homeopath.

Like the current reference to Linde, the NCCAM article implies the opposite of what Wikipedia claimed it said. The NCCAM article states,

“While many homeopathic remedies are highly diluted, some products sold or labeled as homeopathic may not be highly diluted; they can contain substantial amounts of active ingredients. Like any drug or dietary supplement that contains chemical ingredients, these homeopathic products may cause side effects or drug interactions. Negative health effects from homeopathic products of this type have been reported.”

The NCCAM article was not the first time Wikipedia was caught falsifying the placebo claim. This blog made note of the same charge in its entry on January 29th, 2012. (Wikipedia and the Case Against Homeopathy)

At that time the Wikipedia article on Homeopathy read, “The collective weight of scientific evidence has found homeopathy to be no more effective than a placebo.[2][3][4][5][6]

BACK TO LINDE

As you can see, WIkipedia is caught in a crossfire of its own references. Like a ping pong match, once again, tracing back to footnote number two we found, at the end of the rainbow, Edzard Ernst’s Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews of Homeopathy, which stated,

“The existence of contradicting evidence is not unusual in therapeutics. One solution to resolve such contradictions is to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of rigorous studies. In 1997, Linde et al did just that. The conclusions of this technically superb meta-analysis expressed the notion that homeopathic medicines are more than mere placebos.”

Not one major meta analysis has been able to effectively conclude that the action of homeopathic remedies is due solely to the placebo effect. Not even Shang, the most popular homeopathy meta analysis among skeptics, was able to clearly conclude that the effect was from chance, iatrogenesis or “placebo,” admitting “a weak effect.” A review of the data by independent analysis of Shang determined that even in this most damning meta of homeopathy, ”Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond placebo.” Ludtke Rutten

The literature for the homeopathic placebo simply doesn’t exist. The urban legend was a badly executed deception popularized by James Randi 14 years ago to support his phony offer of one million dollars ($1,000,000) to prove homeopathy, an offer that his supporters, which includes the pharmaceutical drug industry, are still desperately hanging onto as proof that homeopathy is unprovable.

The question remains, who wrote the Homeopathy article for Wikipedia, and how much were they paid, out of whose pocket?

Homeopathy or Homoeopathy?

The Difference Between

Homeopathy and

Homoeopathy  

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,
John

Subscribe!

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

End stage homeopathic delusion grips Earth

Either way you look at it, it is a strange phenomenon. Millions are either seriously deluded, or a great number of authority figures are fooling somebody, if not themselves.

No one can deny that it is counterintuitive. Its physics are almost totally unknown, or if they are known, then it is as if there is a taboo on talking about them.

What was up until just recently regarded as nothing much more than a cure for the sniffles, its self assembling trajectory is aimed at overthrowing what is regarded as mainstream internal medicine.

The majority of us plod down this road unknown, passerby in the night of the world, our footprints wiped clean by the wind . . a few steps behind soon enough; and all of us, famous, infamous and unknown to his generation alike, even Christ, are, or will be, eventually, completely . . forgotten; forgotten in some landscape like wasteland.

But not apparently in the mind of defrocked Professor Edzard Ernst.

“No! No!” the ego cries out, “I  . . or someone from my race . . Adam! He will always be remembered, always . .”

No, no, I don’t think so. But from his carving out of space of a reality all his own, certainly the world’s first professor of Complementary Medicine, whose caboose once parked in the world’s most important and most coveted chair of the healing arts, Edzard Ernst thinks he will be remembered long after the Sun has blown itself out and Earth, as a cold derelict, is stupidly wandering in space. Uberdoktor Ernst apparently thinks he will be immortalized for what he wrote on December 03, 2013 in his blog   “My two favourite examples of end-stage homeopathic delusionists are John Benneth and Dana Ullman.”

How many have already denied Christ, Mohammed, Moses or Zarathustra? Where is the true remembrance of Abraham? Is one man a myth, another a legend for the choosing? How or why I have to share this honor with Ullman I can only hope be surmised by wild speculation, for I see no sense in it, but I suppose I should be magnamous and share, though now I know what it’s like to receive only half of a Nobel Prize.

