Homeopathy, Physics and the $1,000,000 Challenge

The Ed and Dana Show

Just as Prof. Edzard Ernst is homeopathy’s greatest modern opponent, Dana Ullman, in my opinion, is homeopathy’s greatest modern proponent. In fact, I would nominate him for a million dollar Hahnemann award (if such a thing existed) as this blog of Ernst’s testifies [https://edzardernst.com/2019/02/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-dana-ullman/]. . at least to the latter approbation, despite the attempt by Ernst to smudge the article as “satire”, I propose taking the helm of the dialectic with an observation that rolls over a snag in the issue these great men are embroiled in, that being the central argument of verum and placebo, whether or not the homeopathic remedy is chemically capable of initiating a biometric, cellular response . . by dint of its instrumentally measurable physical properties. Yes, yes, I know, that sounds a little confusing, to people with limited vocabularies who won’t look anything up, but sooner or later we have to get down to pins and needles.
Just let me say this: As men of science, the team of Ullman and Ernst should be repelling up and down the cliffs of this question of homeopathic chemistry and nuclear physics and meeting at its quantum summit.

Excuse me, did I say nuclear physics? Maybe I should say” unclear physics” . . or what about “new clear physics?” Certainly more cheeky and promising.

Mystery of the lost molecule

Years ago I called super-skeptic Michael Shermer to inform him he had misspelled “Hannemann” in his Encyclopedia of Pseudoskepticism, and in the ensuing conversation about homeopathy he suddenly blurted “what is it?” and I quickly responded “nuclear magnetic resonance”, a sanitized version of radioactive, and that was the end of it.
You’d think he’d want more, but he ran like a bunny. Well, come to think of it, pretty much everyone has and does . . run like a bunny, or a scalded hamster when confronted by such uh, unclear physics. But never fear, Iam here to make them . . if you have the courage to keep reading . ..
Demystifying homeopathy doesn’t seem to be a popular topic among skeptics and homeopaths alike. Naming it and claiming it loses its popularity among those trading in its mysteries. But there is a problem with sustaining a mystery already plumbed.

Excuse me, did I just imply that the homeopathic remedy’s mechanism, as the British Medical Journal put it in their ’92 Kleijnan meta reviiew, has been revealed? And what’s this you say, it’s not just all placebo?
Why is it that heresy seems to find a home with me? Am I being used as an example of the futility of swords?

B.S. in Revenant Science

One-hundred and ten years ago an article appeared in The Chironian entitled The Scientific Reasonableness of Homeopathy by Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D.*

It is a remarkable piece of writing, for among other things, it resolves in finer detail what I told Shermer, and

U.S. Senator Royal S. Copeland, M.D., Homeopath and Chief Architect of the FDCA.

how it got there, to which, by the way, I have pursued in even finer granularity in today’s references. More on that later if I’m not assassinated . . or  euthanized. Here is what Copeland writes on the futility of swords no matter how fine the edge:

Dissociation of Molecules.

COPELAND: “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.”
Allow me to reiterate: The more dilute the solution the greater is the dissociation and consequently the atoms are less in number and the ions increased.

With that one sentence Copeland should be setting off a spark in the dry tinder of inquiring minds. Dissociation of molecules? What is that? Ionization? What are these terms with which Copeland is promising to demystify the missing molecule in the homeopathic remedy? And what is this about homeopathy and electrolytes?
If you want to read more of what Copeland has to say, be my guest, I presume you have access to the Internet. It’s a lengthy article covering some other interesting stuff in the same vein. Here’s the link: https://www.homeowatch.org/history/copeland.html.
If you’re wondering who he is, Google Royal S. Copeland. He was a U.S. Senator and chief sponsor of the FDCA. In the meantime, let me share with you what I found in my research regarding molecular dissociation and ionization, but first let me reassure you not to feel alone in ignorance. Nobody I know so far gets it or has gotten it. It’s the common brain stem that seems to shut down when it first encounters this. Mine did. The mouth and fingers quit working, there’s a reduction in neural activity, it went over my head the first few times I read it and remained so until I smoked some pot and got the grandstand idea to look up some definitions . . and found myself descending into the rabbit hole of quantum chemistry and . . the infinitessimal.
When particles are diluted in water, they are split apart in a process known as dissociation, and to be more specific, hydrolytic dissociation, when the smaller particles are split into even smaller particles in subsequent dilutions and the molecule is ionized into electrons. In other words the solute changes phase, losing mass as it gains energy, changing from particle to wave and retaining the properties of the original solute.
It’s a nuclear event.

COPELAND: “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.” !!!

The chemical in a homeopathic dilution is present only in a state of ionization?

