Why I Got the Yves Lasne Prize for Homeopathy

Why I Got the Yves Lasne Prix for Homeopathy

ON THE DAY OF THE DEAD

ABSTRACT

REMOVING THE CURSE
Particle Finite vs. the Physic of the Infinitesimal

PARIS

ON THE DAY OF THE DEAD, November 2nd, 1999, 17 years ago to the day, I was in Tucson to discuss previously unknown tests for the solute in homeopathic diluents with Prof. Gary Schwartz at the Human Energy Systems Laboratory for the examination of unexplained human oriented phenomena, what is commonly regarded as the paranormal.
Prior to the meeting I wandered around a quiet neighborhood in the university district, to kill time, when a big black pickup pulled up next to me. The window rolls down and the driver leans out, butch looking guy in a white T shirt. He hooks a muscular left arm out the window and points from the hip upward to the sky and says, “Look at the Sun . . ”
It looked like it had split into three parts, two four pointed stars shone as smaller suns on either side of the usual sol. The array appeared to be connected by an encircling ring, giving it the appearance of a huge eye microscoping us
“You ever see anything like that?” he said.
“No. Have you?” I said.
“Nope.”
“What is it?”
“I don’t know. Maybe it’s the eye if God,” he said and drove away.

ABSTRACT

In a world growing in artificial intelligence, augmented consciousness, robots and drones, organic needs will multiply. The desire for organic interaction between real human beings intensifies, the ability to recognize the human soul sharpens, and a tried and true, quantum human chemistry emerges.

For over 200 years, as best defined by Pauling and applied by Hahnemann, as enigmatic and cryptic as it may seem to be, quantum chemistry has cured epidemic and pandemic, smallpox and diphtheria horse hoof and gout; heavy metal poisoning, soldier’s heart to PTSD; milk leg and

Quantum chemist Linus Pauling, only man to win two Nobel prizes 100% . .

Quantum chemist Linus Pauling, only man to win two Nobel prizes 100% . .

housemaid’s knee to phlegmasia alba dolens and bursitis; blood poisoning, cancer, diabetes, Ebola . . every ailment conceivable by every shape of man, beast and plant the broad breaths of the world can furnish and has suggested a cure in every one.

In medicine the application of quantum chemistry is called homeopathy.

The quantum chemical definition of the homeopathic dilution is hydrolyte (Benneth > thefreedictionary. A hydrolyte is a product of hydrolysis, the reaction of water with another chemical compound to form two or more products, involving ionization by protonation from the water molecule. In homeopathic serial dilutions hydrolysis infinitely splits the guest solute into hydrolytes. In these dilutions the intended molecular content is completely ionized by the seventh decimal dilution (7X), negating Avogadro < when applied as a molar reduction limit rather than as a predictor of the electron pressure constant. The phase shift electronically structures the hydrogen bonded crystalline solvent as found

Plasma discharge from supramolecular homeopathic solution

Plasma discharge from supramolecular homeopathic solution.

 

in clathrates by grabbing solvent H gas under exogeneous pressure, such as from the mild perturbations of the background radiation (Schumann Resonances) or nanoscale fission induced by succussion, converting it to H plasma, structured as the solute.
Dissociation of sub atomic particles causes increases coherence of the solute signal due to quantum entanglement.

REMOVING THE CURSE

I’ve lost count how many times trolls have demanded, if I had truly found a test to identify homeopathic dilutes from pure water and can explain how, then why is it I haven’t won a Nobel prize for it?

Dissociation Constant

Dissociation Constant

I think I understand now what Bob Dylan is going thru. I got an even greater prize, in capitalized science, potentially worth more than the Nobel, nor as onerous, or blinded by politics of corporate interests.

