Mining the Kosmotrope

WARNING: Given the potential volatility of the material you are about to read, you acknowledge that by scrolling down you accept full responsibility for the outcome of the information given here and hold harmless the author, John R Benneth, and his agents and assigns, and likewise hold harmless his supporters for anything that may transpire from reading this blog, The John Benneth Journal.

1 Trespass

1 Heresy of heresies

2 Witch hunt

3 Zeno’s paradox

5 Inquisition

8 Skeptics attack Maxwell’s lab

13, 21, 34 the Nobel prize . .




55. Physics of homeopathy, truth and lies



55. An obsession above my pay grade


89. The law of similars follows the laws of electromagnetism, like Coulomb’s law, i.e. opposite poles attract, like repel; similar magnetic fields annihilate, thus laws of curative medicine are Electromagnetic.


7/26/18 I’m sorry, I have to apologize for not staying in touch. I don’t think people understand what a heresy this is, This is the greatest scientific anomaly of all time. It is the physical manifestation of Zeno’s paradox of infinitesimal splitting, and I have found the answer.

The problem is communicating this to others, especially anchored academic science. Trying to explain it to Ph.D’s and medical doctors in 144 characters on Twitter is like trying to explain it to mules and mountain lions, or the Spanish Inquisition while being attacked by a swarm of angry bees.

So please bear with me, it’s just me begging for help.


I have been working on Mining the Kosmotrope by Roman Aclef, what might as well be a science fiction novel about a professional imposter who ruins his life when he accepts a magician’s challenge for $1 million to scientifically prove homeopathy, and discovers the panaceac electro-infrastructure of the immune system . . and the fundamental mechanism of prophylaxis.

The question is, is reading this crap ruining mine, or (2) have I stumbled upon the invocation of the next great advance in medicine?


Given the rancor the central character meets while chumming bits of plasma physics, burn-all-the-text-books anti-science out to the pathologicians, I’m inclined to think that it has indeed ruined my life . . my past life, that is, like what happens at a potlatch, where the chief burns or gives away all his worldly goods. You may well ask, how could he do this? How, as a whim, is it possible to give away everything you worked for your whole life to get?

That’s what’s happened, hasn’t it?


He got a reverse mortgage on his soul. He sees how meaningless all this material crap is. So I thank you for your gracious presence, and your quiet patience, for not posting angry emails or calling me on the phone to demand where the next Journal entry is, and slam the phone down when I tell you I been ill . . and after being run over, beat up and body slammed, had a couple of near death experiences where I was floating above my body, looking down at all the people walking by, not noticing I was dead.


I will confess, however, I am doing much better, yes, I think, as I seem to be curing myself of what’s left of me, branded Parkinsonism, a Parkinson-like condition that at one point had me almost completely paralyzed. But . . I am now walking a brisk mile, dragging Hudson (the dog who used to drag me) around the block, and sprinting. The remedy I’m using is Conium maculatum, Socrates’ final remedy, Hemlock, the cure for imbecility, or genius, you decide.

Maybe what I need is a little ham on wry

In my last journal entry I promised to say something in my next about the glow detected in homeopathic remedies, and as they say in Walla Walla, you’ll find it here.

Here’s a brief excerpt for what will be taken by anchored science as a packet of lies, what I might as well call a stinking novel.

Here the protagonist, homeopath Lester Samuel Moore, addresses a conference of physicists in the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge, U.K., led by Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, while protesters, led by professor of pharmacology David Colquhoun, surround the building, overdosing on homeopathic sleeping pills.

Entering disguised as a “scientist,” Moore shows up with his entourage in the lobby of the Cavendish. Josephson bursts through the door and starts screaming at Moore, “Your videos are unacceptable! You got to stop appearing in Youtube videos using the N-word and posing as a gay Jew!” (watch video below)

[Note that he never identifies the “controversial speaker.”]

“Okay, okay,” says Moore and while others stand agape, he agrees to pull down his livelihood for the opportunity to videotape this epiphany in the womb of electromagnetism . .   and proceeds with Josephson into the Cavendish.

Suddenly they are hit with a second problem sans LaGrangian. As Moore’s son Maxwell sets up the camera, the head of department flies into the room and orders it taken down, prohibiting videotaping. As Josephson reveals in the video (below) he quickly comes up with the answer.


MOORE: “Niels Bohr calculated the transduction of electrons into photons through hydrogen, (5) which reaffirms the conclusion that water, through its hydrogen component, is a wideband transceiver of the electromagnetic spectrum, and it has been observed that ultra dilute homeopathic remedies in solution glow. Discovered by Swiss chemist Louis Rey (6). it was found that the thermoluminescent glow is substantially different between dilutions of different substances. Linus Pauling noted the hydroelectric transduction of alcohol’s narcotic effects through those same hydrogen bonds that make up clathrates (7). So although these may sound like non sequiturs to the fractured mind, like a phase shift up, a picture may be leaping up off the page at this point for readers with fractal minds, pieces of the theory, chemistry and physics, the electrodynamics of the homeopathic remedy puzzle . . and so I beg the indulgence of my doctoral committee’s allowance, in insisting that at the time of this writing there is no known conventional theory for the action of these materials in question that precedes the one being offered here, and I must emphasize the word “known”, for there actually is the inception of a theory for the action of the ultra dilute homeopathic remedy that goes beyond simply noting change in structure, comporting with Roy’s conclusion of epitaxy and the Conte team’s discovery of tritium in the homeopathic remedy (8). The beginning of a conventional theory for the presence of the electronic structure of the solute in the solvent of homeopathic solutions, diluted past the molecular limit in a chain reaction, is found in Copeland’s seminal ionic theory for homeopathy, The Scientific Reasonableness of Homeopathy’published in 1909 (9).”

