The Logic of Epidemics

The Dreadful Facts about Homoeopathy

How many lives have been lost due to ignorance about homoeopathy? How many people have died because they didn’t know better? How many people, with a serious condition, could have lived if they had made a better decision about using homoeopathy?

If you were coughing blood and felt like you were going to die, would you go to a homoeopath? Let’s say not knowing any better, on the advice of a friend, you did . . and miraculously got better. Would that be a recommendation for homoeopathy? Fractionally, of course it would.  But how do you know you didn’t just get lucky, you were getting well anyway? What if there was a thousand people coughing blood and feeling like they were going to die who went to the same homeopath and did die, and you were the lucky one . . ?

Well, there’s no belief in a quack medicine that a good epidemic can’t cure. Right? Well, maybe not . .

Epidemics and pandemics are the ultimate large cohort studies for the effectiveness of any particular medicine.  Therefore, if homoeopathy is the quackery it’s esteemed and credentialed critics say it is, then its performance in epidemics will surely determine whether or not it’s evertything its quacked up to be.  It should also reveal, by comparison, if there is a performance to be seen in the accuse’. IF there was such a thing then there should be a record of it and just how it got there, how well it did perform?

Well actuallythere is such a thing.

Thomas Lindsley Bradford

 

And the Logic of Epidemics

A Review of It

by

John Benneth

 

Ladies and gentlemen: The problem facing us today is not that a quiet, little, mysterious and misunderstood system of medicine called homeopathy, or more correctly homoeopathy, doesn’t work. No, the problem is that homoeopathy does work, as The Logic of Figures by Thomas Bradford painfully reveals. If it didn’t work, its critics (who I suspect make more money bashing it than some homoeopaths do practicing it) wouldn’t have jobs. They’d be taking their penmanship out on cardboard signs to hoist on street corners, not rubbing the keys on their keyboards blank over “homeopathy,” as they do now.
In my last journal entry, The Threat of Homeopathy ,  it was convincingly shown that allopathy (medicine that isn’t homoeopathic) is conducting mass murder on the premise that there’s nowhere else to turn, and so when they land in the jackpot and are criminally indicted and literally fined billions, they take it out on the orphan (homoeopathy)  .  .  sort of like the man who has had a hard day’s work, comes home and beats up his wife.

NOW WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?
It is because the big drug companies are afraid. They’re afraid that people might go sniffing around a homoeopath’s door when they get cancer, or a diagnosis of diabetes, or any particular complaint, from autism to zoonosis.
The masterpiece was ended by implying that one good epidemic leads to another, unless you stop them with something that works. And what most people in the murder-by-drug business are afraid to hear, is that (believe it or not) homoeopathy works, and epidemics prove it on a mass scale.

The punchline here is that by the technical definition of the word, “homoeopathic” is what the small pox vaccine actually is.

Allow me to reiterate this disturbing fact: What modern medicine complains about as a cockeyed theory and dangerous in one hand is being used in a clumsy way in the other.

What everyone is having a hard time recognizing is that the most effective vaccines, such as the small pox vaccine, are literally homoeopathic, and therefore it can be said, and it should be said over and again, as it is startling true, that modern medicos saved the world from its most terrible scourge with the unwitting use of crude homeopathy! This can be seen prima facie in the use of attenuated lymph from cow pox eruptions in cattle, the original “vaccine.”
Hahnemann, who announced homoeopathy the same year Jenner announced his own discovery in 1796, makes 42 references to smallpox and Jenner in the 1842 Organon of Medicine; but, you don’t need  the Organon to know that it’s true.
Anyone who isn’t blinded by the prejudices taught by allopathy, will have to admit that the basic principle of immunization is the same guiding principle of Hahmemannian homeopathy: A similar, stronger, temporary artifical disease is inseminated in the patient so as to cure a more chronic insidious one. This is exactly what is done in the use of the small pox vaccine in a posologically more crude way . . In other words, the major difference between the “conventional” use of vaccines is that doctrinal homoeopathy makes conscious use of the principle, whereas allopathy isn’t aware of it and in epidemioloigcal problems like small pox, homoeopathy, even crudely done as it is, is the only thing that works to immunize!
Allow me to share with you the secret: Modern immunology appears to work on the apprehension that immunity is can only be conveyed by the molecule. This in fact is not true! Immunity is not conveyed by the molecule, it is conveyed by the molecule’s electron, which, in a homeopathic remedy, is stripped away from the molecule in a process known as molecular dissociation. In essence, the homeopathic remedy is made from a hydrolytic nuclear event!
But enough science for now, and I might add, I am available to make house calls at your laboratoru or school for further elucidation.
In the meantime, to see just how effective the concious use of homoeopathy is epidemiologically, let us briefly examine Thomas Lindsley Bradford’s book “The Logic of Figures.” This is a shocking record of deaths from various hospitals, comparing homoeopathic treatment with allopathic treatment (allopathic means non-homoeopathic, patented, invasive, oppositional and heroic  “medicine” such as chemotherapy, radiation, leeches, bloodletting, unnecessary surgery, electroshock and poisoning) usually what we take for granted, what we are told is the only thing that can save us.
Bradford’s Logic of Figures is a real show stopper, medicine show stopper, that is. In case after case, comparison after comparison, homoeopathic treatment has been unexpectedly better than allopathic .
Read it for yourself, it’s available online from Google books;
The Logic of Figures, Thomas Lindsley Bradford, MD.