They said Dylan was arrogant, as if he is now under some obligation to the Merchant of Death’s legacy to return a phone call.
There are some painful problems with it. Homeopaths have always had a disdain for the Nobel prize ever since the first recipient of it for Medicine was told to shut up about homeopathy. Emil von Behring (1805) had to be warned not to say anything about his diptheria antitoxin being inspired by homeopathy, or he would not receive the Nobel prize for it . . https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/nobel-prize-winners-on-homeopathy/ that it was based on the precipice of homeopathy’s main gate, similitude, you cure a disease by giving the semblance of one similar to it.
The original vaccine, the cowpox toxin, is a perfect example, in fact, after seeing it eradicate smallpox in village after village, Hahnemann knew he was on the right track with similitude. It is no mere coincidence that he stopped a bullet in a 1796 edition of Hufeland’s Journal by using the word homeopatie for the first time, the same year that Edward Jenner rolled out the Vaccine. But now both sides of the argument refuse to recognize this quantum chemical fact, that the vaccine works because it is homeopathic. Yet it appears to be a mass delusion that homeopathy is not behind Man’s greatest medical achievement.
If you want to stop a fight between a homeopath and a scientist, just say the smallpox vaccine is homeopathic . . and, in the name of common hubris, they will suddenly stop fighting, join forces and turn on you.
So the Nobel prize is like a death sentence . . death by hubris. Loss of hope.
If I was Bob Dylan I wouldn’t accept it either.
Like Pauling, Hahnemann was a Master Chemist, but unlike Pauling, Hahnemann worked without a net. Anyone can see the evidence for homeopathy in the recipe, but some have to think they know how it works.
I live down the street from where Linus Pauling is buried. He is the only man to win the Nobel prize twice, 100%, the first time he won it was for quantum chemistry (1954) and he did it before he finished high school, Washington High School in Portland, Oregon. He said that it was due to the electro dynamic effect of water’s hydrogen bond structuring that alcohol had it’s narcotic effect, proof that the effects of the solute are solely due to the hydrolytic potential of water, yet he never uttered a word of this being proof for the action of hydrolytes homeopathically, obviously terrified they’d never give him another Nobel if he did. If Linus shot his mouth off about the quantum chemistry of homeopathy, not only would he not be in line for another Nobel prize, they’d ask for the first one back . . and he’d flunk high school, too.
That’s how contentious the topic of homeopathy is. Except to condemn, defame or ridicule it, if you talk about homeopathy, no Nobel prize for you.
No other chemist has contributed more to quantum chemistry than Linus Pauling, yet even he was not exempt from the pharma injunction against associating it with homeopathy . . yet wasn’t it he that said that the electronic structure of molecules and crystals deternines their chemical properties, and that it is the liquid crystalline structure of water around a solute that imparts its biological effects? And isn’t it true that by hydrolytic dissociation the solute particle will split indefinitely and by self assembly of water molecules, populate virgin diluent 100%?
Simple tests of dielectric stress, permitivity and molar conductance prove it, but most investigators want nothing to do with them . . amongst others such as NMR, TEM, optical density, beta scintillation and plasma discharge.
Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier complained of “intellectual terrorism” and as liberal and pionering as it had been, was run out of France after he replicated provings of homeopathy by Jacques Benveniste, the director of the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, whose career was destroyed after he replicated Poitevin, a seminal biochemical assay of a homeopathically diluted histamine . . and when he heretically got the results published in Nature, the world’s leading science journal, those who made their piece by pretending to debunk it, were enraged by it, setting “science” on fire.
So here you can see that the greatest prize for genius is not available for a chemical explanation of this mysterious subject. The fallout from all this excruciatingly painful obloquy and punishment for validating an unexplained fact is that anyone who seeks to validate homeopathy is subjected to lynching by the science community with the admonition to y’all . . stay away . .
That is, until now.
Homeopathy now has its own Nobel prize.
The prize I got 17 years after the eye of God looked down on me was the Yves Lasne for fundamental research in homeopathy. I’d like to think it is for finally explaining the quantum chemistry of homeopathy in conventional ionic theory, how homeopathy works in conventional terms.
So it is no happenstance coincidence in my superstitious mind that the same chemistry that drives homeopathy also describes sun dogs, what Manly Hall calls a rare Day of Three Suns, “parhelia” . . the huge clathrate eye over Schwartz’s paranormal testing lab, staring down at me 17 years ago, marking out my mission: Raise $5 million dollars to explain the “mechanism”, describe in known chemical processes the physico-chemistry of homeopathy, say how and why it works in conventional terms referenced and hyperlinked online in an e-book about it entitled Physic of the Infinitesimal, with Applications in Medicine, Agriculture and Industry.

I WAS flown to Paris, First Class, put up in a six star hotel on the Champs Elysees, fed French food morning noon and night by one of the great chefs of Europe, watched PPTs by Saurav Arola and Gabriel Vernot, gave a little talk, ceremoniously made first recipient of the prize, given a tour of Paris, a dose of culture shock and sent back home the same way I came, but with new mission, hope and enthusiasm.

SHOUT OUT to Ry Cooder, Uri Geller, Richard L. Adams, Jr., George Noory, Sandra Courtney, Jana Shiloh, Dana Ullman, Georg Andras, Gabruel Vernot, Sandeep Laila, MD., Brian Josephson

We have lost homeopathy’s greatest physicist

Rolland Conte, and the nuclear physics of homeopathy

The great French physicist and researcher of homeopathic dilutions, Rolland R. Conte, passed away July 6th, 2014. He was a noted statistician who made a major contribution to the understanding of the qualities of the materials used in homeopathic medicine.
He was the lead author of the controversial Theory of High Dilutions and Experimental Aspects  (THD). Published by Polytechnica, Paris, 1996, Paris) with co-authors Yves Lasne, Henri Berliocchi and Gabriel Vernot, THD is the most incredible book about the physics of homeopathy I have ever read. Conte was considered by some reviwers to be either an egotistical statistician or an unusual genius of physics. In Theory the authors postulated the existence of a hyperproton or “white hole,” wherein there is the absence of mass, the opposite of a black hole.
In support of Conte’s white hole theory, Professor Michael Kirkman, Director of Academic Affairs at the UKGB International Society of Homeotoxicology, writes, “It is of prime importance to evaluate scientifically what is contained in homoeopathic remedies. Due to the dilution-succussion process, the molecules are often diluted beyond existence. A residual wave develops that gives birth to ‘white holes’, ie, absence of matter, which in turn give birth to ‘hyperprotons’. The presence of hyperprotons is indicative of a reorganisation of the constituents of the diluent. They can be detected in the aqueous and biological media by measuring the negative radiation induced by the association of two hyperprotons.”
This part is pure Contonian physics.
The white hole and hyperproton theory does not necessarily conflict with current thinking that the mechanics of homeopathic solutions need cavitation of a material phase of the remedy material in its form as a gas, plasma, aether, isotope . . or perhaps . . a hyperproton of the remedy’s label, whatever your Physik may allow.
But Conte’s Theory was and is more than novel “theory.” There were also some novel results from experimentation. Led by Conte, the authors rolled up their sleeves and got their hands dirty putting the homeopathic remedy through test and trial, immersing themselves in the instrumental study of the physical properties of these mysterious materials. The fruit of their labors revealed unique dimensions of the remedy, most notably radiant qualities in the beta particle range, detected by using beta scintillation.
To my knowledge, the Lasne beta test by Conte et al has never been repeated.
There have been other types of physical tests measuring changes in the physical properties of dilutions used in homeopathy, such as dielectric strength, galvanic effects, light adsorption, Raman spectroscopy, black boxes and T1 and T2 spectra nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), but the Theory team is the only one to have used scintillators to detect beta radiation. Dr. Conte sent me pictures of where they had burned the image of an H and a P (for Hyper Proton) into x-ray film using homeopathic pellets, implying that they were, in essence, radioactive, a stunning challenge to the antagonist’s homeopathy null hypothesis, the skeptics theory that the materials used in homeopathy are inert.

