I Challenge Edzard Ernst and the Evil Empire Part IV

Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, also denounced homeopathy, but it was on the same grounds as she dismissed allopathy. Professor Edzard Ernst, first chair of Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the University of Exeter in England does not apply such a global perspective to the subject in his argument against homeopathy. His own assertions seep through his dismissals, sweeping aside the evidence with the same dinghy reasoning.

Just as homeopathy competed with her faith healing, it competes with his, the faith healing of the of the hard drug racket of Pfizer, GlaxoSnithKilne and Aventis.

Ernst is their front man. 
Professor Ernst says the evidence for homeopathic verum is insufficient, and so it must be placebo. Very well then, where is his evidence for homeopathic placebo?

What? Yes of course. You don’t think acccusations of guilt don’t need to be proven, do you? Then why is the placebo charge that bears with it the appellation of sham sotolerated?

The accuser must prove it, or suffer the same penalty. And Ernst can’t prove it!
Look, do the math. Homeopathy (H) not equaling verum (V) is not proof for H equaling placebo (P). P must be proven for H by the same terms demanded for H proving V.
But it gets even worse. Ernst doesn’t define what he means by placebo!
Edzard Ernst makes no reference to scientific tests for placebo. Edzard Ernst gives us no theory for psychosomatic, psychogenic effects. Edzard Ernst does not even define what he means by placebo, because placebo is not a scientific term. It is a word from another kingdom.
There are multiple definitions for placebo. In Latin placebo means “to please.” Placebo is primarily a religious term, the opening words for the evening prayers of Vespers. A placebo used to refer to someone who would come to a funeral for the free food and drink. They could be spotted as phonies because it would be the first words out of their mouths when they entered.
And so it is with Ernst, coming to the funeral he’s set for something he’s trying to kill.
“Homeopathy’s dead,” announces Ernst as he enters the hall of science “Placebo” is his word for admission, and the pseudoscientists he lords it over bow and pray to their golden pseudoscience calf!.
But homeopathy is not dead.

In the first installment of this series, I challenged Edzard Ernst to a duel. I challenged him to match me, study for study, placebo for verum, head to head, arm and leg, mano a mano. He shows us a scientific study that shows homeopathy is “placebo,” I show one for verum, the opposite of placebo.
In medical jargon, medical means a sham, verum means the truth.
And that is what I’m here to do. My colleagues and I are here to reveal the lie, show the truth, heal the sick, cleanse the leper, dissolve the cancer, stop malaria, end diabetes, cast out demons. And as an added bonus, not only will we do that, I will reveal the classical science behind the homeopathic remedy, its modus operandi, how it works and its physical structure, right down to the atom.
In ten years of study I have met every shape of skeptic and argument that the broad breadths of the world can furnish, and never to date have I lowered my arm. Every argument against homeopathy is based on fallacy and lie, as spread by the likes of Edzard Ernst.
Excuse me. I, John Benneth, have lectured in the world’s most prestigious halls before the most learned audiences, such as Hahnemann College in London, and the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge. I have stood before the most discerning audiences. But, as one of the world’s greatest physicists was likened to say, no one has yet proven me wrong. And they won’t. They can’t. I am about to reveal to the world one of its greatest mysteries. the supramolecular mechanics of the world greatest medicine, hitherto unknown.
My testaments are supported . . not by entertainers, magicians, pseudoscientists or journalist doctors nor convicted racketeers, as Ernst’s are, but by real scientists, Nobel laureates and professors of the material sciences.
I don’t draw upon the inhabitants of fantasy land like Edzard Ernst, James Randi, John Beddington or David Colquhoun do. I don’t need to posture and pose as if Avogadro finished this sentence, as Michael Shermer and Simon Singh will do. I don’t need to scribble a column for a white washing newspaper like Ben Goldacre does. No! I look to the hard sciences for my answers.
So I can say, without doubt or wish for more, that the case for the world’s greatest medicine is now complete. And with the help of Edzard Ernst, I will spread the truth about homeopathy.
I speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Listen, there were times when I thought that money and reputation spoke louder than the truth. The problem was I was not listening, there was quite enough to go around for all to enjoy. Someone is always standing about who doesn’t care about the money, and that’s the guy who blows the whistle.

Listen! and you will learn one of the greatest truths ever known to Man.
John Benneth, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)

COMING SOON: John Benneth’s Structure of Belief

Death by Embarassment, from Homeopathy

by Dr. John Benneth

Embarassment is an emotion of having to remember what you don’t want to know.
Remember Memento? It’s a movie made in 2000, directed by Christopher Nolan, starring Guy Pearce, who plays a man who’s lost his short term memory and trying to find his wife‘s murderer.
The film noir story runs black and white scenes in chronological order and color scenes in reverse . . just like the argument against homeopathy.
The last scene is played first. Sort of. I think. Oh, I don’t remember. It’s a confusing movie until you realize what’s happening. So by the end of it the plot converges and hopefully you won‘t have to buy another ticket to figure out what you saw the first time. What would be helpful is if they warned you at the box office . . “Now look, here’s what you need toknow if you’re going to udnerstand this thing.”

You know, it’s embarrassing when you’re the only one who doesn’t get it. It’s kind of like the threat of being the last smoker.    
Just like with homeopathy. I’ve seen it a hundred times, if not a thousand and they always bear the same old stamp of disapproval.

I got a classic example of this mentally-ill kind of thinking sent to me as a comment on my last blog, signed by “Guy Chapman.”

He says:
“All your proposed evidence is weak and observational, most of it fatally undermined by selection bias and other confounders. In the days before the Enlightenment it was enough to produce an empirical result and from that propose a possible rule; Newton did away with that . . ”

“You – homeopaths – can silence your critics by demonstrating in a large randomised a double blind trial that human subjects show a difference in response between (a) the “correct” remedy, (b) a “remedy” designed to produce an opposite or substantially different effect and (c) placebo. Do that and science will ahve to take note and work with you to understand the underlying mechanism. ”

Like the movie Memento, what Chapman doesn’t tell you right away is that he’s playing the logic backwards. He leaves it until the last to tell you why he thinks we need all this stuff that would never occur to him in any other context,

“Because there is no way on earth we’re likely to believe that water with nothing in it has an effect based on a physically and chemically undetectable memory of an arbitrarily chosen substance.”

How  many times have we heard that one? It’s like having a name everyone makes a the same joke about.  Chapman waits until the very last sentence to say what he should of said to begin with, which is why he thinks the evidence is weak, which is why he won’t state criteria for testing, and which is why he can’t say what he thinks “science” is. He leaves it until last because he doesn’t want to believe that there is any, but he has to say it,  what is most important to the argument, the hump he can‘t get over and doesn‘t want anyone else to either. Whatever we show him, he won’t believe it.  
So here, in this last sentence he has given us the key to his mind. The strength of the evidence is its “rationale,” how it fits into the corpus mundi of science.
Chapman is no different in his thinking in this regard than Professor Sir John Beddington (UK Chief Scientist), Prof. David Colquhoun, Michael Shermer, Prof. Steven Novella, Prof. Edzard Ernst, Ben Goldacre, Andy Lewis, James “the Amazing” Randi and a million others.

Will knowing the  secret will result in a massive book burning and loss of funding for academia by drug company profits? And loud mouths like Chapman that chant their litanies, in a slow, excruciating death by embarrassment . . from homeopathy.

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

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”

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 . .

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.