You can download the PDF, print it out and hold it close to your face. Or just skim through it online. Either way I think you will be in for a disturbing surprise.

Take Yellow Fever for example. Here’s Bradford’s comparisons of treatments for it, homoeopathic and that other thing, the one most people go for, what Hahnemann called allopathic . .  heroic medicine?



Let us now review these figures . . let’s put it this way: Is Bradford saying that the mortality rate for non homoeopathic medical treatments for Yellow Fever in over half a century of reporting (1803-1864) is approx. 44%, and that the mortality rate from the same disease, when treated by homoeopathy, is lower than 6%?
Is that not a huge difference?

I trust that the anomaly of this is clear to you. I hope that it is overwhelmingly clear to you: A doctrine which in  2010 was being threatened with defunding by the NHS in the UK has reportedly had a staggering success rate in comparison to its medical cousin, which is oft most practiced today in treating all diseases. But using homoeopathy, which the Chief Scientist  of the UK, John Beddington, says has no scientific validity, by Dr. Bradford’s reckoning, could have saved almost 90% of those who died of Yellow Fever.

DO THEY WANT TO MAKE YOU THEIR HEALTH SLAVE?

I hope you get it. There’s something drastically, dramatically wrong here. Bradford’s accounting is not an isolated one, as will be demonstrated to anyone who makes a deeper inquiry and more thorough investigation, part of which follows.

Prof. Edzard Ernst of Exeter University, who will predictably be terminated for academic misconduct [and, as an update, was] has also been particularly vociferous about denouncing homeopathy, especially in its use in preventing disease. Ernst is the professor of Complimentary Medicine at the University of Exeter in the UK. His complaint, like that of all others of his ilk,  is that the physic of homeopathy is impossible and therefore a placebo. However, to the contrary, there are biochemical tests that destroy the hypothesis, tests that Ernst avoids discussing [and as of July 17, 2019, still avoids discussing].

There is another interesting validation. If Bradford was doing a whitewash, you would not suspect him of plugging a dead horse. But he is fair, so when homoeopathy fails, he says so. Homeopathy did not come out superior to allopathic medicine is ALL regards. In some it came out about the same. And in treating dropsy of the brain, it was a washout (a dead horse) as one might expect in diseases of deposition and deficiency, and not as effective as surgery in removing neoplasms.. But in all others, infectious diseases, epidemiologically it did more than remarkably well. It’s results in some situations, especially epidemics, were stunning.

Publication of Bradford’s book was too early to include the performance of homoeopathics in the 1918 Influenza pandemic, accused of being the Spanish Flu, although there is some evidence it couldn’t be blamed on the Spanish because it may have come from a hog farm in Kansas, or Hot Springs, Arkansas.
The 1918 epidemic was a compelling spectacle, It reached into just about every far corner of the Earth and its morbid effects were dazzling, incredible . .  (I’m running out of unused superlatives for this entry). It left entire aboriginal villages dead. In the cities, people were dying in pools of blood as their immune systems went berserk, dissolving the lungs, spewing fountains of purple blood at the horrified staff of  hospitals. It was swift and it was deadly. Influenza could drop you in a day. Some targets, standing alive one moment and would be lying dead the next. One day you’d be whistling Dixie, the next, ready for planting.
Here then is an exquisite example for the ultimate test within the ultimate trial. How well did homeopathy perform during the Influenza Pandemic of 1918?

You can read the more grisly details yourself in my article  on the treatment of the influenza in 1918,  when homoeopaths lost approximately 3% of their patients, while the non-homoeopathic physicians lost about 30% of theirs. 