But what other explanation for the super-Avogadro solvents used in homeopathic medicine other than a nuclear reaction could there be outside of a chemical reaction

In a chemical reaction  there is a change in the electron shell surrounding the atom; in a nuclear reaction it goes much deeper, the change is in the nucleus.

Take T2O, ditritium peroxide, also known as tritiated or super-heavy water, annotated long hand as 3H2O. The T in T2O stands for Tritium. Forgive me for what may seem like gratuitive emphasis, but what you are about to read is huge, irreparable crack in the caviling dike of opposition to homeopathy:  T2O is water that is organically, in the natural environment, been made radioactive by exposure to natural radiation.

T2O then is the perfect analog for the “homeopathic remedy.” The basic elements of superheavy water are the same as normal water. The difference is that within the nucleus of each of the two hydrogen atoms in T2O are two neutrons in addition to the single proton of protium (normal hydrogen). In other words, the addition to the protic nucleus of two neutrons could be construed as a single hyperproton.

If water can be made radioactive in the natural environment, why can’t it be made so artificially in succussion? In an artificial nuclear chain reaction T2O is compressed to act as a nuclear trigger to vause a plutonium core to explode. According to Roy (Structure of Liquid Water, 2007) pressures in the range of 10 kilobar are brought to bear in the creation of the diluted pharmaceuticals used in homeopathy by the process of succussion. And just like in a nuclear explosion, which vitrifies materials surrounding it into glass, so will liquid water, which has a molecular structure similar to glass,  structure molecules around  what appears to be cavitation during succussion in a process analogous to clathrates.

According to Conte, this is not a mere nano bubble of atmosphere as researchers beginning with Barnard in 1965 (Microdose Paradox) have suggested, but rather the hyperproton.

Puzzled in a review of Theory, John Lee wrote, “The Conte team have followed on from work by Moser (1987) and Demangeat (1992). The chaotic results of the T2 relaxation times using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance when subject to Conte’s mathematics reveal a phase displacement i.e. a potency maximum. Coming up with their method of measuring potency maxima was in my opinion genius. The implications of this are of great interest to homoeopaths as it suggests the possibility of remedies being standardised with a known potency maximum for each remedy.”

I first interviewed Conte in 1999, when he was in Australia organizing Medicine Quantale (MQL), a venture for the manufacture of homoeopathic remedies. Like anyone who makes a serious study of homoeopathy, Conte recognized Hahnemann as a genius of the stature of Einstein, except Hahnemann’s proto-nuclear discoveries were more than mere thought experiments, they were more than revelations such as relativity, they were collectively a medical epiphany, the prognosis of which have yet to be conventionally recognized.
At that time in 1999, when I first spoke to Conte in Australia, I asked him why he was investigating the physics of dynamic pharmaceuticals, and his response was that homeopathy had saved his life, and besides being curious, he was paying something back to it. Dr. Conte suffered from Parkinson’s. Well aware of the emissive qualities of homoeopathic remedies, for his diathesis he simply wore a bag of homoeopathic pilules of a particular remedy tied around his neck.
It doesn’t take even a tinge  of genius to recognize a real one. It just takes humility and a little math: Never before or since has any man or woman done anything on the magnitude of what Hahnemann did. Recognizing it, Conte was determined to divine its Nature in his own terms. Conte insisted that the medicines of MQL be grafted from the sugar in Hahnemann’s original kit, to be distributed in lead shielded containers to protect them from degradation in moving them through the graitational field.
One of his more notable achievements was the instigation of signal testing of urine for determining the remedy. Only Conte’s genius for statistical wave analysis could determine such a thing in the verum light of homoeopathy.
Using nuclear magnetic resonance imaging instrumentation (NMR) the Theory authors reported several influences on the potency of the homoeopathic remedy, such as heat, electromagnetism and UV, making a case for lead shielding; and gravity: According to Conte et al, from NMR analysis, moving a homoeopathic remedy through the planet’s gravitational field affected its quality, making a case for the use of materials of local manufacture.
It took years for me to comprehend that I was not alone in the structure of my disbelief. At first I found myself rejecting what I had been led to believe didn’t exist by homeopaths and skeptics alike. The technospeak of the instrumental test and biochemical invitro literature is neither easy to read nor understand. It’s like trying to walk in quicksand when you’re used to running on blacktop. Even with a dictionary I sometimes found myself stumped. So in 1999 when I began my study of the physical properties of homeopathic medicine and their effects on non human subjects, I had a hard time believing what I was reading, and subsequently  Rolland Conte became my only real friend in this world of the possible-impossible, he was my sole source of inspiration that spoke to me in a human voice. When most homeopaths were insisting such indices and effects were impossible, didn’t exist or didn’t matter if they did exist, Rolland Conte was rolling contrary.
One homeopath told me he’d prefer it if homeopathics were placebos, and I came to believe that most homeopaths felt the same way, and that they accepted the accusation of “placeboist” gratefully, for it added to their mystique and made for a cheap malpractice insurance policy. To break this deadlock in my own mind, Dr. Conte told me to test homoeopathy’s dynamic solutions on plants.
Given his encouragement I designed two simple kitchen tests, one using balloons placed over the openings of beer bottles that had been filled with aqueous solutions of yeast and sugar, and either a drop of liquid Staphysagria potency solution, made from a lactose sugar pill,  or the inert vehicle with the same amount of unpotentized sugar.
The potency solution showed a remarkable ability over the control to sustain a gas output, long after the yeast culture treated with the inert control solution had reabsorded the gas.
I then did a second botanical test, inspired by Dr. Conte. It was done on oat seeds also using Staphysagria. The treated seeds grew remarkably longer and greener than the untreated before they died.
Tests of this kind in 1999 were unheard of by most of the homeopathic community. If it wasn’t for Rolland Conte I would have never attempted such a thing. I wouldn’t have even thought of it. He taught me the impossible was possible.
Much of Conte’s work was done without double blinding. When I asked Dr. Conte about this he said, “You need both eyes open to study homoeoepathy.”

