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
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.
Abstract
“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
OPEN LETTER to Phil Plaitt and the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Posted on Plaitt’s blog.
Dear Phil Plaitt,
Twelve years ago I applied for the James Randi Educational Foundation award to prove homeopathy. James Randi accepted my application, corresponded with me over a protocol, and then months later dismissed me as being inconsequential, claiming he was going to put Nobel laureate physicist Professor Brian Josephson and immunologist Jacques Benveniste to the test instead.
Canadian author Syd Baumel of The Aquarian wrote to Prof . Josephson to inform him that my application to JREF preceded theirs. Prof. Josephson replied to say he never applied for Randi’ Challenge, was not interested in the Challenge, and Randi was sent back to me.
The basic protocol which Randi said would win the Challenge was a simple one. It would be to provide a method by which to identify placebo from verum in a double blind trial, of which there are several.
Randi finally ended correspondence with me. I’ll leave it to him to say why.
Since that time I have lectured at the Cavendish Laboratory at the invitation of Prof. Josephson on the supramolecular chemistry or the homeopathic remedy; Josephson says, “The idea that water can have a memory can be readily refuted by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments.”
He describes how many scientists today suffer from “pathological disbelief;” that is, they maintain an unscientific attitude that is embodied by the statement “even if it were true I wouldn’t believe it.”
Does JREF suffer from pathological disbelief? If not, then prove it with my simple test for homeopathy, accepted by James Randi.
Leading a team of material scientists, the renowned Professor Emeritus Rustum Roy wrote a review of the literature on water structure and postulated it’s relevance to homeopathy, showing that the substances used in homeopathy have physical indices that identify them from their vehicles (as I proposed); Roy says that the literature “does definitively demolish the objection against homeopathy, when such is based on the wholly incorrect claim that since there is no difference in composition between a remedy and the pure water used, there can be no differences at all between them.”
Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier produced a series of experiments showing that high dilutes as used in homeopathy radiate an EM signal and have filterable crystalline-like nano structures, H-bond structures associated with their signal.
When Montgnier was asked if he is concerned that with hiss research into the natures of high dilutes as used in homeopathy he was drifting into pseudoscience, he replied adamantly: “No, because it’s not pseudoscience. It’s not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study.”
In 2010 top water chemist Professor Emeritus Martin Chaplin of London South Bank University has said that water does indeed store and transmit information concerning solutes through its hydrogen bonded network.
There has been an explosion in the research of homeopathy. In 2007, Teela Johnson and Heather Boon wrote a review for pharmacists of the research in homeopathy in an article for the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education entitled “Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?” Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07.
They say, “Several meta-analyses have also concluded that homeopathic treatment is significantly better than placebo. The first was carried out in 1991 by Kleijnen et al. They identified 107 published papers that scientifically evaluated the efficacy of homeopathically prepared treatments. Of these studies, 81 reported positive effects for homeopathy, with 9 of the 11 highest quality trials showing positive results.
“A second, extremely rigorous, meta-analysis was conducted in 1997 by Linde et al in an attempt to ascertain whether or not the clinical effects of homeopathy are due to placebo effects. They evaluated 186 clinical trials that tested the efficacy of homeopathically prepared treatments. Of these, 89 reported sufficient data to be included in the main meta-analysis. After controlling for publication bias, and quality of evidence, their results showed that homeopathy performed significantly better (combined odds ratio was 2.45 in favour of homeopathy) than placebo, with a confidence interval of 95%. Additional scrutiny, including methodological revisions by the authors themselves in a subsequent paper, confirmed these findings.”
The Cuban government has used homeopathy to stop its annual leptospirosis epidemic; the nation’s number one rated medical facility , the MD Anderson Cancer Clinic, has used homeopathy to treat cancer successfully in vitro and in vivo; the American Medical College of Homeopathy has opened this year in Phoenix, Arizona; the legislature there is now licensing homeopaths under the Doctor of homeopathy (DH) designation, medical doctors trained in the use of homeopathics as MD(H).
In light of this information, and the fact that my original protocol to JREF has not changed, I submit to you that my claim on the JREF award is now more valid than ever, and the challenge to you is to make good on it, and to put the original protocol, as submitted to JREF in January 0f 1999 to the test, using independent, scientifically qualified judges who have the credentials for approving the final protocol for such a test and disposition of the award.
signed,
John Benneth, Homeopath
503 819 7777
According to Wikipedia, Plaitt formerly worked at the physics and astronomy department at Sonoma State University. In early 2007, he resigned from his job to write a book entitled Death from the Skies, .
On August 4, 2008, he became President of the James Randi Educational Foundation. He served in that position until January 1, 2010, when he was succeeded by noted skeptic D. J. Grothe.
Let’s see how he takes it.
Homeopath, author, supplier of books and remedies Dana Ullman, (The Homeopathic Revolution) one of our best advocates of homeopathy, has written another great column for the Huffington Post, Disinfomation on Homeopathy: Two Leading Sources.
This time, amongst other things, Ullman hits on a topic I have been personally involved in with two people I have had some intense dealings with over homeopathy: Stage magician and professional homeopathy antagonist James “the Amazing” Randi, and Nobel laureate and physics Professor Brian Josephson of the Cavendish Laboratory.
I first became acquainted with both men back in 1999 when I applied for the magician’s, to date, phony Million Dollar Challenge (MDC) offer to prove homeopathy.
After a notarized application and months of “negotiations,” which were really nothing more than stalls, Randi stated he was dropping my application for another he said was made jointly by Prof. Josephson and Jacques Benveniste. [Click here to watch Jacques Benveniste’s lecture at the Cavendish, “Electromagnetically Activated Water and the Puzzle of the Biological Signal.”]
A query to Prof. Josephson revealed that they had not applied for the MDC, as Randi had claimed. Neither Benveniste or Josephson wanted anything to do with it. It was merely wishful thinking on Randi’s part, or a dodge. I had the proof and it was going to cost him a million bucks for me to show it to him on a level playing field.
As it turns out, no matter how many times Randi has reworded his “Challenge,” it always ends up being the same:
You have to prove it to him, you have to prove it to Randi. Who is dumb enough to think that Randi is going to pay $1,000,000 to someone to prove him wrong after years of calling it criminal fraud? You couldn’t prove to him that the sky is ever blue or that shit doesn’t taste good, not when he’s got a million dollars riding on it!
Isn’t Randi the one who’s always crying ab0ut “critical thinking,” “random-controlled double-blind trials,” “publication bias,” “scams,” “how scientists can be fooled,” and then, when faced with his own platinum jewel- studded standard, he does his vanishing act. Where’s Randi? He’s offered a million dollars for Walgreen’s to prove homeopathy to him, and what am I, chopped liver? WHat do I need to do to get him to return a phone call, change my name to Justin Bieber and speak in falsetto?
It’s an old fashioned greased pole contest! “A million bucks to anyone who can shimmy up this here wooden pole.”
Looks e-z2du!
What you don’t know is that the pole is greased, and if you come back with professional pole climbing gear he accuses you of trying to cheat and yanks the offer. This is Randiland, Fantasy World of Science Magic. Randi’s the judge, jury and executioner of the award. If this isn’t so, then the Challenge to Randi is to put my 12 year old claim to the test once and for all.
Proof that my claim on Randi’s greenstamps was widely recognized is that the BBC emailed me, begging for permission to jump my claim before they could conspire to produce their flop.
In case you haven’t got it, the point to this is, Randi’s Challenge isn’t science: It’s a stunt.
This is proof that Randi and his posse of pseudo scientists are simply gaming everyone’s ignorance to solicit malice for an effective and legal medical practice. It gives them an excuse to call it “fraud”, “a scam” and “criminal.”
Read Dana Ullman’s excellent Huff Post article to see how Randi produced phony “replications” of biochemical tests of homeopathy that failed for TV cameras after the Benveniste experiment was reproduced by European scientists in a multi-centered trial.
The BBC crocumentary was built around an Irish chemistry professor who participated in the multi-centered test and found that the supramoleculars used in homeopathic remedies had biochemical effects. Watch it and ask yourself the question, why aren’t these people watching her repeat the test? How can they expect a reasonable outcome with inexperienced person trying to replicate it it?