Homoeopathy performed TEN TIMES BETTER than allopathy in the worst disease outbreak known to man.

SWAMP FEVER

According to the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (Stern), Leptospirosis is “the most widespread bacterial zoonosis worldwide.”
On August 3, 2010, the Cuban government reported “the largest study of homeopathy ever undertaken, based on data from over 11 million people (the entire population of Cuba), is published today in the journal Homeopathy. It provides fascinating evidence that a highly dilute substance, prepared according to homeopathic principles, may contribute to the prevention of Leptospirosis.”

During the Leptospirosis season of 2007, the Cubans had enough Leptospirosis vaccine to treat 15,000 high-risk people. That was when the government decided to treat everyone in the region at risk with homeopathy, except for babies under one year. This would be a population of 2.3 million, the world’s largest homeopathic study group to date.

“Within a few weeks the number of cases had fallen from 38 to 4 cases per 100,000 per week,” says the Faculty, “significantly fewer than the historically-based forecast for those weeks of the year. The 8.8 million population of the other provinces did not receive homeopathic treatment and the incidence was as forecast. The effect appeared to be sustained: there was an 84% reduction in infection in the treated region in the following year (2008) when, for the first time, incidence did not correlate with rainfall. In the same period, incidence in the untreated region increased by 22%.”
Allow me to highlight those last few words: Leptospirosis infection in the untreated region increased by 22%.
Homeopathic prophylaxis of leptospirosis in Cuba reduced infection by 84% !
That is HUGE.

 The Faculty report followed publication of the Cuban’s report in their July issue of Homeopathy. The abstract is available on PUBMED. Bracho, “Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20674839
Here’s a video interview with the report’s eponym, Dr. Gustavo Bracho, http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=61C0884F69B56C3C70D20A52E526B6B2

Curator for the Hahnemann Medical College of Philadelphia library, 1894.

What will you do? What will you say? This is about a huge number of human lives at risk.

Without homeopathic treatment, they are sure to die.
Bradford:

There’s a cholera epidemic in Haiti right now. Will the Haitians have the benefit of homeopathy . . for that?
And speaking of insanity . .



And here is what is even more interesting. Go back and read Bradford’s report on Yellow fever. The percentage of people saved in the Cuban leptospirosis is nearly as high as those saved in Bradford’s entire 19th century record of Yellow Fever . .
This is dumbfounding.

Yes, there’s nothing a good epidemic can’t cure, such as mass stupidity. Perhaps homoeopathy has been suppressed such as it has as a measure of population control. You have to forgive me, for my mind is grasping at signals, for a scrap of logic as to why you have allowed this continue as it has. Well, maybe not you in particular, I don’t want to embarrass you in front of your own eyes, but it certainly is working itself around to you, coming to an immune system near you, soon enough. There are all kinds of epidemics, chronic and acute. It’s the chronic ones that sneak up on you, or that are already well in place. Like cancer. That’s an epidemic. And anyone who doesn’t die of a heart attack first will probably die of cancer, sooner or later.

Homoeopathy, the practice of medical similitude, is informational medicine. That’s how it works, by informing the immune system of the nature of the disease. So really, the biggest epidemic of all is stupidity.

Now you know.

Some seeds fall on barren ground, some are eaten by birds. Some are ground under foot. Some pop, take root, spring up, then die from lack of water. But every now and then the planted becomes the planter.

One mind can make all the difference in the world. I hope it’s yours.

Thanks for reading, thanks for writing. And thanks most of all for taking action.

 
John Benneth, PG Hom (Hons.)
Hahnemann College, London

Copyright 11/13/2010






“In spite of all scientific speculations and experiments regarding smallpox vaccination, Jenner’s discovery remained an erratic blocking medicine, till the biochemically [emphasis J.B.] thinking Pasteur, devoid of all medical classroom knowledge, traced the origin of this therapeutic block to a principle which cannot better be characterized than by Hahnemann’s word: homoeopathic.
“Indeed, what else causes the epidemiological immunity in sheep, vaccinated against anthrax than the influence previously exerted by a virus, similar in character to that of the fatal anthrax virus? And by what technical term could we more appropriately speak of this influence, exerted by a similar virus than  by Hahnemann’s word ‘homoeopathy’? I am touching here upon a subject anathematized till very recently by medical penalty: but if I am to present these problems in historical illumination, dogmatic imprecations must not deter me.” – Emil von Behring, the first man to win the Nobel prize for Physics and Medicine

Now let us have your witness!

