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

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

Premiere American homeopath Dana Ullman.

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

Edzard Ernst, M.D. is an “academic physician” and researcher specializing in the study of complementary and alternative medici

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 review, 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

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

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

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 want 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 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, U.S. 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 identified 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 these two men were avowedly betting a million dollars 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?

The Vindication of Jacques Benveniste

HOW THE HOMEOPATH BECAME KING , Chapter 2: The Vindication of Jacques Benveniste

In our last entry, amid some inflammatory allegations, we pointed out some salient facts.

Homeopathy has not been the sole domain of fools, as scientists-in-name-only (SINOs) would have us believe. After being informed by a failed stage magician that the materials used in homeopathy are nothing but plain water, SINOs get factamnesia; tritiated water, i.e. radioactive H2O, as used in medical isotopes for tracking, is also, by the same critieria, just plain water!

We know what the enemies of homeopathy want it to be: What they said it was. But it’s not. What it really is threatens their dress code, which is, among SINOs, if you look right you will be right. Therefore, anything that threatens looking right, anything that threatens to desynchronize the lock step ridicule of what was touted “scientifically” wrong, has to be attacked, even though it is shown to be demonstrably right.

SINOs get factamnesia when it is pointed out that supporters of homeopathy include real scientists who have gone against the weathered tide, some of them Nobel laureates for physics and medicine, such as physicists Brian Josephson and Emil von Behring, and virologist Luc Montagnier, who recently replicated Jacques Benveniste’s discovery that the supramolecular* medicines used by homeopaths have electromagnetic indices.

SINO’s become amnesiacs after learning that among notable medical doctors like Mendelsohn and Menninger . . who have practiced homeopathy . . is Royal S. Copeland, MD, a US. Senator from New York , who taught it, and was chief sponsor of the Federal Drug and Cosmetics Act. Copeland was The Godfather of the FDA, the iatric who crowned the homeopath “king of physicians,” from which this series takes it title.

I certainly can understand that it is a go-along to get-along world, and for this I give my errant siblings some slack. I confess homeopathy might not be all I crank it up to be; after dragged from the shuttered cave, a fraction my years spent in Parmenides’ light, compelled I am to admit, it may be part illusion.

But I don’t think so . .

Among the long list of notable users of homeopathic medicine were some arch-skeptics. Mark Twain, the world’s most oft quoted man, dean of American letters, the Lincoln of her literature and author of the first “Great American novel” . . not because it was the first to be composed on a typewriter, but because of its insight into humanity. Twain was nobody’s huckleberry, and Twain was a regular patron of homoeopathic physicians.

Whereas atheists are infamous homeopathy bashers, after ten years suffering from an incapacitating, unrelenting and mysterious stomach complaint, Atheist Jesus Charles Darwin was cured by Disraeli’s homeopath, Dr. James Manby Gully, MD. And so the list of renowned users goes on and on. The richest man to have ever lived, John D. Rockefeller, was a lay homeopath who offered free homeopathic treatment to all his Standard Oil employees. He passed over at 97 with his own personal homoeopath by his side. Legendary songwriter (perhaps the greatest of all time) Paul McCartney of the Beatles is quoted as saying, “I can’t manage without homeopathy. In fact, I never go anywhere without homeopathic remedies. I often make use of them.”

Twain’s great love/hate relationship was with a homeopath who also just happened to be, by Twain’s account, one of , if not the most powerful, and perhaps the richest American woman of her time, Mary Baker Eddy, revelator of the new American Christian Science religion and founder of its church.

Her first marriage was to a homeopath, Daniel Patterson. Her son, Ebenezer Foster Eddy, was also a homeopath. The inability of physical science to explain the healing action of homeopathy was taken by her as proof of spiritual healing. It was homeopathy, she said, that led her to the discovery of Christian Science, by breaking the hold that materialism had laid hold on her mind.