Randi had to discredit this test, and so they “idiopathicized” it as much as they could, what they must do with all succesful homeopathy experiments . . make it seem like it’s the only one ever done and that it has no ties whatsoever to science, to logic or to medicine, or to any other evidence at all, when in fact it always does. Not only are these biochemical tests replicable, they are also explainable chemically as supramolecular substances, meaning their action is found in the specific, unique signal particular to each remedy. The action,or mechanism of homeopathic remedies is electromagnetic, and these indies can be now be detected.
Now get this: Ennis’ work has not only been replicated, the in vitro tests she and others did showing biochemical action of high dilutes were themselves replications of numerous tests done previously, such as those by Jacques Benveniste, and even his tests were replications of previous tests by other scientists, such as Poitevin!
Between 1984 and 2007, the basophil degranulation test, was replicated 24 times and published in Nature TWICE, by Benveniste and by Hirst!
Now get this: Hirst shows, as unbelievable as it may seem, that there was a significant biochemical effect demonstrated by homeopathic high dilutes, even though Hirst et al still could not believe their own results!
Read Italo Vecchi’s report of Hirst’s testing at weirdtech.com, and Prof. Martin Chaplin’s view of it in his Homeopathy article at the LSBU.edu Water Structure website.
Benveniste’s original results, although dismissed by “skeptics,” Chaplin writes “were, however, confirmed in a blinded study by the statistician Alfred Spira and also in a rather bizarre Nature paper purporting to prove the opposite.” !!!
Don’t take my word for it. Do a little digging. INVESTIGATE! Don’t just take it from a guy living off the interest of $1M, see for yourself what the experts say. Homeopathic remedies are real medicine that have helped a steadily growing number of people who have been afflicted with serious, life threatening diseases.
For more comprehensive information about the biochemical testing of high dilutes, Google Witt, “The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies—–A systematic review of the literature.”
The Witt PDF is available here online.
You will see that not only have there been numerous replications of the trial Benveniste was crucified for, but that there have been other biochemical tests of high dilutes/supramoleculars as used in homeopathy. Benveniste was crucified by the medico-industrial complex as a warning to all other scientists: Do not attempt to do what this man has done . . or we will put you out of business or have you fired from your job, and you will never work again!
Their threats did not stop the man who won the Nobel prize for discovering AIDS, virologist Luc Montagnier from investigating what Benveniste had discovered . . and he in turn produced one of the most remarkable tests of homeopathy ever produced, a huge medical discovery: Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences.
What is so remarkable about the Montagnier study is that it goes beyond simply validating homeopathy. It shows five different things about the supramolecular sustances used in homeopathic remedies.
It shows evidence for polymorphic structuring of these susbtances; it shows they emit a detectable signal beginning at 1 Hz; it shows the signal causes aqueous replication in non contiguous water, i.e. in another test tube; it shows the signal is generated by the Schumann resonance (the Earth’s backgr0und radiation) and it shows that water can replicate solutes that pass through it.
If that isn’t enough to put the scientific world into a state of shock, here’s a bonus item, a trial that was done after Witt, by Sainte Laudy: Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: a sensitive and reproducible model for the study of the biological activity of high dilutions. Click here to see that report.
As all pre-clincial tests such as Montagnier’s and Sainte Laudy can do, the Witt review clearly shows that these substances, without one molecule left of the originally intended substance in them, do indeed have biochemical . . and thereby biological effects! This doesn’t include tests on plants and animals, experiments anyone can easily do to see the impossible action of high dilute supramoleculars!
Matched with popular use and legal support of these substances by the courts and government, the scientific reports mentioned here and many others not, this is what makes up what is undeniable proof for the amazing effectiveness of homeopathy. Once you’ve seen this proof, the reason for the extreme malice for it begins to sharpen.
This is why they hate it: Homeopathy is a huge threat to the medico-industrial complex. Homeopathy is curative medicine. It is the only comprehensive, systematic curative medicine of its kind on the planet.
It doesn’t make addicts and debt slaves of its customers. It doesn’t make them dependent on it. Most people who are smart enough to use homeopathy are smart enough not to get sick. So, as you may surmise, it is not a big money making business.
Unlike the usual medicine, it doesn’t keep you coming back.
This is why I offer a free consultation to anyone with any problem. I want you to know that there’s an alternative to the crappy drama being portrayed as medicine you’re getting now. Homeopathy is superior medicine, superior to what you’re getting now at a fraction of the cost!
Don’t let the health scare system destroy you. Put homeopathy to the test. Experience it for yourelf. See if it works. And then when you’ve been cured, make a video telling the world “Homeopathy Works for Me!”
Do not deny yourself of this opportunity. Try homeopathy. It works.
Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:
HOMEOPATH JOHN BENNETH confronts MAGICIAN JAMES RANDI re: his $1,000,000 challenge on the TIME Magazine online forum
BENNETH to RANDI: “Put your money where your mouth is.”
“Dear James Randi,
“In January of 1999 I applied for your challenge after you, in writing, personally offered me your award to prove homeopathy with a simple test . . identify verum from placebo, the active homeopathic remedy from the inert substance in a double blind trial.
“In light of more complex measures, your challenge is a rather simple test that has now been done countless times, biochemically, botanically and physically by spectroscopy (Roy) and other methods, such as by measuring differences in puncture voltage (Brucato). This is a simple test! But what we have seen from you are nothing more than unscientific, dangerous stunts, such as standing in front of audiences and downing an entire bottle of herbal sleeping ills, claiming they’re “homeopathic.,“ when in fact they are not . . not completely. Anyone can see this by simply reading the dilution strength of the main ingredients.
“James Randi, you have yet to put any scientific method that reveals the identity of these substances you say are scams to the test.
“James Randi, put Richard Adams’s money where your mouth is: Put homeopathy to a real test, arbitrated by real scientists, under the terms of a real contract.
“John Benneth, Homeopath”
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/08/24/calling-all-psychics-prove-your-worth-for-1-million/_
Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:
A lot’s happened in the last year, and it’s been a particularly wild ride for me and homeopathy. 2010 was actually a big year for me and homeopathy. And well it should’ve been, for 2010 was the 200th anniversary of the publication
Kirlian photograph of homeopathic remedy by Chris Wodtke
of Organon der rationellen Heilkunde, The Organon of the Healing Art, Samuel Hahnemann’s first treatise on homeopathy, a science that he alone begat.
It is a book that continues to rock the medical world.
I think it should be noted here, that as an orthodox physician, Hahnemann had been cutting his doses for 14 years prior to publication of the Organon. He was compelled to do so because of the harm that “heroic medicine,” then as now, was doing to the withering public.
Bloodletting by barbers and toxic chemicals administered by the totally unschooled to treat disease in 1810 graduated to more sophisticated methods of bloodletting by unnecessary surgery — and more toxic, patented petro chemical synthesis and “chemotherapy,” to treat disease.
“Heroic medicine” was not called that because of what the physician did, it was called that because of what the patient endured. But with homeopathy came hope, and that hope is alive today.
Hahnemann didn’t just spring out of the gate with this thing, as an idea untested all on its own, it had to first stand trial to his own incredulity and testing. The 14 year trial was that of a well-trained, travelled and read government medical doctor who, for his time, was also a first rate published chemist.
Anyone who can be fair and objective about it, who still harbors any doubts about homeopathy, should keep that in mind when banking on Avogadro’s Constant, the famous hypothesis concerning the molecular limit of gasses in combination with one another, for with all theory aside, Hahnemann, as countless others have done in following him, had to accept, without supporting theory or logic, the evidence for the biological action of high dilutes, for seeing is believing, and practitioners for 200 years have seen that homeopathy oddly works . . as if by magic.
But homeopathy is not magic, as a growing number of material scientists have come to realize. There are now 10 different physical tests for homeopathic high dilutes, and six different types of in vitro tests, in which some published tests which have perfect ratings.
Coincidentally, 2011 marks the 200th year anniversary of publication of that theory by Avogadro, “Essay on Determining the Relative Masses of the Elementary Molecules of Bodies and the Proportions by Which They Enter
Conte Lorenzo Romano Amedeo Carlo Bernadette Avogadro di Quaregna e Cerreto, Count of Quaregna and Cerreto b. 9 August 1776, Turin, Piedmont, d. 9 July 1856)
These Combinations.” As if we didn’t know. Since the beginning theory by the numbers have dogged homeopathy as impossible,when in fact a heterogeneous molecule was never suspect. Like the skeptics’ Elvis, Avogadro has left the building.