The honor was prefaced by Ernst’s report in his December 03, 2013 blog of an interview done with him by Der Spiegel.  Ernst states that although he discussed numerous alternative therapies there were well over 500 responses to it by readers, “focussed [sic] almost entirely on homeopathy.” Most of those responders spoke as if gripped by some strange force, claiming that what was scorned for centuries works.

What is remarkable about the interview is the lack of challenge by Der Spiegel to what Ernst sees as a completely non-scientific “quasi-religious faith many people have in homeopathy.”

I say this because there are countless testimonies saying it works, from scientists and users alike . . and while possessing an uncanny insight into human character, its physicians, adding to the mystery, tend to keep their heads down and their mouths shut about what it is they do, and how they do it . . how for a patient they select an individualized remedy out of thousands.

Anyone can put it to the test and anyone can read the literature online that shows the scientific basis in both evidence and theory. But Der Spiegel failed to confront Ernst with his denial of the facts

Der Spiegel did, however, catch Ernst in another one of his oddball contradictions. Der Spiegel asked the world’s leading antagonist of the doctrine if he thought alternative medicine can treat cancer . .

SPIEGEL: What about using herbal therapies?

Ernst: There is to my knowledge no plant extract that can tackle cancer itself.

SPIEGEL: What about what Rudolph Steiner said long ago about mistletoe as a cancer treatment, that because like cures like, and mistltoe hangs on the tree like a tumor, it could fight tumors. Now today we know that mistletoe actually has effective anti cancer ingredients. What about that?

Ernst: Mistletoe lectins can kill cells, they are highly toxic.  How could Steiner know?  He just had a bit of luck: Many plants have such toxic ingredients. But whether the mistletoe really helps in cancer, due to the study location, is rather questionable.

What? One moment Ernst is saying that “no plant extract can tackle cancer,” (exactly what we would expect to hear from a proselyte of allopathic patent medicine) and the next moment, after the Spiegel interviewer has astutely caught him with the mistletoe example, he admits he knew all along that a plant extract is indeed capable of apoptosis, and Steiner, the Austrian who founded anthroposophy, a religion that promotes a form of homoeopathy, just got lucky?

Steiner made this observation almost 100 years ago. According to the BMJ, by 2006 there had been about 1,000 in vitro studies showing that mistletoe, or its main constituents of alkaloids, lectins, and viscotoxins, do indeed have anti-cancer activity!

This is just one example of the blatant self-contradictions and errors of commission, that besides a breach of trust, got Ernst’s rump booted out of his Exeter throne as the first chair devolved from complementary medicine to a hot seat of uncomplimentary lies that peddle mainstream “orthodox medicine” by bad mouthing curative therapies and the ionized pharmacy.

But who would expect anything more from Exeter? How does a leopard change its spots or the Devil throw out the Devil? For a “medical” institution like Exeter to establish a chair of “complementary medicine” investigating homoeopathy is like asking investigating Islam and not mentioning the Mosaic genocide reported in Numbers 31.

Aren’t these things obvious? “Mainstream medicine” is now the third leading cause of death in the US, where it reigns supreme. It does this solely on a bubble, inflated by hubris, that a competing form of medicine, homoeopathy, built on a radically different iatric and posology, doesn’t exist, for the moment homoeopathy takes over a person’s mind, allopathy loses that person as prey. Up until then, that the victim thought there was only one kind of medicine, and although it may be the third leading cause of death, thought it’s all there was.

When will it be enough? How much longer will we tolerate putting profit over cure?

It doesn’t matter to the allopath that people rhapsodize over homoeopathy’s startling cures, it doesn’t matter homoeopathy is demonstrably superior to modern mainstream “medicine” in the treatment and prevention of deadly and epidemic diseases, it doesn’t matter that homoeopathy is secretly what completely eradicated smallpox, the world’s greatest scourge, homoeopathy will not and cannot exist as a form of medicine in the mind of the allopath. This is because the strategy of allopathy is that Medicine is to rule, not serve.

But the responses in the Der Spiegel interview  shows that with the advent of homeopathy iatrocide may be quelling, as does Ernst’s confused wabbling in his blog , followed by sputtering commentary from his posse . . confused attempts to explain this growing mass delusion called “homoeopathy.”

Into this confused commentary of Ernst’s blog I have waded, and I have issued a challenge they cannot meet . .