Here it can be seen that for a couple of hundred years the critics of homeopathy have been theoretically counting molecules, when according to Copeland and his references, they should have been looking for ions, and according to Copeland, at least since 1909, the presence of ions in solution can detected using physical tests:

COPELAND: . the laboratory has proven that the properties of completely dissociated solution are the sum of all the ions present in the solution. This holds for such properties as conductivity, lowering of the freezing point, refraction equivalent, heat of neutralization, and undoubtedly, for any therapeutic effect possessed by the drug.

LET”S SEE YOU GET OUT OF THIS ONE: James Randi, skeptic, debunker, stage magician and escape artist, in 1999 offered John Benneth $1,000,000 for proof of homeopathy, Benneth responded with a test . .

Sounds like things in the homeopathic remedy are warming up.
This certainly is news to the arbiters of homeopathy. You’d think they’d wany to know, especially those who are proponents of homeopathy. I mean its quite understandable that opponents of homeopathy would want the theory and tests to go away, especially the tests that prove the molecular content to have ionized. In 1999, billionaire Richard L. Adams, Jr., founder of UUNET, treasurer of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), speaking through James Randi, offered to me personally, delivered as a challenge, in writing, $1,000,000, provided by Adams, to PROVE that the originating solute, the intended chemical in a homeopathic solution, is present in a homeopathic remedy solution diluted one part in ten 24 or more times in the method of Hahnemann, that point at which not one molecule can remain.

$1,000,000 for proof of homeopathy

In the ending days of 1999 I applied for the Adams/Randi million dollar challenge to prove homeopathy, and my application was accepted by Mr. Randi. I had specifically asked Mr. Randi, if I provided a method by which to identify homeopathically potentized solutions in liquid or pill vehicles among non potentized solutions of the same vehicle in a double blind trial, would that win the million dollars?
Mr. Randi replied by email “yes, just do it and take the money.”

After months of Mr. Randi failing to accept a proposed test of a method, a dielectric assay discussed between

Billionaire founder of Internet backbone UUNET Richard L. Adams, Jr. provided the $1,000,000 to JREF for proof of homeopathy. Adams is the treasurer of JREF.

me and JREF representative Prof. Eric Carlson of Wake Forest University, I sent an “open letter” email to James Randi at randi@randi.org, dated Fri, 22 Sep 2000 08:19:35 -0700, and cc’d it to to a host of others caught in the diaspora, numerous witnesses, including luminaries of the dialectic as Nobel prize laureate Brian Josephson; INSERM director Jacques Benveniste; homeopathy experimentalist and book author Prof. Gary E. Schwartz; physicist Robert Park; Skeptics-Forum@egroups.com, National Institute of Health director and homeopathy experimentalist Wayne Jonas, M.D., Boiron representative Andy Bormeth, homeopathy researcher David Reilly, M.D., Oxford public health director Tim Lancaster, M.D.; JREF’s banker at Goldman Sachs Naomi Shapiro, Aquarian editor Syd Baumel; witness Wesley Thuro, psicounsel.com archivist Dan Kettler; Infinite-Energy.com editor Eugene Mallove; U. of Arizona homeopathy researcher Professor Iris R Bell, M.D. Andrew Harter of JREF; advocate for scrutiny of unproven medical practices Wallace Sampson, M.D.; Boiron and finally, of course, who else but the legendary homeopath, Dana Ullman.
In this letter I presented (among other numerous tests using different methods) James Stephenson’s published replication of a test by two French investigators (Gay and Boiron) that identifed the presence of ions in homeopathic solutions, as described by Copeland, by measuring the puncture voltage of the solution, well enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, the potentized remedy from its H2O base.
In other words, Adams and Randi wagered a million dollars on published tests that reported having already done years ago what they were betting was impossible.
Like any drowning man, I’m reaching out. Can I get a hand here?
Are we having a conversation about this, or is it just me?

What do you think the response was?

*Senator Copeland was the Dean of New York Homeopathic Medical College and Flower Hospital, formerly a Professor at the University of Michigan, the late President of the American Institute of Homeopathy, reprinted from The Chironian, May 1909; in the 1930’s he was the U.S. Senator from New York 1923 to 1938 and Chief Sponsor of the Federal Drug and Cosmetics Act.