2010 was also anniversary for something else quite notable in this affair, really the key item that distinguishes a homeopathic solution from its solvent vehicle. 200 years ago two famous English chemists, Sir Humphrey Davy, and Michael Farraday, in their study of chlorine, made note of liquid aqueous structuring, what they called hydrates, curious clatcheses of water molecules that twinkled like ice, which later came to be known as clathrates. Hold on to that last word, it is the final key to unlocking the mystery of homeopathy. 2010 was the year of the clathrate when it was indicted for causing the BP Gulf of Mexico oil well disaster and became the subject of wild speculation at the Cavendish Laboratory when it was announced it was the operative mechanism of the homeopathic remedy, the same place where a decade ago a notorious French immunologist proclaimed a new biological paradigm.
It is the year when I began my lecture before the crowned heads of Europe by showing a power point picture of the suspect, saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, the clathrate hydrate. This concludes my lecture, other than where is
clathrate model
Josephson’s Scotch, are there any questions?” and was mobbed by silence, forced to
Scotch Josephson denied me at the Cavendish. He said my videos were socially unacceptable.
go on for an hour to explain it all, and getting nothing for it but some weak orange juice, stingily poured by Josephson.
Thanks to Dr. Shashi Sharma, president of Hahnemann College of Homeopathy in London, my efforts came to fruition in 2010 with an invitation to be the key note speaker at his conference there, where I was treated like a king, and at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge where, by invitation of Nobel laureate, Professor Brian Josephson, I was given an opportunity to present my theory for the molecular pecularities of the homeopathic remedy.
Now you know. Until my London lectures in September and October of 2010, the polar protic water molecule eluded a popular explanation as to how it forms liquid aqueous structuring (LAS), and how LAS is relevant to a classical science explanation of the homeopathic remedy’s inner workings.
2010 marked the 100th year anniversary of Johannes Diedrik van der Waals’s award of the Nobel prize for his contributions to understanding the intermolecular forces which now bear his name, critical to understanding liquid aqueous structuring, confirming what the genius of Hahnemann presented 100 years prior,
Johannes Diderik van der Waals
that the biological effects of the homeopathic remedy are magnetic.
2010 marks the year we declared that the homeopathic remedy could be explained in the terms of supramolecular chemistry.
And I did it without the Scotch.
HOW IT BEGAN
It really began in earnest for me 10 years ago when James Randi offered me his million dollar prize to prove that the action of homeopathic remedies was something more than a psychogenic effect.
I took his challenge naively believing the offer was genuine.
My friend and colleague, James "the Amazing" Randi
Much to the disbelief and fury of the big pharma stooges, the literature, much of it through PUBMED, provided numerous ways to show the action of homeopathic remedies outside of the human domain. I found that they not only had physical distinctions, they had action on plants and animals, too, that could be shown by a wide variety of methods. But their most prounounced action was in the most infinitesimal doses, remotely applied, on our greatest opponents, precipitating violent contractions of the jaw and vocal mechanism, and highly agitated contractions of the fingers on keyboards. One detractor called me a murderer. Another said I was an idiot. Another said I was homeopathetic.
But it was not enough to dissuade me from clinging to my chains. Randi ran like a rabbit.
I sent my samples to Kirlian phtographer Chris Wodtke, who made some amazing pictures of them, showing the crackling feathers coming out of the gas discharge from the thousands of electrocuting volts coursing through the drop. When it began looking like I actually had methods by which to win the million, such as by Kirlian photography, or by plants, Randi said I was a nobody and had bigger fish to fry.
The renowned immunologist, Dr. Jacques Benveniste, 1935-2004
He claimed that French immunologist Jacques Benveniste and Professor Brian
The brilliant Professor Brian Josephson of the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge
Josephson of Cambridge had agreed to accept his challenge, and that he would test them first. What? I coldn’t belive it. If elt like a jilted lover. But always the hero, Josephson wrote to say that they were not interested in being “tested” by Amazing Randi, understandable after what Randi had done to Benveniste years earlier. It was a circus with clowns with rats riding on the backs of dogs, jumping through hoops of fire. The Challenge, Jacques and Josephson said, was mine, and they sent Randi careening back to me.
Randi kept stalling. He refused to set a test date. He found some university stooge to fence with me for a while until the stooge ran off and hid under his pillow. It was doubly, triply (I’d say quadruply if it wasn’t so corny) evident that Randi wasn’t going to make good on his offer to conduct a test, so I took my case to Naomi Shapiro, Randi’s account manager at Goldman Sachs, where the loot was supposed to be hid. She wouldn’t verify anything. All Randi had as proof of the prize — reportedly put up by Richard Adams of UUNET — was an old fax with Shapiro’s name on it. It was evident that at one time the account may have held a million dollars in what may have been nothing more than junk bonds, but what was in there now could have been nothing more than stack of Rnadi'[s old Blue Boy magazines.
$1,000,000.00 CASH
When I sprung the news that Goldman Sachs was refusing to verify the account, Randi sprung into action. He accused me of “damaging the James Randi Educational Foundation,” had a heart attack and like a street corner bum started selling pens dipped in “homeopathic gold,” to pay for it.
What Randi didn’t want anyone to know was that “aurum,” homeopathic gold, is the
Chest pains . . too much GM corn syrup
first remedy indicated by heart troubles and depression. Obviously he was taking it because he couldn’t afford the doubt.
Exposed in his ruse, Randi then claimed he wouldn’t test me because I was insane.
The only way, he said, he would continue negotiations with me for a test of homeopathy, would be for me to get a signed affidavit attesting to my mental condition from a clinical psychologist.
November 2nd, 2000 I found myself wandering the eerily quiet streets of a suburb of Tucson, close to the
Prof. Gary Schwartz, author of "The Living Universe"
University. Down to my last few bucks, I had hitched a ride from Portland, Oregon to meet with Dr. Gary Schwartz, a professor of clinical psychology and psychiatry, who had expressed an interest in my research and was looking for a physical distinction in the homeopathic remedy.
I said I could provide it.
Schwartz’ lab was called the Human Energy Systems Laboratory (HESL). It was located in a little bungalow in the university neighborhood. The garage had been converted into a workshop. Schwartz was using electronic equipment to test subtle energy effects and especially how they applied to what is thought of as the paranormal.
When I arrived on foot I saw a young man in the garage through the open door. I heard zapping sounds coming from within. I think he was electrocuting mice. The ones without intuition. Having arrived early, rather than bother the man’s animal genocide, I decided I would kill time by taking a stroll.
I was walking down the street minding my own business when suddenly a black high-rise pickup pulled up. A man with a beard and sunglasses rolled down the driver side window and, pointing up into the sky behind me, said in a nasally voice, “Look at the Sun.”
I turned around, and saw one of the oddest and most spectacular sights of my life. In a cloudless sky the Sun appeared to have split into three parts. I had never seen anything like it. It created what looked like a huge eye
El Ojo del Diablo, the Eye of the Devil
peering down at me.
I turnedback around. The pickup was gone.
I then embarked on my own mission of evangelism. I asked passerby at the University what it was. Not one person had noticed it until I pointed it out, as had been done for me, and all but one stared increduously. Most everyone, likeme, had walking around without looking up, and no one knew. Finally a young woman said it was the Ojo del Diablo, the Eye of the Devil.
The Eye of the Devil?
I thought that sounded a bit harse. I called for damage control. And then I htought. If it could be the eye of the devil, it could also be el ojo de Dios, the Eye of God.
In any case we were being stared at from above by what looked like a huge shining eye. I went back to the HESL. I called to the young man in the garage and asked him to come outside. He did, and asked what the matter was.
I pointed up. “Have you ever seen that before?” I asked.
“No, I haven’t he said,” shading his eyes. “What is it?”
“El Ojo de Dios.” I nodded my head knowingly, as if I knew. “God is watching us.”
As it turned out, it was what is called parhelia, commonlhy known as sun dogs. The effect is caused by ice crystals in the upper atmosphere. The actual science bore out the myth. Ice crytals, as it turned out 10 years later, were indeed the key.