There is a brief pause as Moore, feeling his heresy, mops the sweat from his face.
“I have this feeling that something is about to kill me . . Copeland’s revelation of molecular dissociation’s infinitesimal mill is homeopathy’s missing link, the part that unites structure and charge. Gentlemen, and excuse me, the lady over there, this is the nuclear event we’ve been looking for.” Lester Samuel Moore in the greatest heresy, Mining the Kosmotrope,

Here is the video wherein Nobel laureate Josephson tells the story of a heretical science lecture at the Cavendish.

5. Bohr, hydraulic conversion of the electron into photons . It is my assertion that the water molecule’s reception, transformation and transmission of the electromagnetic spectrum is not limited to electrons and photons.

6. Rey L Homeopathy. 2007 Jul;96(3):170-4.Can low-temperature thermoluminescence cast light on the nature of ultra-high dilutions?

7. Nobel prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling proposed that the narcotic effect might be due to the formation of crystals called ‘clathrate hydrates’ in the brain. I think that idea is wrong, but we propose a cage-like hydrogen-bonded structure, which  is a liquid analogue of a clathrate,” says Schaefer. “Water alcohol mixtures are known to form clathrate hydrates below -80 degrees C, which is why we proposed a transient cage-like structure in the liquid at room temperature.” J. Agric. Food Chem., May 21, 2010 (12), pp 7394–7401 Structurability: A Collective Measure of the Structural Differences in Vodkas Naiping Hu

8. Conte: “Tritium creation in homoeopathic solutions has been measured. Initially, the measured radioactivity of these solutions was equal to 20 CPM, that is to say 20 pulses/minute and, one year later, the radioactivity measured was of 414 CPM. This is indeed a low value but it represents the last step of the different rematerializations.”

9. Copeland, The Scientific Reasonableness of Homeopathy. Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D. “In the theory of dissociation of molecules, the laboratory of physical chemistry has scientifically proven the value of the infinitesimal. While this doctrine is now well known to every scientist. and especially to the reader of the homeopathic publications of the past five years, it may not be out of place to review it briefly. As interpreted by this theory, a chemical, technically an electrolyte, when dissolved, is dissociated into parts or particles smaller than the atoms and known as ions. The more dilute the solution the greater is the dissociation and consequently the atoms are less in number and the ions increased. In a solution infinitely dilute, the dissociation is absolute and the chemical is present only in a state of ionization. When this subject was newly presented the first question which occurred to most of us was: How dilute must the solution be in order to bring about complete dissociation? If it were a solution of sodium chloride, for instance, what dilution, according to our nomenclature, would furnish complete ionization? The search for facts on this subject revealed Lord Kelvin’s statement as to the size of the molecule. He says: “Imagine a rain drop or a globe of glass as large as a pea, to be magnified up to the size of the earth, each constituent molecule being magnified in the same proportion. The magnified structure would be coarser grained than a heap of small shot, but probably less coarse grained than a heap of cricket balls.” The illustration permits us to appreciate, to some extent, at least, the enormous number of molecules in a bit of matter the size of a millet seed. In order, then, to reach a solution sufficient to bring about dissociation of the molecule itself, it is readily seen that the volume of the solvent used must be immense. Having quoted Kelvin, Jones, Professor of Physical Chemistry in Johns Hopkins University, states that perhaps, the best demonstration of the almost unlimited divisibility of matter is furnished by some of the aniline dyes, or by fluorescein, where one part is capable of coloring or rendering fluorescent at least one hundred million parts of water. This solution corresponds to, at least, the eighth decimal dilution. The authorities agree that the dissociation increases with the dilution from the most concentrated solutions up to a dilution of about one one-thousandth normal. It is safe to assume that dissociation of the simplest drug is not complete under the sixth decimal dilution.

CHEMISTRY OF PLASMA . . or placebo?

My last column ended this way:

I beg your pardon if by raising an objection I have rocked the Titanic, but the stated recognition that vaccines help develop immunity by imitating an infection, stumbles over a painful stub-toe that bears immediate hindsight to a huge medical stub-toe: it is one of two reasons for rejecting doctrinal homeopathy, a long practiced medical tradition.
Creating immunity from any particular disease by staging an imitation of that disease is the primary strategy of homeopathy in treating, not just infectious diseases, but a wide range of human problems, such as those caused by emotional stress (like peptic ulcers) infection and toxicity and allopathic psychiatry. The broad application of pathological similitude to treat a wide variety of human, animal and even plant, i.e. biological afflictions, is on one count why for over 200 years homeopathy has been banned by standard medical practice.
So this is really an odd conundrum. On one hand, according to the CDC, the use of artificial imitative diseases is the only strategy for conveying immunity, such as using bovine smallpox to eradicate the human strain. On the other hand, its use is rejected. It would appear that one hand is ignorant of the other.

Before you go any further on this errand, this is April 10th, in my opinion the birthday of the world’s greatest medical genius, and there’s a couple of things I think you ought to know in regard to that.