Romancing the Dilute

Quantum Homeopathy?  Oh, come on! It’s tough just being homeopathy.

Review of the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, Vol 110, 252–256 (2010) © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
“The Biophysical Basis of Benveniste Experiments: Entropy, Structure, and Information in Water”

ALLAN WIDOM,1 YOGENDRA SRIVASTAVA,2 VINCENZO VALENZI3
1Physics Department, Northeastern University, Boston, MA
2Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN, Universita Degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy
3Centro di Biofisica Clinica-Scuola di Medicina del Mare Universita` di Roma “La Sapienza,” Rome, Italy
Received 22 October 2008; accepted 16 January 2009
Published online 19 May 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI 10.1002/qua.22140 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qua.22140/pdf

by Dr. John Benneth

This article promises a discussion of the physical nature of biological information storage and retrieval in “ordered quantum electromagnetic domains of water.”
The first problem is that the authors aren’t explaining, in classical terms, what they mean by “ordered quantum electromagnetic domains of water.” and by what means are they identified?.
Widom states, “It is possible to float a small ferromagnetic needle over and above the surface of pure water. The magnetic needle floatation trick is most often demonstrated with perfect diamagnetic low temperature type one superconductors. The analogous floating of a magnetic needle above the water surface is due to the partial diamagnetic expulsion of Faraday magnetic field lines from pure water ordered domains. In the
fringing magnetic field of a bitter magnet one may” float a “bag of water” of the size of a frog and in fact one can float a frog.
One can float a frog? On what? This statement is  followed by an equation, presumably for floating a frog:
“For a single water domain of radius R and volume V  4R3/3 containing N coherent electrons, the diamagnetic polarizability may be estimated in terms of the electronic mean
square radius as . .”
What Widom doesn’t state is that we can also float a paper clip, razor blade or unmagnitised needle on the surface of water. No! He first has to float a frog! Classical science says that paper clips, razor blades, and needles don’t float because of water tension, they float because water surface tension, which is explained by the lateral extension or bending of hydrogen bonds, the attractions between water molecules.
But wait a minute! What am I saying? I’m a homeopath! I’m not supposed to know anything about science!
Is that why Widom makes no mention of current observations and insights of homeopathic physics from the material sciences, the current known physical aspects of homeopathic remedies which can be detected by instrumentation?
Alright stop. Perhaps there’s something about this subject that makes me smarmy. Or perhaps it attracts smarmy people. I don’t know. Before we can understand anything here we need to put it into what I am tempted to say is a reasonable context. But erase that. I don’t like it. There is no reasonable context regarding Benveniste. It is emotionally disturbed. In a word, painful.
The editors of the experiment to which Widom obliquely refers to are not so circumscript or oblique about Davenas, or the experiment Dr. Benveniste gets blamed for. WHat use dto be the world’s most prestigious science magazine, Nature, had this to say of Davenas:

“the principle of restraint which applies is simply that, when an unexpected observation requires that a substantial part of our intellectual heritage should be thrown away, it is prudent to ask more carefully than usual whether the observation may be incorrect.”
Pardon me while I gag. Intellectual heritage. God, what a bunch of overpaid dummies. In other words, they are saying that in the highest levels of the scientific stratosphere, they don’t get it. One moment I’m being told that it’s a placebo, the next moment they’re threatening to burn all the high school psychology books with Randi’s picture in them. What they are saying is that they believe there is no KNOWN (to them) classical theory for the biological action of homeopathic remedies.
(Now I think that’s a fair statement, don’t you? I doubt any of my most vocal, most obstreperous critics would disagree with that.)
If only politics could be so simple.
However, lest you need awakening after missing something important, hear me when I say I am contentious over that part of the statement made by Nature (and they can’t rightly be blamed for it) for when the authors of a piece like Davenas and one like Widom that follows it do not make an attempt to present their work as anything but idiopathic, they are grabbing at the brass ring, such as Nobel prize, or the James Randi Excellence in Pederasty Award, at the risk of falling off the carousel.
Do they award the Nobel Prize for Stupidity? If they do then I nominate Professor Sir John Beddington, Chief Blowhard of the Realm, for that.
Look, Nature magazine has assumed, without correction by the authors, that there is no classical definition or identification of the chemical makeup of the homeopathic remedy, when in fact there is.
When in fact there is . .