TED Talk re: Randi’s $1000000 homeopathy challenge

Harry Balzac fills in for John Benneth, discusses Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Ford, Hudson, voice stress lie detection, TED talks, money offers, James Randi, $1,000,000, Die Skeptiker GWUP 50,000 euros, to identify homeopathic remedies, https://www.gwup.org/challenge-home,
“It’s already been done!” Rao The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17678814, TEM finds gold found “growing” in homeopathic remedy mystifies scientists explained, “Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective,”
Chikramane transmission electron microscopy https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20970092, explains how homeopathy works, “That’ll be one millions bucks”, explains how homeopathy works


08/27/18 See it once, you’ll see it again, physical tests for homeopathy reveal the impossible possible, the further East I go, the better i’m treated. the monomaniacal god, Rapa Nui of Easter Island, James Randi, the million dollar offer, John McCain

The Quantum Chemistry of Homeopathy . . a tour de force

THE CANDLE BURNS LOW, the memento mori high upon the shelf grins down at me, I must now write hurriedly before my dimming faculties quit or time on trodden soil expires, for now I have the key to unlocking the most mysterious mechanism of science, its most baffling assembly: The Power of the Infinitesimal.

THE QUESTION HAS BEEN POSED: How is it that the mere taint of what should be pure water, presumably voided of an added solute by serial dilution, still retains the biochemical properties of the original solute, as is demonstrated in the medical doctrine of homeopathy?

NOW IF the FDA, FDCA and the clinical reports they reference are to be believed, answering this question would unleash a severity of charm the conventionally accepted history on this planet has not yet foreseen; as the law of homeopathy is the fundamental basis of the vaccine . . immunology, proven in epidemics from smallpox to Ebola and pandemic flu, but not accepted as possible. the testimonials of cure, dismissed by notional science (and the patents it serves) as coincidence . . or lies.


In a previous entry I introduced quantum chemistry as the latest mount for homeopathy, as all paths in science lead there, for the enlightened > the newest Pauling’s identification of contiguous electronic structuring from infinitesimal to atom to crystal. The triumph for homeopathy is confirming the specificity of the sub-atomic field, meaning that clathrates, liquid aqueous structuring (LAS) transcends H-bond breakage by movement of solute ions throughout the structure; the genesis of the architecture of clathrate, snowflake and crystal by electrons is of unfathomable depth. This is why the disassociated solute doesn’t lose its properties in thousands of homeopathic dilutions.

In the Nov. 2nd entry you may notice along the way I am harried by cynics nipping at my pedagogues. Here is a troll who has harassed me on Twitter. Here, writing in my Journal, he is more respectful.

“Gold” (?) writes “If you really have finally explained the quantum chemistry of homeopathy in conventional ionic theory then the research must have been replicated by others. Can you provide links to the studies that validate this?”
A reasonable question for the uninformed . .

MY REPLY to “Gold.”

The seminal work linking homeopathy with ionic theory is found in Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D.’s “The Scientific Reasonableness of Homeopathy” http://www.homeowatch.org/history/copeland.html
See “molecular dissociation”

“Gold” in reply to johnbenneth.
“I’d already found that. I’m actually interested in the replications. The strength in any scientific hypothesis is in the testing and failure to disprove it.”

This gets so tiring, dragging out the boilerplate, setting up the type, firing up the kiln, lashing the horses to the mill, when will this Promethean task ever end? Copeland lists replicable tests at the end of the article. At the end I give these links to what they, the endless skeptic, take to be a journey to the unknown, a report in which they challenge every word, dot and comma to be fiction. I would simply ignore this half wit in favor of more productive activity, like smoking a cigarette, taking a nap, getting drunk, watching Trump blow up the World . . but others are might notice.

In reply to Gold.

Tests of specific molar conductance are relatively common and simple . . and have been performed on homeopathic dilutions. Here’s an example: http://scienceofhomeopathy.com/brucato.html
Dielectric strength testing by Brucato and Stephenson was a replication of Gay and Boiron’s conductance test of high dilutions, followed by four other similar published tests. I have counted a dozen other types of physical tests for homeopathic dilutions, such as NMR (18 replications), transmission electron microscopy, [plasma discharge] and beta scintillation of neutronic radiation. The work of the Yves Lasne Prize sponsors was primarily NMR and revealed new indices, such as effects of gravitation, UV and EM fields on homeopathic solutions. Read Theory of High Dilutions and experimental aspects by Rolland Conte, Yves Lasne, Henri Berliocchi and Gabriel Vernot.
Here’s another review of tests supporting ionic theory for homeopathy:
‘The “Ultra High Dilution 1994” project was an endeavour to take stock of the findings and theories on homeopathic extreme dilutions that were under research at the time in areas of biology, biophysics, physics and medicine. The project finally materialized into an anthology assembling contributions of leading scientists in the field. Over the following two decades, it became widely quoted within the homeopathic community and also known in other research communities. The aim of the present project was to re-visit and review the 1994 studies from the perspective of 2015.’ http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/article/S1475-4916(15)00060-0/abstract?cc=y=

Here’s another review of physical testing of homeopathic dilutions (of varying quality) showing evidence of the solute in post Avogadro solutions, what notional academia erroneously believes has to be pure solvents. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12676040

So if you still have doubts about an ionic asymptote in homeopathic dilutions, conduct your own tests, publish your findings and post YOUR links.
In a previous entry I also asked for $5 million, a quarter of what I want to open a clinic based on the work of Conte et al.