After our meeting, Schwartz visited Randi in his Ft. Lauderdale office. According to Schwartz, Randi was still insisting I was crazy, slapping the desk with his hand — and John Edward, the past life medium Schwartz had been testing, a liar.
He said all of this with his pants ablaze.
Three years later, in collaboration with Professor Iris Bell, MD, Schwartz followed my suggestion to use Kirlian
Professor Iris Bell, MD, in collaboration with Prof. Gary Schwartz, created a unique test for homeopathy
photography to produce the Gas Discharge Visualization test for homeopathy, and reported, as I had found, that homeopathic remedies can indeed be distinguished from their liquid vehicles by this method.
They published their results: “The procedure generated measurable images at the two highest voltage levels. At 17 kV, the remedies exhibited overall lower image parameter values compared with solvents (significant for Pulsatilla and Lachesis), as well as differences from solvents in fluctuations over repeated images (exposures to the same voltage). At 24 kV, other patterns emerged, with individual remedies showing higher or lower image parameters compared with other remedies and the solvent controls.” (Bell)
Like every other test I had found for homeopathy, Randi had to brush this one off too. Losing his million would not only be a loss of property and face, it would threaten the entire pharmaceutical paradigm that was supporting him.
Ten years ago there was practically no references at all to homeopathy on the Web, nothing regarding pre-clinical or clinical evidence when I posted my collection of pre–clinical tests for “Proof for Homeopathy.”
The world wide web was a novelty then and very few people noticed “Proof for homeopathy,” but after I reposted that same collection as the first post of this blog, it was reposted and went viral. It became notorious and still stands
Your friend, your best friend, your only friend: John Benneth, PG Hom. - London (Hons.)
as the most viewed entry in the John Benneth Journal.
It seems like homeopathy took off like rocket after that. Prior to assembling Proof for Homeopathy the homeopaths I was in contact with had very little knowledge of the clinical tests for homeopathy, and none for the pre-clinical.
The homeopaths I corresponded with didn’t seem to even have asked the question as to whether or not high dilutes could affect non human subjects, such as plants and animals. The only in vitro test popularly known for homeopathy was the one done by the brilliant immunologist Jacques Benveniste, the basophil degranulation test, but it was generally thought of as being idiopathic and the man contagious with quackery.
The fact of the matter is that the basophil degranulation test was not of Benveniste’s origin. It was first attempted in 1985 by Murrieta et al and first accomplished by Poitevin in the same year. I have now found more than two dozen replications of the basophil degranulation test for homeopathy, most notably the work by Sainte Laudy and Belon (Sainte-Laudy)
I don’t think homeopaths’ ignorance of the pre-clinical and clinical tests for homeopathy is excusable, but I think its understandable. Despite what may be said of it, the homeopathic materia medica, the reference work built on case notes that homeopath’s rely on for finding the right remedy, provides the most relevant information/evidence for the use/action of high dilutes. Compare the terms, one set for the practitioner, one for the doubter. The pre-clinical and clinical trials of homeopathy serve mostly to respond to the yet unproven accusations that homeopathy is merely a placebo. The average practitioner finds the pre-clinicals and clinical tests to be merely vituperative of homeopathy and useless in the clinical practice of homeopathy. Either way they are merely pebbles thrown against a tank. No information/evidence will ever suffice to convince the unconvincible, nor will it ever.
The most remarkable finding was something I just came across, and inevitably I think that in concordance with theory and evidence, will help to break the back of the pharma stooge‘s opposition.. That more was not made of it, to me illustrates the point of resistance, but it is profound that it appeared in this red letter year. What makes it so important I think is not what is said (it is 40 years old and prosaic) but who is saying it.
It is a statement made by Emeritus Professor Martin Chaplin, one of the world’s leading authorities on the physics of water. It really deserves an entry all of its own here on the Journal, for it marks a turning point in the recognition
of homeopathy as being based on real scientific principles. Yes, I know, reading it you will see that Chaplin covers his bet, so no one can say he drank the dilute Kool Aid. But even though it is true, for a man of lesser credentials it would mean professional suicide to make such a statement.
In an article entitled The Memory of Water, posted on the London South Bank University website, (probably the best website for information about the physics and chemistry of water) Professor Chaplin says, “Water does store and transmit information, concerning solutes, by means of its hydrogen-bonded network.” (Chaplin)
The word “does” invokes the controversy that should have ended in the mid 20th century when clathrates became an issue for the oil companies, clogging up oil pipelines, and in the fifties when double Nobel laureate Linus Pauling nominated them as being the cause of inebriation, or in the sixties when Barnard frist linked them to the homeopathic solution, or in the nineties, when Anagnostatos described their formation in the host/guest process, and then finally in 2010, when a study between US and Russian universities, clathrates were revelaed to affect the taste of vodka (Schaffer)
Note that all of these examples of clathrates are in solution with hydrocarbons such as ethanol or methane, which are capable of hydrogen bonding, a point always missed by the disbeliever.
What have we been saying for years now? Next thing you know Chaplin will cave and admit that the biological effects are due to the crystalline piezo electric effect.
The article is prefaced with an epitaph to the late Benveniste: “Maybe I should have thrown the data away” followed by a comment by Chaplin, “but being a scientist and believing in his data he could not.”
I for one am glad that he didn’t, and I am sorry for the all the misery Maddox, Stewart and Randi put him through.
I would add something to the memorial that Benveniste wrote to me, if I could:
“Homeopathy is the devil’s piss pot.”
REFERENCES:
Bell IR, Lewis DA 2nd, Brooks AJ, Lewis SE, Schwartz GE. “Gas discharge visualization evaluation of ultramolecular doses of homeopathic medicines under blinded, controlled conditions.”
Chaplin M “Memory of Water” lsbu(dot)ac(dot)uk/water/memory(dot)html
Murrieta M, Leynadier F, Dry J. “Degranulation of human basophils and so-called homeopathic substances” Bull Acad Natl Med. 1985 May;169(5):619-22.
Poitevin, B., Aubin, M., Benveniste, J. (1985) Effect d’Apis Mellifica sur la degranulation des basophiles humains in vitro. Homeopathie Francaise 73: 193.
Sainte-Laudy J, Belon P. Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: a sensitive and reproducible model for the study of the biological activity of high dilutions. Homeopathy. 2009 Oct;98(4):186-97.
Sometimes I get fooled into thinking people are listening, when in reality, they aren’t, they aren’t at all. They’re just pretending to listen. They not even interested after seeing something that dramatically proves the point. What they’re doing is just waiting for me to stop talking, or in the case of a blog, to stop writing, so they can climb up onstage.
The stupidest people don’t want to listen, they just wan’t to talk. They can hog the whole conversation with a drawn out monolgue, and then when they finally do ask my opinion, and I pick myself up off the floor and manage to get a byte’s worth of words out, like “may I have a glass of water, please?” they start in all over again.
“Water? Let me tell you about water. There’s tap, distilled, ice, soda, mineral ,hot, boiling, cold, salt, dirty, with a twist of lemon and a straw, or . . ”
I get hit with another entire monologue before i can even put my head back down.
Same way with a blog. This one’s essentially meant to be a scientific discussion about the mysterious and seemingly anomalous action of water as used in homeopathy, so you would expect
the commennts to be scientically oriented, and say things like “Water? H2O, hydroxl, H-O-H, is one of the few elements that can be easily seen in all three phases of matter, solid, liquid and gas, and a fourth one, supercritical. It’s a polar protic universal solvent with a small tetrahedrally shaped molecule solvent and . .”
But look at most of the miserable comments. Aside from the Great Kaviraj and a few by an occasional homeoapth, most of the comments are from people who are stubbornly opposed to homeopathy and don’t have anything to do with the topic at all. Most of the comments are about me, regarding deficiencies in my character. Well, certainly I admit there could be a few, but to read some of these people you’d think I was wormwood.
Many of the commentators, you may notice, appear to have not even read the essay. Having no audience of there own I guess they want to borrow mine.
Well, the monuments we make to others are really no better than the monuments we make to ourselves.
There is one particular person, (well actually there are several) who does this “not listening” thing incessantly and egregiously. I’ll make my point, fall back in exhaustion, and then in great dismay hear a statement made tha tmake it obvious he wasn’t listening.
Once I went into great detail how we could get more views on our websites, and then when I was finished he said, “Do you have any ideas as to how we might get more views on our websites?”