WHEN IN FACT THERE IS
No, see, when in a disagreement with a man who is in need of education, it is best to take him gently by the hand, lead him to a private spot under a tree, and then kill him. BuT this is beyond my mien, my scope, my reputation precedes it, there are millions of them, and I have no new clear weapons.
So let me explain this to you in English, in simple terms, as if it were your secondary language: No books have to be rewritten, no books have to be burned. Men of letters may keep them. Well, some of them. Not any difficult letters, like Z. You can keep Z, for Zztupid. And science does not have to be tipped on its head, for science has already explained it.  All science has to do is stand up. The explanation for homeopathy lies in the annals of classical science.
That’s right. We need no quantum explanations. We need no Lagrangians. We don’t need any secret handshakes or meetings on the square, by the plum or on the level. What I am saying is this: Before we can have a coherent quantum discussion of the mechanics of the homeopathic remedy, we have to set down what we know classically of the unique physical features of water, which are sometimes obfuscated when brought up in the context of homeopathy.
Yes, and this is where it gets painful. As soon as pseudoscientists such as Michael Shermer, James Randi, Simon Singh, Ben Goldacre, David Colquhoun, John Beddington, Steven Novella, Edzard Ernst, etc. hear the words “quanta” or “quantum effects,” they immediately dive into pejorative hyperbole and pessimism, start revving up their engines, blowing headgaskets, just as they do when they hear the word “homeopathy.” To them it is synonymous with quackery, as is anything quantum. So an article like Widom has a double whammy on it.
Iamhere to remove that curse . . well, as you may have noted, I’m not here to defend it. In fact, I’m rather suspicious of it myself.
Perhaps I need to brush up on my quantum mechanics. Problem, is my Wu Li Masters dance card’s kind a full. After I get through validating homeopathy I’m scheduled to destroy Einstein.
So let me try to cut his short. It might not seem I’ve cut it short, but I have. It’s huge subject, even without the all the endless whining by Ben Goldacre about his boring day job. Anyone with a mind for inquiry can find whatever it is they’re saying at Randi’s circle jerk quickly dispelled upon a quick inspection ofthe literature, and here is where the fun begins.
When classical terms are presented, these critics who have been so loud-mouthed on their favorite subject of derision tend to go silent, because they suddenly are facing classical terms that refer to observable phenomena that are fairly well to really well known, things you can see for yourself, or at least researchable online, such as hydrogen bonding, intermolecular forces, solvation cages, kosmotropes, hormesis, water surface tension, bubbles, water bridges, clathrate hydrates, supramolecular chemistry, etc.
So then, why aren’t we first asking, vis a vis, what are the observable effects and physical distinctions of the homeopathic remedy, if any at all? Why am I first reading a quantum explanation for homeopathy when I could be reading a classical one?
Perhaps Widom is a straw man, a plant, a shill working for the black propagandists. But there I go again.
The Chief Science Advisor to the government of the United Kingdom this week denounced homeopathy as declared in the Guardian newspaper that “there is no scientific basis for homeopathy beyond the placebo effect and that there are serious concerns about its efficacy.”
Oh dang, here I’ve been curing people for cancer all these years only to find out it just been coincidence.

Maybe we should play along. Maybe we should conspire not to hurt the poor man’s feelings. And really, why should we sell it to people who don’t want it? What’s Darwinian about that? That’s not very scientific of us, either. No wonder we’re homeopaths. If we were scientists we wouldn’t be trying to save the people who are doing us the most harm. The people who think it’s a placebo are always first ones that need to be culled out of the herd by natural selction. So maybe we should simply go along with the notion that these substances have no specificity.
Who has asked that question? Did Widom ask it? I didn’t read it there. Saw nothing about he specificity of the sub at omic field, or clathrates either, for that matter. Did Benveniste ask it? What did Benveiste have to say about the physics of the substance he was testing? Nothing . .notheeen!