British homeopath and chemist Lionel Milgrom replicated Conte’s NMR experiments and found the dilutions to be affected by silica ions from the glass containers. This was taken by many to mean that the NMR was reading the signal of the glass alone, and was not proof of a relevant phenomenon. The fact is that silica amplifies the isotope’s signal .
One night at about three AM French time I received a call from Conte on Skype. I asked him what he was doing. He said he was eating cheese and drinking wine. I saw this as an opportunity to ask him about the silica. He said in that wonderful French non chalance, “you ought to tell the glass manufacturers about that.”

Rolland Conte follows his wife Madeleine and leaves behind him a research foundation in his name.

John Benneth, Homoeopath

  Call for free consultation 503 819 7777

 

Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

The Vindication of Jacques Benveniste

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I don’t think so . .

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

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

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

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

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

But this isn’t good enough for SINOs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Physics of Homeopathy: A Dialectic

The following is from a discussion of the physics of homeopathy subscribers to the Minutus homeopathy email list

To: minutus Homeopathy discussion
From: Jeff Tikari
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:44:28 +0530
Subject: [Minutus] Homeopathic Hydrosomes

For remedies potentised beyond Avogadro’s limit.

Active principles of potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or HYDROSOMES, which are nanocavities engraved into water-ethyl alcohol supramolecular matrix through a peculiar process called POTENTIZATION. Potentization actually involves ‘host-guest’ molecular interactions exactly similar to that which is commonly utilized by polymer chemists in preparing molecular imprinted polymers. The only difference is, homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as the imprinting medium, whereas polymer chemists use polymers.
All potentized drugs contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing the diverse types of individual constituent molecules which are part of a drug substance used for potentization. By acting as ‘artificial key holes’, these individual molecular imprints can bind to specific pathogenic molecules that have the same conformational affinity; thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions that they are subjected to in diseased conditions. This is exactly the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.

Extract from the writings of Chandran KC

Jeff Tikari check out (a must) www.jeffspage.com

 

In a message dated 8/27/2013 9:45:27 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

Roger Bird writes:

Jeff, I love you. I appreciate your efforts. I want you to be happy. But I had trouble getting past the first two sentences because I was LOLing. What you said may even be true. But it won’t cut no ice with skeptics or ANY other materialistically oriented scientist or fan of science or even the general public. They are all going to say that it is nonsense and gibberish.

Since I believe you, sort of, I assume that such ‘imprints’ are how the etheric or transcendental energy of the homeopathic remedy stays connected to the water.

I’m sorry, I tried to read you comment again and burst out laughing. You have to say stuff that people can relate to. You can’t describe things that are on top of things that are made up of things all of which haven’t even been proven, accepted, or understood yet. It would be like trying to describe how to use the gmai l app on your android phone to Alexander Graham Bell. Bell might have been a brilliant scientist, but he would have been utterly lost the moment you said any of the words that I used to tell you what my example was going to be.

I live on both sides of my brain. I am a jack of many arenas of thought and the master of only one: philosophy. I frequent several physics forums and can understand most of what they say. So it is easy for me to know what the skeptics are going to think and say.

Are we still friends? I hope so. (:->)

Roger Bird

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM, John Benneth wrote:

Mr. Byrd,

I applaud Jeff Tikari for posting Nambiar’s work. Obviously you have very little understanding of science and even less of supramolecular chemistry. Material scientists with academic credentials of the highest orders have described the distinctions between the supramolecular materials used as medicine in homeopathy and their inert vehicles in a way that supports part of what Chandran Nambiar has described here (see Roy, The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy, Materials Research, 2005).

As early as Hahnemann, it was thought that [homeopathic remedies] “cannot be apprehended by specious a priori sophistry, or from the smell, taste, or appearance of the medicines, or from chemical analysis, or by treating disease with one or more of them in a mixture (prescription).” (Hahnemann, The Organon of Medicine, 6th edition)

But even though 19th century science did not afford the necessary terms, instrumentation and theory needed to explain the action of homeopathic action, Hahnemann’s opinion that it was a magnetic phenomenon still holds up under today’s tools.

Magnetic imprinting in water molecules, like that of ferro-magnetic recording tape, is still the only explanation offered for homeopathy’s mode of action by Hahnemann and modern material scientists. (The Indian transmission electron analysis misinterpreted structural memes for nano particulate of the original starting material in Chikramane, Why Extreme Dilutions Reach Non Zero Asymptotes: A Nano particulate Hypothesis Based on Frother Flotation )

Nambiar’s keyhole theory aside, magnetic imprinting fits both the observations by Benveniste and Montagnier and the structural analysis by Anagnostatos, Demangeat, Conte et al, Roy et al, and others . . and the orthodox literature on water.