Having witnessed cures that had no explanation in physical science, Eddy concluded that they had to have originated in the mind. The problem with this reasoning are the biochemical effects of homeopathy’s supramolecular ionized materials, unless of course you are willing to extend psychokinesis to the petri dish and the effects of homoeopathy on plants and animals,

But this isn’t good enough for SINOs.

Up until 1988 pre-clinical testing of high dilutions as used in homeopathy was simply ignored as being ridiculous. If there were no plausible explanations for the action of supramoleculars, then they had to be fictions. But that blew up in critics faces in 1988 with publication by Nature magazine (impact factor 30.98) of a trial by INSERM, the French medical research institution’s replication of basophil degranulation by a dilute of histamine (Poitevin) that showed blood cells, in vitro, reacting to dilutions as used in homeopathy (Davenas).

Like Nobel laureate physicist von Behring’s 1901 threat after receipt of the prize for the diptheria anti-toxin, stating that all vaccines are homoeopathic, the rule among the medical Illuminati of giving aid and comfort to the homeopaths had been broken. For this, the chief scientist at the French National Institute of Medical Research, INSERM, Jacques Benveniste, had to be punished. He was subsequently subjected to vigilante justice, an embarrassingly unscientific trial and patently phony “debunking” by thugs, a pederast magician and a sweating magazine editor, invading INSERM and playing sleight of hand with the results of the double-blind, random controlled trial (RCT), provided by Benveniste.

Knowing that simply trashing Davenas and it’s director wasn’t enough, Nature commissioned a highly reputable lab (Hirst) to replicate the test and prove there was no effect. This also blew up in their faces. When Hirst’s results showed there were indeed biochemical reactions to supramoleculars, they had to be attributed to an unknown flaw in the equipment.

That the world’s top science magazine would employ such blatant pseudo science is stunningly tragic. But for the plucky, it’s suicidally depressing, like watching your parents fight, finding out you’re adopted and then getting kicked out of the house before the age of majority in a world wide economic Depression under a 3-branch Republican administration with nowhere to go but God or Hades.

After almost 200 years, conventional science still hadn’t caught up with homoeopathy.

But for a quiet, unassuming Nobel laureate there was a thin lifeline for Benveniste. He was an English physicist by the name of Brian Josephson. I have never been able to quite figure him out. The Josephson Effect and the Josephson Connection are his eponyms, exemplars of a supercurrent, a macroscopic quantum phenomenon, generally classified as such when the quantum state is occupied by a large number of particles . . typically 10^23, which is Avogadro’s number! The emphasis here might seem meaningless, but in the case of Avogadro’s number it is surprisingly relevant to homeopathy. Avogadro’s number is the mark of the complete phase change between gas and plasma, i.e. the ionized primary, or fourth phase in the revolving door of matter. It  is also the point of dilution, the 23rd, at which the homoeopathic dilution embarks into the non-material world. 10^23 stands for the Holy Grail of homeopathy, for it is the 23rd to 24th decimal dilution in homeopathy when all the original starting material has theoretically been diluted out. It is the stumbling point at which materialism goes off the tracks in trying to understand the physically identifiable component of supramoleculars.

Get this: The theoretical size of the Universe is calculated to be 10^23 times larger than the observable. The implication here is that 10^23 is the demonstrable connecting point between what appears to the atheist as the real and the unreal; to the theist it is the connection between the material and spiritual world, and here, the poor dog guarding this gate is the Cerberus of real science.

It is the point at which the homeopathy’s dilute solution becomes ionized, purely supramolecular.

These are startling coincidences, or they should be to the non-opiated.

In other words, the critics of homeopathy are totally ignorant of an entire phase of matter!