What Widom promises, Widom does not deliver. Another skeptomaniac hoax. There is no discussion of the classical physics because Benveiste presented his data idiopathically as well, and this is how Widom views it.
Look. To make headway through a calm sea you have to make waves. And just because you’re making waves, does not mean you’re making headway.
You got that? Making headway isn’t enough either. The boat has to be pointed in the right direction!
Terms used by Roy in “Structure of Liquid Water, Novel Insights from the Material Sciences and their Relevance to Homeopathy” are not novel. No. These terms can be dated within two centuries of analysis, beginning with Davy referring to liquid aqueous structures (LAS) as hydrates, to Mendeleev seeing them in his vodka . .what are now, among other things, called clathrates.
Anomalous liquid aqueous structuring has been observed for centuries and intermolecular forces that create the hydrogen bond between H2O molecules have been known since Johannes Diderik van der Waals won the Nobel prize for his observations of the contiguous phase transition of matter in 1910 and the eponymous interactions between molecules he described. This shows the idiopathy of Widom’s discussion. The context is not stated. Widom lists only 15 references when dozens could apply, and only one is for Benveniste. What? There is no mention either of Luc Montagnier’s work, which serves to build on Benveniste’s physical work in not only identifying the size of LAS, but also their electromagnetic indices.
Note that the title of Davenas, “Human basophile degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE,” is absent in Widom’s bibliography. Whoops! They simply list the author’s names. This may have simply been an oversight, but it is a key one. Davenas is a biochemical experiment, not a physical one. It does not represent the real discovery of Benveniste’s work, which are the electromagnetic features of the homeopathic nosode used in the basophil experiments. They’re not talking about that, are they? In context of work prior and subsequent, Davenas is prosaic. It was the fourth replication, which there are now at least 25 since the test was first introduced by Murietta in 1984.
Widom promises a discussion of physical properties. Yet it makes no mention of the NMR studies, such as those by Demangeat, and Widom is apparently oblivious to other physical indices noted in homeopathic solvents.
Or is he?
There is no mention of theory for the composition of homeopathic remedies, the major one (which this author of this blog supports) being that they are crystal analogs usually of internal influences, but sometimes also of external radiation; from either specific material kosmotropes triturated from material sources, or from imponderabilia, such as X-Rays. These influences may be the nucleators for solvation cages, or clathrates, and it is proposed that from these polymer structures extend contiguous fields throughout the solvent.
The domain of the contiguous field expanding from the clathrate increases 100 times with each 1:100 dilution,. The succussion phase of processing introduces atmosphere into the solvent and creates new nuclei, what are commonly referred to in other contexts as gas hydrates.
Presumably there are quantum effects that can be ascribed to liquid aqueous structuring (LAS). Montagnier in his work, “Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences” reports on only two of 10 indices I have found for homeopathic remedies.
Widom, in producing what claims to be a quantum physics report on the work of Benveniste, presents little if any of Benvensite’s relevant work and no report on the known physics of the solvent. We can only presume then, and we are sorry to say it, that Widom is romancing the dilute.

Are homeopaths an oppressed minority?

Yes, and we’re all a minority of one, especially me. I’ve noticed that. There’s me, and then there’s everyone else. It’s actually quite daunting sometimes.
What I see missing from the discussion is a dialectic, as proposed by Paulo Friere in “Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” According to Friere, our greatest power is our ability to confront our oppressors with questions. We can’t just turn the tables on them. We have to confront them with what they’re doing to us in human terms. In dehumanizing us, they dehumanize themselves. It is our job to rehumanize them.
For example, when I was in England last week, Professor Josephson invited Ben Goldacre to the Cavendish to hear my lecture on supramolecular chemistry and homeopathy, but Goldacre begged off, saying he had a boring day job. Now I read tonight that he is flying to Montreal to attend a homeopathy bashing conference with Michael Shermer, Randi and others, probably to discuss how they’re going to respond to the supramolecular argument.
So why didn’t I call him up at the Guardian, or whereever, and say, Ben, come to the Cavendish. hear my lecture. The same with others, like Evan Harris. Evan, come to my lecture. Tell us what you think. All they can say is no. The more human we are to them, the more difficult is for them to dehumanize us as fruads and ignoramuses.
We all know that if Goldacre was genuine in his opinions about homeopathy, he’d take the opportunity to meet with a Nobel laureate and hear what’s being said about it at that level. But he’s not. He’s scared of us. When the bully is confronted, he runs off to a meeting far away to talk to his gang of bullies who will reassure him. But he takes with his doubts, especially those doubts that are brought upon him by personal confrontation.
So we need to confront him, directly and indirectly on the internet on our blogs. If anyone here doesn’t have a blog they ought to get one and become proficient in its use. Here we’re just preaching to the choir, like Goldacre is doing.
There’s no question about the efficacy of homeopathic medicine . . at least there’s no question in my mind. The proof is overwhelming. We have a powerful form of medicine, and its not being used as it should. Look, I tell yop this. This whole thing is a pushover, just like any Lycopodium bully. When confronted, they back down. Follow them to their stinkholes. Bring them out, Confront them with what they’re doing. Treat them for their pathology. Rehumanize them.
We need more blogs. And we need to keep leading the public to the research, to the evidence that proves it. It’s time to rehumanize the world.