I have found the same is true for my explanation of homeopathy. Skeptics don’t want to read my column, certainly hnot when it contains a reasonable scientific eplanation in it. They just want an excuse tot write something that makes them feel superior.
What a gift. My writing brings out the best in my readers by bringing out the worst in me. When I write a particularly good essay, the view counts drop off dramatially.
Ontology aside, I am convinced that there are no true anomalies. Idiopathy is an ideal, not a reality, and it is homeopathy, as the greater part of it, that has brought me to that conclusion, for homeopathy is regarded as one of the world’s greatest physical anomalies, one I’ve seen my way around due to the evidence. I have come to believe that what are seen as physical anomalies are simply errors in perception, just as the skeptics say. The only difference is that the errors in perception are there’s, not mine.
I can understand this on a personal level. There is probably no greater achievement than to work all your life to be remembered when you’re dead. I saved the small town of Turner, Oregon from a threat of destruction by negotiating with a man who said he was going to blow it up, removing him from its center, talking him down over a cup of coffee and walking the dear fellow into jail. He was upset, I think, because of an impending foreclosure, and because essentially no one would listen to him.
He subsequently claimed to be sitting on a ton of farm fertilizer in his feed store, he said, which he was going to detonate it with some nitro glycerin (he said). Even people in Portland would hear that, and that would be novel, they don’t listen to anyone either.
So I took the time to listen to him, very carefully. He brought up consitutional points, and as someone who had studied the state constitution with great interest, we had a topic of mutual interest.
“Did you know that for crimes the Oregon constitution demands rehabilitation over punishment?” I said.
He responded he was going to blow up Turner. I took him seriously, just as I would wish to be taken seriously if I was going to blow up a town, no matter how big it was. I’m sure everyone does.
That feat alone, bringing him through the surrounding police and television cameras undetected, meeting with him in a truck stop, should have been enough to have had some marble cut down to my size and shaped like me, but no, all it got me was a place on the front page of the Salem Statesman-Courier newspaper, jealous contempt from all the cops and a question from my wife, “when are you going to get a real job?”
The marble statue would have been been earned if my pieces had been blasted over four counties. That would have earned me the respect and approbation I craved. And if something similar were to happen now, I’m sure the comments tomorrow would be more conciliatory, too.
There is a kind of rushed feeling about it. Argentum would be the remedy I think.
Well, enough of that. The world views these things as idiopathic. Yes, I know, that’s a word that isn’t used much, so to save you having to open up another page, please forgive me for presuming that it needs a definition: Idiopathy is the belief that the material world and the life follows it, are in a disconnected state.
Idiopathically, we see a thing as a thing by itself, with no dynamic connections to us or the outside world at all. That’s the skeptical position we;’re all most ocmfortable with. Its only the palpable connections to the world around it that make it seem connecte for a moment to anything. Scientists are just now beginningto suspect that water molcules have different mangetic connections with one another thaat appeaars to transcend the hydrogen bond. As Benveniste noted 10 years ago at the Cavendish, this dynamic field view of water molecules will lead to a significant pardigm shift in medicine.
So a stone upon the shore is seen as nothing more than rock amongst others, with no connections to its fellows amongst who it sits, except for the connections we make for it in our minds, until that too is broken and it is picked up and thrown out of view, into the lake.
Infinitesimally the lake is seen as the rocks on the shore, a haphazard collection of singular parts, with no other connection than physical proximity, H2O molecules jostling one other like stones in a bucket.
But this is not the way the world is constructed. All things are dynamically conneccted, and people are no exception.
Molecules of water are not free entities as the rocks on the shore appear to be. Like humans, converse to popular belief, they do not exist alone. I challenge anyone to separate one from its kin and show it to me. I think it is not possible. I think there is no such thing as an idiopathic water molecule.
Neither can their true character be known by modeling them alone, and yet this is exactly what we do in the study of them. We model them alone as if they separate and apart, and so that is how we think of them.
And that, sadly, is how we think of ourselves too often I fear. Alone, when in fact every water molecule within us is dynamically, magnetically, connected directly to as many as four other water molecules around it, an beyond, a fifth connection. Water can be seento behave as if within a dynamic field.
There are indirect intermolecular forces that connect water molecules with one another, which demonstrates the magnetic interconnectiveness of of all living things, for water is the most common element in our sphere, around and within us.
If water molecules cannot have a sustained magnetic connection, then how do they support a water bridge?
Density gradientsobject width=”480″ height=”385″>
Continued from “How Embarrassing!”
Great detectives think only about the truth, and so they constantly attack the deficiencies in their own thinking first. They don’t wait for somebody else to do it for them. They care less about making themselves look good than they do in solving the problem.
And that’s what I’ve done for Jeff Garrington and everyone else. I’ve solved the problem. But do I get any thanks for this? No, of course not. They’re all too cheap to recognize that! How cheap are they? They’re so cheap they count their fingers after they shake hands; they take out a one month subscriptions to Reader’s Digest; they go to the drugstore and buy one Kleenex; they keep moths as pets because they think they only eat holes; they stop watches to save time; they wash paper plates, they won’t even tip their hats and they quit golf . . because they lost the ball.
I might also call out, that in all my correspondence with him, even physicist Brian David Josephson (BDJ), the youngest non-academic to win the Nobel prize in modern times, has not pointed out what the particular deficiencies in my presentation were, in fact no one has, with except one, und nichts du, certainly not Jeff Garrington.
Except for this one person, no one has been able to take even a good swipe at them. The only critic I know of so far who has pointed out the holes in my argument and forced me to patch them up before opening my mouth is . . ahem me.
The only person who has been able to discuss it is the Great Kaviraj.
Now, as an example of how lame even Garrington’s ad hominems are, if you do a search on that particular quote by BDJ regarding me , which Garrington and others love to stretch their necks on, it only appears on Andy Lewis’ bullshit quackometer website.
Lewis is so nervous from being repeatedly kicked off web hosting services for le canard noir, the black lie, he can thread a sewing machine while it’s still running. And when you follow his link to the BDJ quotes, they’re not there! (See link to site my lecture and BDJ’s actual comments, below) Gasp! Now why would that be? The argument so far against me is so weak even we homeopaths can’t find a dilution level for it.
Please, somebody, teach me! I’ll assign my million dollar claim on James Randi’s million dollars if anybody can if somebody can only help me!
Is Andy lying, like he so often does, or did BDJ remove it? If so, why would he do that? And so what if he did say those things? He’s also said that so far, no one’s proven me wrong.
“A colleague to whom I forwarded a link remarked that he ‘found most blogs depressing because they tend to be dominated by people who are very opinionated and often rude, yet uninformed and uncritical’, and I’m sure he would think the same of this — all these attempts to prove John Benneth wrong that don’t amount to anything, and the inability to follow any remotely subtle points. But this (almost too) prolonged discussion will provide very interesting material for sociologists of science to mull over.”
Posted by: Brian Josephson Aug 13, 2010
http://blogs.nature.com/im_brooks/2010/07/30/can-we-agree-to-disagree
Will they prove me wrong? Or will they . . teach me?
I don’t pretend to think that BDJ has been enthusiastic or even agreeable to my dissertation. Yes, it was a spectacle, there was a sign carrying mob at the door, I had to step on Evan Harris’s face to get to the door and use Singh’s hair to get to the stairs. I even saw a couple old ladies, waving tickets and trying to get Stephen Hawkins into the freight elevator.
BDJ simply has had very little to say about it, although recently he pointed out in commentary in another article on the web about molecular self-assembly that it sounded reminiscent to what I was talking about in my “controversial” talk at the Cavendish.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44479
He was extremely nervous about my presentation and I don’t blame him, I know who I am and how I come off, what’s at stake for him isn’t what’s at stake for me, I know what an embarrassment I am to these anti-homeopathy blockheads, at any moment I might whip out affidavits testifying to sexual assaults on minors by James Randi, or I might start cursing out that cockbite Goldacre, drop my bombs and walk away. But I didn’t do that, I did worse than that, I showed them all how really stupid they’ve been about their own business. I showed them real science. I showed them how confused about very simple, basic things, like hydrogen bonding and intermolecular forces.
What could be more embarrassing than that?