Imprinting by H2O protic polarization around pneumatic cavitation was first described by Barnard when NMR analysis of supramolecular “homeopathic medicines” by Smith and Boericke at Hahnemann College in the ’60’s showed structural differences from their vehicles.

Whereas Nambiar’s “hydrosome” is probably a misnomer for hydrozoan and should be replaced by ‘clathrate’ and the pathogenic molecule binding to artificial keyholes appears to be his invention (which I don’t agree with) I could be wrong. Nambiar’s work reveals an admirable effort to explain the liquid aqueous structuring in homeopathic supramoleculars and their biological action, all in the teeth of ridicule. I believe he is also right in stating that “Potentization actually involves ‘host-guest’ molecular interactions exactly similar to that which is commonly utilized by polymer chemists in preparing molecular imprinted polymers. The only difference is, homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as the imprinting medium, whereas polymer chemists use polymers” except to note that water and alcohol are both polymeric substances that exhibit crystalline properties, and homeopaths have appeared to have unintentionally solved the problem of polymorphic transmogrification that has played havoc with the pharmaceutical industry. Conventional science has been slow to unable to borrow anything from homeopathy technology, not because of material discrepancies but because it would give credibility to a competing medical doctrine that has yet to be syndicalized by intellectual property rights..

So . . this is an extremely difficult subject involving pitfalls, egos and misnomers. If you don’t understand words LOOK THEM UP instead of just calling them technobabble. If you don’t understand something, ask questions. In ridiculing the investigation you are trolling, dissuading people from a delicate but necessary discussion that is of key importance to medicine, and making an eventual fool of yourself instead of your target.

So give everybody, including yourself, a break, why don’t you? Trying to please “skeptics,” i.e. jealouis blowhards, doesn’t move anything forward.

John Benneth

In a message dated 8/28/2013 10:19:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Elham writes:

Dear all,

Don’t want to be rude or anything but if you ever think a Homoeopath is going to solve the mystery of potentization you are mistaken. We will use its powers and let the skeptics shout and yell at us as much as they like, but we won’t solve its mystery. It will need science to advance much more and technology to advance much more and then there might be a slight chance that a scientist might come up with some explanation. In the meanwhile let us continue with our work that is curing the sick and let others worry about how Homoeopathy works.

Best regards

Elham

NEXT: Physics of Homeopathy Dialectic continues with the RESPONSE TO ELHAM

Don’t miss the next installment of this paradigm shifting discussion on the physics of homeopathy. It’s easy to  SUBSCRIBE to the John Benneth Journal, your only source for revelations by the Great Genius.

SUBSCRIBE NOW and help us meet our goal of 10,000 subscribers . .

I Challenge PZ Myers: PUT HOMEOPATHY TO THE TEST!

 
 Like a domestic spat,
or like any argument at all,
where one side is being held to account
for some nasty business,
and violently changes the subject . .
so it is
when homeopathy holds allopathy
to account for genocide.

Man oh man

I’ve never seen such traffic in all my days. I was about to write that yesterdays numbers were the highest ever, ten times that of my most highly viewed blog, one of the most viewed blogs on WordPress — but today’s has already broken that record.

Wow! Wowee!

I’m a star, just like mama used to say.

Fire PZ Myers, in one and a half days garnered over 17,000 views. But judging from the commentary, only a few really bothered to read it. They wrote mostly obscenities for commentary.  If someone did ask a question, it was a leading one, or a question  that was already answered in the article. Or it was complaining about their obscenities in previous commentaries not being published, and then complaints that their complaints weren‘t being published, etc. etc.

But every now and then a gem appeared, like something from Kaviraj, what for him is a scrap, what for the rest of us is a meal.

It just proves my point, that that the only intelligent commentary is coming from the homeopaths, and all the idiocy from the allopaths.

Let me give you a profound demonstration of what I say.

The allopaths say there’s nothing to homeopathy, that it’s a placebo. Of course they don’t define what they mean by placebo, they don’t show any tests that prove placebo either. The next thing we hear from these whiz kids is how powerful the Placebo Effect is. SO does that mean that homeopath , compared to placebo, is powerful medicine? LOL!

The next tact from these acolytes of scientism is to fire off another broadside from the other side of their sinking ship, like “there‘s no science to back it up.”

Okay, so when we show them some clinical trials they say, “they weren’t properly double blinded.”
Okay, so when we show them clinical tests that were double blinded, they say “it wasn’t published in a peer reviewed magazine.”
Okay, so when we show them double blind clinical tests published in peer reviewed non-homeopathy journals, they say “there are no reputable tests published in prestigious, non-homeopathy peer reviewed journals that show the effects of high dilutes to be no greater than placebo.”

Well, here’s one that was published in an AMA journal.

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885.
Homeopathic vs Conventional
Treatment of Vertigo
A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study
Michael Weiser, MB; Wolfgang Strösser, MD, MB; Peter Klein, MS

To this the answer has been “it was discredited.”

In other words, somebody didn’t like it because it compared homeopathic treatment against an allopathic drug without a third set of victims given . . placebo.

But wait a minute . . I thought they said homeopathy was the placebo! Oh, bwahahahahahaha!

[Note the interjection of the  word “victim.”  How would you like to be somebody’s science project.  If PS Myers had have a real problem, do you really think that he would take a chance and be part of the placebo group. This is the main problem with clinical testing, which, if you read on, I shall correct]

Here’s an exhaustive collection of references to homeopathic research in a google knol by Dr. Nancy Malik. . Google it.