Number One is anyone who is in the commentary on homeopathy, who hasn’t read Samuel Hahnemann’s Organon, doesn’t know what he or she is talking about. I don’t care if he or she is the Surgeon or Attorney’s General, Matlock, Jesus or Einstein, if he or she hasn’t read the Organon and talks long enough about homeopathy, he or she will eventually say something dead [something] wrong about it, a clue that they have made a long habit of using their mental illness as a club, on others, while toasting their KoolAid on other topics, long before they had anything to say about homeopathy.

The second thing I would like to say is that anyone who holds himself or herself out as a practitioner of homeopathy who hasn’t read Hahnemann’s Organon is committing malpractice, and this includes doctors lay, medical and otherwise.

Happy birthday Sam.


As I intimated in a previous paragraph, as one hand is to the other, there is a second count to this dialectic, the issue of chemistry. What is the chemistry of the homeopathic remedy? Settled science doesn’t seem to have an answer for that. From my perspective, we could say biochemistry, we could say electrochemistry, we could say physico-chemistry, we could say quantum chemistry, and as Hahnemann was a Freemasons we could even say Geometry, and as skeptics we must decline to answer, as we are forced to say there is no distinctive chemistry to the homeopathic remedy . . but to invoke the truth in the face of the null hypothesis, just asking what it is, is evocative of the truth, the chemistry of the homeopathic remedy is solvent enough, because no one seems to know the answer, and this is why:

The nose of settled science hasn’t been rubbed in the physical assays.

That’s what I’m here to do. This is my God-given task. It is my score to settle, to present the physical and biochemical indices of the homeopathic remedy.

John Benneth Homeopathy‏ @JBennethJournal replying to @scrutinizer_the @6x10E23

In 1999 I was the first to apply for James Randi’s million-dollar challenge to prove homeopathy. Randi panicked and tried to avoid me by challenging Benveniste instead, who sent him back to me and my triple-blind dielectric strength test. Randi’s been cowering ever since.

12:42 PM – 23 Mar 2018

Dr Graham Lappin‏ @LappinGraham replyireplying to @JBennethJournal @scrutinizer_the @6x10E23

You can prove homeopathy? I’ll rush out and rewrite my textbook. And I’ll get all those other scientists to rewrite the laws of nature.

John Benneth Homeopathy‏ @JBennethJournal replying to @LappinGraham @scrutinizer_the @6x10E23

Can I prove homeopathy? Yes of course, Dr. Lappin, I can prove homeopathy. So can you if you are willing to lose your job as a pharmacologist. What more proof do I need than James Randi and his million dollars? What more proof do you need than the basophil degranulation test?


So as you can see, skepticism immediately not only draws us away from the theme of my previous journal, conflating the homeopathic remedy and the vaccine, it wants to ignore an even uglier truth: Homeopathy and the disease prophylaxis of immunization share a common ancestor in the electronic structure of their chemistry. In quantum chemistry, electronic structure is the state of motion of electrons in an electrostatic field created by stationary nuclei. The term encompass both the wave functions of the electrons and the energies associated with them. Electronic structure is what determines the molecule’s properties of action. It may be a novel presentation of this essay that at the quantum level, the smallpox serum and homeopathic Variolinum share the same electronic structure, and though inverse semiologically, they pose similar triggers and snares.

You may immediately repose a reasonable objection, calling into question the presumed deterioration of molecular properties due to theoretical dissociation by hydrolysis in the manufacture of a homeopathic remedy, unless we assume that electronic structure is holographic, from the solid first phase of matter to plasma, from the molecule to its infinitesimal, the electronic structure remains the same.

So the next question then is how do water molecules in the homeopathic remedy imitate the electronic structure of the hydrolyzed solute throughout infinite dilution?

Every field has a circuitry, streams within it, channels of energy that act as capacitors, so where we find an electromagnetic field we are compelled to seek its circuitry, and so in the study of homeopathic chemistry this is found in the hydrogen bonding of the water molecule, the linkage that allows water molecules to chain together to form recursive fractal antennae. The electronic structure of water can be a rote copy of matter’s grammar, imitating the solute’s communication, at the subatomic level, with organic entities and inorganic elements, to trigger endemic processes, or annihilate exogenic antigens.

This is how water imitates the electronic structure of matter.

The water molecule is tetrahedral in shape, that is to say it has transverse lines drawn from Oxygen input and output ports connecting water molecules around impurities, most notably in homeopathic remedies around impurities such as ethanol, nanoscopic silica and atmospheric cavitation, i.e. bubbles, interstitials that give hydrogen bonds formatting by causing the molecule to go flat, with one port aimed at the center of the bubble, with the other three

Plasma discharge from supramolecular homeopathic solution a


lateral around the sphere. Hydrogen bonding of water molecules allows for chain reactions, molecular self-assembly into an infinite number of shapes, circuitry, capacitors, electromagnetic lenses and fractal antennas. It takes its architectural instructions from hydrolyzed guest solutes, creating a circuitry mimicking the guest, transmitting it’s unique signal to recipient DNA.

A number of scientists, most notably Benveniste, Montagnier and Conte have recorded EMF signals coming off this H-bonded structuring, from the low kilowatt range to high beta. Montagnier found that when homeopathically ionized solutions were mµ shielded from the background radiation (Schumann resonances) the 1kw signal quit, suggesting an external power source, a transduction of biased signals.

This is eyebrow raising. It suggests that matter, irrespective of phase, has within it, in all condensations of HO phase, electromagnetic lensing, fractal antennas and recursive electrograms that transduce the background radiation into a specific, comprehensive signal, emitted throughout the spectrum.