Yes, my little talk met with great opposition, but to date NO ONE has been able to correct the glaring contradiction between the direct observation of sustained liquid aqueous structuring created by intermolecular forces in water, what any child can see the effects of and science supports, and the “theory” that it is impossible because of “breakage ” of the “hydrogen bond” and the fairy tale of H2O molecules as independent entities. Scrape it together, get your story straight. Water is a colloid (Tiller, On Chemical Medicine, Thermodynamics and
Homeopathy, http://www.tillerfoundation.com/On%20Chemical%20Medicine%20Homeopathy.pdf)
Roy, Water Water Everywhere
“Proposed mechanisms such as structural effects on the water can be seen as a bridge to the homeopathic regime. Ricci, in the standard text on the Phase Rule puts it thus: Another non uniformity possible in a homogeneous phase of an isolated equilibrium system free of the forces of gravitational and other such fields seems to be that of surface energy, if the phase is a subdivided one. The subdivided phase in a 2-phase colloidal system, for example, may not have the same surface development in all its pieces. But if there is such a thing as a reproducibly stable colloidal system, with an equilibrium state which is a function of T, P, and composition alone, independent of time and of the relative amounts of the phases, then this non-uniformity must be a regular one, following some statistical distribution fixed solely by these variables. If the colloidal system, then, is stable and in reversible equilibrium, the distribution of its surface energy must be assumed to be either uniform or a reproducible function of the stated variables [16]. Roy, Structure of Liquid Water http://hpathy.com/research/Roy_Structure-of-Water.pdf
To listen to the Garringtons of the world it sounds like their view of the rest of the material world: intermolecularly totally disconnected, as if these molecules were like grains of sand, except smaller. What a bunch of nitwits. This guy Garrnington has been confused by academics like Prof. David Colquhoun. You may not have known this, but before Coquhoun got a job as a professor at London City University, he applied for a job as a teller in a blood bank, then a social director on a freight train, and finally a lifeguard in a motor pool. But since there weren’t any openings, he got a job completely confusing people about the workings of the material and dynamic world.
All they can do is characterize my presentation as embarrassing. Isn’t it ironic that Simon Singh, the particle physicist, also spoke at the Cavendish after I did, but not on any physical principles, as I did, but about how “scientismists” should be given special rights to defame others, just as Garrington does? He doesn’t have a capacity to discuss the “science” he claims is nailed to his rants, and neither does Singh with his “science degree.” What a clod.
What fun to see him shot down by the very thing he pretends to worship.
We all know what’s at stake for the Garringtons. Anyone who studies this can see what the real ramifications of it are. Findley loses his $12 million per annum and Garrington doesn’t get his 50 mao per diem from the Evil Empire paymaster. The supramolecular theory for homeopathic remedies threatens to torpedo his old leaking paradigm, blub blub blub, down goes the tub.
For as long as homeopathy has been practiced Garrington and everyone else who’s afraid to acknowledge the evidence, insist that there is specificity to the biological effects of hydroxl medicine simply because it just doesn’t make sense, and so when a non academic drunk like me has to be led by the hand, stumbling into their den of stupidity, and shows them how it does make sense, using what is supposed to be their terms of classical science, they get red faced pissed, and they seek to say anything they can to explain it away.
Prove that I’m wrong. Teach me. Show me that intermolecular forces can’t sustain liquid aqueous structuring. Show me that the hydrogen bond does not create clathrates, water clusters, bubbles and water surface tensio. Show me what does. Show that water is not a colloid, as material scientists and pure logic say it to be. If not due to the intermolecular attraction between water molecules, then show wwha tthe connection is in water that facilitates sound travelling longer distances in water than it does in air; show why electroreceptors in cartilaginous fishes can detect electromagnetic fields in water.
Teach me!
If internal structuring cannot occur in water, then explain to me what American material scientists are talking about in “Structure of Liquid Water,” by Roy et al.
If they weren’t aqueous nanostructures as he claimed, then tell me what it was that Nobel laureate scientist Luc Montagnier and others were measuring and actually filtering out of solutions? If these things are not the result of sustained hydrogen bonding, then what are they are the result of?
Just what is it that creates the “supramolecular organization of water” Demangeat is talking about?
Teach me!
2008 July 26 Journal of Molecular Liquids NMR water proton relaxation in unheated and heated ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine: Evidence for an air-dependent supramolecular organization of water
Jean-Louis Demangeat !
Nuclear Medicine Department, General Hospital, Haguenau, France
Click to access Demangeat_JML_2009.pdf
Can everyone see now what Garrington and all the other pseudoscientists here are arguing for? They’re like someone who walks up behind an easy looking target, some old guy and his date, and hits him on the bald spot, sticks his hand in the pocket of a black and brown checkered shirt jack and pretends he’s got a gun.
Just a fantasy.
Garrington and countless others come at Kaviraj and me daily like a flock of stingerless hornets, and we still got them outgunned in online references 10 to one. And yet the entire medical paradigm of allopathy has been built on the same buing of these inssects, not backed by anything at all.
I ended up literally kicking the shit out of that guy in the middle lane of Sierra street. I got him chasing me out into the street, then suddenly stopped and dropped. In slow motion his feet left the ground as he went sailing over my head, auguring in on the other side, face first. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.Just like Colquhoun, gettting his down button pushed on his elevator shoes.
It’s a trick I learned in kindergarten, one of many ways to defeat bullies. Stay tuned tohis column and you’ll learn more.
He was stuck in the asphalt, presenting his ass end to me,which I stuck the toe of my shoe in with a swift kick. He lifted up slightlyon that end, his face blubbering into the pavement some more.
How dare he? Trying to rob someone walking away from a casino on Sierra Street in downtown Reno is about as stupid as trying to rob tourists on their way home from Las Vegas.
I’m from Virginia City!
After it was all over and me and my girlfriend were walking away from it I said, “what if he’d attacked an old couple?” to which she replied, “he did.”
Here’s the Power Powerpoint lecture that’s caused all the uproar:
BEYOND THE MOLECULE: The Supramolecular Chemistry of the Homeopathic Remedy by John Benneth
Jeff Garrington begins another sample of his excellent writing by quoting me, and then cruel jab:
“I am probably one of only a handful of people who understands the mechanical, molecular basis for the action of the homeopathic remedy. I possess knowledge of a chemistry that is far more advanced than Kindler’s. ” and yet -Brian Josephson had this to say about you, you remember don’t you, your talk at the Cavendish.
“This talk was an experiment, somewhat of a gamble perhaps. John Benneth is an ‘enthusiast’ for homeopathy, not a scientist, and what he said in the seminar might well have made him (and myself) look foolish.
Josephson went on to say that Benneth showed a “failure to understand particular scientific issues”, and that there were “clear deficiencies in the presentation”.
Oh well as you recently said, information on the internet can always be found.
John Benneth responds:
Reminds me of a time in Reno when a guy a little bigger than me snuck up behind and hit me over the head. When I turned around, he had his hand in the pocket of a brown checkered shirt jack, pointing it at me.
He said he had a gun.
Knowing a bluff when I see one, the question to Garrington regarding that quote of Nobel laureate physicist Brian Josephson (BDJ) is the same I had for the man in the brown checkered shirt:
“And where might that be?”
You see, the big difference between them and me is that I’m right and they’re wrong. Okay, you hurt my feelings, congratulations, but it just makes you look wronger than what you’ll be in the end. In both cases, the authorities, both black letter and man, are there to back me up after the scuffling is over.
It’s the same way in every post I receive against homeopathy, claims that aren’t backed up by anything at all. Except for some rubber tipped darts, he wouldn’t have any bullets even if he did have a gun to fire them with. If their collective minds were metaphorically the size of a room I’d be washing the windows every time I blinked.
Oh, they’re happy to attack my references, as if attacking references is something they do professionally, but when you turn the tables on them and demand their references for the placebo effect, or anything else for that matter, they have nothing, a point this column, which is rated the world’s best on homeopathy, repeatedly makes.
DEMAND TO JEFF GARRINGTON: Where did BDJ say that? Source please. Give us a link.
I’m not saying he didn’t say it, he probably did and I can add a few more things he said, such as telling me that he wouldn’t take me to lunch in the dining hall at Trinity College, unless I changed the title on one of my videos, which he said, was “socially unacceptable.”
Like the one where I do an imitation of Randi confessing homosexuality.