And so this is why I find Josephson puzzling. The “effect” implies a “connection” if not an explanation for homeopathy, as if he is patiently waiting for someone else to make it. One of the observations of 1910 Dutch Nobel laureate Johannes Diderik van der Waals, was that phase changes are contiguous and the liquid and the gas phase of a substance merge into each other in a continuous manner and show that the two phases are of the same nature.  One of the touted mysteries of water is the simultaneous appearances of what are generally recognized as its three phases, but as anyone with a connection to Wikipedia can see in reality there are four basic phases of matter and locally 18 in water. By van der Waals criteria, water could then be considered a cold plasma that carries along the specificity of it ionized solutes. If three phases can show specificity, why should there be any surprise in finding it in all four global and the 18 localized in water??

In addition to being multi-phasic, water shows several qualities of being a plasma. It is made of of two gasses, has a high electrical component, both in internal tension and supercurrent. It emits electromagnetic signal indices. And so you can see, within the Josephson effect is the connection between science and homeopathy.

In the 1990’s French scientists Rolland Conte and Yves Lasne discovered that the materials used as medicine in homeopathy had extraordinary emissions of beta radiation. Beta radiation is in the quintillion Hertz frequency range, overlapping the higher end ultra violet range and the lower range of x-rays. They published their results with beta scintillation and nuclear magnetic resonance in a remarkable book entitled Theory of High Dilutions and experimental aspects. They proved their findings in a very simple test using hospital x-ray film. Laying a pattern of homeopathic Natrum muriaticum 30C in rectangular tablets on the film, they burned the image of two letters into it, an “H” and a “P”, to stand for Hyper Proton, which Conte describes as the absence of matter, the opposite of a black hole, which coincidentally fits the definition of plasma!

This is truly a remarkable physical test of proof for the mechanism, mode of action and physical efficacy of the unexplained materials used in homeopathic medicine. It shows the presence of Tritium, as found in tritiated water. It should elicit a yeow from anyone with a discerning mind who can see that it leads to the natural conclusion . . that these highly diluted, or supramolecular substances used in the curative medical practice of homeopathy, are not only specific radiant emitters in the class of low energy radio pharmaceuticals and medical isotopes, it also leads to other conclusions. Homeopathy is, albeit unwittingly, nuclear medicine. It is the product not of a chemical but of a nuclear reaction. A change occurs in the nucleus rather than a rearrangement in the electron shell.

It means (at last) we have found the scientific grail for real medicine, real cures for what conventional “modern”medicine has profited on as “incurable.” Like Linda Loman pleading for her husband Willie, “Homeopathy never made a lot of money, not like corporate medicine. It never had big ads in the newspaper or TV commercials showing people riding horses in fields of daisies or walking on the beach at sunset holding hands. It may not be able to cure everything, but it is real medicine, and a terrible thing is happening to it.  So attention must be paid to it, it must not be allowed to fall to its grave like an old dog.  Attention! Attention must finally be paid to such a medicine!”

LOL, she’s right! And I would like to see the Lasne Conte beta scintillation film test replicated by American scientists in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health, and published in a peer reviewed journal with high impact. In the name of real health care I call upon my colleagues and all science minded individuals and organizations to see this work done by the most credible workers available.

Please contact me if you think you can help to prove homeopathy in this way and vindicate one of the great scientists of all time, who stood up for homeopathy, and was shouted down.

In place of the letters “HP” I would prefer it to read “HOMEOPATHY WORKS.”

Chapter Two of HOW THE HOMEOPATH BECAME KING. To be notified of amazing Chapter Three, “The One Thing that Will Put Homeopathy Over the Top,” join the growing number of people now subscribing to THE JOHN BENNETH JOURNAL.

supramolecular means “beyond the molecule” and refers here to the high diluted . . beyond the molecular limit . .  used in homeopathy, identified by structural analysis. Not well understood by traditional chemical analysis, but a legitimate branch of chemistry since the 1950’s.

The Case Against the Case Against Homeopathy

Have you read the previous blog? I hope so, it might give you a better context into which to put . .