How, in the homeopathic dilution process, do these supramolecular solutions maintain properties of the solute in endless dilutions? How do the semiotics of Morbillinum, or Scheherezad, for that matter, persist through infinite dilution?

This is a question easily answered:

In the homeopathic remedy we see evidence of a chain reaction in the H-bonds of water. As electronic structuring is a recursive function that shuns the chaotrope and structures around the kosmotrope, we may assume the seed to be the electron, given it is the smallest genera.

How is the electron extracted from the solute?

I have long pondered the connection between tritiate and triturate. Hopefully it will intrigue you as well. So that you may remember it, in pursuit of the cosmotrope the tritiation of the solute is triggered by its trituration.

This is the subject of my next entry, and with your permission I would like to take this moment more to point out to you that this isn’t just a regurgitation of fact, this is novel in its game. To my knowledge no one has done what it is I am doing here, revealing the chemistry and physics of homeopathy. This should be a great boon to the world will because I feel it is the key to its greater use, especially in its broadest use, a breakthrough in immunology.


Last night I had a strange dream. I was in my old house with my first wife and we’re having what must’ve been a party, although I’m not so sure that some of the guests were not residents. I was coming under criticism for having spent too much money on preparing Meals on Wheels. How I found myself in this predicament I’ll never know. Among my critics were two attorneys, one, a probate attorney, and the other Robert Mueller. My late, great father was there. He was concerned. But my defense was quite simple, that the meals I prepared for the recipients was lamb.

It seemed to suffice.

Then something very strange happened. The day unexpectedly became night. The moon and the stars came out and the birds went quiet. Somehow I knew that the reason was because there had been a pole shift, the Earth and been turned upside down.


The main feature will now be followed by a cartoon:


Tetrahedral fractal morphs into plant (click here)

. . to be continued

Subscribe upper right corner



“Tritium blows homeopathy skeptics’ #AvoGodro out of the water.”


Thanks to Journal commentator Guy Chapman, we have evidence for answering that question.
Guy posted a link to an article about water bridges in response to my blog about the same. I showed the eerie demo of a water bridge and the amazing structuring capabilities of water.
Those who are opposed to homeopathy for political reasons have been forced to fight the idea that water structures, as it shows a kind of memory, which leads to a theory for homeopathy.
Like the proverbial camel. Sticking his nose in the tent.
Guy says physorg “explains some of it,” How a water bridge works, that is.
The phsyorg article states, “Much research has been done to uncover the structure of water beyond the H2O scale, which is thought to be responsible for many of water’s unique properties. However, the nature of this structure, governed by hydrogen bonds, is currently unknown.”
This is an interesting statement. It admits a structure to water it says is what give it its unique properties, but in view of a contiguous order such as the water bridge, “the nature this structure unknown.” which is not entirely true.
As you must know, much of the criticism of homeopathy centers on the belief that water can’t structure due to the weak and femto-second range of the hydrogen bond, the only intermolecular force recognized by the pseudoscientists when other forces describe a dynamic aqueous field.
The impossibility of liquid aqueous structuring is contradicted by what anyone can see in the form of surface tension and bubbles, clathrates, water clusters, gas hydrates, inclusion molecules and now the water bridge. The geniuses at physorg are even starting to admit it . . sort of. They must sense, if they do not explicitly know it, that there is a large taboo around water studies. It leads diretly to biological implications that can challenge public policies and control of water. Anyone who has studied this subject knows that it is tightly controlled by what poses as “skepticism.” Anyone who steps out of line in this subject will be attacked. The admission of liquid aqueo0us structuring without qualification is taboo. You are not to do it, you will be punished by ridicule and discreditation if you do. If you are a studdent, you will flunk. if you are an academic, you will lose tenure, funding, academic standing,  or you will be ostaracied. No one willpublish your rap.  With few exceptions, which this blog seeks to reveal, nomatter who you are, if you step out of line you will suffer.

Furthmore, the charge is made here is that denial of structuring can be traced directly to the pharmaceutical interests threatened by homeopathy. Allow me to remind everyone that the argument for homeoapthy is the pro side, the argument against it the con.
Chapman next insists, without citation, that experimentation by Nobel prize winning homeopath Luc Montagnier, author of the highly controversial “Electromagnetic Signals (EMS) Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences,” shows that “in Montagnier’s experiment the effect is extremely short-lived.”

This is the typical vague statement of  the pseudoscience which drives denialism. 
What Montagnier actually says in his EMS DNA study is “It is known from the very early X-ray diffraction studies of DNA, that water molecules are tightly associated with the double helix, and any beginner in molecular biology knows that DNA in water solution forms gels associating a larger number of water molecules.

“Moreover, a number of physical studies have reported that water molecules can form long polymers of dipoles associated by hydrogen bonds (Ruan et al., 2004; Wernet et al., 2004).
However these associations appear to be very shortlived (Cowan et al., 2005). Could they live longer, being self-maintained by the electromagnetic radiations they are emitting as previously postulated by Del Guidice, Preparata and Vitielo (1988)?
“We have studied the decay with time of the capacity of dilutions for emitting EMS, after they have been removed (in mumetal boxes) from exposure to the excitation by the background. This capacity lasts at least several hours, some time up to 48 hours, indicating the relative stability of the nanostructures.”

This is very difficult for the anti-homeopathy crowd to respond to, for Montagnier, in using Benveniste’s patented system of EMS detection, measurement and filtration of liquid aqueous structuring, is clearly identying the electromagnetic and structural indices for the homeopathic remedy. Yet here we are, taking commentary from those who would try to explain it away . .