I had the liver and ham at Trinity, btw. It was excellent, something I wouldn’t have expected from an English kitchen, where sometimes they don’t always pluck evetrything they boil it.
And when someone tried to take a picture of us together, BDJ almost broke his neck trying to dive out of it.
But what does that have to do with the molecular mechanics of water?
Jeff Garrington won’t provide a valid link to his ad hominems because he doesn’t have one, just as he doesn‘t have anything to say about the molecular mechanics of water, nothing more than the fabrications of Andy Lewis.
Garrington is so bad at providing references the only job I can see him getting is with the Catholic Church. They don’t check references either, you know. Hell, they’d make him Pope.
His mind has been poisoned by capitalized academics which are there to support capitalized epidemics.
Like most academics it’s just something he made up that has nothing to do with anything relevant at all. He, as well as hordes of other eggheads don’t, just doesn’t want people to listen to me because I’m telling the truth. It shows how stupid and grubbing he and most academics are. In fact, what I have to reveal is enough to nuke all institutions of higher capitalization.
Example: The Cavendish Laboratory, which is a part of Cambridge University, is teaching young people in silico that the polar protic water molecule is a free entity that bounces off other random molecules in large undefined open spaces, like drunken cowboys at a barn dance after the band has gone home. So when I ask these students what it is these water molecules are swimming around in, they just look at me dumbly.
“But that’s what our computer models show us,” they say. And who wrote that program? Colquhoun did! Who does Colquhoun work for? The drug companies!
They’re teaching these kids at Cambridge that bonds between water molecules always break after a few femto-seconds and the water molecule then flies off to bang another one, like Colquhoun with his female stuents at LCU. (And a few of the good looking males from Pakistan.)
Think for a moment how fantastically ridiculous that is. It ranks right up there with the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. It’s an academic fairy tale. What in the hell do they think water is full of, anyway? Vacuums? Do they really think that at a thousand feet below the surface of the ocean this is what water molecules are doing? No, that’s what academics are doing in they’re retarded social lives. It’s all a part of their pathological solipsism.
After the lecture I took a look at some of the science projects kids at the Cavendish were working on, things like: toasters with knives on each side to scrape the toast as it pops up; a sundial that works on Daylight Savings Time; a portable electric blanket for people who walk in their sleep; a rocking chair with seat belts; a silent piano for people who don’t like music; a shoehorn for horseshoes; pajamas with ripcords for people who want to bail out of bed in the morning; hair cream that covers up bald spots by shrinking your head.
And these are just to name a few of the better ones.
So to Mr. Garrington I say, it’s really about your jealousy, isn’t it Jeff? You’re certainly not acknowledging the holes in your thinking on the subject, which is what my talk illustrates, nor are you talking about what you see as those in my lecture. Why is that?
Because there aren‘t any!
Here is the lecture that started it all
BEYOND THE MOLECULE: The Supramolecular Chemistry of the Homeopathic Remedy
To be continued . . wait ’til you hear what I did to that guy in Reno.
On October 18, 2010 at 2:47 am ben goldacre said:
Hi John,
I would never describe my dayjob as boring, it’s the most interesting and exciting part of my life. It’s boring dealing with people like you who casually misrepresent facts, but out of interest I checked, and in the email I wrote to Josephson declining his invitation to your talk, I explained I couldn’t come to Cambridge on account of my “humble” dayjob.
I’d be grateful if you could clarify this in the zillion places that you’ve posted over excitedly about the outrage of my not coming to see you speak about clathrates. I’m relieved to say that I doubt anyone would take anything you say seriously for obvious reasons, but it’s still not correct of you to say that I described my dayjob – about which I’m extremely passionate and committed – as “boring”.
I’ve just taken some unpaid leave to finish a book about bad behaviour in the pharmaceutical industry, and have flown to Canada and the US to do a couple of talks as Bad Science has just come out there, and to interview some people about dodgy behaviour in big pharma. It’s not clear to me why you regard this as an unacceptable activity for me to engage in.
Obviously there are a lot of pressures on everyone’s time, but I’m afraid that like a lot of people I don’t find your ideas very interesting. To be honest, like most people, I also don’t think I’d spend 4 hours travelling to Cambridge and back to see a man who makes videos as unpleasantly homophobic as yours:
For interest – and god knows this I barely interesting – pasted below is my email to Brian Josephson in response to his invitation, which I think makes it fairly clear why I didn’t come. Perhaps in future people should be forewarned that an invitation to a lecture from Brian Josephson will result in indignant fury at your non-attendance, and tedious unpleasantness from his speakers alleging that you think your dayjob is “boring”. If you are looking for explanations as to why people don’t take you seriously, you might look carefully at your behaviour in episodes like this.
> thanks
>
> it’s never particularly interested me, i’m nore interested in EBM and its
> application to homeopathy shows that their pills work no better than
> placebo.
>
> i’ll pass it on to ppl who are interested tho, cheers.
>
> cant make cambridge, humble dayjob!
MY RESPONSE TO GOLDACRE’s WHINING DIATRIBE
Boring yes, humble, no. A lack of humility is Ben Dover Goldacre’s problem here. It’s what prevents him from seeing the naked truth. The point is, he was invited by one of the greatest minds of the 21st century to discuss the undeniable facts regarding biological effects of supramolecular substances and their relevance to one of the most controversial and greatest healing modalities of all time. But he begged off, with contradictory reasons, one being that he doesn’t like my videos. Well, Josepshon found them just as disgusting and homophobic. I pointed out to him, though, myself being a suspected homosexual, that there is nothing prima facie derogatory against homosexuality in any of them. Specifically, the one welcoming Randi out of the closet and into the openly gay community is complimentary of his sudden found insight and honesty with himself, and has been hailed as a masterpiece of satire.
Homosexuality fits him well, as it does Ben Dover Goldacre.
Goldacre’s whining statement fit’s the Upper House review of his testimony before Parliament ass well.
“The written submission by Dr. Goldacre [Ev. 8] was notably short on supporting evidence, but contained unqualified statements on the ineffectiveness of homeopathy, forcefully expressed (more and link below-ed.)
It should be pointed out, Ben has commented on the impossibility of detecting liquid aqueous structuring (LAS), being that he believes it to be impossible. When he does try to objectively address the science of homeopathy, like he did before Parliament, he starts rewriting the evidence to fit what he wants it to say, and makes some general denunciations. He does this most notably re: Rao (Roy) as being nothing more than what he claims is a misreading of the ethanol; but what is slippering past Dover is that LAS, as found in clathrates, is prosaic, even more so than his getting up each day to go to his “boring day job,” as has been stated in “a zillion places.”
RAO: The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy
Click to access DefiningStructure.pdf
Goldacre commentary on Rao:
http://avilian.co.uk/2010/08/what%E2%80%99s-behind-ben-goldacre/
What Goldacre also misses is yet another FTIR study (Sukul) that addresses the ethanol issue, and tunes for it.
SUKUL: Variation in Fourier Transform Infrared Spectra of Some Homeopathic Potencies and Their Diluent Media
Click to access acm-2005-11_11.pdf
Goldacre also handily ignores nine other indices for physical distinctions in the homeopathic remedy. But no matter. He’ll just wave them away anyway, just like he did with the biggest revelation of his life, his own opportunity to come out for homeopathy, so let’s work our way up to a real challenge, and see if he can handle that.
Allow me to preface by saying that the dog the Journalist Doctor thought was following him all these years, the hydrogen bond, has left him to follow a new master. Of course Ben will try to slip out of it and rewrite history like he did regarding his boring day job, noted in a zillion places. He and these other shills for Avandia and the criminal organizations that make it for 83,000 heart attacks, have just been pinned down by a lowbrow amateur, a clown who makes deeply offensive videos, Goldacre’s excuse, forcefully expressed, for not talking about the science, which he can’t address, because science isn’t his destination; defamation is. Defamation is all Ben Goldacre can respond to because that’s all Ben Goldacre knows. As Bewdley describes him, he’s a “journalist doctor,” a doctor of words, not science. Otherwise he’d pick out the salient point and go in for the killshot.
Tsk tsk.