Scientific Research in Homeopathy
by Dr. Nancy Malik
Triple Blind studies, Double-Blind Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trial, Systematic Reviews & Meta Analysis, Evidence-based Medicines for specific disease conditions, Ultra-molecular dilutions, Animal Studies, Plant Studies
130+ studies in support of homoeopathy medicine published in 52 peer reviewed international journals out of which 46+ are FULL TEXT which can be downloaded

So we’re answering allopathy’s wild shots with pinpoint accuracy, and they’re going down with the ship, sinking under an epidemic of heart failure, diabetes, cancer . . diseases sufferers could be helped with through  homeopathy.

Look, at this point we’re not trying to make assertions about how well homeopathy works, we‘re just trying to show that it does. The problem is that the public is getting that mixed up in their minds. The anti-homeopathy crowd is substituting evidence for how well it works for evidence that it does work. We are avoiding simple decisive tests.

We have extensive records comparing homeopathic with allopathic treatment, both modern (Bracho) and old (Bradford) . . but comparison is a point that should be examined after we see that the substances used in homeopathy have objective indices not found in clinical trials.

Just as no one symptom should be taken alone as the only indicator for which homeopathic remedy should be used, neither should any one test for homeopathy be used to determine its efficacy, and pre-clinical testing should come first in examining homeopathy as a potential clinical modality.

If you’re out in the woods and you’re scrounging around for food and find something that looks palatable but you’re not sure of, you feed it to the dog first. If he doesn’t get sick, then you eat it. That would be a pre-clinical test.

But oh no, the pseudoscientists dive into this subject answers first . . and the questions that support the answer second, without first finding out if these substances have physical, biochemical and biological action.

What the wise will do is first consult the literature on the subject.

This is what James "the Amazing" Randi looks like without his glasses and phony beard, taking my phone call. He accepted my application for his phony "Million Dollar Challenge" 11 years ago and is still running from me to this day!

That brings us to the first real question in this investigation. What do we know of pre-clinical tests for high dilutes?

In 2003 Becker-Witt C, Weibhuhn TER, Ludtke R, Willich SN sought answers to that question in a study entitled, “Quality assessment of physical research in homeopathy” . J Alternative Complementary Med. 2003;9:113–32.
Becker-Witt reports:

“Objectives: To assess the evidence of published experiments on homeopathic preparations potencies) that target physical properties (i.e., assumed structural changes in solvents).
“Method: A suitable instrument (the Score for Assessment of Physical Experiments on Homeopathy SAPEH]) was developed through consensus procedure: a scale with 8 items covering 0 criteria, based on the 3 constructs, methodology, presentation, and experiment standardization.
“Reviewed publications: Written reports providing at least minimal details on physical experiments with methods to identify structural changes in solvents were collected. These reports were scored when they concerned agitated preparations in a dilution less than 10^23, with no other restrictions. We found 44 publications that included 36 experiments (the identity of 2 was unclear). They were classified into 6 types (dielectric strength, 6; galvanic effects, 5; light absorption, 4; nuclear magnetic resonance [NMR], 18; Raman spectroscopy, 7; black boxes of undisclosed design, 4).
“Results: Most publications were of low quality (SAPEH , 6), only 6 were of high quality
(SAPEH . 7, including 2 points for adequate controls). These report 3 experiments (1 NMR, 2 black boxes), of which 2 claim specific features for homeopathic remedies, as does the only medium-quality experiment with sufficient controls.
“Conclusions: Most physical experiments of homeopathic preparations were performed with inadequate controls or had other serious flaws that prevented any meaningful conclusion. Except\ for those of high quality, all experiments should be repeated using stricter methodology and standardization before they are accepted as indications of special features of homeopathic potencies.”

To summarize, Becker-Witt found six different physical tests for homeopathy. Eight criteria were rated, generating a potential total score of zero to 10. Reports for tests that had scores of six or less were considered to be of low quality, which they said constituted most of them.

Seven trials were found positive results were of high quality. Two out of seven high quality studies claimed distinctive features for homeopathic remedies.

What is important about Witt is she reveals more than one method for finding distinctive features which “science,” inplied by the Myers mindset, says does not exist.

Out of NMR 18 studies, only two were unable to get positive results.

The highest NMR SAPEH scores, went to three studies conducted by one name, Demangeat et al.
Since the 2003 Becker Witt review, Demangeat  continued with his NMR investigation
Here is a 2008 report by Demangeat that can be read online.

2008 July 26 Journal of Molecular Liquids, Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81–90
 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

“We measured 20-MHz R1 and R2 water proton NMR relaxation rates in ultrahigh dilutions (range 5.43·10-8 M–5.43·10-48 M) of histamine in water (Hist-W) and in saline (Hist-Sal), prepared by iterative centesimal dilutions under vigorous agitation in controlled atmospheric conditions. Water and saline were similarly and simultaneously treated, as controls. The samples were immediately sealed in the NMR tubes after preparation, and then code-labelled. Six independent series of preparations were performed, representing about 7000 blind
measurements. R2 exhibited a very broad scatter of values in both native histamine dilutions and solvents. No variation in R1 and R2 was observed in the solvents submitted to the iterative dilution/agitation process. By contrast, histamine dilutions exhibited slightly higher R1 values than solvents at low dilution, followed by a slow progressive return to the values of the solvents at high dilution. Unexpectedly, histamine dilutions remained distinguishable from solvents up to ultra high levels of dilution (beyond 10-20 in Hist-Sal). A signi!cant increase in R2 with increased R2/R1was observed in Hist-W. R1 and R2 were linearly correlated in solvents, but uncorrelated in histamine dilutions. After a 10-min heating/cooling cycle of the samples in their sealed NMR tubes (preventing any modi!cation of the chemical composition and gas content), all of the relaxation variations observed as a function of dilution vanished, the R2/R1 ratio and the scatter of the R2 values dropped in all solutions and solvents, and the correlation between R1 and R2 reappeared in the Hist-W samples. All these results pointed to a more organized state of water in the unheated samples, more pronounced in histamine solutions than in solvents, dependent on the level of dilution. It was suggested that stable supramolecular structures, involving nanobubbles of atmospheric gases and highly ordered water around them, were generated during the vigorous mechanical agitation step of the preparation, and destroyed after heating. Histamine molecules might act as nucleation centres, amplifying the phenomenon which was thus detected at high dilution levels.