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter


A Journal commentator who goes by the name Madgav writes:

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

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

This was a particularly interesting series of assertions:

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

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

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

John Benneth responds

Dear Madgav,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

The Water Bridge

Sometimes I get fooled into thinking people are listening, when in reality, they aren’t, they aren’t at all. They’re just pretending to listen. They not even interested after seeing something that dramatically proves the point. What they’re doing is just waiting for me to stop talking, or in the case of a blog, to stop writing, so they can climb up onstage.
The stupidest people don’t want to listen, they just wan’t to talk. They can hog the whole conversation with a drawn out monolgue, and then when they finally do ask my opinion, and I pick myself up off the floor and manage to get a byte’s worth of words out, like “may I have a glass of water, please?” they start in all over again.
“Water? Let me tell you about water. There’s tap, distilled, ice, soda, mineral ,hot, boiling, cold, salt, dirty, with a twist of lemon and a straw, or . . ”
I get hit with another entire monologue before i can even put my head back down.
Same way with a blog. This one’s essentially meant to be a scientific discussion about the mysterious and seemingly anomalous action of water as used in homeopathy, so you would expect
the commennts to be scientically oriented, and say things like “Water? H2O, hydroxl, H-O-H, is one of the few elements that can be easily seen in all three phases of matter, solid, liquid and gas, and a fourth one, supercritical. It’s a polar protic universal solvent with a small tetrahedrally shaped molecule solvent and . .”
But look at most of the miserable comments. Aside from the Great Kaviraj and a few by an occasional homeoapth, most of the comments are from people who are stubbornly opposed to homeopathy and don’t have anything to do with the topic at all. Most of the comments are about me, regarding deficiencies in my character. Well, certainly I admit there could be a few, but to read some of these people you’d think I was wormwood.
Many of the commentators, you may notice, appear to have not even read the essay. Having no audience of there own I guess they want to borrow mine.
Well, the monuments we make to others are really no better than the monuments we make to ourselves.

There is one particular person, (well actually there are several) who does this “not listening” thing incessantly and egregiously. I’ll make my point, fall back in exhaustion, and then in great dismay hear a statement made tha tmake it obvious he wasn’t listening.
Once I went into great detail how we could get more views on our websites, and then when I was finished he said, “Do you have any ideas as to how we might get more views on our websites?”
I have found the same is true for my explanation of homeopathy. Skeptics don’t want to read my column, certainly hnot when it contains a reasonable scientific eplanation in it. They just want an excuse tot write something that makes them feel superior.
What a gift. My writing brings out the best in my readers by bringing out the worst in me. When I write a particularly good essay, the view counts drop off dramatially.

Ontology aside, I am convinced that there are no true anomalies. Idiopathy is an ideal, not a reality, and it is homeopathy, as the greater part of it, that has brought me to that conclusion, for homeopathy is regarded as one of the world’s greatest physical anomalies, one I’ve seen my way around due to the evidence. I have come to believe that what are seen as physical anomalies are simply errors in perception, just as the skeptics say. The only difference is that the errors in perception are there’s, not mine.

I can understand this on a personal level. There is probably no greater achievement than to work all your life to be remembered when you’re dead. I saved the small town of Turner, Oregon from a threat of destruction by negotiating with a man who said he was going to blow it up, removing him from its center, talking him down over a cup of coffee and walking the dear fellow into jail. He was upset, I think, because of an impending foreclosure, and because essentially no one would listen to him.
He subsequently claimed to be sitting on a ton of farm fertilizer in his feed store, he said, which he was going to detonate it with some nitro glycerin (he said). Even people in Portland would hear that, and that would be novel, they don’t listen to anyone either.
So I took the time to listen to him, very carefully. He brought up consitutional points, and as someone who had studied the state constitution with great interest, we had a topic of mutual interest.
“Did you know that for crimes the Oregon constitution demands rehabilitation over punishment?” I said.
He responded he was going to blow up Turner. I took him seriously, just as I would wish to be taken seriously if I was going to blow up a town, no matter how big it was. I’m sure everyone does.
That feat alone, bringing him through the surrounding police and television cameras undetected, meeting with him in a truck stop, should have been enough to have had some marble cut down to my size and shaped like me, but no, all it got me was a place on the front page of the Salem Statesman-Courier newspaper, jealous contempt from all the cops and a question from my wife, “when are you going to get a real job?”
The marble statue would have been been earned if my pieces had been blasted over four counties. That would have earned me the respect and approbation I craved. And if something similar were to happen now, I’m sure the comments tomorrow would be more conciliatory, too.

There is a kind of rushed feeling about it. Argentum would be the remedy I think.