The Homeopathic Intuitive #1- Boils, Vertigo, Nephritic Syndrome

Regard with caution: What follows is a prologue to a remedy suggestion for a nephritic syndrome case. I don’t know quite how to address this without sounding weird, but I’ll give it a try anyway. This is not to be taken as medical advice. If you have a medical problem, consult the medical profession. Be skeptical.

Please excuse its length, but I think you’ll find it interesting.

I had a difficult case once out of Pakistan where the patient had been to several homeopaths and tried a dozen different remedies for boils in his armpits and groin, to no success except suppuration, the flesh hanging down in shreds. It was a horrible mess and he had been suffering for a long time. I can’t imagine what the pain must have been like.

After having tried several remedies to no avail I simply sat down and prayed for an answer that came to me in a flash: Arnica. I looked it up and there it was: Arnica . . for crops of boils!

I instructed the patient to obtain an Arnica 10M, crush the pill between two spoons, stir into water, take a teaspoon into his mouth and spit it out.

Two days later he contacted me from Karachi on Skype, in a panic, having turned bright red. I told him to be calm, it was a sign the remedy was working.

I didn’t hear back from him for another week. When I did, he was ecstatic, he was overjoyed, he was cured. It had worked. The suppurated boils had shriveled up.

“You have done what others could not. You have healed me,” he said. I talked to him again couple months later. What he said made me slap my head: “I am taking up homeopathy as a profession.” The nature or will set you will will and will and are in a will and will not

I tried this method on other unfathomable cases and it has worked as well. In my mind I simply ask for the remedy and the answer comes immediately. Given my skeptical notions and absolute reliance on the literature I am highly suspicious of the phenomenon. I’m afraid to say I don’t trust it without researching the answer. It could be coming out of my subconscious, having prior read about the remedy and consciously forgotten it, or it could be a coincidence given the extensive indications that the remedies have within the materia medica, but I am more favorable to another explanation, the answer coming to me in the putative form of a little-known remedy.

For example, the last time I used this procedure was for a case involving vertigo. The answer came back “mustard”. I looked up the Latin for mustard, Synapis nigra, and found it as such in Clarke covering vertigo. Whether it worked or not is yet to be seen. Patient took it on the F scale, accidentally downed a whole bottle of water containing the final chord and aggravated.

I used this intuitive savant technique (IST) for the nephritic syndrome case and immediately the answer came back “marshmallow”, i.e. Althea off.

So here is the epilogue to this essay using IST on the nephritic syndrome case.

I haven’t been able to find much on Althea officianalis per se except it is indicated for bladder problems, but a little additional digging raises eyebrows. The Herb Wisdom site says

“Marshmallow works as a mucilage, producing a thick sticky substance that coats membranes. Marshmallow extract contains flavanoids, which contain anti-inflammatory properties. The flavanoids are able to reduce inflammation while the mucilage holds them in immediately place and prevents further damage. The extracts also induce phagocytosis, which is the process in which certain cells engulf bacteria, dead cell tissues or other solid particles. This helps speed up the healing process. The mucilage remains unaltered until it reaches the colon, which is why marshmallow works well on most inflammatory digestive disorders.”

What I found out next was my big wow:

Marshmallow contains Asparagine, first identified in asparagus juice. Asparagine, according to a 2011 study done at the University of Dundee, is required for normal kidney physiology and homeostasis.


“Although protein recapture and catabolism is known as a key function of kidney proximal tubular cells (PTCs), to date, no single protease has been shown to be required. Asparagine endopeptidase (AEP) is an unusually specific endosomal and lysosomal cysteine protease, expressed at high levels in the PTCs of the mammalian kidney. We report that mice lacking AEP accumulate a discrete set of proteins in their PTC endosomes and lysosomes, which indicates a defect in the normal catabolism of proteins captured from the filtrate. Moreover, the mice develop progressive kidney pathology, including hyperplasia of PTCs, interstitial fibrosis, development of glomerular cysts, and renal pelvis dilation. By 6 mo of age, the glomerular filtration rate in AEP-null mice dropped by almost a factor of 2, and the mice developed proteinuria. We also show that EGF receptor levels are significantly higher in AEP-null PTCs, which likely explains the hyperplasia, and we show that chemical inhibition of AEP activity suppresses down-regulation of the EGF receptor in vitro. Thus, AEP is required for normal protein catabolism by PTCs, and its loss induces proliferative and other abnormalities in the murine kidney, at least in part through defective regulation of the EGF receptor.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21292981




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.


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.


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. 


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?