The Case Against the Case Against Homeopathy

SHOUT OUT to homeopaths in the home of Hahnemann, Germany; and homeopaths all over the world, in Ireland; Austria; Pakistan; Chile; Poland, Canada; Australia; India; the Netherlands; Croatia; Argentina; Iceland; Togo; the home of Clarke, the United Kingdom; and the home of Kent, the US of A, all who have been reading this column. Thanks for your support . . theoretically

You can stop reading now: THERE IS NO CASE AGAINST HOMEOPATHY.

There never has been and there never will be.

The rest of this blog is entertaiment of the type you’d find on a Roman holiday.

THE PROBLEM WITH theoretical reasoning, it always falls and fails under the grinding wheel of everyday use, and should it ever be hauled into the assizes, there’s always a jury: Half who knows somebody who has tried homeopathy  . .  and swears by it . . and half who knows somebody who hasn’t . . and swears at it.

Homeopathy isn’t easy to explain to people who aren’t familiar with it, and even harder to explain to people who are . . or think they are. Bu then again nobody has really been able to explain gravity very well, either. Those who have tried it swear it’s for real, but like homeopathy, try to explain it to someone who isn’t familiar with it’s effects and you may get a puzzled look, and hear them say they’d rather stick with levity.

And just because we can’t explain how something works doesn’t stop us from using it if we know it does. Thank God we don’t have 13th century scientists following us around in pushcarts telling us we can’t listen to our radios or watch our TVs, use our toasters or launch our pets and heroes into outer space, because they “don’t know how it works, it’s too implausible . . its the work of the devil!


And presumably, to them, neither do we know how all these rather obtuse things work, because our explanation for how they do won’t suffice for the zeusophobe who has already decided it’s psychogenic, i.e. the operator is responsible, possessed by the Devil, or in 21st century terms, in the mad thrall of a placebo.

Though they’ll never admit it, the sad fact is there are a number of things that don’t make sense, even to the most gifted atheist or prize winning scientist, things such as ontology, the study of Being, or why it is that hasn’t crushed by its own weight yet?

The rest of us lamebrains are compelled to ask, why must Atheists and Intelligent Design authors fight? Why must Creationists and Evolutionists quarrel like dogs over what is Holy to them? What is there in Bible ink that doesn’t jibe with chalk dust?

In the sage words of Rodney King after his Hyundai was pulled over for breaking a hundred MPH downtown (and he was truncheoned into a flapjack) “why can’t we all just get along?”

Exactly . . although maybe not going as fast as Romney, but who’s to criticize another man’s direction? I don’t hear our Australian jurists trying to kick that one out of bed.

This digresses down to demands for minute details as examples, like the contradicting figures “scientists” give us for the size and age of the observable Universe, a 48 billion or so light year radius mistake that made it to that size in only 13.7 billion light years. Talk about speeding, even Rodney King couldn’t explain that one.

Oh, they will surely cough up some hairball explanation for it, to be sure, mumble something about an “expanding Universe,” but common sense impounds us not to make it worse with a dumb excuse like that one, just take Rodney’s advice and STFU the next time you break the light speed barrier, talk to my hand, call my attorney, get a job.

Confused? Well let me put it this way. Why is it that the objects most distant from the eye, those galaxies, quasars and nebulae, look about the same age as those much closer . . ? Shouldn’t they all be proto galaxies, quasars and nebulae?

These calculating minds, such as the one that prepares bulls against homeopathy in Australia, and the one that touts it in the UK Guardian, should be able to explain to us why it is that telescopes can view perfectly modern galacti well beyond what should be the limits of astronomical observations, the radius of 13.7 billion light years . . i.e. 6.85, an eight of what all these logically attuned, homeopathy-hating astromoners claim it to be.

I SUGGEST TO YOU THIS is why junior James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) astronomer and homeopathy-hater Neil deGrasse Tyson is in a state of perpetual hyperventilation; why JREF astronomer and homeopathy-hater Phil Plaitt runs away from cameras held by believers; and why JREF eponym James Randi has to play three card Monte with the code to the double blind for every homeopathy biochemical lab test he witnesses.