Well, enough of that. The world views these things as idiopathic. Yes, I know, that’s a word that isn’t used much, so to save you having to open up another page, please forgive me for presuming that it needs a definition: Idiopathy is the belief that the material world and the life follows it, are in a disconnected state.
Idiopathically, we see a thing as a thing by itself, with no dynamic connections to us or the outside world at all. That’s the skeptical position we;’re all most ocmfortable with. Its only the palpable connections to the world around it that make it seem connecte for a moment to anything. Scientists are just now beginningto suspect that water molcules have different mangetic connections with one another thaat appeaars to transcend the hydrogen bond. As Benveniste noted 10 years ago at the Cavendish, this dynamic field view of water molecules will lead to a significant pardigm shift in medicine.
So a stone upon the shore is seen as nothing more than rock amongst others, with no connections to its fellows amongst who it sits, except for the connections we make for it in our minds, until that too is broken and it is picked up and thrown out of view, into the lake.
Infinitesimally the lake is seen as the rocks on the shore, a haphazard collection of singular parts, with no other connection than physical proximity, H2O molecules jostling one other like stones in a bucket.
But this is not the way the world is constructed. All things are dynamically conneccted, and people are no exception.
Molecules of water are not free entities as the rocks on the shore appear to be. Like humans, converse to popular belief, they do not exist alone. I challenge anyone to separate one from its kin and show it to me. I think it is not possible. I think there is no such thing as an idiopathic water molecule.
Neither can their true character be known by modeling them alone, and yet this is exactly what we do in the study of them. We model them alone as if they separate and apart, and so that is how we think of them.
And that, sadly, is how we think of ourselves too often I fear. Alone, when in fact every water molecule within us is dynamically, magnetically, connected directly to as many as four other water molecules around it, an beyond, a fifth connection. Water can be seento behave as if within a dynamic field.
There are indirect intermolecular forces that connect water molecules with one another, which demonstrates the magnetic interconnectiveness of of all living things, for water is the most common element in our sphere, around and within us.
If water molecules cannot have a sustained magnetic connection, then how do they support a water bridge?

Density gradientsobject width=”480″ height=”385″>


Continued from “How Embarrassing!”
Great detectives think only about the truth, and so they constantly attack the deficiencies in their own thinking first. They don’t wait for somebody else to do it for them. They care less about making themselves look good than they do in solving the problem.
And that’s what I’ve done for Jeff Garrington and everyone else. I’ve solved the problem. But do I get any thanks for this? No, of course not. They’re all too cheap to recognize that! How cheap are they? They’re so cheap they count their fingers after they shake hands; they take out a one month subscriptions to Reader’s Digest; they go to the drugstore and buy one Kleenex; they keep moths as pets because they think they only eat holes; they stop watches to save time; they wash paper plates, they won’t even tip their hats and they quit golf . . because they lost the ball.
I might also call out, that in all my correspondence with him, even physicist Brian David Josephson (BDJ), the youngest non-academic to win the Nobel prize in modern times, has not pointed out what the particular deficiencies in my presentation were, in fact no one has, with except one, und nichts du, certainly not Jeff Garrington.

Except for this one person, no one has been able to take even a good swipe at them. The only critic I know of so far who has pointed out the holes in my argument and forced me to patch them up before opening my mouth is . . ahem me.

The only person who has been able to discuss it is the Great Kaviraj.

Now, as an example of how lame even Garrington’s ad hominems are, if you do a search on that particular quote by BDJ regarding me , which Garrington and others love to stretch their necks on, it only appears on Andy Lewis’ bullshit quackometer website.

Lewis is so nervous from being repeatedly kicked off web hosting services for le canard noir, the black lie, he can thread a sewing machine while it’s still running. And when you follow his link to the BDJ quotes, they’re not there! (See link to site my lecture and BDJ’s actual comments, below) Gasp! Now why would that be? The argument so far against me is so weak even we homeopaths can’t find a dilution level for it.
Please, somebody, teach me! I’ll assign my million dollar claim on James Randi’s million dollars if anybody can if somebody can only help me!
Is Andy lying, like he so often does, or did BDJ remove it? If so, why would he do that? And so what if he did say those things? He’s also said that so far, no one’s proven me wrong.
“A colleague to whom I forwarded a link remarked that he ‘found most blogs depressing because they tend to be dominated by people who are very opinionated and often rude, yet uninformed and uncritical’, and I’m sure he would think the same of this — all these attempts to prove John Benneth wrong that don’t amount to anything, and the inability to follow any remotely subtle points. But this (almost too) prolonged discussion will provide very interesting material for sociologists of science to mull over.”
Posted by: Brian Josephson Aug 13, 2010

Will they prove me wrong? Or will they . . teach me?

I don’t pretend to think that BDJ has been enthusiastic or even agreeable to my dissertation. Yes, it was a spectacle, there was a sign carrying mob at the door, I had to step on Evan Harris’s face to get to the door and use Singh’s hair to get to the stairs. I even saw a couple old ladies, waving tickets and trying to get Stephen Hawkins into the freight elevator.

BDJ simply has had very little to say about it, although recently he pointed out in commentary in another article on the web about molecular self-assembly that it sounded reminiscent to what I was talking about in my “controversial” talk at the Cavendish.
He was extremely nervous about my presentation and I don’t blame him, I know who I am and how I come off, what’s at stake for him isn’t what’s at stake for me, I know what an embarrassment I am to these anti-homeopathy blockheads, at any moment I might whip out affidavits testifying to sexual assaults on minors by James Randi, or I might start cursing out that cockbite Goldacre, drop my bombs and walk away. But I didn’t do that, I did worse than that, I showed them all how really stupid they’ve been about their own business. I showed them real science. I showed them how confused about very simple, basic things, like hydrogen bonding and intermolecular forces.
What could be more embarrassing than that?