“These unexpected findings prompted further investigation, notably in other conditions, in order to rule out artefacts, such as possible interactions of silica with the glass material used for the preparation, or possible misinterpretation of the NMRD data due, for instance, to an unknown dependence of the frequency dispersion on the dilution level. So, the present study was carried out at a fixed frequency of 20 MHz and with histamine as solute, beyond the 4th centesimal dilution, i.e. beyond the known threshold of NMR sensitivity to detect histamine protons or any paramagnetic contaminants of the solute. It will be shown that the variations in R1 observed as a function of ultrahigh dilution in the NMRD study [16] are reproducible with histamine at a fixed frequency, and that these variations totally vanish after heating of the samples.

Here is the most recent and what I think is the best physical test of all:

2009 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)

Abstract: A novel property of DNA is described: the capacity of some bacterial DNA sequences to induce
electromagnetic waves at high aqueous dilutions. It appears to be a resonance phenomenon triggered by the ambient electromagnetic background of very low frequency waves. The genomic DNA of most pathogenic bacteria contains sequences which are able to generate such signals. This opens the way to the development of highly sensitive detection system for chronic bacterial infections in human and animal diseases. Key words: DNA, electromagnetic signals, bacteria.

Montagnier, being a Nobel laureate, strikes a hard blow for homeopathy, so a lot of pseudonymous posters want to say that Montagnier wasn’t testing the kind of dilutions used in homeopathy.

These criticisms come from pseudoscientists who haven’t read the study carefully enough. The equipment Montagnier used was designed by Benveniste for detecting EM signals in high dilutes.
The Montagnier study is one of the most remarkable scientific studies ever published, for it confirms the Benveniste assertion that homeopathy is a new medical paradigm.
The operative mechanism for homeopathic can be found in clathrate hydrates, nano-crystalline gas inclusion molecules, what Montagnier refers to as aqueous nanostructures. These liquid aqueous structures produce an amplified analog signal of the guest molecule.
Montagnier was able to actually filter them out, and in doing so was able to give them actual physical dimensions.
Once filtered out, the signal stopped.
Read the study, it’s fascinating for these and other anomalies it reveals.

In an article referencing homeopathy (online) entitled “The Memory of Water,” the world’s top authority on water physics, Professor Martin Chaplin, states “water does store and transmit information through its hydrogen bonded network,” once again implying hydrogen bonding as being critical to the homeopathic mechanism.

Exactly what I’ve been saying for years.

John Benneth, self portrait

So here we have two studies that support my hypothesis that the action of homeopathic remedies is electromagnetic and produced by measurable structuring in the solvent, nucleated around clathrates.
Material scientists Roy et al, in their seminal work, . The structure of liquid water; novel insights from materials research; potential relevance to homeopathy. (Roy R, Tiller WA, Bell IR, Hoover MR Materials Research Innovations, 2005; 9-4: 577–608.) confirm polymorphic structuring in water at liquid temperatures as the key to the homeopqthic mechanism.

“This paper does not deal in any way with, and has no bearing whatsoever on, the clinical efficacy of any homeopathic remedy. However, it 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. We show the untenability of this claim against the central paradigm of materials science that it is structure (not composition) that (largely) controls properties, and structures can easily be changed in inorganic phases without any change of composition. The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent . .

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

 

 

[YOU ARE NOW READING THE WORLD’s MOST READ HOMEOPATHY BLOG]

 
“The principal conclusions of this paper concern only the plausibility of the biological action of ultradiluted water remedies, they are based on some very old (e.g. homeopathy) and some very new (e.g. metallic and nanobubble colloids) observations which have been rejected on invalid grounds or due to ignorance of the materials research literature and its theoretical basis. This constitutes an excellent example of the common error in rejecting new scientific discoveries by using the absence of evidence as evidence for absence.”

It is not such a difficult matter to explore this phenomenon, if you’re not PZ Myers, or one the similar horde. If that’s the case, then putting homeopathy to the test becomes impossible.

If you have comet his far in reading this it shows that you have the spirit of inquiry and not take the easy route by fashionably dismissing the evidence. Now that we have looked at the physical tests, let’s take a look at the biological.

Be assured that I’m moving in for the killshot. As tedious as it may seem, it is exploding myths propagated by phony challenges made by people like James “the Amazing” Randi, of whom I’ve included a picture of, sans phony disguise of Darwin like beard and glasses, as I did with my revelation of Myers in a previous blog. This is working up to a challenge to PZ Myers. More specifically, within Myer’s claimed realm of biology, there are more biochemical tests beyond those referred to prior.

After the 2003 review of physical tests, Witt and her team turned their attention to biochemical testing. Here, Myers ought to wake up from his napping.

For the biochemical assessments they used a modified version of the SAPEH test.