He should of come to the lecture. It was his big chance to tear apart my stupid (if that’s what it is) theory with a proper dialectic. Isn’t that what he’d have us believe he and his science compadres want us to think they’re all about? Ah yes, an objective, logical approach, instead of all of this wankering. Just ad rems, ferreted out like diamonds among the slag of ad hominem . . and concentrate on those alone, like a jeweler, loupe in eye: We see him bend over the precious stone.
Well, as the Master once said, Ben Dover, reach out to the publicans, its a boring day job to preach to the choir, such as the bobbleheads at McGill University, Toronto, where Goldacre, Shermer and Randi have been waggling their tongues. It brings the world nothing. Convert the unwashed, teach me. No? Then come to me to learn, I am your new master. I will lead the discussion.
BTW, just what IS the job placement rate for grads coming out of McGill? Can’t be too good if they’re listening to the misinformed like Goldacre and yawn and sawn-in half illusionists like Linking Rings Randi. Who wants to hire a dupe? Wait, maybe there are a lot of jobs for the grads at McGill . .
But look. If their argument against homeopathy is not due to ignorance, or deception, then they should prove me wrong ad rem about LAS. They say it can’t exist, but now all of a sudden, alakazam, it does! Note that Ben had his chance to address this subject, as did Colquhoun, as did Ian Brooks, as have all of them, yet none of them did, none dare come near it, for it is the hot burning truth, when poured overr them in their hiding places, is what will bring them boiling out of their stinkholes.
And Ben thinks animals are affected by the placebo.
Well, there’s an easy way to prove it. Before he passed away last month, Professor Rustum Roy of Penn Stae, the lead author for “Structure of Liquid Water, Novel Insights from the Material Sciences and Relevance to Homeopathy,” suggested to me in an email, that I use their methods (Rao) to take Randi apart.
Fair enough. I am the major contender, Randi has been dodging my application for 10 years now with a variety of excuses. After accepting my application, the way he and I left the protocol 10 years ago, was that in order to win Richaard Adam’s money/Randi’s/JREF’s prize, the Million Dollar Challenge, was to identify homeopathic remedies from their liquid aqueous/ethanol vehicles.
Randi’s Team Skeptic has identified the fundamental issue in this debate as being that the only way for water to retain a memory is through LAS, but that LAS is impossible because of the intransigence of the hydrogen bond, that such bonds last only a few femto, nano or pico seconds, depending on which pseudoscientist you’re following today. What cuckholds these pseudo scientists, though, is direct observation of the bond in surface tension and bubbles, you can see the srength of the hydrogen bond with your own eyes, and clathrates have been noted by spectroscopy. Google it. See the many refernces and images of these curiosities noted by observers for 200 years now.
So the question is an easy one: Set up a series of double blind tests at various universities, using Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, to determine whether or not they can determine the identity between the inert vehicle and verum.
I propose that Richard Adams, the treasurer of the James Randi Educational Foundation, assure the prize with a legal contract bearing his signature.
So what will it be? Will Ben Goldacre continue to skip classes at the Cavendish, or will he join with me, hand in hand, in this simple determination, skipping merrily down the halls of science? This is not about someone’s boring day job. This is about the future of human health. It is the Trial of the Millenia, the usher of supramolecular medicine into the corpus mundi of science.
If homeopathic substances are real, then we should be able to identify them in objective analysis.in multi centered trials.
I suggest, that in the interests of science and medicine, Adams put up the expenses for such an endeavor. THat is, unless they’d becontent to accept the science. After all, what could be more convincing than the existing reports? Certainly not a trial in which poor Randi stands to lose his million dollars.
But if they won’t accept science as science, I suggest that the following institutions and people participate in a replication of detecting homeopathic verum.
Cavendish Laboratories, Cambridge (Josephson)
Queens College, Belfast (Ennis)
Pennsylvania State University, USA (Hoover)
University of Arizona, Tucson (Bell)
Stanford University, Palo Alto, California (Tiller)
University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy (Betti)
Chieti-Pescara University, Italy (Borghini)
Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin (Witt).
University of Berne, Switzerland (Baumgartner)
1Laboratório de Controle de Qualidade, Departamento de Medicamentos, Faculdade de Farmácia, UFRJ. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (Garcia)
Nuclear Medicine Department, General Hospital, Haguenau, France (Demangeat)
Institut André Lwoff , Villejuif Cedex, France (Thomas)
Vironix LLC, New York, USA (Montagnier)
Now, one last observation. If this seems too ad hominem, allow me to remind you that ad hominem is all there is and has been against homeoapthy, and mine is nothing more than is the action of a poor homeopath working his craft and applying a bit of similia to his deeply offending patients.
After the evidence of action on biochemical subjects, plants and animals has been taken into account, along with the extensive case notes of MDs and clinical trials, and now theory for supramolecular action, the only response left to the detractor is to continue to malign those who are concutingthe realscience, inevitably the competence of those making the reports of homeopathic action.
That’s what this argument has been all along. The allopathic medical profession wants the world to believe that the medicine of opposition is all that is available to it, that its vaccines and toxic chemicals that serve as pharmaceuticals are all you got.
Well let me tell you something, and a profound thing it is, that there is a second, very effective form of internal medcine that has been used successfully, clinically and in epidemics, for two centuries. It is the medcine of similia. Its effects are profound. It is called homeopathy, and there will come a time, if it has not already arrived, when you will need it.
Your friend, your best friend, your only friend,
John BENNETH, PG Hom (Hon)
Further reading Google:
2008 July 26 Journal of Molecular Liquids NMR water proton relaxation in unheated and heated ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine: Evidence for an air-dependent supramolecular organization of water
Jean-Louis Demangeat !
Nuclear Medicine Department, General Hospital, Haguenau, France
Click to access Demangeat_JML_2009.pdf
Effects of pulsed low frequency electromagnetic fields on water using photoluminescence spectroscopy: role of bubble/water interface
Philippe Valléea) and Jacques Lafait Laboratoire d’Optique des Solides (UMR CNRS 7601) Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France; Pascale Mentré, Paris, France Marie-Odile Monod Aubière Cedex, France; Yolène Thomas Institut André Lwoff , Villejuif Cedex, France
Ebook http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0502/0502076.pdf
Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures
Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences
Luc MONTAGNIER1,2*, Jamal A¨ISSA1, St´ephane FERRIS1,
Jean-Luc MONTAGNIER1, Claude LAVALL´EE1
1(Nanectis Biotechnologies, S.A. 98 rue Albert Calmette, F78350 Jouy en Josas, France)
2(Vironix LLC, L. Montagnier 40 Central Park South, New York, NY 10019, USA)
GOLDACRE SLAPPED DOWN BY UPPER HOUSE
Observations on the report Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, February 2010
“5.1. The Committee in two sessions called twelve witnesses to give oral evidence, all but one with relevant affiliations. Selection of witnesses can affect outcomes in the same way as selection of written evidence. It is therefore legitimate to examine the choices made.
5.2. It is not easy to see why a journalist doctor was invited to appear in preference to some other non-representative contributors to the inquiry. The written submission by Dr. Goldacre [Ev. 8] was notably short on supporting evidence, but contained unqualified statements on the ineffectiveness of homeopathy, forcefully expressed (“extreme quackery” was mentioned). By contrast, the submission by the Complementary Medicine Research Group from the Department of Health Sciences at the University of York presented a well argued summary with 68 references [Ev. 143]. In this appears the statement “To date there are eight systematic reviews that provide evidence that the effects of homeopathy are beyond placebo when used as a treatment for [five childhood conditions]”. This claim from a mainstream academic centre, rated joint first nationally for health services research in the latest Research Assessment Exercise, stands in stark contradiction to Prof. Ernst’s referenced claims, noted above, and to Dr. Goldacre’s unreferenced statements. It would have been illuminating if the Committee had probed the Group about this, face to face as a witness, and attempted some resolution before agreeing in unequivocal terms with the two witnesses who were invited to appear and were quoted favourably. The Committee criticised the supporters of homeopathy for their “selective approaches” to evidence [73]. They could fairly be accused of the same.
Unfortunately they did not (presumably) have the scope to solicit the views of Dr. Linde from Germany, which would have differed from those of Prof. Ernst with regard to the evidence.”
http://www.homeopathyheals.me.uk/site/component/content/article/42-featured-/398-earl-baldwin-critique-house-of-commons-science-and-technology-committee-february-2010
The John Benneth Journal 