 Well, pshaw you say, what about shooting all the homeopaths? What do the sunspots on Arcturus have to do with that, that’s why we’re here isn’t it?

Well, I say, I may seem to be rambling because I can’t see my prepared notes due to the blindfold, and I haven’t finished my cigarette yet, and I thought that besides supper the condemned gets a few last words in edgewise, you see, and I find it fascinating, if not celestially funny, that the spoken size of the Universe, in total, matches Avogadro’s number, 10 to the 23rd, the point in serial dilution, when it so happens, by some wild coincidence, the homeopathic remedy ascends from the material to etheric, where the van der waal forces take over in structure from what was formerly the domain of heterogeneous molecular composition, and not one, not one in a Godzillion of the intended molecule is left in solution, when it goes from dumb science into the spiritual dimension.

But wait!

This can also be put into the atheist’s dimension of astronomical and homeopathic wonders by saying that what we see, (although it may look like a lot) is hardly worth mentioning. In fact, like they say of the high dilute, it‘s nothing at all. The theoretical size of the unseen Universe, that which is beyond myopia, is estimated (without any intended regard to homeopathy) to be 10-23rd power times larger than the observable Universe.

By material standards, in our observable Universe, we are real enough, but in our theoretical one we are nothing at all.

Same as the case against homeopathy.

NEXT: Implausible as it may seem . .

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

The clinical and pre-clinical proofs for homeopathy 2012


I wonder sometimes what would happen, and what the world would be like, if homeopathy was the medicine of first choice. It certainly wouldn’t flourish under the current requirements that it monetarily support a huge health care industry. Some of these billionaires would have to go out and get jobs!

The focus of homeopathy is cure, not cash.

As you may already know, ad nauseam, homeopathy works on the minimum dose, and presumably, following that doctrine, if this information here alone was viewed by only 5% of the public, the results would be profound.

The following was inspired by a skeptic’s WordPress blog on homeopathy called “Skepticmind.”  It has the usual misconceptions about homeopathy, and being that it’s been years now since the seminal article for this  blog “Proof for Homeopathy,” I felt compelled to add to it here tonight.

The major objection, or claim, by lamestream medicine, is that homeopathy is simply a “placebo,” that it’s vehicles of water, sugar and alcohol are biologically inert and any clinical effects are imaginary, or due to false or erroneous reporting. Tests that show the action of homeopathics 0n both human and non human subjects are dismissed by these skepti as being poorly conducted and of low quality.

However, a closer look at the literature that reports on the action on the materials in question, tells a different story that can be disappointing, if not disturbing, to see how reactionary, if not vicious, the medical establishment can be when faced with a challenge to it.


It is often said that no test has ever shown homeopathy to work or be effective. But the fact is that there is more truth in an opposite assertion. No major meta-analysis or review of the literature has ever been able to conclude that homeopathy is a placebo.

Cucherat, which the author of “Skeptic Mind” links to here, is no exception. The only meta that came close to being an exception was Shang, which stated that there was “a weak effect,” but that it was still equivalent to a placebo. Subsequent analysis however revealed that Shang had doctored the results . For a while the researchers refused to even reveal what studies they were reviewing. A closer look showed something completely different.  Statistical analysis of Shang’s data by Ludtke and Rutten revealed a significant effect!

And yet Shang remains the cornerstone for the case against homeopathy!

Here are a list of the reviews and meta analyses of studies, tests and trials of homeopathy. And it does not include all of them, there is more, there’s a lot more studies, tests and trials that prove homeopathy works. And once again, from the data these reviews analyze, none of them conclude or are able to prove (Shang) that  homeopathy is a “placebo.”