Their investigation found six different types of biochemical tests reported for homeopathy: non cellular systems, cultured cells, erythrocytes, neutrophile and basophil granulocytes, and lymphocytes.

(NB: If you think this is tough reading, consider what it’s like to type. But it’s important for this discussion. I haven’t seen this posted anywhere before.)

Witt produced the best and most exhaustive review of the literature for pre-clinical testing of homeopathics.

The WItt review shows that the basophil degranulation test has been done more than any other kind of biochemical test, but nevertheless is still only one type of biochemical testing among six.

Some of the most remarkable biochemical testing was done by William E. Boyd, MD, whose team spent years examining the action of dilute mercuric chloride on starch at Glasgow.

The Boyd experiments were designed by two Barbour scholars and overseen by Professor Sir Gowland Hopkins. The reporting panned 15 years, was extensive and elegant, designed for replication, representing a project that would be cost prohibitive by today’s standards.

Now we’re squarely in the bailiwick of Myers, reportedly an academic biologist who has taken what appears to be a knowledgeable stance on this problem. Neither opponent or proponent would be likely to say that it isn’t a problem.

If you’re looking at this problem objectively, you can see that there is a wide spread in the reported quality of testing  results. However, most reporters, like Ennis, conclude there should be more testing.

Where is the prudence in the face of this evidence, of not putting it to the test?

Since 2007, the basophil degranulation test has been done specifically for replication by two of its finest conductors, Sainte Laudy and Belon.

Homeopathy. 2009 Oct;98(4):186-97.
Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: a sensitive and reproducible model for the study of the biological activity of high dilutions.
Sainte-Laudy J, Belon P.

Why is it that someone who comments on this subject as an expert witness, as Myers does, not provided us with a greater examination of the available evidence? If Pee Zee Herman here is the expert he makes himself out to be then why . . with his X-ray vision and the mysterious, supernatural ability to make such definitive conclusions about the awesome psychogenic powers of these homeopathic placebos, WHY does he not enlighten us as with the Holy Protocol  for Placebo?

Come on, Jesus of Science, if it truly exists, then give us the Placebo Commandment! Where are the Holy Writs, the double blind studies published in the sacred texts of prestigious peer reviewed journals?

Teach Me!

Why is P MYers not conducting his own biological tests, and proving to us, without a grain of prejudice, that homeopathy, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is NOT what the evidence has led many of his misguided colleagues have concluded it to be . . biologically active.

If this is a scientific inquiry and not a political argument, then why is it that so many people are trying to answer a pre-clinical question with clinical evidence?

The Myers mindset isn’t posing a question, it is merely answering an implied one with evidence that will lead the unwitting away from non prejudicial answers.

Let me answer it first philosophically. The anti-homeopathy argument, the infrastructure of which is atheistic, is based on the concept of non-Being. It is a decided feature of solipsistic thinking that has crept its way past the scientific method into science, to change it from science into scientism, from global skepticism into local skepticism, i.e. pseudoscience, that which masquerades as science, but in reality is serving the masters of capital and fashion.

For in order to believe in non-Being, one has to put Parmenidean logic aside. There is no such thing as non-Being. Placebo or not, homeopathy is a reality.

If this isn’t so in this case, then let us see PZ Myers put homeopathy to a simple yet proper biological test:

There is the literature, here are the methods, now let’s see some results!

And if Pee Wee Myers cannot reasonably find biological indices, then let us see him provide us with psychological indices drawn from trials that test for psychogenic effects, trials that show beyond the shadow of a doubt that homeopathy is nothing more than The Placebo Effect, and all the pre-clinical evidence the result of error and lies.

Let me put it more explicitly:

Professor Myers, do these substances, as used in homeopathy, as defined in the literature, have biological action on subjects not influenced by the placebo effect?

Simple question , simple answer that can be determined thorough simple tests. If Myers isn’t purposely avoiding the question and the literature that addresses it, then why isn’t he accepting that literature as evidence of non psychogenic action or why isn’t he submitting these substances to his own superior testing?

PZ Myers will have so much explaining to do, he’ll have to schedule extra classes in Pseudoscience and Advanced Prevarication!

For instance, we have reports from numerous sources, myself included, that have witnessed the phytopathological action of homeopathics on plant growth and diseases. That’s a simple, biological test any school kid can do. So why is it so far beyond the reach of Myers, reportedly a professional biologist?

The problem here that now confronts Myers, in order to meet my challenge, is that he’ll have to fish the evidence out of the looney bin, and if does find an effect, by his own previous criteria, he’s screwed.

Do you understand? Myers has effectively recused himself from obtaining negative results by having shown his bias.  

The only way for him to back out of this trap now is to collaborate with others who are experienced in biological testing, such as M. Brizzia; L. Lazzarato; D. Nani; F. Borghini; M. Peruzzi; L. Betti at the Department of Agro-Environmental Science and Technology at Bologna University in Italy, workers who have conducted extensive testing on heat, replicating the exhaustive work of Lilli Kolisko.

Professor Myers, I challenge you to commission a design for a simple biological test, done by people who know what they‘re doing, without having a stage magician with a million dollars to lose handling the key to the double blind, as he did with Benveniste.

Put it to the test. That‘s fair enough. Isn‘t it?

And now for our movie!

Prof. Rustum Roy vs. Steven Novella, the Homeopathy Hater

If you watch carefully you will see that the man standing in the shot as Professor Roy is being introduced is homeopathy basher Steven Novella, a professor of neurology at Yale and the President of the solipsistic New England Skeptical Society. Apparently Novella thought he was going to be introduced next. Watch and listen as Professor Roy takes him down a notch or two . .

 Man oh man,