Yes, my little talk met with great opposition, but to date NO ONE has been able to correct the glaring contradiction between the direct observation of sustained liquid aqueous structuring created by intermolecular forces in water, what any child can see the effects of and science supports, and the “theory” that it is impossible because of “breakage ” of the “hydrogen bond” and the fairy tale of H2O molecules as independent entities. Scrape it together, get your story straight. Water is a colloid (Tiller, On Chemical Medicine, Thermodynamics and
Roy, Water Water Everywhere

“Proposed mechanisms such as structural effects on the water can be seen as a bridge to the homeopathic regime. Ricci, in the standard text on the Phase Rule puts it thus: Another non uniformity possible in a homogeneous phase of an isolated equilibrium system free of the forces of gravitational and other such fields seems to be that of surface energy, if the phase is a subdivided one. The subdivided phase in a 2-phase colloidal system, for example, may not have the same surface development in all its pieces. But if there is such a thing as a reproducibly stable colloidal system, with an equilibrium state which is a function of T, P, and composition alone, independent of time and of the relative amounts of the phases, then this non-uniformity must be a regular one, following some statistical distribution fixed solely by these variables. If the colloidal system, then, is stable and in reversible equilibrium, the distribution of its surface energy must be assumed to be either uniform or a reproducible function of the stated variables [16]. Roy, Structure of Liquid Water

To listen to the Garringtons of the world it sounds like their view of the rest of the material world: intermolecularly totally disconnected, as if these molecules were like grains of sand, except smaller. What a bunch of nitwits. This guy Garrnington has been confused by academics like Prof. David Colquhoun. You may not have known this, but before Coquhoun got a job as a professor at London City University, he applied for a job as a teller in a blood bank, then a social director on a freight train, and finally a lifeguard in a motor pool. But since there weren’t any openings, he got a job completely confusing people about the workings of the material and dynamic world.
All they can do is characterize my presentation as embarrassing. Isn’t it ironic that Simon Singh, the particle physicist, also spoke at the Cavendish after I did, but not on any physical principles, as I did, but about how “scientismists” should be given special rights to defame others, just as Garrington does? He doesn’t have a capacity to discuss the “science” he claims is nailed to his rants, and neither does Singh with his “science degree.” What a clod.
What fun to see him shot down by the very thing he pretends to worship.
We all know what’s at stake for the Garringtons. Anyone who studies this can see what the real ramifications of it are. Findley loses his $12 million per annum and Garrington doesn’t get his 50 mao per diem from the Evil Empire paymaster. The supramolecular theory for homeopathic remedies threatens to torpedo his old leaking paradigm, blub blub blub, down goes the tub.
For as long as homeopathy has been practiced Garrington and everyone else who’s afraid to acknowledge the evidence, insist that there is specificity to the biological effects of hydroxl medicine simply because it just doesn’t make sense, and so when a non academic drunk like me has to be led by the hand, stumbling into their den of stupidity, and shows them how it does make sense, using what is supposed to be their terms of classical science, they get red faced pissed, and they seek to say anything they can to explain it away.
Prove that I’m wrong. Teach me. Show me that intermolecular forces can’t sustain liquid aqueous structuring. Show me that the hydrogen bond does not create clathrates, water clusters, bubbles and water surface tensio. Show me what does. Show that water is not a colloid, as material scientists and pure logic say it to be. If not due to the intermolecular attraction between water molecules, then show wwha tthe connection is in water that facilitates sound travelling longer distances in water than it does in air; show why electroreceptors in cartilaginous fishes can detect electromagnetic fields in water.
Teach me!
If internal structuring cannot occur in water, then explain to me what American material scientists are talking about in “Structure of Liquid Water,” by Roy et al.
If they weren’t aqueous nanostructures as he claimed, then tell me what it was that Nobel laureate scientist Luc Montagnier and others were measuring and actually filtering out of solutions? If these things are not the result of sustained hydrogen bonding, then what are they are the result of?
Just what is it that creates the “supramolecular organization of water” Demangeat is talking about?
Teach me!
2008 July 26 Journal of Molecular Liquids NMR water proton relaxation in unheated and heated ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine: Evidence for an air-dependent supramolecular organization of water
Jean-Louis Demangeat !
Nuclear Medicine Department, General Hospital, Haguenau, France

Click to access Demangeat_JML_2009.pdf

Can everyone see now what Garrington and all the other pseudoscientists here are arguing for? They’re like someone who walks up behind an easy looking target, some old guy and his date, and hits him on the bald spot, sticks his hand in the pocket of a black and brown checkered shirt jack and pretends he’s got a gun.
Just a fantasy.
Garrington and countless others come at Kaviraj and me daily like a flock of stingerless hornets, and we still got them outgunned in online references 10 to one. And yet the entire medical paradigm of allopathy has been built on the same buing of these inssects, not backed by anything at all.

I ended up literally kicking the shit out of that guy in the middle lane of Sierra street. I got him chasing me out into the street, then suddenly stopped and dropped. In slow motion his feet left the ground as he went sailing over my head, auguring in on the other side, face first. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.Just like Colquhoun, gettting his down button pushed on his elevator shoes. 

It’s a trick I learned in kindergarten, one of many ways to defeat bullies. Stay tuned tohis column and you’ll learn more.
He was stuck in the asphalt, presenting his ass end to me,which I stuck the toe of my shoe in with a swift kick. He lifted up slightlyon that end, his face blubbering into the pavement some more. 