BORNHOFT: Homeopathy in Healthcare 
FISHER: Homeopathy: the Evidence from Basic Research “hi quality experiments yield positive results”.
JOHNSON: ‘meta-analyses conclude homeopathic treatment significantly better than placebo
SHANG>Ludtke Rutten: ‘find significant effect beyond placebo
LINDE: “results incompatible with placebo hypothesishttp://www.tinyurl.com/84xt56k
CUCHERAT homeopathy more effective than placebo http://www.tinyurl.com/cucherat
KLEIJNEN clinical trial evidence positive http://www.tinyurl.com/kleijnen
WITT The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—–A systematic review of the literature
(in vitro review) http://www.tinyurl.com/7n9sedq

It should be noted about Witt, that it reviews, with explicit criteria and weighted value, 50 years of in vitro research showing the biochemical action of homeopathics.

These metas and reviews represent only a part of the growing research database for homeopathy. The medical materials reference base alone is a rich source of clinical studies that spans observations by medical doctors over 200 years to present, as can be seen in the following materia medica

KENT http://www.tinyurl.com/jtkent
BOERICKE http://www.tinyurl.com/wmboericke

I estimate that there are now over 400 of these “materia medica.”

Homeopathy is now being used in the nation’s top cancer hospital.

HOSPITAL USE of homeopathy at the MD Anderson Cancer Clinic http://www.tinyurl.com/88phujd

International Journal of Oncology  Feb 2010  V.36, 2
Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells

 Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes: A novel treatment for human brain cancer

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885.
Homeopathic vs Conventional Treatment of Vertigo
A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study

Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):343-9.
 Can homeopathic treatment slow prostate cancer growth? Homeopathic remedies for the present study have no direct cellular anticancer effects but appear to significantly slow the progression of cancer and reduce cancer incidence and mortality in Copenhagen rats

It’s been said there are no physical differences between potentized homeopathic remedies and their vehicles of water, sugar and alcohol. There are, however, a growing number of studies that contradict that notion.


ROY Structure of Liquid Water  http://www.tinyurl.com/7fap5m4
 RAO Epitaxy   http://www.tinyurl.com/6nbl9jv
CHAPLIN Memory http://www.tinyurl.com/78445jp
 ELIA Thermodynamics http://www.tinyurl.com/6w7t4bf
 MONTAGNIER http://www.tinyurl.com/Montagnier
 JOSEPHSON Molecular Memories http://www.tinyurl.com/bdjosephson
TILLER thermodynamics http://www.tinyurl.com/billtiller
 CZERLINSKI http://www.tinyurl.com/Czerlinski

And this is merely a sampling of the online data base.  PubMed now lists over 4500 references to homeopathy.

I wonder how many people know there’s now a medical college devoted to training MD’s to use homeopathy in their pratices?

American Medical College of Homeopathy in Phoenix  http://tinyurl.com/ammedcol

Homeopathy is now a licensed practice in Arizona.


Summary of Cuban Experiences on Leptospirosis Prevention


BMC Public Health.

WITT: Homeopathic medical practice: long-term results of a cohort study with 3981 patients. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, D-10098 Berlin, Germany http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16266440

BMC Public Health. 2008 Dec 17;8:413

How healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment?–Results from a long term observational study.http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/8/413/abstract


Eur J Pediatr. 2007 May;166(5):509.

PEDIATRICS: Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial.

The anti-homeopathy crowd may crow how they win all the battles. They may go around telling all their friends it doesn’t work, and it’s just a placebo, but I think it’s safe to say they’ll’ never win the war. They’ve had two hundred year to do it, and their stupid arguments haven’t changed since then.

Mark Twain wrote about homeopathy in 1867. He said you can choose allopathy and die of an overdose, or you can choose homeopathy and die of an under.

Twain chose homeopathy and made exclusive use of medical doctors trained in the use of homeopathics, just like John D. Rockefeller, Mahatma Gandhi , the Queen, the British Royal family, and countless others have done. No doubt they will continue to do for many years to come. No matter how much ridicule, abuse and cyberbullying can be heaped on it, homeopathy will remain the wise woman’s and intelligent man’s curative medicine of choice.

John Benneth,PG Hom – London (Hons)

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

 Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

Please report dysfunctinal inks in the commentary section