How dare he? Trying to rob someone walking away from a casino on Sierra Street in downtown Reno is about as stupid as trying to rob tourists on their way home from Las Vegas.
I’m from Virginia City!
After it was all over and me and my girlfriend were walking away from it I said, “what if he’d attacked an old couple?” to which she replied, “he did.”
Here’s the Power Powerpoint lecture that’s caused all the uproar:
BEYOND THE MOLECULE: The Supramolecular Chemistry of the Homeopathic Remedy by John Benneth

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter


Jeff Garrington begins another sample of his excellent writing by quoting me, and then cruel jab:

“I am probably one of only a handful of people who understands the mechanical, molecular basis for the action of the homeopathic remedy. I possess knowledge of a chemistry that is far more advanced than Kindler’s. ” and yet -Brian Josephson had this to say about you, you remember don’t you, your talk at the Cavendish.
“This talk was an experiment, somewhat of a gamble perhaps. John Benneth is an ‘enthusiast’ for homeopathy, not a scientist, and what he said in the seminar might well have made him (and myself) look foolish.
Josephson went on to say that Benneth showed a “failure to understand particular scientific issues”, and that there were “clear deficiencies in the presentation”.
Oh well as you recently said, information on the internet can always be found.

John Benneth responds:
Reminds me of a time in Reno when a guy a little bigger than me snuck up behind and hit me over the head. When I turned around, he had his hand in the pocket of a brown checkered shirt jack, pointing it at me.
He said he had a gun.
Knowing a bluff when I see one, the question to Garrington regarding that quote of Nobel laureate physicist Brian Josephson (BDJ) is the same I had for the man in the brown checkered shirt:
“And where might that be?”
You see, the big difference between them and me is that I’m right and they’re wrong. Okay, you hurt my feelings, congratulations, but it just makes you look wronger than what you’ll be in the end. In both cases, the authorities, both black letter and man, are there to back me up after the scuffling is over.
It’s the same way in every post I receive against homeopathy, claims that aren’t backed up by anything at all. Except for some rubber tipped darts, he wouldn’t have any bullets even if he did have a gun to fire them with. If their collective minds were metaphorically the size of a room I’d be washing the windows every time I blinked.
Oh, they’re happy to attack my references, as if attacking references is something they do professionally, but when you turn the tables on them and demand their references for the placebo effect, or anything else for that matter, they have nothing, a point this column, which is rated the world’s best on homeopathy, repeatedly makes.
DEMAND TO JEFF GARRINGTON: Where did BDJ say that? Source please. Give us a link.
I’m not saying he didn’t say it, he probably did and I can add a few more things he said, such as telling me that he wouldn’t take me to lunch in the dining hall at Trinity College, unless I changed the title on one of my videos, which he said, was “socially unacceptable.”
Like the one where I do an imitation of Randi confessing homosexuality.
I had the liver and ham at Trinity, btw. It was excellent, something I wouldn’t have expected from an English kitchen, where sometimes they don’t always pluck evetrything they boil it.
And when someone tried to take a picture of us together, BDJ almost broke his neck trying to dive out of it.
But what does that have to do with the molecular mechanics of water?
Jeff Garrington won’t provide a valid link to his ad hominems because he doesn’t have one, just as he doesn‘t have anything to say about the molecular mechanics of water, nothing more than the fabrications of Andy Lewis.
Garrington is so bad at providing references the only job I can see him getting is with the Catholic Church. They don’t check references either, you know. Hell, they’d make him Pope.
His mind has been poisoned by capitalized academics which are there to support capitalized epidemics.
Like most academics it’s just something he made up that has nothing to do with anything relevant at all. He, as well as hordes of other eggheads don’t, just doesn’t want people to listen to me because I’m telling the truth. It shows how stupid and grubbing he and most academics are. In fact, what I have to reveal is enough to nuke all institutions of higher capitalization.
Example: The Cavendish Laboratory, which is a part of Cambridge University, is teaching young people in silico that the polar protic water molecule is a free entity that bounces off other random molecules in large undefined open spaces, like drunken cowboys at a barn dance after the band has gone home. So when I ask these students what it is these water molecules are swimming around in, they just look at me dumbly.
“But that’s what our computer models show us,” they say. And who wrote that program? Colquhoun did! Who does Colquhoun work for? The drug companies!
They’re teaching these kids at Cambridge that bonds between water molecules always break after a few femto-seconds and the water molecule then flies off to bang another one, like Colquhoun with his female stuents at LCU. (And a few of the good looking males from Pakistan.)
Think for a moment how fantastically ridiculous that is. It ranks right up there with the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. It’s an academic fairy tale. What in the hell do they think water is full of, anyway? Vacuums? Do they really think that at a thousand feet below the surface of the ocean this is what water molecules are doing? No, that’s what academics are doing in they’re retarded social lives. It’s all a part of their pathological solipsism.
After the lecture I took a look at some of the science projects kids at the Cavendish were working on, things like: toasters with knives on each side to scrape the toast as it pops up; a sundial that works on Daylight Savings Time; a portable electric blanket for people who walk in their sleep; a rocking chair with seat belts; a silent piano for people who don’t like music; a shoehorn for horseshoes; pajamas with ripcords for people who want to bail out of bed in the morning; hair cream that covers up bald spots by shrinking your head.
And these are just to name a few of the better ones.
So to Mr. Garrington I say, it’s really about your jealousy, isn’t it Jeff? You’re certainly not acknowledging the holes in your thinking on the subject, which is what my talk illustrates, nor are you talking about what you see as those in my lecture. Why is that?
Because there aren‘t any!
Here is the lecture that started it all
BEYOND THE MOLECULE: The Supramolecular Chemistry of the Homeopathic Remedy
To be continued . . wait ’til you hear what I did to that guy in Reno.